It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Another 737 MAX-8 down

page: 13
20
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2019 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Tools and rubbish left in aircraft is poor procedure control.Do they have a tag/tool board and sign off documentation for them?Signing off on cleaning after work done both by the tradesman,foreman then Quality control?




posted on Mar, 15 2019 @ 06:14 PM
link   
So currently, three things jump out, prior to the recorder decode.

1. Speed. Controllers said the aircraft accelerated to a higher than usual airspeed.

2. Panic. The pilot is reported to have started out calm, then in his last radio call, sounded panicked.

3. Transponder. Unlike Lion Air, the transponder cut out early.



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Someone compiled screen caps of various media outlets reporting on the Max.














posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a whole lot of contradicting factors there
a reply to: Zaphod58



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 08:46 AM
link   
I'm sure glad I don't have Boeing stock right now. Heads are going to roll if the full truth becomes known.

Rumor has it that there were no test flights done for the Max series? Maybe Zaphod might know?



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

There were quite a few test flights done with it. I have pictures that I took of both the 8 and 9 doing flight tests at Edwards.



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
I'm sure glad I don't have Boeing stock right now. Heads are going to roll if the full truth becomes known.

Rumor has it that there were no test flights done for the Max series? Maybe Zaphod might know?


According to wikipedia they were tested.

" Flight testing
The first flight took place on January 29, 2016, nearly 49 years after the maiden flight of the 737, a 737-100, on April 9, 1967.[1] The first Max 8, 1A001, was used for aerodynamic trials: flutter testing, stability and control, and takeoff performance-data verification, before it was modified for an operator and delivered. 1A002 was used for performance and engine testing: climb and landing performance, crosswind, noise, cold weather, high altitude, fuel burn and water-ingestion. Aircraft systems including autoland were tested with 1A003. 1A004, with an airliner layout, flew function-and-reliability certification for 300h with a light flight-test instrumentation.[38]

The 737 MAX gained FAA certification on March 8, 2017.[9] It was approved by the EASA on March 27, 2017.[39] After completing 2,000 test flight hours and 180-minute ETOPS testing requiring 3,000 simulated flight cycles in April 2017, CFM International notified Boeing of a possible manufacturing quality issue with low pressure turbine (LPT) discs in LEAP-1B engines.[40] Boeing suspended 737 MAX flights on May 4,[10] and resumed flights on May 12.[41] "

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks. Would you have any information regarding the full test flight series, like number of hours flown etc?



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: nelloh62

Thanks for that Wikipedia info. 2000 hours and 3000 simulated cycles seems odd somehow, and the way it's written it sounds like CFM did that part for engine certification.

Wikipedia can be very useful, but that it is so often edited makes it somewhat suspicious IMO.



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Information about the test aircraft and what each did can be found here. It was published during the test program so it talks about when they'll complete what they're working on, but it breaks down each aircraft by MSN and N number.



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: nelloh62

Thanks for that Wikipedia info. 2000 hours and 3000 simulated cycles seems odd somehow, and the way it's written it sounds like CFM did that part for engine certification.

Wikipedia can be very useful, but that it is so often edited makes it somewhat suspicious IMO.


If you read through this article it does mention take off and landing tests, not sure just how extensive though. But it at least does show tests were performed. And not just on the engine.

www.b737.org.uk...



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: nelloh62

Too slow. I beat you by a full minute with that page.



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Haha, I know eh. I must try harder !



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Lol good old media outlets. 747, a Boeing A320 that's a new one and then the 787 numerous times.



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Woody510
a reply to: Zaphod58

Lol good old media outlets. 747, a Boeing A320 that's a new one and then the 787 numerous times.


Haha, yeah, the 737 Max 8 was never gonna fly properly with two extra engines and a hump on top !!



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: nelloh62

New job for Zaph in the future. Aviation advisor for the msm.



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Woody510

Why do you hate me so much?



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 07:42 PM
link   
According to sources citing air traffic control recordings, the crew requested to climb to 14,000 feet after reporting a flight control problem. The ground speed was reported as 400 knots, the transponder showed speeds at high as 383 knots.

www.newsweek.com...
edit on 3/16/2019 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 10:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
According to sources citing air traffic control recordings, the crew requested to climb to 14,000 feet after reporting a flight control problem. The ground speed was reported as 400 knots, the transponder showed speeds at high as 383 knots.

www.newsweek.com...


What is the reason for asking to climb so quickly at the start? The article said the pilots wanted to climb quickly because of a flight control problem. Why do you want to get higher if you have a flight control problem?

From the Newsweek article:
"Families are being given a 1-kilogram (2.2-pound) sack of scorched earth taken from the crash sites..."

How absolutely awful. I wonder if getting a 2 pound sack of "scorched earth" is really better than nothing, to the families? It seems crude somehow.



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: KansasGirl

Because altitude is life. If you stall or have a pitch down at 1400 feet, you measure the time to react and correct it in seconds. The same thing at 14,000 and you're talking a minute plus.

To put it bluntly, that's basically what they get when remains are returned. When they say bodies are recovered, they're trying to be sympathetic to the families. In most crashes intact bodies are rare. In an impact like this, you're lucky to recover more than fragments.
edit on 3/16/2019 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join