5 ms·
I wouldn't feed the troll, but I don't want your misinformation to spread. > They weren't They just took off, max height of the airplane was 1000 feet above t
by ddalex 8y ago
I wouldn't feed the troll, but I don't want your misinformation to spread.
> They weren't
They just took off, max height of the airplane was 1000 feet above the ground. That's a definely low altitude.
> Runaway trim should be a recoverable situation.
The trim pointed the nose down. The aerodynamic forces were so high on the elevator that the trim wheels could not be moved by a single person. This was confirmed in 737 simulator.
- treis 8y ago>They just took off, max height of the airplane was 1000 feet above the ground. That's a definely low altitude. People thought that based on Flightaware data. But if you actually read the report you will see that it is incorrect and they reached about 7,000 feet. >The trim pointed the nose down. Incorrect. The plane was steadily gaining altitude until they re-enabled electric trim. >I wouldn't feed the troll, but I don't want your misinformation to spread. Try being right before throwing around personal insults.
- ddalex 8y agowe must not be reading the same report. I'm speaking specifically about this one: https://avherald.com/h?article=4c534c4a/0023&opt=0 https://avherald.com/h?article=4c534c4a/0023&opt=0 which points clearly to MCAS applying maximum nose down, based on incorrect data from the left alpha sensor, both pilots pulling on their control sticks, and the aircraft failing to gain altitude even before final MCAS activation because the trim could not be manually reset by the F/O. this report contradicts every element that you're pushing (plane reached altitude, pilots didn't pull on the column, the electric trim was not needed, MCAS did not intervene). did I missing anything ?