Page 11 of 38 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 378

Thread: Countries Restricting 737 MAX Flights After Second Crash

  1. #101
    Site Supporter entropy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Far Upper Midwest. Lower Midwest When I Absolutely Have To
    ...and your point???


  2. #102
    Smoke Bomb / Ninja Vanish Chance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Some neat videos for the non-pilots amongst us. How anyone is supposed to remember what all that shit does under stress is beyond me.





    This is evidently an automated landing in fog.

    "Sapiens dicit: 'Ignoscere divinum est, sed noli pretium plenum pro pizza sero allata solvere.'" - Michelangelo

  3. #103
    Site Supporter entropy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Far Upper Midwest. Lower Midwest When I Absolutely Have To
    The vid tagged as “CAT II” above needs a bit of explanation. CAT II landing minimums are normally 1200’ visability. There is another lower level of landing operation below that referred to as CAT III. That minimum requires only 300’ of visibility. At an average of 140kts, that 300’ happens pretty fast. If an issue arrives where a go-around is necessary under those conditions, the main gear actually touches as the momentum of the aircraft cannot be arrested in the time available.

  4. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by Drang View Post
    Thank you for the very helpful contribution to the technical discussion.
    ...
    To clarify my snarky remark: I concur that elected officials should STFU unless and until they hear from the technical experts -- and it is still not clear to me that either President Trump or Senator Cruz had received a briefing from the FAA or NTSB about new findings when Trump a) grounded commercial airliners or Cruz b) praised him for doing so.
    Recovering Gun Store Commando. My Blog: The Clue Meter
    “It doesn’t matter what the problem is, the solution is always for us to give the government more money and power, while we eat less meat.”
    Glenn Reynolds

  5. #105
    Glock Collective Assimile Suvorov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Escapee from the SF Bay Area now living on the Front Range of Colorado.
    Quote Originally Posted by David S. View Post

    As you approach a stall (typically by getting slow) the aircraft yells at you "AIRSPEED LOW!!1!" before you ever get the shaker. The pilot also gets visual cues on the airspeed indicator as you approach the stall.
    HOW COULD I HAVE FORGOTTEN THE "AIRSPEED LOW" CALL????? I only here it every time I preflight an airplane...............

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNewbie View Post
    This may be a stupid question but,



    What is the easiest passenger plane to fly? Are they all equally difficult but in different ways?
    Quote Originally Posted by David S. View Post
    To add to my non answer above. If I create a first airliner for a 350 hour low time pilot (something that was super common in the US up til a few years ago, btw), it would have a LOT in common with the EMB-145 (ERJ).

    From a pilot perspective, the systems are simple and fairly automated. The controls and switch-ology is very well thought out and it just flows well. It's flight characteristics are very forgiving. It doesn't fly high, fast or far. It's rather under-powered, IMO. It's not pretty or very comfortable for passengers, but it's very pilot friendly.
    What David has mentioned is pretty much my opinion other than I think the ERJ is very pretty!

    *My Opinions Here*

    The answer kind of depends on what you mean by "airliner." If you are talking Jet Airliners or including Turboprop airliners.

    Traditionally low time airline pilots would cut their teeth in turboprop airliners. While some of these airplanes had very complex systems (I'm looking at you JETSTREAM!!!!) their slower speeds, lower altitudes, power on demand, and typically straight wings kept the pilots out of a lot of trouble and the drag from the props made decent planning much easier (you see with most jet airliners you can slow down or go down but they really don't like to do both as a result of their aerodynamic efficiency). Probably the easiest of these planes to fly is the Beech 1900 which was derived from the KingAir series aircraft. Not all of them were easy - the Metroliner in particular had a very bad reputation in the event of a loss of an engine.

    As far as jets go - I agree with David - the ERJ was superbly designed from a standpoint of being a "turboprop pilots" first "jet." It had very honest flying characteristics, a very wide performance envelope at max cruise altitude, generally good systems reliability and a very strong structure. While a few ERJ's have been totaled due to accidents, there has never been a passenger killed by an accident in one. Given the millions of flight hours, flow by relatively inexperienced and overworked pilots, in and out of both small and large airports in all types of weather - I think this is an amazing achievement and that little airplane stands as one of the safest airframes flying. Embraer took all the good stuff in the ERJ145 and incorporated them into the larger ERJ 170-190 and then they went and improved on it. I have not ever flown the plane but everyone I know loves to fly it. The Canadair RJ was involved in a few fatal accidents and I believe that its design was a little less friendly to the young pilot.

    When it comes to bigger airliners, not all nations have the luxury of thousands of low time pilots building time on their own in the hopes of being picked up by a regional airline. These nations must find a way of taking a fairly smart kid out of high school or college and training them to fly big airliners (737s and up) in as little time and cost as possible. This is actually the reality in most of the world. In the 1980s Airbus saw this problem and attempted to build a series of airliners that could be safely operated by pilots with very little "stick time." The basic idea is that the computer flies the airplane and the pilot "manages" the computer with the theory that the airplane can be safely operated by low time pilots. From what I have seen (and never haven flown the Airbus) they have been pretty successful at it. My friends that go into the airbus have a lot of upfront studying, learning new flying "philosophies", and un-learning certain things but once they spend a bit of time in the plane, they quickly grow to love it. Boeing for their part has been trying to automate their airliners (and this MCAS is such an example) but they are still very much a "stick and rudder" airplane at their heart even though many airlines fly them on autopilot all the time. So I would say that if you were taking a brand new low time pilot - going to give them just the very basics of "stick and rudder" skills, training them on a flight system, and putting 150+ passengers behind them - the Airbus is probably the easier plane to fly. But that is just my opinion and to even dip a toe into the Airbus versus Boeing debate is dangerous to ones health and makes the 9mm vs .45 debate look tame. Besides - I think Embraer probably makes the best planes......

    Hope my rambling helped or at least provided entertainment.
    Last edited by Suvorov; 03-14-2019 at 05:55 PM.

  6. #106
    Glock Collective Assimile Suvorov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Escapee from the SF Bay Area now living on the Front Range of Colorado.
    Just a video to add to the mix of stall videos. This one gets particularly hairy as the airliner (a 717) drops a wing, rolls inverted, and then begins to overspeed. The rumor is that the guy filming this event had to excuse himself from the cockpit and spend some time in the lav after things settled down.


  7. #107
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Thank you to @Suvorov and @David.S .

  8. #108
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Quote Originally Posted by Suvorov View Post
    Just a video to add to the mix of stall videos. This one gets particularly hairy as the airliner (a 717) drops a wing, rolls inverted, and then begins to overspeed. The rumor is that the guy filming this event had to excuse himself from the cockpit and spend some time in the lav after things settled down.



    Wow! The 717 is based on the MD-90 series correct?

  9. #109
    Glock Collective Assimile Suvorov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Escapee from the SF Bay Area now living on the Front Range of Colorado.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheNewbie View Post
    Wow! The 717 is based on the MD-90 series correct?

    Yes sir - It was called the MD-95 before Boeing bought McDouglas and decided to rename it.
    Last edited by Suvorov; 03-14-2019 at 05:51 PM.

  10. #110
    Site Supporter entropy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Far Upper Midwest. Lower Midwest When I Absolutely Have To
    Back up a few decades... It’s based on the Douglas DC-9 series.

    They had quite amount of aileron in that when it stalled. Can’t see how coordinated they were tho... Honestly, a C152 will do the same thing if you ham fist it. I still have scars on my noggin from Piper Tomahawk fuel strainers that hit me back when I was instructing. “I’ve got it!!!!” .....Ahhh the memories.....

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •