Boeing 737 Max design error

On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 6:13:16 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:80d34090-d67d-418b-8552-4316f23526fc@googlegroups.com:

Yes, great idea. McDonald Douglas used that idea in the DC-10.
Instead of a jackscrew to drive the flaps, they used a hydraulic
PISTON. Which of course is what we actually call it. In 1979 a
DC-10 full of passengers taking off from O'Hare had an engine fall
off, which in turn damaged the hydraulic lines in the wing. The
flaps retracted. Guess what happened next.

Wrong, always wrong.

You are a goddamned idiot.

Flaps on large passenger planes, for your information, ARE actuated
by hydraulic cylinders.

Wrong, always wrong. Here's are pictures of the flap actuator with the
jack screw clearly visible:

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1356045


And a video of the JACKSCREW rotating on a 737 as the flaps
are deployed:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cld62K4ntbk


Wrong, always wrong.

That is whay airplanes have hydraulic systems in them.

Obviously you're ignorant of hydraulic motors and think that hydraulics
can only work via pistons. Pistons have serious disadvantages, as the
world saw with the DC-10 crash at O'Hare. Capiche?

 

On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 6:15:22 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:d6cd5150-70ee-4ac7-b5c3-4f72a40d4da7@googlegroups.com:

That is EXACTLY what is there now. In all these planes, the
electric trim buttons on the controls were working and were used
many times to move the trim back to where it should be. Is it
rocket science to get it near normal and then turn off the cutoff
switches? Geez.

Nice convenient ignorance of the time factor, AGAIN.

Obviously a pilot decided change cannot be implemented fast enough,
or we would not be discussing crashes, we would be discussing a huge
error found by a complaining pilot.

Only true in the Ethiopian crash. There the pilot with just 200 hours
correctly identified the runaway trim and followed the procedure.
Sadly it looks like by that time the plane was so badly out of trim
that he couldn't move the trim wheels. We don't know much, because
the Ethiopians have still not released the CVR. The other crash,
they never identified the runaway pitch problem or followed the
procedure. Had they done so, there would have been no crash, that
plane flew for like 7 minutes with them moving the trim back and
forth, so if they had been competent, that crash would not have
happened. For proof of that we have the previous LA flight where
the same thing happened, the jump seat pilot told the flying pilots
what to do, to follow the runaway trim procedure, they did and the
plane flew on to it's destination.

That it flew on to it's destination also points to lack of safety
concern and procedures for foreign airlines and countries. Here
if that happened they would have informed ATC and returned to the
airport.

 

On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 6:14:24 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

tirsdag den 7. maj 2019 kl. 23.50.53 UTC+2 skrev DecadentLinux...@decadence.org:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:de422837-121d-4ec2-a304-
6f0397665697@googlegroups.com:

one of which is that you could
not exert enough force to turn it by hand.

More proof that you are an idiot. A screw is a very precise
engineering design. The threads utilize the shear strength of the
material they are cut on to move huge elements requiring huge forces
with a mere rotational force. Screw threads impart linear change in
a per turn manner. Each rotation moves the screw one thread pitch
further. Tons of linear force and movement force IS applied and it
does not require tons of force in the screw's rotation.

You prove over and over that you do not have the mechanical
aptitude to even be in the discussion.

IF there were your special "hydraulic assist" mechanisms in place,
then there would be no need for the manual dial at all. The pilot
could merely activate the recovery switch and hold it until the
dial back finishes.

That would actually work.

But you certainly do not know enough about the mechanical realm to
even make valid speculations. You failed to keep your weight
down... You failed at 'trading'. You have absolutely zero grasp of
physics. What is next, child? You gonna give the whole group a
primer on how hard it is to turn a screw?

https://youtu.be/aoNOVlxJmow?t=1m25s

Good find. It's interesting that how hard it can be to turn the trim
wheels seems to have been given little notice and the instructions about
how to maneuver, lower speed, to make it easier disappeared from the
Boeing manuals. It seems that runaway trim must be a very rare failure
and even then, it probably doesn't typically run away to seriously out
of trim, or there probably would be more crashes, focus on it, etc.

 

On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 6:19:17 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:d6cd5150-70ee-4ac7-b5c3-4f72a40d4da7@googlegroups.com:

They've already been flying for decades and so far, I've not seen
a crash attributable to a fly-by-wire failure. If you have some
to show us, please present them.



You are an idiot. There are many.

The B1 bomber, is one major one.

A vague reference to a plane is not an accident summary. Show us where
B-1 accidents have been attributed to a fly-by-wire failure. Also
noted is your quick attempt to use a MILITARY plane that went into
service 35 years ago, when we're talking about today's commercial aircraft.
But let's start with this. Is the B1 bomber even fly-by-wire?
I doubt it.

Military planes have been fly by wire since the F-16, but not
passenger planes until more recently.

They were having crashes in their first tests back in '81.

That is mil planes.

How many passenger planes do you think are that way?

Well, that's what I asked you. Show us the crashes attributable
to fly-by-wire. There are thousand of commercial airliners that are
fly-by-wire, show us the crashes due to a fly-by-wire failure or
problem.

 

On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 6:28:57 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:13ccb619-d461-4462-b15e-e158680db6d2@googlegroups.com:

Wrong again. Anyone who has followed this knows that MCAS only
works by using the trim.


More stupid reading comprehension issues.

The TRIM SYSTEM is used. That is the system it is tied into.


The MCAS 'trim system' moves the ENTIRE TAIL PLANE. Trim tabs do
not recover a plane from a stall.



That is why Boeing put out the directive
after the first crash, LA, to use the RUNAWAY TRIM PROCEDURE


Yes, idiot, because it is TIED in with the electric trim system.
They trim little tabs all over the plan. MCAS, however is a much
larger 'trim element'. It is the entire tailplane.

if
MCAS screwed up again. And we know it works, the LA flight the
previous day, the jump seat pilot told the dummies flying to turn
off the trim, they did, they adjusted it manually, the plane flew
on to it's destination.

You keep reiterating stupid shit about what they do here. I am
talking about what the sytem does. It does it fast. Turning it
back by hand is DECIDEDLY too fucking slow or we would not be
dicussing crash scenarios.

You're still in denial. The LA flight just previous to the crash had
the same problem. The jump seat pilot figured out it was a runaway
trim condition, told the two pilots flying it who couldn't figure it
out what to do, they followed the procedure, trimming it manually
and the plane flew on to it's destination.

 

On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 9:56:39 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 7/05/2019 11:00 pm, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote in
news:gjdaubFo46rU1@mid.individual.net:


The problem here is that you're talking about another piece of
equipment that can control the trim, and which might do so when it
shouldn't. It would then require switches to disable it.

Same equipment, except that instead of a screw jack, it would be a
hydraulic cylinder, and THAT cylinder can be made to be 'freed' either
in the cylinder valving and design itself or by attachment point or
both.


The jackscrew controls the angle of the tailplane. If it were 'freed'
the tailplane would be left flapping in the breeze.

That happened once, to an MD-83, and the result wasn't pretty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_261

Sylvia.

I already explained to him similar, McDonald Douglas using pistons to
actuate the flaps on the DC-10. An engine broke off on takeoff at
O'Hare, which severed hydraulic lines in the wing, the pistons lost
pressure, the flaps on that side retracted and about a minute later
the plane crashed killing all on board.

His misconception is that he thinks hydraulic=piston, unaware of
hydraulic motors which turn jackscrews. He's wrong, always wrong.

 

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 12:42:52 AM UTC-4, Riley Angel wrote:

On 2019-05-07 11:11, trader4@optonline.net wrote:
There are no CoG problems with 737 Max 8, or stability problems, or
anything else of that ilk which the press seem to be peddling with abandon.
It is true that it has larger engines whch are mounted further aft

That is wrong, the engines are mounted further forward.\

Correct, I had a braino while editing.


It's not clear that anyone went out of their box, unless you know what
exactly happened during the design and changes at Boeing.


Other than them apparently being able to self-certify this component,
and by some accounts having ultimately allowed it several times more
trim authority than originally designed for and documented, I know
nothing about it more than I have read from public sources. Just a big
systems engineering failure all round.

Yes, agree with all that. And it might be more than just systems
engineering, ie management that made decisions too, kind of like
the Challenger o-ring disaster.

 

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 12:26:28 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 8/05/2019 8:15 am, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:d6cd5150-70ee-4ac7-b5c3-4f72a40d4da7@googlegroups.com:

That is EXACTLY what is there now. In all these planes, the
electric trim buttons on the controls were working and were used
many times to move the trim back to where it should be. Is it
rocket science to get it near normal and then turn off the cutoff
switches? Geez.

Nice convenient ignorance of the time factor, AGAIN.

Obviously a pilot decided change cannot be implemented fast enough,
or we would not be discussing crashes, we would be discussing a huge
error found by a complaining pilot.


Unless we're just talking about gross pilot incompetence.

Sylvia.

It seems like that's what we have with those foreign pilots, at least.
Out of 7, we know 4 couldn't identify runaway trim. Whether they could
have remembered the procedure had they identified it sure seems doubtful.
We know one pilot flying jump seat remembered it, followed it and all
was well. We know one pilot with just 200 hours also correctly identified
it and followed it, but looks like it was too late. By the time they
cut off the electric trim, the plane was trimmed too far nose down.
On the other hand, they had used the trim buttons to trim it back up.
Why they didn't do that FIRST, before going manual, we'll never know.
It looks like that was what they attempted during the last seconds,
because the trim was turned back on. But it looks like no one was
pushing the UP button, so MCAS shoved it further down.

Another factor there is that it was the co-pilot with just 200 hours
that was on the correct path. That must have been a terrible situation,
one that only added to the disaster. If the experienced pilot had
been on the right track, identified it, called out what to do,
probably would be different. It's quite remarkable that a 200 hour
pilot had the balls to tell the pilot what was wrong, though that
is how crew management is supposed to work, with anyone able to
challenge the other.

 

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 10:16:37 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 08/05/19 15:07, trader4@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 3:54:41 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 07/05/19 19:58, trader4@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 2:47:55 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 07/05/19 18:45, Banders wrote:
On 05/07/2019 05:57 AM, trader4@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 12:33:45 AM UTC-4, Banders wrote:
On 05/06/2019 11:55 AM, trader4@optonline.net wrote:

Mushing has nothing to do with what I stated.  Explain to us how a 737
that's been going 300 MPH in level flight for 30 seconds can be stalling.
It can't.

Not during those 30 seconds perhaps, but wind shear can change things in
an instant.

Again, explain to us how any wind shear on this planet, can cause a plane
that is in level flight, at 300 MPH, for the last 30 seconds to stall.

Does this link work?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercell#/media/File:Supercell.svg

You would be lucky to have the wings stall rather than be torn off.

Bear in mind that trader4 appears not to have any
experience of flying aircraft, and hence no experience
of the strange unexpected meteorological effects that
can be encountered.

So then explain to us how a 737 that's been flying for 30 secs
at 300 MPH in level flight can suddenly stall, requiring MCAS to activate.
Cite for us when this has happened.




Even with my limited experience, I've been in situations
which have surprised co-pilots that have been an instructor
for over half a century.

But I'm sure trader4 won't let that reality deter him
from his confident announcements about how aircraft
do (and don't) fly.

You're just sore because I have the facts and also hold the pilots
partly responsible for what happened. Out of 7, at least 4 could not
identify a runaway trim problem and take the simple steps, that are
supposed to be a memory item, to deal with it.

I'm not sore, but I don't have the time to educate you in
how aircraft do (and don't) fly.

It would help if you had some experience of flying aircraft.

It would help if you had been taught by competent instructors
that require you to recover after an aircraft has "departed
controlled flight", because such conditions can easily be
encountered, must be recognised, and dealt with.

*Since you have neither, trying to educate you would be a
waste of our time.*

*If you are prepared to educate yourself*, I suggest
Wolfgang Langewiesche's "Stick and Rudder; An
Explanation of the Art of Flying".

Still waiting for the simple answer from the alleged expert:

A 737 has been flying level for 30 secs at 300mph. Explain to us
how it can suddenly be stalling.

I am not an expert, but I do know more about how
aircraft fly than you do.

The reason I do not respond to this particular question
of yours is because:
- it is not an important question
- if I did, you would just move on to another unimportant
question based on a poor understanding of how aircraft fly

Translation, I'm right, you know a 737 isn't stalling when it's been
flying level for 30 secs at 300 MPH. Thanks for playing.

You're attitude is likely pervasive in the Boeing team that developed
MCAS too and at the FAA. Shut up! You don't know anything. We're
the experts! We saw how well that worked. Perhaps if they had some
folks with some common sense and common knowledge to weigh in, ask
questions, challenge them, it might have been different.

 

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 5:55:36 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

On 06/05/2019 20:47, trader4@optonline.net wrote:
On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 10:44:25 AM UTC-4, gnuarm.de...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 5:00:14 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:

The effect of the software behaviour, as was, was to trim the
aircraft forward for no good reason.

The pilots should have treated it as a runaway trim, and acted
accordingly. Then the crashes would not have occurred.

I have not seen anything clear or athoritative, but it appears the
situation is not so simple to diagnose as was initially indicated.
When you have a cockpit full of instruments and controls and
"something" is wrong and the plane is behaving very erratically, it
seems not so simple to do the right thing and know that it was
right in the face of the airplane continuing to fly improperly.

It is simple. The trim wheels are spinning right next to your leg.
Something is pushing it way nose down. You push it back up with the
trim button. Five seconds later, *something* is pushing it back
down again. How hard is it to identify that as a problem with the
electric trim? That the plane can;t fly with full nose down trim,
but it flies every other day with small trim? Hello? It doesn't
matter what is causing the electric trim motor to turn and do
something abnormal. It could be a stuck switch, a short, it doesn't
matter that it was MCAS. And the procedure is to turn it off using
the switches right above the trim wheels and then trim manually. We
know it works, because that's what the pilots on LA did the day
before.

But only when instructed to do so by the third pilot who was just along
for the ride and obviously he did not want to die. He figured it out and
told them how to regain control. The implication is that whatever the
sequence of events was on the flight deck when MCAS goes rogue it is
sufficient to overwhelm a two man flight crew with alerts and alarms. I
suspect that bad HCI user interface has played a part in these crashes.
(including making the AoA sensors disagree indicator an optional extra)

The guy who saved the earlier Lion Air flight leg from disaster should
be a very important witness in the crash enquiry into MCAS behaviour.

As should the other two pilots who were flying. They could explain what
they were thinking and why they didn't identify it as a runaway trim
problem. But with the Indonesians running it, I wouldn't count on it.
Like the media, they are putting all the focus on Boeing.

This is very, very basic flight principles and training that is
supposed to be committed to memory, precisely because in an
emergency, with runaway trim, you have to do the right thing and do
it quickly.

More so when taking off from a high altitude airport with less lift.

It seems likely that Boeing expected that that would happen in
the event that this non-redundant computer system misbehaved.

Yet in both cases the pilots let the aircraft get itself
seriously out of trim. So much so, that in the case of the second
crash, when the the pilots did eventually disable the electric
trim, the aircraft was so far out of trim that the pilots were
not strong enough to turn the trim wheels (or they didn't try -
it's rather unclear at the moment).

There is the main point. It is too early to be making judgements.

I agree it's too early to make final judgments, but there is plenty
out there already to make some judgments, including that the pilots
bear some of the blame. It's similar to most of these, which is why
crashes are so rare. It's rarely just one thing, it's a whole series
of things that have to go wrong for it to result in a crash, all of
them low

I'm not sure the second crew ever stood much of a chance as they were
already in thin air at take off and surrounded by even higher mountains.

IDK, it's not clear what went on there. A lot of unanswered questions.
They fought back and forth with MCAS for at least a couple of minutes,
then turned off the trim, couldn't move the trim wheel manually.
So then this:

"Roughly five minutes into the flight, and at 13,400 feet of altitude, the data recorder registers another automatic nose down trim command for five seconds. It appears the pilots reactivated the system that would trigger MCAS."

So, with the plane at ~6000 feet above ground altitude, they had the
trim back on and should have been able to trim it back up with the
trim buttons? Did they try? We don;t know, because AFAIK Ethiopia has
not released the relevant FDR data. The only logical reason to turn
it back on would be to use it to get trim nose up again, so what happened?

probability. Speaking of probabilities, I'm still mystified as to
why there has been nothing about the root cause of the incorrect AOA
reading.

That is also surprising. I guess we have to wait for the final report.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

And hopefully in the meantime this AOA isn't being used on other aircraft
if there is something wrong with them. The Ethipopian crash, from what
I saw, the AOA there just suddenly went nuts, to like 75 deg, instantly,
shortly after takeoff. I think they suspect a bird strike might have
caused it.

 

On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 6:22:19 AM UTC-10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 11:22:17 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 5/6/19 9:27 AM, trader4@optonline.net wrote:
On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 3:28:36 AM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 5 May 2019 23:13:13 -0700) it happened Banders
snap@mailchute.com> wrote in <qaoj9p$1jpn$1@gioia.aioe.org>:

On 05/05/2019 08:25 PM, omnilobe@gmail.com wrote:
Weight and Balance of the 737 Max.

I looked at photos of 737 and 737 Max. The 737 has the front of
the engine at the front of the wing. The Max has the rear of the engine at the front of the wing. That makes it stall easily.
Actually, tail-heavy makes for an easy stall, and nose-heavy makes for a
dive. The crash planes weren't stalling, the AOA sensors just thought
they were. So you have it backward.

This photo should put your mind at ease.
https://www.colombotelegraph.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Crash-Animation-of-Ethiopian-Airlines-flight-ET302-Boeing-737-Max-pl
ane.jpg

Normally software is tested and debugged, crashes happen,
bit of a nono to debug it in flights that carry people.

By all indications it was not a software bug, from everything we've
seen the software did what the aerodynamic engineers and others spec'd
it to do. And it all was tested, including by test pilots, for
certification, including in extreme situations, where MCAS would be
involved.

After all the fatal crashes that have happened in recent history due to
fucked up/iced-up/taped-over airflow sensors they go and build in
another system that automatically points the plane at the ground if the
one fuckin' tube that the software relies on gets fucked up, as they
always seem to.

It's a vane, not a tube, but otherwise, I agree, it's hard to imagine.





Apparently having a stuck AOA sensor wasn't part of the
testing.

Not testing the edge-cases of your software, if that's indeed what they
didn't do, falls under "software bug." Just like you can build a power
amplifier that oscillates like mad at ultrasonic frequency until it
burns itself straight out when its input is removed that is a design
error, not a user error as inputs being removed is a natural thing to
happen to amplifiers, which often happens.

I don't know that it's a testing issue. Boeing aeronautical folks and
safety folks were OK with a design that did what it did. They classified
a failure as in the serious category. That means roughly that there could
be injuries as a result, even some deaths, but it's not expected to cause
the loss of the aircraft. With that classification, then
it has to have an expected failure rate of like one in hundreds of thousands.
(there is an exact number, I don't have it). So they calculated the odds
of the sensor and the rest of the system failing and it was within that
threshold and proceeded on.

It would be interesting to see how the software developers interacted
with the designers. And to know what Boeing expects from it's software
engineers, what the over-arching philosophy is. For example, are they
expected to add in features, eg checking that the sensor is reading
correctly on the ground? Is that even possible from the module that
the guy assigned is writing? Or is it expected to be part of some
flight initialization software, that checks all kind of things on
start up? If there was any checking, nothing notified the pilots that
the AOA was reading 30 deg while on the ground.





Gee whiz, I'm no aviation engineer but I probably could've thought to
test that scenario. Did they fire anyone? Are they hiring, now? That's
what I'll put on my resume "Yeah I'm an engineer from a totally
different field but I probably coulda thought to test that."

Test which scenario? And how as a software engineer would you test it?
If the sensor shows high AOA, MCAS starts putting nose down, in increasing
increments. To really see the results and consequences of a test,
you'd have to test the plane. Not clear that the software guys would
understand the total effect this would have on the aircraft.

A laser gyroscope can be used to confirm the angle that the plane is at.
If the nose is too high, but the nose is pointed at the ground, I want
the pilots to take over from the Artificial Intelligence of a
Windows 10 program written by a subcontractor who is loyal to Russia
and Trump. Putin being served well by Boeing.

 

Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in news:qpkAE.324314
$Qy4.158135@fx04.am4:

Bear in mind that trader4 appears not to have any
experience of flying aircraft, and hence no experience
of the strange unexpected meteorological effects that
can be encountered.

Trust me, TraderTard4 is a bigger idiot than just that.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:0364545d-39b5-4e6a-a294-8f158b770292@googlegroups.com:

Obviously you're ignorant of hydraulic motors and think that
hydraulics can only work via pistons.

I knew about hydraulics back in the '60s. How many decades before
you were even born was that you pathetic twerp?

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:954c1f11-ccbb-4c27-b8e9-80daec1fa3a1@googlegroups.com:

Woooah there Pilgrim! Neither I nor any of the other adults here
discussing this said that it required "tons of force" to turn the
trim wheels. Only that:

Learn to read, idiot. I said the screws EXERT tons of force, but that
such force is not required to TURN the screw which applies that force.

You need to learn how to fucking read, BOY! That and you are one
thick skulled dimwit as it relates to mechanical aptitude.

 

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 7:06:57 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:954c1f11-ccbb-4c27-b8e9-80daec1fa3a1@googlegroups.com:

Woooah there Pilgrim! Neither I nor any of the other adults here
discussing this said that it required "tons of force" to turn the
trim wheels. Only that:


Learn to read, idiot. I said the screws EXERT tons of force, but that
such force is not required to TURN the screw which applies that force.

You need to learn how to fucking read, BOY! That and you are one
thick skulled dimwit as it relates to mechanical aptitude.

Have you found those B1 crashes that you claim were the result of fly-by-wire
failures yet? Have you figured out if the B1 is even fly-by-wire at all?
I doubt it is. Where are any crashes caused by fly-by-wire?

Figured out yet that the flaps on the 737 and most other commercial
aircraft are not driven by pistons?

Wrong, always wrong

 

[DLUNU]

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:9ac95d86-7697-4fd5-b32d-37d3644c99a2@googlegroups.com:

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 7:06:57 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:954c1f11-ccbb-4c27-b8e9-80daec1fa3a1@googlegroups.com:

Woooah there Pilgrim! Neither I nor any of the other adults
here discussing this said that it required "tons of force" to
turn the trim wheels. Only that:


Learn to read, idiot. I said the screws EXERT tons of force, but
that such force is not required to TURN the screw which applies
that force.

You need to learn how to fucking read, BOY! That and you are
one
thick skulled dimwit as it relates to mechanical aptitude.

Have you found those B1 crashes that you claim were the result of
fly-by-wire failures yet?

"found"? I am not looking, you retarded piece of criminal street
slut shit.

Have you figured out if the B1 is even
fly-by-wire at all?

Are you an idiot? I worked on a B1B program, you fucking retard.

I doubt it is.

Again... OBVIOUSLY YOU would NOT know. You are, after all, an
abject idiot. No... You are a crimnial street slut's unfushed shit.

In case you are slow on the uptake, that was a reference to your
parentage.

Where are any crashes caused by
fly-by-wire?

They are where they occurred. You are thick, boy. You wouldn't even
rate 4-F.

Figured out yet that the flaps on the 737 and most other commercial
aircraft are not driven by pistons?

Chalk one up for Sylvia, not you, you pathetic, So fucking
Trumplike CHUMP.


I wish we could meet. I'd get pictures of you drinking through a
straw, both before and after it was required to live.

Wrong, always wrong

Your self certifying sig is so perfect. Keep using it, because you
are so just that. Then there is that pissy little bitch wannabe
thing too.

 

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 11:48:51 AM UTC-4, DLUNU wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:9ac95d86-7697-4fd5-b32d-37d3644c99a2@googlegroups.com:

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 7:06:57 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:954c1f11-ccbb-4c27-b8e9-80daec1fa3a1@googlegroups.com:

Woooah there Pilgrim! Neither I nor any of the other adults
here discussing this said that it required "tons of force" to
turn the trim wheels. Only that:


Learn to read, idiot. I said the screws EXERT tons of force, but
that such force is not required to TURN the screw which applies
that force.

You need to learn how to fucking read, BOY! That and you are
one
thick skulled dimwit as it relates to mechanical aptitude.

Have you found those B1 crashes that you claim were the result of
fly-by-wire failures yet?


"found"? I am not looking, you retarded piece of criminal street
slut shit.

Of course you're not looking, because as usual, the B1 crashes due to
fly-by-wire failure that you claimed don't exist.

Figured out yet that the flaps on the 737 and most other commercial
aircraft are not driven by pistons?

Chalk one up for Sylvia, not you, you pathetic, So fucking
Trumplike CHUMP.

Not me? I'm the first one to tell you that the flaps are not piston
activated. And even after both of us told you that, you still
claimed that all planes use piston flap actuators. At least for once
you admit you were wrong.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:b3bc6fc9-a8a3-4cbd-a981-ec5b4561c87b@googlegroups.com:

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 11:48:51 AM UTC-4, DLUNU wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:9ac95d86-7697-4fd5-b32d-37d3644c99a2@googlegroups.com:

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 7:06:57 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:954c1f11-ccbb-4c27-b8e9-80daec1fa3a1@googlegroups.com:

Woooah there Pilgrim! Neither I nor any of the other adults
here discussing this said that it required "tons of force"
to turn the trim wheels. Only that:


Learn to read, idiot. I said the screws EXERT tons of force,
but that such force is not required to TURN the screw which
applies that force.

You need to learn how to fucking read, BOY! That and you
are one
thick skulled dimwit as it relates to mechanical aptitude.

Have you found those B1 crashes that you claim were the result
of fly-by-wire failures yet?


"found"? I am not looking, you retarded piece of criminal street
slut shit.

Of course you're not looking, because as usual, the B1 crashes due
to fly-by-wire failure that you claimed don't exist.




Figured out yet that the flaps on the 737 and most other
commercial aircraft are not driven by pistons?

Chalk one up for Sylvia, not you, you pathetic, So fucking
Trumplike CHUMP.

Not me? I'm the first one to tell you that the flaps are not
piston activated.

Nice try, punk. You do not even know how to follow a thread.

And even after both of us told you that, you
still claimed that all planes use piston flap actuators.

You came far later, idiot. Sylvia even told you that. You are
days off the mark, dumbfuck.

At least
for once you admit you were wrong.

And not at least for once, but yet again, you prove how much of an
abject idiot you are, obsessed with your lame, elementary school
tally.

I have done more in the last ten years to make the world a better,
safer place than you ever have or ever will in your entire, pathetic
life, you stupid piece of shit. And you can't trade that, childish
fuck.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 10/05/2019 8:00 am, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:b3bc6fc9-a8a3-4cbd-a981-ec5b4561c87b@googlegroups.com:

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 11:48:51 AM UTC-4, DLUNU wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:9ac95d86-7697-4fd5-b32d-37d3644c99a2@googlegroups.com:

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 7:06:57 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:954c1f11-ccbb-4c27-b8e9-80daec1fa3a1@googlegroups.com:

Woooah there Pilgrim! Neither I nor any of the other adults
here discussing this said that it required "tons of force"
to turn the trim wheels. Only that:


Learn to read, idiot. I said the screws EXERT tons of force,
but that such force is not required to TURN the screw which
applies that force.

You need to learn how to fucking read, BOY! That and you
are one
thick skulled dimwit as it relates to mechanical aptitude.

Have you found those B1 crashes that you claim were the result
of fly-by-wire failures yet?


"found"? I am not looking, you retarded piece of criminal street
slut shit.

Of course you're not looking, because as usual, the B1 crashes due
to fly-by-wire failure that you claimed don't exist.




Figured out yet that the flaps on the 737 and most other
commercial aircraft are not driven by pistons?

Chalk one up for Sylvia, not you, you pathetic, So fucking
Trumplike CHUMP.

Not me? I'm the first one to tell you that the flaps are not
piston activated.


Nice try, punk. You do not even know how to follow a thread.

And even after both of us told you that, you
still claimed that all planes use piston flap actuators.

You came far later, idiot. Sylvia even told you that. You are
days off the mark, dumbfuck.

At least
for once you admit you were wrong.


And not at least for once, but yet again, you prove how much of an
abject idiot you are, obsessed with your lame, elementary school
tally.

I have done more in the last ten years to make the world a better,
safer place than you ever have or ever will in your entire, pathetic
life, you stupid piece of shit. And you can't trade that, childish
fuck.

Is this how you deal with work colleagues, or if you're not yet working,
how you intend to deal with work colleagues?

Sylvia.

 

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote in
news:gjk729F8ke0U1@mid.individual.net:

> Is this how you deal with work colleagues,

Sorry but you are unaware of the histroy of TraderTard4's posting.

or if you're not yet
working, how you intend to deal with work colleagues?

Again. The asshole we refer to deserves everything... every plate
of shit I give him.

Do stay out of it.