Remember me
▼ Content

Lion Air 737 Max 8 Crash



Page 1 of 212>
Lion Air 737 Max 8 Crash26-10-2019 19:50
James___
★★★★☆
(1691)
In this morning's paper it says that the angle of attack sensor was replaced a day before the crash. It was out of calibration by 21°.
The issue Indonesian investigators say that relying on a single sensor is 1 of about 9 issues that helped to cause the crash.
27-10-2019 02:23
keepit
★★★☆☆
(694)
Is there anyone here that is knowledgeable about the 9 sensors?
27-10-2019 04:39
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1467)
Into the Night is a pilot. I think he actually has some time in the 737. I'm sure he'll be along in due time to weigh in here.

While you're at it ITN, what's with the big cover up? Any teeth to it? From what I could gather the simulator was showing the potential problem and it was so bad the pilot actually thought it was simulator error??? Have I got anywhere near what happened?

Like to hear your input...
27-10-2019 06:00
James___
★★★★☆
(1691)
keepit wrote:
Is there anyone here that is knowledgeable about the 9 sensors?



This is the story I read.

https://www.kentucky.com/news/business/article236639813.html
27-10-2019 15:10
spot
★★★★☆
(1102)
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance while im sure he will have a lot to say I doubt any of it will be relevent.
27-10-2019 16:47
James___
★★★★☆
(1691)
What's interesting is that Airbus uses the Leap engine on its 320neo. The CFM56 5
and the CFM56 7 preceded the LEAP engine. The LEAP engine produces 35,000 ft lbs of thrust. The other engines produced between 18,000 - 34,000 ft lbs of thrust.
Airbus on its 320neo has taller landing gear, the engine under the wing and no MCAS.
That makes me wonder if the thrust developed for take off is partly being deflected by the wing and this allows less air to reach the horizontal stabilizer (rear wing). A planes lift is caused by the speed of the air moving over the wing increasing. This creates a venturi effect (vacuum).
If thrust from the LEAP engine being deflected by the underside of the wing, likewise it's velocity should increase for the same reason. Only now that air is moving under the rear stabilizer. And if the nose of the plane pitches up, the tail of the plane is pitching down even more.
While the plane might be safe to fly when more sensors are added, extra pilot training might be needed but what airlines might not like. It would restrict how they could assign/schedule pilots or increase their training costs while creating more work for the airline. Could be why Boeing downplayed the MCAS.
27-10-2019 18:03
keepit
★★★☆☆
(694)
It seems like i remember that the 320 had a similar problem a few years ago. Not sure though.
27-10-2019 19:14
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1467)
spot wrote:
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance


Nice.


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
27-10-2019 19:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night is a pilot. I think he actually has some time in the 737. I'm sure he'll be along in due time to weigh in here.

While you're at it ITN, what's with the big cover up? Any teeth to it? From what I could gather the simulator was showing the potential problem and it was so bad the pilot actually thought it was simulator error??? Have I got anywhere near what happened?

Like to hear your input...

I heard from a reasonably reliable source that the whole problem stems from airline attempts to meet unreasonable carbon emission requirements intended to save the planet. The airline attempted to make adjustments via software which led to the problems and that if we hadn't had warmizombies screwing up everything in sight then there would never have been an issue in the first place.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-10-2019 19:20
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1467)
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night is a pilot. I think he actually has some time in the 737. I'm sure he'll be along in due time to weigh in here.

While you're at it ITN, what's with the big cover up? Any teeth to it? From what I could gather the simulator was showing the potential problem and it was so bad the pilot actually thought it was simulator error??? Have I got anywhere near what happened?

Like to hear your input...

I heard from a reasonably reliable source that the whole problem stems from airline attempts to meet unreasonable carbon emission requirements intended to save the planet. The airline attempted to make adjustments via software which led to the problems and that if we hadn't had warmizombies screwing up everything in sight then there would never have been an issue in the first place.

.


Would that be the new retrofit engines they were referring to?


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
Edited on 27-10-2019 19:21
27-10-2019 19:25
keepit
★★★☆☆
(694)
The retrofit was to save fuel and also to reduce CO2 emissions.
To blame the crashes on climatologists is to lose credibility IBDM.

I don't have expertise on the crashes but i think i heard that the new engines had a bigger diameter and had to be slung more forward of the wing than the old ones. That changed the center of gravity somewhat. That require new software. Now they're trying to redo the new software.
Edited on 27-10-2019 19:29
27-10-2019 19:31
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1467)
keepit wrote:
The retrofit was to save fuel and also to reduce CO2 emissions.
To blame the crashes on climatologists is to lose credibility IBDM.


You didn't just say that, did you??!!

In your opinion, what is an OK number of dead people, as long as it's within the good intentions of the Church of Global Warming?


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
Edited on 27-10-2019 19:31
27-10-2019 19:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
GasGuzzler wrote:Would that be the new retrofit engines they were referring to?

I do not know which engines were referenced. The point was that rather than breaking the bank to pursue some implausible hardware design, adjustments were made via software to show that they were trying to comply. The objective was to adhere to unreasonable regulations that were purely punitive regarding jet exhaust ... like it was part of the Green New Deal.

I don't have any additional details at this time. I'm not asking for any of this to be taken on face value because, at the moment, this is technically just hearsay.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-10-2019 19:54
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
keepit wrote:To blame the crashes on climatologists is to lose credibility IBDM.

At least you understand that "climatologists" are all just warmizombies.

I don't recall you ever extending any credibility to me. As far as you are concerned, I am not of your faith therefore you don't accept anything I say.

So, within the context of me having zero credibility with you, how much credibility did my post cause me to lose in your eyes?

keepit wrote:. That changed the center of gravity somewhat. That require new software. Now they're trying to redo the new software.

*ALL* changes beyond changing the paint require software changes.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-10-2019 19:58
keepit
★★★☆☆
(694)
Gas,
I don't understand your post. Could you clarify?
thanks.
27-10-2019 20:02
keepit
★★★☆☆
(694)
IBDM,
I don't think all climatologists are warmizombies. That's what you say.
27-10-2019 20:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
keepit wrote: IBDM, I don't think all climatologists are warmizombies. That's what you say.

Which climatologists do you believe are neither warmizombies, Climate lemmings, or "skeptics"?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-10-2019 20:16
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1467)
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:Would that be the new retrofit engines they were referring to?

I do not know which engines were referenced. The point was that rather than breaking the bank to pursue some implausible hardware design, adjustments were made via software to show that they were trying to comply. The objective was to adhere to unreasonable regulations that were purely punitive regarding jet exhaust ... like it was part of the Green New Deal.

I don't have any additional details at this time. I'm not asking for any of this to be taken on face value because, at the moment, this is technically just hearsay.

.


The whole stink began after the 737 was fitted with new engines. The new engines were a bit more powerful, changing the angle of attack and pitching the nose upward. When the sensors failed to correctly communicate with the flight software, it ended badly. The question I have is why were the new engines needed? Was it the need to adhere to BS fuel economy standards?

I wish ITN would tune in here because I feel like Victor On YAP trying to explain weather. I'm doing a very poor job.


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
27-10-2019 20:18
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1467)
keepit wrote:
Gas,
I don't understand your post. Could you clarify?
thanks.


You seem OK with a few hundred people killed. After all, they died in the name of saving mankind from the dreadful life essential CO2.


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
27-10-2019 20:20
keepit
★★★☆☆
(694)
IBDM,
I've heard that 3% of climatologists are doubters.
"warmizombies and lemmings" is just your political talk.
I always question the motivations of climate change deniers.
27-10-2019 20:21
keepit
★★★☆☆
(694)
No, that's not true Gas.
27-10-2019 20:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
GasGuzzler wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:Would that be the new retrofit engines they were referring to?

I do not know which engines were referenced. The point was that rather than breaking the bank to pursue some implausible hardware design, adjustments were made via software to show that they were trying to comply. The objective was to adhere to unreasonable regulations that were purely punitive regarding jet exhaust ... like it was part of the Green New Deal.

I don't have any additional details at this time. I'm not asking for any of this to be taken on face value because, at the moment, this is technically just hearsay.

.


The whole stink began after the 737 was fitted with new engines. The new engines were a bit more powerful, changing the angle of attack and pitching the nose upward. When the sensors failed to correctly communicate with the flight software, it ended badly. The question I have is why were the new engines needed? Was it the need to adhere to BS fuel economy standards?

I wish ITN would tune in here because I feel like Victor On YAP trying to explain weather. I'm doing a very poor job.

My casual understanding is that the aircraft needed to be modernized, but refitting with new engines was far less expensive than designing and building an entirely brand new fleet.

It is possible that the need for the upgrades was to adhere to ridiculous new regulations aimed at destroying air travel.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-10-2019 20:25
keepit
★★★☆☆
(694)
Some regulations do seem to restrict air travel, especially in general aviation.
One of the serious motivations is to reduce the risk of midair collisions.
27-10-2019 20:38
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1467)
keepit wrote:
Some regulations do seem to restrict air travel, especially in general aviation.
One of the serious motivations is to reduce the risk of midair collisions.

Here's a snapshot of all the planes in the air over the US right now. Flight controllers obviously have a very good handle on things. I don't believe mid air collisions were any consideration in engine retrofit decisions.


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
Attached image:

27-10-2019 20:41
keepit
★★★☆☆
(694)
Bill Gates is on Bloomberg TV right now talking about climate change.
The moderator asked him why some people doubt climate change and he answered, "Well, I don't know, maybe they didn't take enough science classes in school".
27-10-2019 20:44
keepit
★★★☆☆
(694)
The motivation to reduce midair collisions was directed toward reducing general aviation traffic.
27-10-2019 20:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night is a pilot. I think he actually has some time in the 737. I'm sure he'll be along in due time to weigh in here.

While you're at it ITN, what's with the big cover up? Any teeth to it? From what I could gather the simulator was showing the potential problem and it was so bad the pilot actually thought it was simulator error??? Have I got anywhere near what happened?

Like to hear your input...


Yes, the bit with the simulator did happen. The pilot failed his simulation and had to go back for retraining.

You assume the simulator is always correct and deal with the problem the instruments present to you, even if the simulator is in error. The simulator instructor has a copy of your instruments and a recording of everything they show.

Now to the fault itself:

This system governs the aircraft trim system. It does not have any control over any primary flight system. Trim system failure and how to cope with it is basic training for any pilot in the U.S. It is NOT basic training for pilots in other countries (it should be, for reasons here that are quite obvious!).

A trim system failure warrants terminating the flight as soon as possible. You'll get tired holding pressure against the bad trim pretty fast. In a large aircraft, you trade off between the two pilots to save your effort for the next time its your turn.

The 737 is essentially a cushmobile. Everything is automated. While nice in many ways, it can easily develop a complacency in pilots when something screws up. It can be said (and I've seen the effect of it myself at a small airport in Tacoma), that airline pilots haven't flown in years. They just watch the robot fly. This can leave them out of practice when a real screwup comes along. Good airline pilots hop into a small plane from time to time to refresh actually flying the aircraft.

Foreign pilots are trained to completely depend on the automated system, and to not mess with it. When an inevitable screwup happens, they are completely ill prepared to cope with it. The usual result is a crash. This is the case for this trim system failure. It has been the case for instrument failure before, and these guys crash in almost perfect flying conditions anyway. They just don't look out the window and FLY THE AIRCRAFT.

The failure itself was caused by a software error that used one sensor of the two mounted on the aircraft as a critical input. You always should use two. This is the same bug that hit Toyota with their accelerator pedals awhile ago. Using two sensors will tell you a sensor failed (you don't know which one). With this information, the software can take action, such as returning to idle (in the case of Toyota), or shutting off the automatic trim system (in the case of the 737MAX).

The new software now uses both sensors, and shuts off the trim system if there is a difference. Further, it will also tell the pilot what it did on his ECAS display AND flash a separate warning light (that was before optional, but is now required).

But, despite these fixes, trust has been broken between Boeing and some pilots. These are the vocal ones, saying the system still doesn't work and can't be trusted. In my opinion, these are the very same pilots that have forgotten how to fly. They don't refresh that skill like good pilots do. I have seen some of these guys get into a small plane after way too long a period. They are all over the sky. They've literally forgotten how to fly. They are dangerous.

Foreign pilots (the ones that crashed) have to deal with not only bad training, but bad maintenance as well.

Was the system a real problem? Yes. A faulty trim system is no fun. I've had it happen to me (caused by a faulty trim switch), but you CAN fly the aircraft as long as you recognize the problem for what it is.


The Parrot Killer
27-10-2019 20:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
keepit wrote:
Is there anyone here that is knowledgeable about the 9 sensors?


Just two. The two angle of attack sensors that are part of the airspeed sensors, mounted on the nose of the aircraft. There is one on each side.

If a sensor is 21 deg off, it's because some maintenance twit mounted them upside down. There is no adjustment for angle of attack sensors.

Having not read the newspaper article, I do not know what their idea of '9 issues' is.


The Parrot Killer
27-10-2019 21:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
James___ wrote:
keepit wrote:
Is there anyone here that is knowledgeable about the 9 sensors?



This is the story I read.

https://www.kentucky.com/news/business/article236639813.html


Unable to read. It's behind an adwall.


The Parrot Killer
27-10-2019 21:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night is a pilot. I think he actually has some time in the 737. I'm sure he'll be along in due time to weigh in here.

While you're at it ITN, what's with the big cover up? Any teeth to it? From what I could gather the simulator was showing the potential problem and it was so bad the pilot actually thought it was simulator error??? Have I got anywhere near what happened?

Like to hear your input...

I heard from a reasonably reliable source that the whole problem stems from airline attempts to meet unreasonable carbon emission requirements intended to save the planet. The airline attempted to make adjustments via software which led to the problems and that if we hadn't had warmizombies screwing up everything in sight then there would never have been an issue in the first place.

.


The MCAS system itself is the result of installing larger engine nacelles on the 737. These engines are more efficient and quieter.

It wasn't the airline. It was Boeing itself responding to demands from the airlines.


The Parrot Killer
27-10-2019 21:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
GasGuzzler wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night is a pilot. I think he actually has some time in the 737. I'm sure he'll be along in due time to weigh in here.

While you're at it ITN, what's with the big cover up? Any teeth to it? From what I could gather the simulator was showing the potential problem and it was so bad the pilot actually thought it was simulator error??? Have I got anywhere near what happened?

Like to hear your input...

I heard from a reasonably reliable source that the whole problem stems from airline attempts to meet unreasonable carbon emission requirements intended to save the planet. The airline attempted to make adjustments via software which led to the problems and that if we hadn't had warmizombies screwing up everything in sight then there would never have been an issue in the first place.

.


Would that be the new retrofit engines they were referring to?


Yes. However, the airlines can't change software. Only Boeing can do that.


The Parrot Killer
27-10-2019 21:06
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1467)
Into the Night wrote: The new software now uses both sensors, and shuts off the trim system if there is a difference. Further, it will also tell the pilot what it did on his ECAS display AND flash a separate warning light (that was before optional, but is now required).

So if the 2 sensors are not reporting the same value, it will shut off the auto system? Correct?
How difficult is it to fly manually without this system? We are just talking about pitch, or angle of attack, correct? Just a little muscle? How much skill?
Should simulator time be required for existing pilots to deal with a malfunction like this?
27-10-2019 21:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
keepit wrote:
The retrofit was to save fuel and also to reduce CO2 emissions.
To blame the crashes on climatologists is to lose credibility IBDM.


I'm just going to leave this particular paradox of yours untouched for all to see.


The Parrot Killer
27-10-2019 21:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:Would that be the new retrofit engines they were referring to?

I do not know which engines were referenced. The point was that rather than breaking the bank to pursue some implausible hardware design, adjustments were made via software to show that they were trying to comply. The objective was to adhere to unreasonable regulations that were purely punitive regarding jet exhaust ... like it was part of the Green New Deal.

I don't have any additional details at this time. I'm not asking for any of this to be taken on face value because, at the moment, this is technically just hearsay.

.


I can cut this line of reasoning off right here.

The MCAS system was developed, the new engine designed, and the crashes occurred BEFORE the Green New Deal.


The Parrot Killer
27-10-2019 21:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
IBdaMann wrote:
keepit wrote:To blame the crashes on climatologists is to lose credibility IBDM.

At least you understand that "climatologists" are all just warmizombies.

I don't recall you ever extending any credibility to me. As far as you are concerned, I am not of your faith therefore you don't accept anything I say.

So, within the context of me having zero credibility with you, how much credibility did my post cause me to lose in your eyes?

keepit wrote:. That changed the center of gravity somewhat. That require new software. Now they're trying to redo the new software.

*ALL* changes beyond changing the paint require software changes.


.


Even changing the paint requires software changes these days!



The Parrot Killer
27-10-2019 21:17
keepit
★★★☆☆
(694)
Engineering fuel savings is a legitimate endeavor. Someone is to blame for the execution of this endeavor (engineering mistakes), not the climatologists.
27-10-2019 21:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
GasGuzzler wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:Would that be the new retrofit engines they were referring to?

I do not know which engines were referenced. The point was that rather than breaking the bank to pursue some implausible hardware design, adjustments were made via software to show that they were trying to comply. The objective was to adhere to unreasonable regulations that were purely punitive regarding jet exhaust ... like it was part of the Green New Deal.

I don't have any additional details at this time. I'm not asking for any of this to be taken on face value because, at the moment, this is technically just hearsay.

.


The whole stink began after the 737 was fitted with new engines. The new engines were a bit more powerful, changing the angle of attack and pitching the nose upward. When the sensors failed to correctly communicate with the flight software, it ended badly. The question I have is why were the new engines needed? Was it the need to adhere to BS fuel economy standards?

I wish ITN would tune in here because I feel like Victor On YAP trying to explain weather. I'm doing a very poor job.


The new engines are a bit more powerful, but that is not the reason for the software. The reason is the larger nacelles, requiring a longer mounting pylon than the older engines did. These things just hang lower on the aircraft.

The primary moment of profile drag on any aircraft (vertically anyway) is the wing. You can imagine this point to be a fulcrum on a seesaw.

The further the engine is mounted away from this point, the higher the tendency to make the aircraft naturally want to nose up (or down, if the engine is above that point, such as on amphibious aircraft).

To correct for this tendency, you use aircraft trim. The further the engine is away from that fulcrum, the more sensitive the trim becomes. You have to adjust it every time you change airspeed just a little. On the 737, this trim is computerized. This allows for the changing weight conditions from people walking around inside the aircraft, and makes it easier on the pilots. They normally don't have to mess with it during takeoff, climb out, cruise, and landing (all of which involve different airspeeds and engine settings).

Having one less thing to mess with on these fast moving planes is about safety, BUT, the failure of that system is something you need to be trained to handle. U.S. pilots are. Foreign pilots are not.

The 737MAX crashes were due to trim system failure and poorly trained pilots.


The Parrot Killer
27-10-2019 21:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
keepit wrote:
IBDM,
I've heard that 3% of climatologists are doubters.
"warmizombies and lemmings" is just your political talk.
I always question the motivations of climate change deniers.


It's just what IBDaMann calls the Faithful of the Church of Global Warming. It is not 'political talk'. It's just what he calls them.

Define 'climate change'. Describe the 'greenhouse effect' without violating the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

If you can't, you are just preaching a religion.


The Parrot Killer
27-10-2019 21:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:Would that be the new retrofit engines they were referring to?

I do not know which engines were referenced. The point was that rather than breaking the bank to pursue some implausible hardware design, adjustments were made via software to show that they were trying to comply. The objective was to adhere to unreasonable regulations that were purely punitive regarding jet exhaust ... like it was part of the Green New Deal.

I don't have any additional details at this time. I'm not asking for any of this to be taken on face value because, at the moment, this is technically just hearsay.

.


The whole stink began after the 737 was fitted with new engines. The new engines were a bit more powerful, changing the angle of attack and pitching the nose upward. When the sensors failed to correctly communicate with the flight software, it ended badly. The question I have is why were the new engines needed? Was it the need to adhere to BS fuel economy standards?

I wish ITN would tune in here because I feel like Victor On YAP trying to explain weather. I'm doing a very poor job.

My casual understanding is that the aircraft needed to be modernized, but refitting with new engines was far less expensive than designing and building an entirely brand new fleet.

It is possible that the need for the upgrades was to adhere to ridiculous new regulations aimed at destroying air travel.

.


This is more accurate. The motivation for the new engines was to satisfy the Church of Green.


The Parrot Killer
27-10-2019 21:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
keepit wrote:
Some regulations do seem to restrict air travel, especially in general aviation.
One of the serious motivations is to reduce the risk of midair collisions.


Regulations in air travel are there primarily for safety reasons. They are really no different than regulations that direct you to drive on the right side of a two way street. None of the air regulations restrict air travel at all (with certain very limited exceptions, such as flying below 10,000ft over the Grand Canyon area (disturbing the natural serenity of the Canyon), or flying into military restricted airspace (no fun getting shot at by rockets and tanks because you bozo through their airspace during military exercises!).


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Lion Air 737 Max 8 Crash:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
I don't believe CO2 makes air hotter because I don't see any experimental proof509-10-2019 03:15
Max Planck and Pierre Prevost on Net Thermal Radiation and Net Heat3227-09-2019 02:43
If CO2 have higher temperature than O2 and N2 in the air?317-09-2019 00:37
Why cant we suck carbon out of the air?1226-08-2019 19:25
Alaska in desperate need, of air conditioners and sunscreen...1308-07-2019 05:20
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact