Cirrus Vision Jet Grounded for AOA Malfunctions

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • John O'Shaughnessy [FCM]
    replied
    the Wikipedia article

    Leave a comment:


  • Ralph Jones
    replied
    [QUOTE=Larry sreyoB;n11108]Here's an article that corrects many of the inaccuracies from the IEEE article.

    Abnormaldistribution.org...how deliciously Gaussian <g>. And I haven't seen mutatis mutandis or ceteris paribus in eons...Seriously, a great analysis. Everybody listen up.

    Leave a comment:


  • Larry sreyoB
    replied
    Here's an article that corrects many of the inaccuracies from the IEEE article.

    https://abnormaldistribution.org/ind...liner-crashes/

    Leave a comment:


  • Terry Carraway
    replied
    Originally posted by Dusty Rider View Post
    Yes, thank you for explaining, Larry. As I understand it, then, these systems are in place because these aircraft are really difficult to recover if they actually make it to a full stall? Everything I've flown has had pretty straightforward stall characteristics, so the concept of stall prevention, or MCAS systems is pretty foreign to me.
    MCAS increases stick forces, so that the pilot does not over pitch the aircraft.

    Leave a comment:


  • Larry sreyoB
    replied
    Originally posted by Dusty Rider View Post
    Yes, thank you for explaining, Larry. As I understand it, then, these systems are in place because these aircraft are really difficult to recover if they actually make it to a full stall? Everything I've flown has had pretty straightforward stall characteristics, so the concept of stall prevention, or MCAS systems is pretty foreign to me.
    MCAS has nothing at all to do with stalls or stall recovery.

    An airplane that has undesirable stall characteristics, that would otherwise not meet certification requirements, would have a stick-pusher system. None of the 737 models, or any of Boeing's jet airliners that I know of, have a stick-pusher system.


    Leave a comment:


  • Dusty Rider
    replied
    Yes, thank you for explaining, Larry. As I understand it, then, these systems are in place because these aircraft are really difficult to recover if they actually make it to a full stall? Everything I've flown has had pretty straightforward stall characteristics, so the concept of stall prevention, or MCAS systems is pretty foreign to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Russell Holton
    replied
    Originally posted by Ray Tackett View Post
    Thanks again, Larry, for your patient, clear discussions with us non-airline pilots.. It's a great way to reach a segment of the passenger public which can understand and simplify for non-pilot folks.
    Ditto! Thanks Larry.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ray Tackett
    replied
    Originally posted by Larry sreyoB View Post
    It is exactly what its name says; a Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System. It provides a nose-down bias, through the introduction of stabilizer trim, in unusually high AoA situations so as to produce a similar pitch "feel" to that of the older generations of 737s.

    A stall prevention system, aka a stick pusher, is installed on other airplanes which have less than favorable stall characteristics. No such system exists on any of the 737 models.

    Thanks again, Larry, for your patient, clear discussions with us non-airline pilots.. It's a great way to reach a segment of the passenger public which can understand and simplify for non-pilot folks.

    Leave a comment:


  • Larry sreyoB
    replied
    They're both hardware. One aggressively pushes the control column nose-down so hard that it literally rips the yoke out of the pilot's hands. The other adds incremental burst of nose-down stabilizer trim (soon to be a single application). The purpose of each is entirely different.

    One is required to meet the stall recovery certification requirements due to otherwise unfavorable stall characteristics. The other is to increase the control pressure at excessively high AoA to better match the pitch feel to that of earlier 737 models.

    Leave a comment:


  • Reams Goodloe
    replied
    Larry -

    As far as I can tell, this is the old hardware v software argument. On system uses software, one system uses hardware. Same result.

    Reams

    Leave a comment:


  • Larry sreyoB
    replied
    Originally posted by Reams Goodloe View Post
    Larry -

    If a system that is designed to prevent adverse nose up pitching moment isn't a stall prevention system, just exactly what is it?????
    It is exactly what its name says; a Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System. It provides a nose-down bias, through the introduction of stabilizer trim, in unusually high AoA situations so as to produce a similar pitch "feel" to that of the older generations of 737s.

    A stall prevention system, aka a stick pusher, is installed on other airplanes which have less than favorable stall characteristics. No such system exists on any of the 737 models.


    Leave a comment:


  • Reams Goodloe
    replied
    Larry -

    If a system that is designed to prevent adverse nose up pitching moment isn't a stall prevention system, just exactly what is it?????

    https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-s...em-mcas-jt610/

    Reams

    Leave a comment:


  • Larry sreyoB
    replied
    Of course the MCAS system in the 737 MAX aircraft, despite numerous reports to the contrary, is not a stall prevention system.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cirrus Vision Jet Grounded for AOA Malfunctions

    https://tinyurl.com/yxadc8gm (rgl.faa.gov)

    Has there been a sudden increase in the number of unrecoverable stalls happening in airplanes thereby creating a demand for these stall prevention systems? Or have these systems existed in airplanes longer than I'm thinking (more than the past ten years, for example)?
Working...
X