4 ms·

Engine stall on a Boeing product because of an incorrect sensor reading? Where have I heard that before...

jsight 7y ago
This line would be funnier if you dropped the word engine. I am not aware of another Boeing product where an incorrect sensor caused an "engine" stall.
- Causality1 7y ago
  Pretty sure the engines on those planes stalled when they hit the ground.
  - GhettoMaestro 7y ago
    No, they were destroyed. If the engines stalled mid-flight resulting in a crash, I would see your point, slightly. It wasn’t the engines (Boeing doesn’t make engines). It was MCAS.
    - growlist 7y ago
      I think it's possible that they were in a state of stall for an infinitely small moment of time before they were obliterated. They definitely came to a halt, which is another meaning for stall.
      - GhettoMaestro 7y ago
        Complete asinine logic. It does not matter one bit if they technically stalled for 20 milliseconds between making initial ground contact and disintegrating into 10000+ pieces. The root cause is kinetic energy -- slamming into the ground at 600mph nearly vertical. Everything else is just logical-masturbation.
      - infinitelysmall 7y ago
        Infinitely small is the same as nonexistent, and stalls don’t mean what you think they do on jet engines. Comparing a jet engine stall to an automotive stall is the easiest and most obvious tell that someone is speaking from aviation inexperience. Stalls definitely, categorically, absolutely did not occur in the contextual incidents at any time including impact. Source: ATP with 17,000 hours on a similar type, and I’ve flown the accident configuration. I swear this site is nothing more than a competition to be most correct (and outside of JavaScript arguments people never are, amusingly), because this entire thread is so pointless as to be a detriment to all involved, me included. In what other context would it even be remotely useful to argue about this, aside from the investigation? Why do HN readers think the ability to write software makes them coherent debaters on every topic imaginable, including extremely complicated propulsion systems they’ve probably never touched? Aviation discussion particularly worries me here because in the past I’ve seen some doubting of those who have held the wreckage in their hands by those whose primary competency is Rails and React, commenting safely from several thousand nautical miles away from the investigation. I look forward to the societal impacts of upvoting and karma being studied more deeply in time, because it is quite a rot on conversation and drives people into hopelessly pedantic arguments like this one that are literally a drain on human productivity and the limited time you have on this planet. There were over 300 deceased pax aboard the aircraft you casually referred to as “obliterated” in an off topic thread about Starliner, too, but keep driving to the bottom of this argument, for sure. I’m sure they and their families will appreciate you getting it right.
  - jsight 7y ago
    I could see that being pedantically correct (the best kind of correct? lol).
- Shikadi 7y ago
  Actually asking, what are you trying to say? I'm interpreting this as airplanes don't have engines, but a jet turbine is still an engine, so you must mean something else?
  - brianshaler 7y ago
    I think it's a nitpick that an aerodynamic stall (plane not going forward fast enough for wings to generate lift) should not be conflated with an engine stall (engine ceases to burn/spin/propel)
    - Shikadi 7y ago
      Ah, thanks! Yeah that makes a lot more sense
    - Tuxer 7y ago
      If we're in nitpick land, it truly is important (especially in that 737 case) to remember that stalls on wings has nothing to do with speed, and everything to do with angle of attack (the angle between the wing and the apparent wind). Now, to be fair, going faster DOES create apparent wind coming from the front, so it decreases your angle of attack, but that's it. (the sensor that failed on the 737s was the angle of attack indicator, trying to estimate if the wing was going to stall).
    - JorgeGT 7y ago
      Well, both are basically the same physical phenomenon: too much adverse pressure gradient leading to flow detachment from the airfoil, either the wing airfoil or the compressor blade airfoil.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

This line would be funnier if you dropped the word engine. I am not aware of another Boeing product where an incorrect sensor caused an "engine" stall.

Causality1 7y ago
Pretty sure the engines on those planes stalled when they hit the ground.
- GhettoMaestro 7y ago
  No, they were destroyed. If the engines stalled mid-flight resulting in a crash, I would see your point, slightly. It wasn’t the engines (Boeing doesn’t make engines). It was MCAS.
  - growlist 7y ago
    I think it's possible that they were in a state of stall for an infinitely small moment of time before they were obliterated. They definitely came to a halt, which is another meaning for stall.
    - GhettoMaestro 7y ago
      Complete asinine logic. It does not matter one bit if they technically stalled for 20 milliseconds between making initial ground contact and disintegrating into 10000+ pieces. The root cause is kinetic energy -- slamming into the ground at 600mph nearly vertical. Everything else is just logical-masturbation.
    - infinitelysmall 7y ago
      Infinitely small is the same as nonexistent, and stalls don’t mean what you think they do on jet engines. Comparing a jet engine stall to an automotive stall is the easiest and most obvious tell that someone is speaking from aviation inexperience. Stalls definitely, categorically, absolutely did not occur in the contextual incidents at any time including impact. Source: ATP with 17,000 hours on a similar type, and I’ve flown the accident configuration. I swear this site is nothing more than a competition to be most correct (and outside of JavaScript arguments people never are, amusingly), because this entire thread is so pointless as to be a detriment to all involved, me included. In what other context would it even be remotely useful to argue about this, aside from the investigation? Why do HN readers think the ability to write software makes them coherent debaters on every topic imaginable, including extremely complicated propulsion systems they’ve probably never touched? Aviation discussion particularly worries me here because in the past I’ve seen some doubting of those who have held the wreckage in their hands by those whose primary competency is Rails and React, commenting safely from several thousand nautical miles away from the investigation. I look forward to the societal impacts of upvoting and karma being studied more deeply in time, because it is quite a rot on conversation and drives people into hopelessly pedantic arguments like this one that are literally a drain on human productivity and the limited time you have on this planet. There were over 300 deceased pax aboard the aircraft you casually referred to as “obliterated” in an off topic thread about Starliner, too, but keep driving to the bottom of this argument, for sure. I’m sure they and their families will appreciate you getting it right.
- jsight 7y ago
  I could see that being pedantically correct (the best kind of correct? lol).
Shikadi 7y ago
Actually asking, what are you trying to say? I'm interpreting this as airplanes don't have engines, but a jet turbine is still an engine, so you must mean something else?
- brianshaler 7y ago
  I think it's a nitpick that an aerodynamic stall (plane not going forward fast enough for wings to generate lift) should not be conflated with an engine stall (engine ceases to burn/spin/propel)
  - Shikadi 7y ago
    Ah, thanks! Yeah that makes a lot more sense
  - Tuxer 7y ago
    If we're in nitpick land, it truly is important (especially in that 737 case) to remember that stalls on wings has nothing to do with speed, and everything to do with angle of attack (the angle between the wing and the apparent wind). Now, to be fair, going faster DOES create apparent wind coming from the front, so it decreases your angle of attack, but that's it. (the sensor that failed on the 737s was the angle of attack indicator, trying to estimate if the wing was going to stall).
  - JorgeGT 7y ago
    Well, both are basically the same physical phenomenon: too much adverse pressure gradient leading to flow detachment from the airfoil, either the wing airfoil or the compressor blade airfoil.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]