Boeing 737 Max

#57
the black box n investigation seem showing the boering autopilot joined the 'mile high club' n was stalling high inside cockpit instead of toilet:))).....................
 

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
#59
The aviation industry got governments to severely limit their liability for damages in the event of plane crashes.

So please remember: death by auto accident is your best friend!
 

Kevin T

Hall of Fame
#62
Southwest, American and United are the airlines with the most 737 Max 8 planes still in operation. Air Canada also uses them. Time to look for alternative carriers.
Been on 3 round trippers in the last 2 months on the Max via Southwest. Six chances at Valhalla but here I am to tell the tale . Literally just got off one with my wife and kids Saturday night and saw the news next day. Would not fly it right now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#63
I think dying in a plan crash has to be one of the most terrifying ways to go. Also the complete lack of control adds to the neurosis.
Actually I feel like the complete lack of ability you have to save yourself in a plane crash would kind of make it better. No need or use for a frantic scramble, no need or use for screaming or panic.
You're completely in the hands of fate and most likely screwed, so may as well sit back with your cheap in-flight wine and think of your life's best moments. Maybe brace yourself and grab the mask tho
 
#65
Actually I feel like the complete lack of ability you have to save yourself in a plane crash would kind of make it better. No need or use for a frantic scramble, no need or use for screaming or panic.
You're completely in the hands of fate and most likely screwed, so may as well sit back with your cheap in-flight wine and think of your life's best moments. Maybe brace yourself and grab the mask tho
I think you underestimate the brutality of a plane crashing. It’s very rare for a crash to be like the lunatic Germanwings pilot who had the courtesy to gently glide his passengers in to the side of a mountain. Usually you’ll be subjected to high G-forces as it corkscrews it’s way in an uncontrolled nosedive in to the ground. Of course if it stalls then it could be tail first. Either way, it’s a horrible way to go, and there’s zero chance of you being able to relax and drink your wine, as it will be already spread all over the cabin. If you’re very lucky you might have already been knocked out by flying luggage or banging your head against the window before the plane hits the ground.
 
#66
I think you underestimate the brutality of a plane crashing. It’s very rare for a crash to be like the lunatic Germanwings pilot who had the courtesy to gently glide his passengers in to the side of a mountain. Usually you’ll be subjected to high G-forces as it corkscrews it’s way in an uncontrolled nosedive in to the ground. Of course if it stalls then it could be tail first. Either way, it’s a horrible way to go, and there’s zero chance of you being able to relax and drink your wine, as it will be already spread all over the cabin. If you’re very lucky you might have already been knocked out by flying luggage or banging your head against the window before the plane hits the ground.
I can at least try :D
 

Azure

Hall of Fame
#67
I think you underestimate the brutality of a plane crashing. It’s very rare for a crash to be like the lunatic Germanwings pilot who had the courtesy to gently glide his passengers in to the side of a mountain. Usually you’ll be subjected to high G-forces as it corkscrews it’s way in an uncontrolled nosedive in to the ground. Of course if it stalls then it could be tail first. Either way, it’s a horrible way to go, and there’s zero chance of you being able to relax and drink your wine, as it will be already spread all over the cabin. If you’re very lucky you might have already been knocked out by flying luggage or banging your head against the window before the plane hits the ground.
Interesting, what would cause death first, assuming that one doesn't die by knocking his or her head against the insides of the plane? Me thinks air pressure. On second thoughts, may be heart failure, the sheer shock of it all.
 
Last edited:
#68
horrific pre-death agony recorded in black box.....any human way to minimize n relief a bit:?)))..........knockout by high voltage zapper or anesthetic from the oxygen mask:?))) any ideas ladies n gentlemen:?)))..................
 
Last edited:
#69
Interesting, what would cause death first, assuming that one doesn't die by knocking his or her head against the insides of the plane? Me thinks air pressure. On second thoughts, may be heart failure, the sheer shock of it all.
It depends how high up you are. If something happens at 37,000 feet which causes a sudden loss of pressure, then you’ll likely be asphyxiated and not be conscious to suffer what happens next. In the case of the two recent crashes, it happened so early in the flight that even if it was a loss of cabin pressure, the altitude wouldn’t have been sufficient for this to happen.
 
#71
I think you underestimate the brutality of a plane crashing. It’s very rare for a crash to be like the lunatic Germanwings pilot who had the courtesy to gently glide his passengers in to the side of a mountain. Usually you’ll be subjected to high G-forces as it corkscrews it’s way in an uncontrolled nosedive in to the ground. Of course if it stalls then it could be tail first. Either way, it’s a horrible way to go, and there’s zero chance of you being able to relax and drink your wine, as it will be already spread all over the cabin. If you’re very lucky you might have already been knocked out by flying luggage or banging your head against the window before the plane hits the ground.
If a plane goes into an irretrievable recovery from the the flight envelope cruising altitude of 38,000 feet it will take about 3.5 minutes to hit the ground.

That’s enough time for people literally to defecate themselves and possibly go into cardiac arrest.

It would be the like the scariest part of a roller coaster which maybe lasts from 3-7 seconds, with the added discomfort of certain death.

Beyond terrifying.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#73
Actually I feel like the complete lack of ability you have to save yourself in a plane crash would kind of make it better. No need or use for a frantic scramble, no need or use for screaming or panic.
You're completely in the hands of fate and most likely screwed, so may as well sit back with your cheap in-flight wine and think of your life's best moments. Maybe brace yourself and grab the mask tho
I always thought about the mask. I think that I would use it just to keep a clear head and enjoy the panic.

The negative side is that I will arrive at the moment of crash in full conscience, and, depending on what happens next, that might be quite an unpleasant experience.

:cool:
 
#74
I always thought about the mask. I think that I would use it just to keep a clear head and enjoy the panic.

The negative side is that I will arrive at the moment of crash in full conscience, and, depending on what happens next, that might be quite an unpleasant experience.

:cool:
Would you rather it be quick or slow? I have a lot of friends with Stage 4 cancer and one with MS who needs assistance to do everything and none of those is pleasant either.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#75
Would you rather it be quick or slow? I have a lot of friends with Stage 4 cancer and one with MS who needs assistance to do everything and none of those is pleasant either.
I consider a plane crash a quick way to go, so that in itself is a definitive answer.

My mother died of lung cancer, so I know everything I need to know about that way of going to not prefer it.

I don't want to wear pampers in an advanced age either.

:cool:
 

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
#78
The design of the plane places the engine very far forward in front of the wing, as you can see from images and videos, which would cause the nose to turn up unless the software corrects it.

This design is reported to be fuel efficient, which may turn out to be a false economy.
 
#79
The design of the plane places the engine very far forward in front of the wing, as you can see from images and videos, which would cause the nose to turn up unless the software corrects it.

This design is reported to be fuel efficient, which may turn out to be a false economy.
You sound exactly like the people from fox news. We cannot sacrafice safety for another 100 yrs that is a mili second to the planet.

Putting the wings so far towards the nose makes it seem like glider, tough to pilot
 

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
#80
Fox News? You know how to hurt a guy. Got this from a normal website and then looked up a specialist article.

Fuel efficiency and robot airplanes may indeed be the future but this robot bird flew too soon! I'm sure it will work, eventually.

You sound exactly like the people from fox news. We cannot sacrafice safety for another 100 yrs that is a mili second to the planet.

Putting the wings so far towards the nose makes it seem like glider, tough to pilot
 
#81
current tech surely available which can ejecting/parachuting up to 6-10 ppl otherwise every1 has 0% chance of surviving at all in case of crash. can't believe airforce 1 doesn't have the measure to save the president n a few other vips.
 
#82
current tech surely available which can ejecting/parachuting up to 6-10 ppl otherwise every1 has 0% chance of surviving at all in case of crash. can't believe airforce 1 doesn't have the measure to save the president n a few other vips.
See the movie with Richard Harrison.
 
#83
I doubt that an arrow winged airliner would flip into death roll, had it stalled. A Concord might have super stalled though due the delta wing aeodynamics.


——————————
No more on pain meds - all contributed matter and anti-matter are still subject to disclaimer
 
#84
every flight should've equipped w/ a few seats which could be ejected/parachuted safely, not as right now all the ppl on board share the same % chances of death n 0 survivors. no one should be proud of being equally dead or pre-dead n should feel lucky by knowing a few can survive. also those seat can be priced a lot more, let's say 3-4 times more than a normal eco seat:?)).........
 
Last edited:

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
#85
Apparently Boeing is currently finishing revised softwear, which means of course the plane should have been grounded after the first crash.

Ejector seats are a rather fanciful solution especially when the normal ones aren't tried.
 
Last edited:

Azure

Hall of Fame
#86
I got this forwarded message on my WhatsApp. Looks interesting on the technical aspect -

Death by Computer

157 people recently died in a tragic crash. The crew and passengers of Ethiopian Airline Flight # ET302 on board a brand new Boeing 737 MAX 8 never had a chance.

The less than three months old plane had a new software in it. They called it MCAS or Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentations System. MCAS was a system that didn't exist in any of the Boeing 737's before. However, when they built the 737 MAX version, in layman's term, they built the plane with a larger and more efficient engine.

However, this larger engine, which delivered a further 14% fuel efficiency had to be fitted further forward under the low wings of the 737. This potentially may cause the plane to stall.

In order to avoid this, Boeing installed the new MCAS software. This software is designed to tell the plane to move its nose down to increase its speed and avoid it from stalling.

So here comes the problem.

In the computer world, we have this term called GIGO. The old school fella's will know this. Yes. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

The problem based on the findings so far is this.

On the plane there is a sensor called the Alpha Vane which measures the Angle of Attack (AOA) of the plane. It looks like a small little wing, and they have two of it, one on the pilot side, and the other on the co-pilot's.

The sensor's job is to tell the computer the angle the plane is flying at. And if the AOA of the plane is too high, this will result in the plane stalling. Typically the AOA is below 15 to 20 degrees, and the new MCAS software will push the plane's nose down if it thinks that the AOA is too high.

Now.

With this flight the Alpha Vane sensor measuring the AOA on the Captain's side was reported to be faulty. So they changed it. That fault was reported from the equally harrowing flight from Bali to Jakarta.

On the fateful final flight, the plane which arrived from Bali the night before, had the sensor changed, and then it took off in the morning.

No one knew what was really wrong with the plane, or about the new MCAS software. No one. Not the maintenance folks, and in fact not even the pilot. He apparently wasn't trained on it yet.

So they flew the plane.

And once in the air, the faulty sensor told the computer that the plane is stalling. The computer then, without the pilot ever knowing pushed the nose of the plane down further, while the pilot was trying to raise the plane.

In this battle between the pilot and the computer, the computer won. And the pilot, the crew, and the passengers lost and they died. The plane was too low, and the pilot didn't have enough air to raise the plane and fly it.

The computer literally flew the plane into the ocean.

A few weeks later, Boeing issued an update on the plane, and informed that should the plane have an issue with it's AOA sensors, one of the way to stop the computer was to switch it off!

Apparently 189 lives could have been saved, had the pilot knew about the software, and flipped a switch to turn it off.

A switch!

A single simple switch was the difference between life and death.

I am still fuming thinking about this. A switch!
 
#88
I consider a plane crash a quick way to go, so that in itself is a definitive answer.

My mother died of lung cancer, so I know everything I need to know about that way of going to not prefer it.

I don't want to wear pampers in an advanced age either.

:cool:
I always thought I be gassed to death
 
#90
Apparently Boeing is currently finishing revised softwear, which means of course the plane should have been grounded after the first crash.

Ejector seats are a rather fanciful solution especially when the normal ones aren't tried.
it's said that the software's McAss.....lololol, man:))....Mc Ass. is it the same 1 used by navy dive bombers.....won't pretty to install it on a passenger plane..............
 
#93
It is not the software, but the unexpected resolutions of the software. A software does not decide anything. All the outcomes has been coded into the program in advance by flight engineers. Probably in the future, there will be an evolving and learning software, but it is not here yet.

Most, if not all planes nowadays are fly-by-wire. At certain speed(s) the rudders and ailerons and flaps makes moves on their own. And if the sensors give faulty information to the controlling computer, everything falls apart.

The safety features rely a lot on software solutions, fighters are aerodynamically unstable for better envelope in operative speed, but the people in charge think aerodynamics and controls by cables only. Nose up - pull the stick, nose down - push the stick. When the unexpected happen, first response is intuitive.

#formerpilotspeaking


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
#94
It's not the software, but also the hardware. Boeing was charging extra for a second sensor and for a device to reconcile discordant readings. These will now be no extra charge.
 
#95
If you were going on holiday or on a business trip, and found out that you were going on a 737 Max, would you board it, or would you refuse to fly?
I had a flight next morning and I did check the airplane type. I would have changed my ticket (admittedly, there were plenty of other flights). When I woke up I read in the news all Max8s on my routes had been grounded.

Mission-critical software like avionics must be outsourced to India by Boeing and Airbus. There are so many people there available for testing that all bugs will be caught and fixed.
They must have confused India with Indonesia :cry:

... one of the way to stop the computer was to switch it off!
Apparently 189 lives could have been saved, had the pilot knew about the software, and flipped a switch to turn it off.
A single simple switch was the difference between life and death.
It's worse than that; the switch (or rather, two of them) are right there. It's just that nobody bothered to tell the pilots a. there was new software, b. how the software worked and c. how to disable it. Hard to think of turning something off when you have no idea it exists in the first place. Tragedy all around :cry::(
 
#96
According to IATA, in 2018, out of the 4.3 billion passengers that traveled, there were a total 523 fatalities. Which means that flying continues to be the safest form of long distance travel the world has ever known. Based on the data, on average, a passenger could take a flight every day for 241 years before experiencing an accident with one fatality on board.
 
#98
I don't know.

I take it that two of these have crashed, about half a year apart. Quite a lot of people in such a flight.

How many flights have been made in total with this plane model, though? And what would be the approximate likelihood of dying on such a flight compared to in just regular car traffic? I have no idea, but it'd be interesting to know. Normally, traveling by plane is a lot safer than by car of course. From what I've been told, your mortality risk is even supposedly higher at home than in on a commercial flight, though this was relayed to me by a pilot, so take it for what it's worth. But flying feels very unsafe from an emotional standpoint, so we tend to take any known increase in risk more seriously than in other scenarios.
I used to watch Mayday episodes. I often hear that odds of dying on plane crash is smaller compared to dying on car crash. But I think it is a very bad comparison.
Only few thousand planes are flying with about 1 million passengers at any given time. You can do the math for people driving vehicles at any given time on ground. So the odds of dying on road is always going to be higher. It is like Fedr losing more matches than any random journeyman.
 
#99
One in 11 million to die in a plane crash. One in about 100 in a car crash in the US.

It might feel more familiar to many to crash in a car, but still, not quite the same as to compared Fede losing to a casual journeyman losing a game.


——————————
No more on pain meds - all contributed matter and anti-matter are still subject to disclaimer
 
I used to watch Mayday episodes. I often hear that odds of dying on plane crash is smaller compared to dying on car crash. But I think it is a very bad comparison.
Only few thousand planes are flying with about 1 million passengers at any given time. You can do the math for people driving vehicles at any given time on ground. So the odds of dying on road is always going to be higher. It is like Fedr losing more matches than any random journeyman.
The point isn't just that more people die in cars, because of course more cars are on the road at any given time.

Rather, by going for a flight for so and so long, you're still less likely to die than by driving the same amount of time (in general). So the its also true like-for-like -- you are simply safer in a plane versus a car.
 
Likes: gn
Top