Author: AaronLDY

Boeing faces mounting pressure as more countries ground Boeing 737 Max   [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2019-5-5 14:02:05 |Display all floors
gork Post time: 2019-5-1 05:15
Yet More Lies

Having already admitted that MCAS was to blame, Mullenburg now contradicts himself, b ...

Another Boeing 737-800 chartered by the US military coming from Guantanamo Bay Naval station landed in Florida river by skidding into the water at the end of Naval air station at Jacksonville military base...
  With 143 people on board they were lucky, only 21 people being sent to hospital...

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2019-5-8 18:32:48 |Display all floors
STILL With The Lies
- and they wouldn't fool a six year old

Boeing desperately wanted to compete with the Airbus A320 Neo, but having invested nothing in R&D for the last 70 years, they used the ancient 737, derived from the 1950s 707, developed just a few decades since the dawn of flying.

But the new engines made the plane dangerously prone to stalling. So they installed MCAS.

However, MCAS would need to impose up to 2.5° of so-called "trim" to offset the dangerous tendency to stall, so they lied to the FAA. Trim is supposed to relieve the strain on the pilots of pulling or pushing on the stick. But if you had 2.5° adjustment on a steering wheel in a car, you might not notice it at 10mph but at 70mph you're careering off the road. At 500mph in a flying turd, you're in serious trouble. THIS is why they didn't even tell pilots that the MCAS was installed.

Now, having murdered 346 people, they're STILL trying to pass off this flying turd as flight-worthy to avoid having to recall all 387 of them and scrapping them.

Despite the report having already blamed the 737 MAX and the krappy MCAS, they repeatedly imply, but don't state, that the sensors were faulty. This they achieve by claiming the "data" and not the sensors was erroneous.

They want to pretend that no longer making the additional sensors optional and a mere software fix will solve all the problems: The firm said it had inadvertently made an alarm feature optional instead of standard, but insisted that this did not jeopardise flight safety.
. . .
The feature at issue is known as the Angle of Attack (AOA) Disagree alert and was designed to let pilots know when two different sensors were reporting conflicting data.

- Boeing admits knowing of 737 Max problem

This is like the infantile lies when Poodleville's Phoenix consortium sold the patents to both SAIC and Nanjing Auto "inadvertently". Only a species of skank would skoolboy lies, which confirms that they shouldn't be entrusted with building anything where safety is critical.

The software cannot possibly fix this dangerously unstable pile of excrement. Either the MCAS is operational and it forces the flying turd to crash or it isn't operational and you have a dangerously unstable pile of excrement. Either way, without lying to the FAA, it would never have been approved.

The state-run BBC even admits the lies don't make sense: Yet as one 737 pilot told me: every warning system is there for a reason, so if you know there's a problem, why would you not fix it?

Clearly a crime has been committed and someone should get the electric chair. That would, at least, ensure that there are penalties for anyone (such as Boeing, Tesla and Gangster Motors) who DELIBERATELY sells a dangerous krudmobile. Instead, they wheel out the Shyster of Omaha; a proven fraudster to re-assure victims: "Warren Buffett would ‘never hesitate’ to fly on Boeing 737 MAX – even after fatal crashes"

So, all the experts around the World have grounded it, including (after considerable delay) the Great Satan. But the Shyster of Omaha claims they're all wrong!
Compounding is the magic ingredient.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2019-5-13 19:23:05 |Display all floors
Confirmation ALL 737 MAX Should Be Scrapped

Boeing couldn't compete with Airbus's A320 neo, so they did a botched modification of the ancient 737, installing more powerful engines.

Unfortunately, this made the pile of krap lethal.

So they installed MCAS to compensate. This is an anti-stall system disguised as "trim".

Unfortunately, this was an even worse botch, which is why Boeing LIED to the FAA about the degree of "trim" being 0.6° when it was actually a WHOPPING 2.5° ("Boeing/FAA Saga "Is A Perfect Microcosm Of Our Twisted & Broken Culture"") and why they didn't tell pilots and airlines about it.

Remember, the FAA were reluctant to ground this flying turd, even as the rest of the planet had. So either they should have grounded them immediately or it's now giving in to sentiment. This is like the corrupt ratings agencies which awarded AAA ratings to the Great Satan subprime toxic waste but after the crash downgraded them to junk. The toxic waste had been deliberately created by war criminal, serial violent rapist and paedophile, Billy Jefferson Clinton, when he modified war criminal, Jimmy Carter's Community Re-investment Act to FORCE banksters to lend to subprime.

But following on from the Shyster of Omaha (who can't even beat the market) claiming he would fly on one of these death-traps (meaning he's contradicting experts around the World who have grounded them), here's the propaganda trying YET AGAIN to deny that these flying turds don't need to be recalled and scrapped. Instead, implying but not stating that a simple modification would make them safe: On the 737 NG, the right switch was labeled "AUTO PILOT" - and allowed pilots to deactivate the plane's automated stabilizer controls, such as the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), suspected to be the culprit in both crashes. The left toggle switch on the NG would deactivate the buttons on the yoke which pilots regularly use to control the horizontal stabilizer.

On the 737 MAX, however, the two switches were altered to perform the same function, according to internal documents reviewed by the Times, so that they would disable all electronic stabilizer controls - including the MCAS and the thumb buttons on the yoke used to control the stabilizer.

- Boeing Altered Critical MCAS Toggle Switches On 737 MAX Before Deadly Crashes

So, you're supposed to believe that simply modifying a switch panel, will fix the dangerously krappy design.

It's not clear if the above BS means you needed to flip two switches rather than just the one. But it seems Boeing never told the pilots about the change anyway.

And never mind that the pilots DID switch off the krappy MCAS according to protocol: What seems to be the case, based on analysis of the voice and data recorders from the doomed Ethiopian Airlines flight 302, is that the pilots did, as they should have, engage the plane’s pitch trim disconnect switches in a frantic attempt to regain control after a malfunctioning MCAS system forced the plane’s nose toward the ground.  This pair of switches, on the center console near the thrust levers, killed power to the entire automatic pitch trim system, including MCAS, and should have allowed the pilots to maintain a normal flightpath using manual trim and elevator.
- Ethiopian, Lion Air, and the 737 MAX

And it agrees: But on the Ethiopian Airlines flight, the pilots appear to have recognized the errant MCAS problem and flipped the cutoff switches as described in the checklist. But then it appears that the pilots were unable to move the manual wheel, likely because the forces on the tail made it physically challenging to turn. -Seattle Times

After they were able to manually control the stabilizer, the Ethiopian Airlines pilots appear to have flipped the cutoff switches back on, reactivating the MCAS system. Shortly after, it entered a fatal nosedive which killed all 157 people aboard.

"When you’re pulling on the column with 80-100 pounds of force trying to save your life, your troubleshooting techniques are very weak," said aviation consultant Doug Moss. "You need some gut-level instinctive things to do to solve the problem."

Flying without any automatic trim for hours on end, constantly pulling/pushing 80~100 pounds would be a challenging physical feat, especially if the manual trim wheel is ALSO "physically challenging to turn". THIS IS NOT FLIGHT-WORTHY; a total pile of excrement!!!

Imagine if you had a car which STRONGLY pulled to one side and you had to drive for hours, pulling the steering wheel back into line!!!! Then imagine if you needed to exert 80~100 pounds on it!!!!! Then imagine it at 500mph!!! NOW do you see why they didn't tell anyone about MCAS!?!?!?
Compounding is the magic ingredient.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2019-5-18 20:01:41 |Display all floors
A Victoria Nuland To Safety

No doubt because they cheat by imposing quotas on Asians, the Amerikans are delusional idiots. Even when they have someone SPELL IT OUT for them, they STILL don't realise that they HAVEN'T GOT A CLUE: Though her answer was correct, a vast swath of academics responded with outrage. In the proceeding months, vos Savant received more than 10,000 letters -- including a pair from the Deputy Director of the Center for Defense Information, and a Research Mathematical Statistician from the National Institutes of Health -- all of which contended that she was entirely incompetent:

You blew it, and you blew it big! Since you seem to have difficulty grasping the basic principle at work here, I’ll explain. After the host reveals a goat, you now have a one-in-two chance of being correct. Whether you change your selection or not, the odds are the same. There is enough mathematical illiteracy in this country, and we don’t need the world’s highest IQ propagating more. Shame!

Scott Smith, Ph.D.
University of Florida

May I suggest that you obtain and refer to a standard textbook on probability before you try to answer a question of this type again?

Charles Reid, Ph.D.
University of Florida

I am sure you will receive many letters on this topic from high school and college students. Perhaps you should keep a few addresses for help with future columns.
W. Robert Smith, Ph.D.
Georgia State University

You are utterly incorrect about the game show question, and I hope this controversy will call some public attention to the serious national crisis in mathematical education. If you can admit your error, you will have contributed constructively towards the solution of a deplorable situation. How many irate mathematicians are needed to get you to change your mind?
E. Ray Bobo, Ph.D.
Georgetown University

You made a mistake, but look at the positive side. If all those Ph.D.’s were wrong, the country would be in some very serious trouble.
Everett Harman, Ph.D.
U.S. Army Research Institute

You are the goat!
Glenn Calkins
Western State College

Maybe women look at math problems differently than men.
Don Edwards
Sunriver, Oregon

The outcry was so tremendous that vos Savant was forced to devote three subsequent columns to explaining why her logic was correct. Even in the wake of her well-stated, clear responses, she continued to be berated.

- RIP, Monty Hall: The Time Everyone "Corrected" The World's Smartest Woman

The result is the likes of "genius inventor" Elon Musk, genius-inventing Panasonic solar panels and Panasonic batteries, but then building self-crashing, self-immolating death-pods, or Uber who think it's OK to test their autonomous system when it has the IQ of a rock and 20/5000 visual acuity: While Tesla is still investigating the incidents, the firm is taking action "out of an abundance of caution".
- Tesla to update battery software after recent car fires

This looks like Tesla is charging the batteries too rapidly to reduce the long charge times. It follows on from "ludicrous-mode" which appears to shunt as much current through the electric motors as it can even if it means burning them out. Tesla only offers a 50,000 mile guarantee on them. Whilst this may appear reasonable for a guarantee, electric motors should last FAR longer than an internal combustion engine even with zero maintainence.

China's BYD uses LiFePo4 batteries which don't suffer from this thermal runaway. Airlines now refuse to carry cargoes of Li-ion batteries. The Boeing 787 uses Li-ion batteries, but Yuasa claims there's nothing wrong with the ones they supplied. That, then, points to the charging systems supplied by the clowns in Poodleville. Boeing subsequently claimed that inadequate testing was to blame, which is B.S. As engineers point out, you can't test quality into a product. It has to be designed in, which would exclude Anglos. As the former Yob Gear moron claimed, when testing a self-driving BMW, if Poodleville's clowns had designed it, it would have crashed and then they would have claimed you'd expected it to do something they hadn't envisaged.

Tesla's claim is similar to the krappy FAA : The agency, which usually goes along with the FAA, said it was acting out of an abundance of caution and out of concern for passenger safety.
- Boeing Announces Significant Software Change For 737 Max Aircraft, Shares Unimpressed

Yet, this "abundance of caution" failed to ground these flying turds after the Lion Air crash.

After the pilots at Amerikan Airlines complained about MCAS they STILL failed to ground these flying turds.

After the Ethiopian Airlines crash they STILL failed to ground these flying turds.

Only after the rest of the freakin' planet grounded them en masse did the FAA (and then grudgingly) ground these flying turds. So either they're so clueless that they simply give in to sentiment, or they're a bunch of lying scumbags, or both. This is like the corrupt ratings agencies which awarded AAA ratings to Great Satan subprime toxic waste but after the market crash re-classified them as junk, thereby admitting they're corrupt and/or incompetent.

In fact, the 737 MAX should never have been approved. Only by LYING that the so-called "trim" was 0.6° rather 2.5° did they get it rushed through FAA approval. Only by NOT TELLING ANYONE about MCAS did they manage to fool customers and pilots.

EVEN NOW, they're trying to claim a s**tware fix will make this dangerously unstable flying turd flightworthy, despite the Lion Air pilots having switched it off anyway and were STILL unable to stop it flying into the ground.

If they could give a Victoria Nuland for safety, they would NEVER HAVE MADE the dangerously unstable 737 MAX and then rushed through approval as well as REPEATEDLY LYING about MCAS, JUST to compete with the Airbus A320neo.

Whereas we Asians can't innovate, the 737 is based on the 707 designed SEVENTY YEARS AGO. That's how much these gangsters are ONLY concerned with lining their pockets. Toyota spends tens of billions JUST on wind-tunnel testing EVERY year AND THAT'S NOT EVEN SAFETY CRITICAL. Huawei spent $20bn on research last year.

Gangster Motors too, installed ignition switches which were not to specification and for over a decade, KNEW that it was killing their clients. Suppliers joked that GM had three criteria: "price, price and price". In the 1950s GM refused to install stabiliser bars to save a few cents per krudmobile, figuring it would be cheaper to be sued by the relatives of the dead. Julian Delasantellis wrote that GM's "quality" procedure consisted of moving the sales desk away from the service desk so that fresh victims would not be able to hear the "irate rants" of earlier victims. And then war criminal, The Donald, whines that Amerikans buy BMWs but no one buys amerikan death-traps, which are so lethal that one elderly driver died in a stationary krudmobile because the flat-battery meant he couldn't open the doors! Russian Amerikan actor, Anton Yelchin, was crushed by his Jeep Cherokee krudmobile which was known to have a lethal hand-brake. Poodleville's mini was so low, it was in danger of being run over by lorries. Marc Bolan died in one. Even more dangerous was the Reliant Robin (aka the Plastic Pig) which had only one front steering wheel making it lethal around corners. Just as krappy is the Morgan range of hand-built krudmobiles with little by way of safety features and as low to the ground as any toy car. Even more lethal than EVEN THAT was the Sinclair C5, which was so low to the ground that they put a flag at the back so that lorries wouldn't run over them.

NOT ONE of any of the above gangsters has got the electric chair.

Because Anglo/Jew book-burning gangsters are intellectually inferior as confirmed by the PISA test scores, they impose a quota on Asians at their krappy yooniversities.

Previous incidents involving Tesla vehicles catching on fire seem to have happened while the cars were moving.

In 2018, a Tesla car driven by British TV director Michael Morris burst into flames, following another such incident involving a Model S model in France in 2016.

A series of fires involving Tesla Model S cars took place in 2013.

The "first time the mail-boat was a day late" they LITERALLY started eating one another. Until Werner Von Braun showed them how, all they could do was produce rockets that exploded on the launch pad. How could they be so clueless AND not know that they were clueless, so as to think it WOULDN'T explode on the launch-pad? They started both World wars to parasite off the rest of the World with "jew confetti" and the Great Satan has been at war for 203 of the years since declaring independence from the poodle empire of plundering in 1776. Now their prison-warders are robbing their own sheeple on the highways.
Compounding is the magic ingredient.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2019-5-26 00:55:21 |Display all floors

Tajer told CNN: “Shame on you. We’re going to call you out on it. That’s a poisoned, diseased philosophy.” Asked if the Ethiopian crash might have been prevented if Boeing had acted on the US pilots’ concerns, Tajer said: “I think that’s a fair conclusion.”

Tajer said the Ethiopian Airlines pilots did what they were instructed to do, but that Boeing’s controversial anti-stall software (MCAS) forced the plane into such an aggressive nosedive that the pilots could not recover. “They had wired that thing so that it was irrecoverable. It just blew us away,” Tajer said.
. . .
In April, Dennis Muilenburg, the company’s chief executive, claimed the 737 Max was correctly designed and suggested the pilots did not “completely” follow the procedures that Boeing had outlined.

Ethiopian officials have insisted the Ethiopian Airlines pilots repeatedly performed all of Boeing’s procedures, but were unable to recover the plane. Ethiopian Airlines also complained that Boeing did not do enough to warn them about the system or provide functioning cockpit alerts about problems with sensors.

Earlier this week, US aviation officials said a bird strike may have triggered the faulty data that led to the MCAS system engaging. However, an Ethiopian Airlines spokesman said that the preliminary crash investigation report showed “no evidence of any foreign object damage”.

- American Airlines union: blaming pilots for Boeing 737 Max crashes 'inexcusable'

So yet again, the FAA is trying to defend this flying turd by blaming a bird-strike despite ZERO substantiating evidence. They may as well claim that a magic lightning bolt from the starship Enterprise caused the sensor to fail.

The truth is the sensor was working as designed. It's the MCAS which is krappy and they installed MCAS because the flying turd is FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED and should never have been certified.
Compounding is the magic ingredient.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2019-5-28 01:48:56 |Display all floors
THIS is "abundance of caution"?

Then what is total recklessness?

Does the gangster-run, thieved prison-state of Amerika have any safety standards at all? Or are they all like the Shyster of Omaha who says he would fly in a death-trap which experienced pilots couldn't control because these worthless scumbags care for nothing but cash? The pilots are not so "patriotic" as the Shyster of Omaha: "These guys didn't even know the damn system was on the airplane, nor did anybody else," said Mike Michaelis, head of safety for the pilots' union.
- Pilots 'raised Boeing safety fears' months before Ethiopia crash

Tesla's claims are BS: The action will revise charge and thermal-management settings “out of an abundance of caution,” the company said in a statement. Teslas are 10 times less likely to experience a blaze than cars that run on combustion engines, the company said.
- Tesla Fires Sound Alarms About Electric-Car Battery Safety

And surrender it, too – by turning that over to his infamous auto-pilot system.

Which for the record hasn’t exactly got a great record.

Several auto-piloted Teslas have already piloted themselves into fixed barriers and other vehicles as effectively as any reckless human driver.

There have been losses – including of human lives.

At least two lawsuits are currently in process – including one filed by the family of Walter Huang of California, who was killed when his Tesla wandered out its travel lane and then accelerated into a lane divider – without Huang having touched the accelerator pedal or the steering wheel.

- Elon’s “Compelling” New Offer

When is one of the gangsters at Tesla, Boeing or Gangster Motors going to get the electric chair for knowingly peddling dangerous krapware?
Compounding is the magic ingredient.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2019-5-29 19:07:14 |Display all floors
Yet More UNBELIEVABLE Krappiness Exposed
- and also physically impossible to control

Simulator experiments (video) showed that the recovery procedures Boeing provided for the case of a severe mistrim of the plane is not sufficient to bring the plane back under control.
. . .
This was known in pilot circles for some time but will only now receive wider public attention:
. . .
In case of a mistrim of the stabilizer, the plane puts its nose up or down and the pilot will have to push or pull his column to move the elevator to counter the mistrim of the stabilizer. Depending on the position of the stabilizer and the speed of the airplane this can require very significant force. In some cases it might be impossible.

- Boeing 737 MAX Crash Reveals A Severe Problem With Older Boeing 737 NGs

Well that's BS too. As the article itself pointed out, the problem has been known about by the pilots for some time.

And that's not all from this ancient krudmobile: If due to a runaway stabilizer event the front end of the stabilizer moves up, the nose of the airplane will move down and the plane will increase its speed. To counter that the pilot pulls on his column to move the rear end of the elevator up and to bring the plane back towards level flight. As the plane comes back to level the aerodynamic pressure on the mistrimmed stabilizer increases. Attempts to manually trim in that situation puts opposing forces on the jackscrew that holds the stabilizer in its positions. The aerodynamic forces on the stabilizer can become so big that a manual cranking of the trim wheel can no longer move the jackscrew and thereby the stabilizer.

Until the introduction of the newer 737 types Boeing’s pilot manuals for the 737 included a procedure that described how to overcome the situation. It was counterintuitive. If the stabilizer put the plane in an extreme nose down position the pilot was advised to first pull the column to decrease the speed. He then had to push the column forward to lower the aerodynamic forces that blocked the jackscrew. Then the manual trim wheel could be turned a bit while the plane continued to dive and again increased its speed. The procedure had to be repeated several times: pull column to decrease speed; push column to decrease the aerodynamic force on the stabilizer and its jackscrew; trim manually; repeat. The technic was known as the rollercoaster maneuver.


Recently some pilots used a 737 NG flight simulator to test the procedure. They simulated the runaway stabilizer case at a height of 10,000 feet and use the rollercoaster maneuver to recover from the mistrim. When they finally had the stabilizer back into a correct trim position they found themselves at 3,000 feet height. The maneuver would thus help only when the plane is already at a significant height above ground.

Never again!!!

And look at what these clowns did: The lengthy FMCs did not fit on the original central pedestal. . . .Boeing’s ‘solution’ to the problem was to make the manual trim wheels smaller.
. . .
The size of the stabilizer increased from 31.40 square meter on the Classic to 32.78 sqm on the NG and MAX. Meanwhile the size of the elevator, the primary control surface the pilot can use to counter a mistrimmed stabilizer, was kept at its original size of 6.55 sqm.

It's like the spoof Star Trek movie, Galaxy Quest, where they land on a planet to get a Beryllium sphere and, without checking whether the atmosphere is breathable, simply open the door of the transporter. If the author of the above article can see the problems, why can't the FAA?

The crashes of the two 737 MAX revealed a number of problems with the design of the MCAS system.


Several additional issues with the plane have since become known. There may be other problems with its 737 MAX that no one yet learned of. The rather casual FAA certification of the type was clearly not justified.

And LOOK AT THIS: The changes from the 737 Classic to the 737 NG make it more difficult, if not impossible, for the pilots to recover from such a situation:

The smaller manual trim wheels on the 737 NG make it more difficult to trim a runaway stabilizer back into a regular position.
The larger stabilizer surface makes it more difficult to counter a runaway stabilizer by using the elevator which was kept at the same size.
737 NG pilots no longer learn the rollercoaster maneuver that is now the only way to recover from a severe mistrim.
Simulator sessions demonstrate (video) that a runaway stabilizer incident on a 737 NG can no longer be overcome by the procedures that current Boeing manuals describe.

It is pure luck that no NG crash has yet been caused by a runaway stabilizer incident. It is quite astonishing that these issues only now become evident. The 737 NG was certified by the FAA in 1997. Why is the FAA only now looking into this?

And look at how the pilots had NO CHANCE: The second 737 MAX crash revealed all these issues to a larger public. Except for MCAS the trim systems on the NG and MAX are similar. The Ethiopian Airline flight 302 did not experience a runaway stabilizer, but the multiple engagement of MCAS moved the stabilizer to a similar extreme position. The pilots cut the electricity to the stabilizer motor and tried to re-trim the plane manually by turning the trim wheels. The aerodynamic forces on the stabilizer were impossible to overcome. The pilots had not learned of the rollercoaster maneuver. (Not that it would have helped much. They were too low to the ground.) They switched the motor back on to use manual electrical trim to re-trim the aircraft. Then MCAS engaged again and put them into the ground.

That confirms there was no sensor error. IT WAS A DESIGN ERROR.

All NG and MAX pilots should learn the rollercoaster maneuver, preferable during simulator training.

Why? Why not re-design?!?!?!?

This is un-freakin'-believably sloppy.
Compounding is the magic ingredient.

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email:
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.