4 ms·
This shouldn't be marked as a dupe since it's the actual report. It sounds like they did everything right. There are two fateful moments: >At 05:41:46, the C
by treis 8y ago
This shouldn't be marked as a dupe since it's the actual report.
It sounds like they did everything right. There are two fateful moments:
>At 05:41:46, the Captain asked the First-Officer if the trim is functional. The First-Officer has replied
that the trim was not working and asked if he could try it manually. The Captain told him to try. At
05:41:54, the First-Officer replied that it is not working
At this point they were in stable flight and the trim wasn't that extreme. An inability to manually adjust trim is a huge design flaw unless it was pilot error.
>At 05:43:11, about 32 seconds before the end of the recording, at approximately 13,4002 ft, two
momentary manual electric trim inputs are recorded in the ANU direction. The stabilizer moved in
the ANU direction from 2.1 units to 2.3 units.
>At 05:43:20, approximately five seconds after the last manual electric trim input, an AND automatic
trim command occurred and the stabilizer moved in the AND direction from 2.3 to 1.0 unit in
approximately 5 seconds. The aircraft began pitching nose down. Additional simultaneous aft
column force was applied, but the nose down pitch continues, eventually reaching 40° nose down.
The stabilizer position varied between 1.1 and 0.8 units for the remainder of the recording.
They re-activated electric trim control but only slightly adjusted it. MCAS kicks in to send them nose down. There's no further pilot correction recorded. Again, unclear here if there is an airplane issue preventing them from adjusting trim or a pilot error.
- sctb 8y agoThe report was the basis for this article and discussion yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19570378 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19570378. From Hacker News' perspective, since the report itself was prominently linked in the article and its contents were discussed directly in the thread many times, it qualifies as a duplicate.
- dredmorbius 8y agoYou'd just noted and moved comments to this submission from another, which is confusing. (emailed to hn@ also)
- Rooster61 8y agoAgreed, an article based on the report is not the same as the actual report. Not to mention it pulled this off the front page, where it absolutely should be considering the traffic this issue has been garnering.
- dmix 8y agoHow is that the same? The BBC article doesn't contain even 20% of the information as the full report (including multiple charts).
- sctb 8y agoYou're absolutely right, it's not the same (in this sense “duplicate” is a misnomer—or at least should be applied to the thread or topic and not the submitted link).
- Rooster61 8y agoIf that's the case, it would be appreciated if this was moved back, or at least re-posted. It appears worthy of being visible based on the amount of discussion it generated in a short time. Moving it to this thread effectively threw a bucket on the fire. This document is a big deal.
- makomk 8y agoThe report wasn't prominently linked in that BBC article when it was posted here yesterday, because it hadn't been released yet.[1] It was edited into the article at around the same time the direct link was posted to HN. Also, all of the discussion of its contents on that thread seems to have happened after the comment complaining about this thread being marked as a dupe of it. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20190404163122/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47812225 https://web.archive.org/web/20190404163122/https://www.bbc.c...