C Series Info
#3644
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,538
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I find it hard to believe the difference in feel from NG to MAX would be vastly greater than that between 777 and 787 (didn't one airline finagle their way into a "common type" for those? Anyway the 757-2 and 3 and 767-2 and 3, or 88 and 90, or 318 19 20 21 21NEO 21LR 21XLR, or a 737-100 and a 737-900 etc. From what I've read there was a difference, but it wasn't that much and I can't imagine was radically more than existing differences in common types.
Regardless of the degree to which it was different, there is never under any circumstance a compelling reason to roll in full nose down trim that creates a load based unrecoverable scenario.
#3645
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I also omitted the Qantas A330 that was saved only buy superb crew action but still resulted in a large number of critical injuries. There was also the Lufthansa test flight that crashed killing the crew after 2 AOA vanes malfunctioned.
MCAS was designed to make the MAX handle like the NG in one particular corner of the flight envelope never normally approached in airline operations. There is nothing inheritantly wrong with the airframe and the fix will take care of the malfunction. If you feel as you appear to by your post I would avoid the A330-900 since it has a similar problem corrected by software. Both designs moved the engines forward and up for ground clearance.
MCAS was designed to make the MAX handle like the NG in one particular corner of the flight envelope never normally approached in airline operations. There is nothing inheritantly wrong with the airframe and the fix will take care of the malfunction. If you feel as you appear to by your post I would avoid the A330-900 since it has a similar problem corrected by software. Both designs moved the engines forward and up for ground clearance.
I didn't pay attention to it because it was an A380 and I fly the 320, but a lot of what happened had similarities and we should all pay attention to what they did.
First the incident was caused by a misaligned boring of a stub pipe in the #2 RR Trent engine on the airplane. It was a QC issue not a design issue.
Not long after takeoff the engine exploded with 500 shrapnel hits on the jet, 650 wires cut, I believe every system compromised and several tires blown in the well.
They had 100 ECAMs to run and no way to talk to Qantas.
And all of these ECAMS were sent to Qantas fwiw. They're sitting in their OCC equivalent looking at all of these ECAMs going what in the hell is going on here? And then they start seeing news reports of a downed Qantas jet and they put two and two together but knew the jet was still flying.
So remember this when you're like "I'm not calling ATL Radio..." They're getting all the ECAMs and data, let the Airbus experts down there in MCC help.
But it flew on for 3 hours with the Captain on occasion stopping and asking the crew "should we just put her in the water now?" Not to be the next Swiss Air, but the crew thought they could do it.
They were leaking massive amounts of fuel by the way and only 3 of 11 fuel tanks were even working and one had a souvenir.
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cwes8QEVIAATnLO.jpg)
Fascinating stuff.
5 pilots by the way. 1 Captian, 1 FO, 1 FO/SO... and 2 LCA. And they butted heads at the outset over where the LCA would sit. Like whoa.
And when they landed, it was only after they massaged the numbers and finally got a number that made landing a possibility. As they slowed the airplane it started to buffet. Turns out the ailerons were failed and slipstreaming. So they found they couldn't get slower.
A320 Podcast
But it wasn't a bad design by Airbus. RR ate that one. Cost well over $100M to put the airplane back together and RR wrote a big check over it.
#3646
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,958
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Here's the patent for the speed trim system if you really want detail. Autotrims a lot during initial climbout...
https://patents.google.com/patent/US4676460A/en
#3647
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2018
Posts: 3,124
#3648
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,370
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I was thinking the same thing. I guess if you never hand fly after acceleration height you might not notice it, but it's a lot of movement. It was also discussed fairly in depth in training, at least to the point of knowing it exists.
#3649
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2015
Posts: 278
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Speed trim is applied to the stabilizer automatically at low speed, low weight, aft C of G and high thrust. Sometimes you may notice that the speed trim is trimming in the opposite direction to you, this is because the speed trim is trying to trim the stabilizer in the direction calculated to provide the pilot with positive speed stability characteristics. The speed trim system adjusts stick force so the pilot must provide significant amount of pull force to reduce airspeed or a significant amount of push force to increase airspeed. Whereas, pilots are typically trying to trim the stick force to zero. Occasionally these may be in opposition.
#3650
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
STS- Speed Trim System...
Speed trim is applied to the stabilizer automatically at low speed, low weight, aft C of G and high thrust. Sometimes you may notice that the speed trim is trimming in the opposite direction to you, this is because the speed trim is trying to trim the stabilizer in the direction calculated to provide the pilot with positive speed stability characteristics. The speed trim system adjusts stick force so the pilot must provide significant amount of pull force to reduce airspeed or a significant amount of push force to increase airspeed. Whereas, pilots are typically trying to trim the stick force to zero. Occasionally these may be in opposition.
Speed trim is applied to the stabilizer automatically at low speed, low weight, aft C of G and high thrust. Sometimes you may notice that the speed trim is trimming in the opposite direction to you, this is because the speed trim is trying to trim the stabilizer in the direction calculated to provide the pilot with positive speed stability characteristics. The speed trim system adjusts stick force so the pilot must provide significant amount of pull force to reduce airspeed or a significant amount of push force to increase airspeed. Whereas, pilots are typically trying to trim the stick force to zero. Occasionally these may be in opposition.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post