After you've spouted invective and abuse at me? I see you've edited it out since.
> > ET302 ultimately turned the electric trim back on which was their death knell, in violation of procedures.
> No it wasn't
Wrong. Boeing OMB, dated November 6, 2018:
"In the event an uncommanded nose down stabilizer trim is experienced... do the Runway Stabilizer NNC ensuring that the STAB TRIM CUTOUT switches are set to CUTOUT and stay in the CUTOUT position for the remainder of the flight."
Followed by an airworthiness directive requiring the immediate revision of flight manuals and familiarity of pilots with this OMB.
ET302 was 10 March 2019.
It goes on to state that you should neutralize trim forces before going to STAB TRIM CUTOUT.
"Electric stabilizer trim can be used to neutralize control column pitch forces before moving the STAB TRIM CUTOUT switches to CUTOUT."
I told you before that MCAS was faulty. It's the most important link in the failure chain, but it sure is unwise to advocate ignoring the rest of the links.
As I said to you elsewhere: "The crews that crashed did not do great. But if a system is regularly putting crews to the test in a way that requires high levels of personal performance to survive, that's a bigger problem." This summarizes my thoughts on this topic. MCAS should get fixed; Boeing should be found liable for the accidents; Pilots should be better informed about the systems on their aircraft... AND we've proven that pilots that don't get recurrent training and evaluation on stab trim issues do badly with them.
> I sat down and calculated the bloody forces that would have to be applied to the screw jack to actuate against the airstream at those velocities, and the torque numbers I got without even factoring in the extra pressure from the elevators was well into the output range of an automotive engine.
OK, and humans can exert torques on trim wheels with a handle "well into the output range" of an automotive engine, too, so you've established nothing.
You've still declined to answer my simple question in the other posts, too-- which I suspect is because you don't have an answer.
After you've spouted invective and abuse at me? I see you've edited it out since.
> > ET302 ultimately turned the electric trim back on which was their death knell, in violation of procedures.
> No it wasn't
Wrong. Boeing OMB, dated November 6, 2018:
"In the event an uncommanded nose down stabilizer trim is experienced... do the Runway Stabilizer NNC ensuring that the STAB TRIM CUTOUT switches are set to CUTOUT and stay in the CUTOUT position for the remainder of the flight."
Followed by an airworthiness directive requiring the immediate revision of flight manuals and familiarity of pilots with this OMB.
ET302 was 10 March 2019.
It goes on to state that you should neutralize trim forces before going to STAB TRIM CUTOUT.
"Electric stabilizer trim can be used to neutralize control column pitch forces before moving the STAB TRIM CUTOUT switches to CUTOUT."
I told you before that MCAS was faulty. It's the most important link in the failure chain, but it sure is unwise to advocate ignoring the rest of the links.
As I said to you elsewhere: "The crews that crashed did not do great. But if a system is regularly putting crews to the test in a way that requires high levels of personal performance to survive, that's a bigger problem." This summarizes my thoughts on this topic. MCAS should get fixed; Boeing should be found liable for the accidents; Pilots should be better informed about the systems on their aircraft... AND we've proven that pilots that don't get recurrent training and evaluation on stab trim issues do badly with them.
> I sat down and calculated the bloody forces that would have to be applied to the screw jack to actuate against the airstream at those velocities, and the torque numbers I got without even factoring in the extra pressure from the elevators was well into the output range of an automotive engine.
OK, and humans can exert torques on trim wheels with a handle "well into the output range" of an automotive engine, too, so you've established nothing.
You've still declined to answer my simple question in the other posts, too-- which I suspect is because you don't have an answer.