Todos
← Back to Squawk list
FAA Grounds All Cirrus Vision Jets over Angle of Attack Issues
The FAA issued an emergency airworthiness directive that grounds the Cirrus SF50 Vision Jet due to issues with the airplane's angle-of-attack and stall protection systems. (www.flyingmag.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Guess the 737 MAX isn't the only victim
Why do planes need a computer to operate the aircraft's flight controls in a stall?
They’re not designed to control the pitch axis in a stall. They’re suppose to announce an impending stall with the shaker and if you continue to approach the stall, the pusher will push the nose down BEFORE the wing actually stalls. Planes have had AOAs and stall computers since at least the 1960s. They work very reliably. In 30+ years working on Lears, I don’t recall ever getting a squawk from a pilot about the shaker or pusher activating in normal flight. They get out of cal and need adjustment, but they don’t just go crazy and try to kill people. I suspect that in an attempt to make the systems “better”, engineers have made the systems more complicated by feeding the computer data about airspeed, engine power setting, trim position and who knows what else. The more complicated things are the more things that can go wrong.
Well said. Airbus had the same issues on the A330 and A 320 series aircraft. Rather then teach the pilot how to recognize and recover they tried to turn pilots into button pushers and allowed the aircraft sensors to identify issues and resolve them via computer programming laws. Auto switching is fine for electrical systems/sources or fail-safe autopilots in Cat 11, Cat111 & Cat111a approaches but there was nothing wrong with the stick shaker, Stick pusher and for some of us lucky Lear folks (the stick puller). To design a system like the MCAS that the pilot cannot easily override with muscle is placing far too much emphasis on automation and not enough attention to the what if scenario!
The target audience for the Cirrus Jet was the Cirrus SR 20 and 22 owner. They setup their own school with their own instructors and simulators. It’s my understanding they also have their approved insurance underwriter. Certainly not pilots used to moderately performing aircraft with AOAs. Cirrus was trying to protect themselves from the lower experienced of the pilot pool and make it as idiot proof as possible.
The whole thing is a bit of a sham. The second version was able to be certified for RVSM airspace with only 1 altimeter displayed during flight in RVSM airspace with a idiot lite for altimeter mis-compare. It looks like the FAA might have looked the other way on this whole project.
This will probably only be the beginning of the problems for the “Collision” Jet.
The whole thing is a bit of a sham. The second version was able to be certified for RVSM airspace with only 1 altimeter displayed during flight in RVSM airspace with a idiot lite for altimeter mis-compare. It looks like the FAA might have looked the other way on this whole project.
This will probably only be the beginning of the problems for the “Collision” Jet.
Well said! And how much admission from Boeing that they committed an egregious error that was revealed by errors committed by pilots that were not up to snuff when the s94t hits the fan is enough? The mulehead report comes to mind!
see if you can guess who you are in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2NsTi_43g4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2NsTi_43g4
Because software engineers who aren't pilots (but who DID play FlightSimulator as kids!) are EVER so much more capable than mere pilots who couldn't even code a "Hello World" statement in C#.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/how-the-boeing-737-max-disaster-looks-to-a-software-developer
https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/how-the-boeing-737-max-disaster-looks-to-a-software-developer