re: 737max crashes in Ethiopia. Killing 157

quote:

---

Would you not agree then that this plane is more complicated to fly then a plane from 20+ years ago?

---

I am not a pilot but I would say that computers and automation have made flying easier in the last 20 years. The planes do so much of the calculations now. Time to Descend mark is on the display. Flight control settings, altitude, speed is all done by computers. I am sure pilots here could confirm or add additional comments on this.

*** Now when something goes WRONG, I could see computer and automation making things more difficult in certain situations. In this last crash, pilots were getting conflicting air speed indications and perhaps stall warnings with the plane trying to push the nose down.

In clear conditions, the pilot simply could look out the window and know that the plane was not in a dangerously steep nose up direction. On older planes, simply setting the flaps and throttles to a particular setting, the plane would have safely flown while they worked through the issues.

On modern planes, with the computer trying to fly the plane, that to me just adds a few more things added to the pilots' list of things to figure out. You go from wrong airspeed and maybe a stall warning to nose pointing down, trim wheel spinning, alarms going off, engines spooling up...

Again - all of this goes back to the fact that the 737 MAX is not a good plane design. It shouldn’t exist. The only reason for it is because Boeing did the square peg/round hole thing while stretching the limits of a 50 year old hull rather than create the new plane from scratch like they should have.

The 737 has been great but they tried to do too much with it. The MAX is physically unstable and awkward and I doubt I’ll ever step foot in one. Never thought I’d say that about a Boeing plane.

This is about the Atlas Air 767 crash outside of Houston a few weeks ago but i figured we could just keep it in this thread.

quote:

---

National Transportation Safety Board experts, these people said, are focusing on a likely sequence of events that started with the crew of the Boeing Co. 767 approaching Houston’s George Bush Intercontinental Airport on Feb. 23 inadvertently commanding dramatically increased engine thrust. Turbulent air could have jostled the arm of one of the pilots, causing the engines to rev up to takeoff power, one of these people said. The sudden surge in thrust, which the safety board disclosed in an earlier factual update, forced the nose of the plane to pitch upward and startled the cockpit crew, according to these people. Almost immediately, according to the preliminary data released by the safety board, the crew responded by sharply pushing down the nose of the aircraft. The board previously said the nose was pointed downward at a 49-degree angle with the plane still about 30 miles from the airport, creating a much steeper descent than a normal landing approach.

---

Frankly I think it sounds like bullshite.

quote:

---

Why do you think it is bs?

---

I just can't imagine turbulence firewalling the throttles and a crew's response to be to go violently full forward on the control column to 50 deg nose down without reducing power. It just doesn't sound right.

quote:

---

National Transportation Safety Board experts, these people said, are focusing on a likely sequence of events that started with the crew of the Boeing Co. 767 approaching Houston’s George Bush Intercontinental Airport on Feb. 23 inadvertently commanding dramatically increased engine thrust. Turbulent air could have jostled the arm of one of the pilots, causing the engines to rev up to takeoff power, one of these people said. The sudden surge in thrust, which the safety board disclosed in an earlier factual update, forced the nose of the plane to pitch upward and startled the cockpit crew, according to these people. Almost immediately, according to the preliminary data released by the safety board, the crew responded by sharply pushing down the nose of the aircraft. The board previously said the nose was pointed downward at a 49-degree angle with the plane still about 30 miles from the airport, creating a much steeper descent than a normal landing approach.

Frankly I think it sounds like bullshite.

---

Frankly, I think you're right.

quote:

---

I am not a pilot but I would say that computers and automation have made flying easier in the last 20 years. The planes do so much of the calculations now. Time to Descend mark is on the display. Flight control settings, altitude, speed is all done by computers. I am sure pilots here could confirm or add additional comments on this.

---

managing the jet on automation has decreased pilot workload and manual calculations during normal operations due to advanced technology, but pilots don't get paid for how they fly when things operate normally, they are paid for knowing what to do when the shite hits the fan, problem lies in the training, and that is being addressed as the feds are starting to realize this, older pilots that used to have razor sharp stick and rudder skills have become reliant on the automation and those skills get rusty, many of the younger gen pilots never had those skills to start with, you have them turn off all the automation in the sim and it's almost an emergency some of the flow through pilots coming from the regionals are the most awful pilots I've ever seen and would not have gotten to the majors if they had to interview and qualify for the job, there are some really good ones though

that theory about the 767 near IAH does not sound plausible at all, for several reasons, first of all the 767 has autothrust(it can be placarded inop., or be disconnected,) but that whole theoretical scenario doesn't sound realistic at all

quote:

---

You talking about the one I posted?

---

the one about turbulence jostling the pilots arm causing him to push up the thrust and point the nose at the deck

quote:

---

the one about turbulence jostling the pilots arm causing him to push up the thrust and point the nose at the deck

---

I could see them doing this if they were spatially d. Not jostled by turbulence though.

777, thanks for your reply. I often wonder about how much or how little hand flying some commercial pilots have.