International Railroad Discussion > Preliminary report released into BHP runaway

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2018/rair/ro-2018-018/

 

Wow!!! That is a very interesting report. I was rather shocked the people who came to assist applied handbrakes to the wrong train.

Now they are going to non-manned trains.  What do they do under the same scenereo and there is no one there to either inspect the train or apply handbrakes?  It's amazing that the handbrakes that were set had so little effect in restraining the train or reducing it's speed.  There must have been substantial rail damage for many kilometers prior to the derailment, with all of those locked wheels sliding over the railhead.

http://www.mining.com/web/workers-put-brakes-wrong-train-bhp-iron-ore-train-derailment-regulator/

Posted from Android

Railbaron Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow!!! That is a very interesting report. I was
> rather shocked the people who came to assist
> applied handbrakes to the wrong train.

There seems to be no concern that the train was so long that the entire crew (all one of them) would not have time to tie down the train before it got away. That the help tied down the wrong train is virtually irrelevant.

It is similar to the 737-8/9 debacle. Increase the fuselage size so much for additional capacity that the plane is out of balance and requires a technological system to be sure it flies level, assumning that the technological system will always work.

Both appear to be a short-sighted productivity gain (welcome to the 21st Century).

TAW

TAW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Railbaron Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Wow!!! That is a very interesting report. I was
> > rather shocked the people who came to assist
> > applied handbrakes to the wrong train.
>
> There seems to be no concern that the train was so
> long that the entire crew (all one of them) would
> not have time to tie down the train before it got
> away. That the help tied down the wrong train is
> virtually irrelevant.
>
> It is similar to the 737-8/9 debacle. Increase the
> fuselage size so much for additional capacity that
> the plane is out of balance and requires a
> technological system to be sure it flies level,
> assumning that the technological system will
> always work.
>
> Both appear to be a short-sighted productivity
> gain (welcome to the 21st Century).
>
> TAW

Fuselage size DID NOT CHANGE. What changed was the new more fuel efficient engines that weigh less then the old ones but actually put out more power.
The weight change and the thrust increase is what upset the weight and balance computations.

PHall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TAW Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Railbaron Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Wow!!! That is a very interesting report. I
> was
> > > rather shocked the people who came to assist
> > > applied handbrakes to the wrong train.
> >
> > There seems to be no concern that the train was
> so
> > long that the entire crew (all one of them)
> would
> > not have time to tie down the train before it
> got
> > away. That the help tied down the wrong train
> is
> > virtually irrelevant.
> >
> > It is similar to the 737-8/9 debacle. Increase
> the
> > fuselage size so much for additional capacity
> that
> > the plane is out of balance and requires a
> > technological system to be sure it flies level,
> > assumning that the technological system will
> > always work.
> >
> > Both appear to be a short-sighted productivity
> > gain (welcome to the 21st Century).
> >
> > TAW
>
> Fuselage size DID NOT CHANGE. What changed was the
> new more fuel efficient engines that weigh less
> then the old ones but actually put out more
> power.
> The weight change and the thrust increase is what
> upset the weight and balance computations.

per the boeing website, here are the length specs:

737 max 8 length: 129' 8"

737 max 9 length: 138' 4"

66

on the 737 MAX Boeing moved the engines up and out (forward) on the wings to allow for the engines larger fan size.

"The Max jets boast engine fans that are eight inches (20.3 centimetres) wider than the previous model. To accommodate the bigger engines, "they moved them further forward and further up" on the wing, aviation consultant Keith Mackey said. "And when they did that they changed the centre of gravity."Pilot Mary Schiavo says those changes can cause the nose of the plane to pitch up in the air. "

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/boeing-737-business-impact-1.5054535

This led to the MCAS software to compensate for the Center of Gravity problem.

The dimensions of the fuselage height and width remained the same for the 737 family.
The length of the fuselage and the size of the wings did change.

 

goneon66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PHall Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > TAW Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Railbaron Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Wow!!! That is a very interesting report. I
> > was
> > > > rather shocked the people who came to
> assist
> > > > applied handbrakes to the wrong train.
> > >
> > > There seems to be no concern that the train
> was
> > so
> > > long that the entire crew (all one of them)
> > would
> > > not have time to tie down the train before it
> > got
> > > away. That the help tied down the wrong train
> > is
> > > virtually irrelevant.
> > >
> > > It is similar to the 737-8/9 debacle.
> Increase
> > the
> > > fuselage size so much for additional capacity
> > that
> > > the plane is out of balance and requires a
> > > technological system to be sure it flies
> level,
> > > assumning that the technological system will
> > > always work.
> > >
> > > Both appear to be a short-sighted
> productivity
> > > gain (welcome to the 21st Century).
> > >
> > > TAW
> >
> > Fuselage size DID NOT CHANGE. What changed was
> the
> > new more fuel efficient engines that weigh less
> > then the old ones but actually put out more
> > power.
> > The weight change and the thrust increase is
> what
> > upset the weight and balance computations.
>
> per the boeing website, here are the length
> specs:
>
> 737 max 8 length: 129' 8"
>
> 737 max 9 length: 138' 4"
>
> 66

And if compare them to the 737-800 and 737-900 lengths you will notice that they didn't change.
The Max modifications were aimed at fuel useage and carbon emission reduction achieved through weight reduction and more fuel efficient engines.

on the boeing website's technical specs page it lists the lengths of the 737 max 7/8/9/10 models.  the lengths are all DIFFERENT...............

66

PHall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Fuselage size DID NOT CHANGE. What changed was the
> new more fuel efficient engines that weigh less
> then the old ones but actually put out more
> power.
> The weight change and the thrust increase is what
> upset the weight and balance computations.

Thanks. I somewhere encountered the combination of the two factors. However, the plane was still designed out of balance, relying on technology to overcome it.

TAW

goneon66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> on the boeing website's technical specs page it
> lists the lengths of the 737 max 7/8/9/10
> models.  the lengths are all
> DIFFERENT...............
>
> 66

The length of the 737-700 is the same as the 737 max 7.
The length of the 737-800 is the same as the 737 max 8.
The length of the 737-900 is the same as the 737 max 9.

The Max aircraft replaced the earlier models in the lineup. The fuselage diamentions did not change. The wings got slightly different winglets. The old CFM56 engines were replaced with the new engines which are larger in diameter requiring the new father forward and higher mounting. This is what changed the center of gravity and also changed the thrust vector when the engines are at high (take off and climb) power settings. Which is why they needed the new stall prevention system.
Boeing just did a terrible job of informing the flight crews of the new system. In theory it was supposed to operate in the back ground with no crew interaction.
Malfunctioning Angle of Attack sensors screwed up that theory.

       This country is getting more and more into the people that run screaming the "Sky is falling" because a bird pooped on their head and at that moment all common sense left their brains. Don't bother me with the facts, I've already made up my mind !  And the ever popular, "It don't make any difference".  Most no longer have the intelligence to get out of a paper bag even if the top is left open for them.        Because we have so many of these people, most are placed in management positions.