REVscene Automotive Forum - Ethiopian Airlines crash kills all 157 on board, 18 Canadians

Page 5 of 9

Show 25 post(s) from this thread on one page

REVscene Automotive Forum (https://www.revscene.net/forums/)

- Vancouver Off-Topic / Current Events (https://www.revscene.net/forums/vancouver-off-topic-current-events_50/)

- - Ethiopian Airlines crash kills all 157 on board, 18 Canadians (https://www.revscene.net/forums/715939-ethiopian-airlines-crash-kills-all-157-board-18-canadians.html)

PeanutButter

03-14-2019 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinnyPupp (Post 8942792)

...no? Some people brought that in, but the rest have been trying to use quality sources top get a grip on what's going on with this whole situation.

Adding a post with a bunch of baseless speculation with a touch of nationalist superiority brings down the quality of the thread, even if it's from a pilot.

Compare that post to hud 91's post and you'll see what I mean. hud's is pure quality, and contributes a lot to the thread. It's not as dramatic though so I get it

Quality sources? Hud91 is a quality source? He IS the source. What are you going on about? I don't disagree with anything he said, but how is he a better source than my dad's friend?

Everything my dad's friend said has been talking about from multiple news sources.

Which part of my dad's friend's story is baseless speculation? And what are you talking about Nationalist superiority? Air Canada or West Jet would NOT even blink at a pilot applying for a position with 200 hours.

Guess what, Canada is a superior nation in a lot of ways. It's not perfect, but we do a lot of things right, and it seems like not hiring pilots with 200 hours is one of those "superior" things.

hud 91gt

03-15-2019 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GabAlmighty (Post 8942782)

Most planes have inherent flaws... Some of them deadly.

So, uh, I'll shoot you a PM in a few years when I'm ready to apply? haha

Exactly. Everyone is going down the rabbit hole but until a report is released we shouldn't be jumping to conclusions.

PM? Sure, I have advice. But I’m just a guy that goes to work and comes home to do my hobbies. Half the guys in this thread know more then I do. Lol

To be fair SkinnyPup. It is pretty much a known fact. There are vastly different levels of experience throughout the world in aviation. The biggest connection I see is based on desirable places to live. It’s a long term job usually based on seniority. People generally end up somewhere desireable for the long term. There is a shortage of pilots. We aren’t immune here to inexperience, but living in one of the nicest places in the world has thus far kept the experience level high and the salaries low (in comparison). Enticing people with money is a step which many companies have done to work around this. (Asia etc).

SkinnyPupp

03-15-2019 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hud 91gt (Post 8942859)

I agree that the situation happens where one guy has 10K hours and the copilot has 200. But we really don't know what happened on that flight yet, so maybe let's not blame the copilot for now?

And that guy shouldn't complain about having inexperienced copilots... I don't know for sure, but to me it seems like that's kind of the point of mixing inexperienced with experienced pilots - they're just trying to get those hours in.

Early on in this thread people were right to say let's not to jump to conclusions. I still think it applies, even as more information trickles out.

hud 91gt

03-15-2019 06:05 AM

Agreed. You gotta give the retired guy a break though. Pilots usually have pretty big egos. Haha.

68style

03-15-2019 08:26 AM

Dang... Boeing getting hammered... these incidents... articles coming up with the military refusing delivery of planes due to quality control issues... a documentary coming out where they infiltrated one of their plants in South or North Carolina and all the workers said hell no to flying on 787 Dreamliner...

RIP stock prices..............

PeanutButter

03-15-2019 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinnyPupp (Post 8942862)

When he was talking about the first officer, he didn't sound like he was putting blame on him, I think he was simply pointing out that he had such limited experience, which meant that he likely wouldn't have been very helpful in an extreme situation. In the same way any neophyte wouldn't be helpful in any extreme working situation.

I think it's natural for someone to be a little annoyed if they go into work with a partner and that partner can't carry their weight. There may also be a difference between inexperienced and still learning. From what my dad's friend made it seem, 200 hours is still "learner's permit" experience, which should mean he shouldn't be training on a major carrier. But, like you said, that's up for debate.

Personally, I wouldn't want a neophyte pilot or bus driver driving me, but that's my preference. In the same way I don't want a 4th year medical intern working on me. I get they have to learn, but I don't want to be the guinea pig.

That being said, if it was the MCAS sensor issue that caused the plane to nose dive constantly and that couldn't be shut off, I don't think any level of experience would be effective against that.

Hehe	03-15-2019 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 68style (Post 8942881)

I think BA stock will find good support at $350. That'd be the first entry point if it drops that far. The next heavy support is at $300. Which if it breaks, I'd say something has to be seriously wrong with 737 Max and we'd be looking for it to drop to between 200-250.

But as far as long term holding though... unless something terrible is found that shakes the fundamental of Boeing, anywhere between 200-250 is a safe buy for long term holdings.

PeanutButter

03-15-2019 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hehe (Post 8942912)

I'm pegging support at $370 on the daily, which is also the 50% Fibonacci retracement (FR). This week it tested ~$363-$367 three times and bounced off and closed way above.

If $370 breaks, then I think $355 would be the next support level, which would be the 38% FR level.

I can't see it breaking $355 though. If it hits ~$355, I think i'm going to scale in.

stewie

03-16-2019 08:46 AM

Parents flight has been cancelled.. No spring break vacation on both their birthdays for them..

Shitty

Harvey Specter

03-16-2019 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stewie (Post 8942965)

Parents flight has been cancelled.. No spring break vacation on both their birthdays for them..

Shitty

Can't be rebooked on another flight/airline?

stewie

03-16-2019 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harvey Specter (Post 8942977)

Can't be rebooked on another flight/airline?

Not this short of notice for them. The guy at air canada did his best to help them out but they'd have to take a flight from Vancouver to Detroit to New York to Montreal to Cuba. Would take out almost 2 days off their trip so its not worth it.
They spoke to the travel agent today and she said she'll let them know right away in the morning if she can get them on a different air line to Montreal tomorrow night to catch the flight to Cuba which is the connecting flight needed. She told them its a slim chance it can work so don't get all theor hopes up. If it gets cancelled they'll just go in the summer I guess.

iwantaskyline

03-17-2019 02:28 PM

https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...ion-air-crash/

Article from the Seattle Times published today...interesting details.

Quote:

Flawed analysis, failed oversight: How Boeing, FAA certified the suspect 737 MAX flight control system

As Boeing hustled in 2015 to catch up to Airbus and certify its new 737 MAX, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) managers pushed the agency’s safety engineers to delegate safety assessments to Boeing itself, and to speedily approve the resulting analysis.

But the original safety analysis that Boeing delivered to the FAA for a new flight control system on the MAX — a report used to certify the plane as safe to fly — had several crucial flaws.

That flight control system, called MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System), is now under scrutiny after two crashes of the jet in less than five months resulted in Wednesday’s FAA order to ground the plane.

Current and former engineers directly involved with the evaluations or familiar with the document shared details of Boeing’s “System Safety Analysis” of MCAS, which The Seattle Times confirmed.

The safety analysis:

Understated the power of the new flight control system, which was designed to swivel the horizontal tail to push the nose of the plane down to avert a stall. When the planes later entered service, MCAS was capable of moving the tail more than four times farther than was stated in the initial safety analysis document.

Failed to account for how the system could reset itself each time a pilot responded, thereby missing the potential impact of the system repeatedly pushing the airplane’s nose downward.

Assessed a failure of the system as one level below “catastrophic.” But even that “hazardous” danger level should have precluded activation of the system based on input from a single sensor — and yet that’s how it was designed.
The people who spoke to The Seattle Times and shared details of the safety analysis all spoke on condition of anonymity to protect their jobs at the FAA and other aviation organizations.

PeanutButter

03-17-2019 04:09 PM

^That's is crazy, but not surprising?

I'm just waiting for the class action lawsuits... Boeing share price might break $370 next week after this news

Harvey Specter

03-17-2019 08:25 PM

Wow. The suits at Boeing should be hiring lawyers right about now...

Quote:

The Justice Department probe involves a prosecutor in the fraud section of the department’s criminal division, a unit that has brought cases against well-known manufacturers over safety issues, including Takata Corp.

In the U.S., it is highly unusual for federal prosecutors to investigate details of regulatory approval of commercial aircraft designs, or to use a criminal probe to delve into dealings between the FAA and the largest aircraft manufacturer the agency oversees. Probes of airliner programs or alleged lapses in federal safety oversight typically are handled as civil cases, often by the DOT inspector general. The inspector general, however, does have authority to make criminal referrals to federal prosecutors and has its own special agents.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/faas-73...ed-11552868400

hud 91gt

03-17-2019 08:34 PM

Pretty sure Boeing has a 747 full of lawyers on hand at all times.

punkwax

03-17-2019 09:05 PM

I guess you could say Boeing is... breaking? :badpokerface:

westopher

03-17-2019 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hud 91gt (Post 8943107)

Pretty sure Boeing has a 747 full of lawyers on hand at all times.

They better hope its mechanically sound.PogChamp

BillyBishop

03-17-2019 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD¹³ (Post 8942777)

This. For those not in aviation 'Runaway Trim' is a Red Page (must commit to memory) emergency in every aircraft with electrically or hydraulically assisted trim. From what I've read the MCAS is NOT connected exclusively to the AP so simply turning that off will not have the desired effect. Unless there's something else that keeps the MCAS in operation even after killing the trim via switch and/or circuit breaker, the investigation will likely prove this incident to be pilot error in mishandling the emergency. The fact that the emergency is happening with frequency is a different argument altogether.

QFT - JD's right in that there are two streams going on here and they are mutually exclusive. Many folks are conflating them, and it's easy to.

1. An accident occurred. Notwithstanding something catastrophic rendering all options of recourse unavailable, it's likely this boils down to pilot error. It comes down to a crew to fly an aircraft whether it's operating properly or malfunctioning. Pilot error doesn't always stand as a black mark on a pilot's reputation. Errors can stem from latent threats like insufficient training or systems knowledge; this goes deeper than the crew. Simply, one can be set up for failure under the right (wrong) circumstances. This blurs into #2... but they are distinct!

2. From a systems engineering standpoint and computer-human interface design perspective, the frequency and severity of these accidents should prompt a close examination and review. A "first-world" pilot may have no problem with handling the malfunction, but whether a crew is experienced or not has no bearing on the fact that an existing and known flaw persists in the design.

hud 91gt

03-18-2019 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by westopher (Post 8943114)

They better hope its mechanically sound.PogChamp

That’s why I specifically didn’t say 737 haha.

roastpuff

03-18-2019 03:02 PM

New updates from AVHerald: Crash: Ethiopian B38M near Bishoftu on Mar 10th 2019, impacted terrain after departure

Quote:

...On Mar 18th 2019 the airline clarified, the first officer had accumulated a total of 350 flight hours....

...On Mar 18th 2019 The Aviation Herald learned that flight ET-302 was cleared to follow the SHALA2A standard departure route after departure from runway 07R and was cleared to climb to FL360. According to ground observers the departure was uneventful, the aircraft was handed from tower to departure (=approach) control where the aircraft was cleared to track directly to waypoint RUDOL when able. The crew however requested to maintain runway heading and climb to 14,000 feet advising of a flight control problem, which was approved by departure control. Some moments later the crew requested to return to Addis Ababa (in a routine like voice), departure cleared the flight to turn right heading 260, the crew replied "stand by, stand by". The aircraft continued on runway heading, the climb appeared to be very fast initially. Departure advised the crew they were flying into a restricted zone HA (R)-1, the call was without reply. The "standby" reply by the crew proved to be the last transmission from the aircraft. Radar contact was lost from both primary and secondary radar (the secondary radar was operating in degraded mode). An arriving 787 flight was asked by approach control to overfly the area at 17,000 ft where the radar had lost contact with the aircraft, the crew of that flight however did not see anything while searching for 15 minutes. A smaller training aircraft was dispatched and found the wreckage. The source stressed, that there had been no PAN PAN or MAYDAY call, there was also no change in transponder code away from the assigned code 2000, there had been no indication of unreliable airspeed by the flight crew, there had been no distress in the voices or abnormal background noises during transmissions from the aircraft that would have alerted air traffic control to assume a serious problem on board of the aircraft. Maximum altitudes and speeds have not been reported (editorial remark: a media report had claimed the contact with the aircraft was lost at 10,800 feet MSL).

Following the Nov 6th 2018 release of the Boeing Bulletin regarding MCAS in the aftermath of the crash of the LionAir the airline did distribute the bulletin to their flight crew a number of days later following a reminder. Ethiopian Airlines had been equipped with one Boeing 737-700 NG simulator only when the first MAX aircraft were put into service, the first 737-8 MAX simulator was put into service mid January 2019. Only in March 2019 a trim runaway lesson was included in the NG and MAX training syllabus. Flight crew are scheduled to go through a simulator session every 6 months (as per industry standards), the accident flight crew may thus not yet have received training on a stabilizer trim runaway (in the NG or MAX Simulator).

The source added the B737 NG simulator was not able to reproduce different trim handling by both aircraft: on the NG aircraft automatic trim (e.g. by the SRS) could be counteracted by an (intuitive) elevator opposite control input (e.g. on a nose down trim a nose up elevator input would stop and disable the autotrim system) unless a double failure was inserted by the sim instructor whereas on the MAX the intuitive counter acting elevator input no longer stops the automatic trim in order to permit MCAS to work. The only means to disable automatic trim on the MAX is therefore the trim cutout switches (renamed PR and D/U) below the throttle quadrant on the center console (same location as on the NG), which completely disables all electric trim (also via the trim switches at the controls) and leaves the crew with manual trim via the trim wheel only, so that crew needs to rotate the trim wheel nose up promptly to recover from a stabilizer nose down trim introduced by an automatic trim (e.g. by MCAS or other faults).

The source also reported continuing on runway heading (072 degrees magnetic), respective in a corridor around 080 degrees keeps the aircraft over relatively flat terrain and is used as the go around procedure for runway 07L/R. To the south or north terrain rises. HA (R)-1 would not have posed a problem due to terrain, it is a military restriction. The aircraft was in visual meteorologic conditions throughout the flight.

JD¹³	03-18-2019 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyBishop (Post 8943120)

As more details are emerging this appears to be exactly the case. From the Seattle times:

Quote:

The Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation (MCAS) system at the center of investigations into two fatal crashes of the Boeing 737 MAX 8 was misunderstood and mischaracterized in a flawed certification process as Boeing and the FAA rushed to bring the new jet to market, a Seattle Times investigation published Sunday alleges.

Citing named and unnamed sources, the Times’ Dominic Gates says the final certification of the system, which was intended to give pilots a control feel on the aerodynamically different MAX similar to that of previous iterations of the 737, not only gave “unlimited authority” to the stabilizer for nose-down trim, it literally fought the pilots’ attempts to correct the condition possibly to the point where they were physically unable to fight the stabilizer down force any longer.

“It had full authority to move the stabilizer the full amount,” Peter Lemme, former Boeing flight controls engineer, told the Times. “There was no need for that. Nobody should have agreed to giving it unlimited authority.”

The Times story said the profound ability of the system to take over a key flight control action should have resulted in close scrutiny in the certification process.

But the original specifications of the system called for MCAS to limit its ability to move the horizontal stabilizer .6 degrees at a time. By the time deliveries began, it could pitch the stabilizer 2.5 degrees, about half its total travel, in one movement, the result of flight testing tweaks aimed at finessing the flight control feel.

The system would also pivot the stabilizer that much repeatedly as long as data inputs indicated the aircraft was about to stall, regardless of the pilots’ strenuous efforts to overpower the system. In the October Lion Air crash, which killed 189 people, the flight data recorder counted the captain countering the system 21 times with the first officer taking over for few tries before the captain’s final futile efforts to arrest a 500-MPH dive. The data indicated the nose-down yoke forces peaked at a little more than 100 pounds.

The newspaper’s investigation said that engineers involved in the safety assessment of MCAS were not aware the system could move the tail five times more than the original specs called for. The certification documents should have been amended to reflect the final configuration but they apparently were not, according to the Times report. If they had been, the seriousness of a potential failure of the system would have required it to receive data from at least two sources.

MCAS gets data from only one of two angle of attack indicators on the MAX and the flight data recorder on the Lion Air airplane showed the AOA feeding MCAS was malfunctioning. “A hazardous failure mode depending on a single sensor, I don’t think passes muster,” said Lemme.

The newspaper is reporting that Boeing’s software fix will wire MCAS to both AOAs and only allow the system to move the tail feathers once, instead of repeatedly battling manual control inputs. It will also require additional pilot training and operating manual changes, both of which were called for by pilots unions following the Lion Air crash.

Boeing’s position, endorsed by the FAA, has been that because MCAS is only supposed to trigger in extreme circumstances—high angles of attack and accelerated stalls—that additional pilot training was not necessary. The company has also said that it assumed that based on their existing training on earlier models pilots would recognize the erroneous nose-down commands and hit cutoff switches that would disable the system. This is a standard runaway trim scenario for all aircraft.

“The assumptions in here are incorrect. The human factors were not properly evaluated,” the Times quoted an unnamed FAA safety engineer as saying.

The story also suggests that due to budget cuts the FAA’s certification managers were under increasing pressure to delegate more and more of the safety assessments to Boeing itself. The unprecedented levels of self-certification in the MAX were compounded by the urgency to get the airplane into service because of competitive pressure from Airbus’s new A320neo series. “There wasn’t a complete and proper review of the documents,” the former FAA engineer is quoted as saying. “Review was rushed to reach certain certification dates.”

Very sad for all involved, but Boeing and the FAA are going to be hit hard by this if all proven to be true.

PeanutButter

03-18-2019 07:10 PM

Quote:

the flight data recorder counted the captain countering the system 21 times with the first officer taking over for few tries before the captain’s final futile efforts to arrest a 500-MPH dive

I can't even imagine what these pilots were going through. That would be scary AF.

Fighting for their lives.

hud 91gt

03-19-2019 05:19 AM

Air Canada announced long term schedule changes until atleast July 1st.
Yowaza.

Nlkko

03-25-2019 05:40 PM

Blame the pilots more: BabyRage

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/b...ion-error.html

"Boeing is expected to propose a software update that would give pilots more control over the system and make it less likely to trigger erroneously"

Really? "Less likely to trigger erroneously". How about get rid of that shit.

HonestTea

03-27-2019 08:29 AM

Another problem..

Quote:

A Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 Max 8 on its way from Orlando to a temporary storage facility in California made an emergency landing shortly after takeoff Tuesday afternoon.

Southwest Flight 8701 was headed from Orlando International Airport to Southern California Logistics Airport, an aircraft storage facility in Victorville following the Federal Aviation Administration's recent grounding of the plane following two fatal crashes in less than five months.

The flight, which had no passengers on board, took off at 2:47 p.m. EDT and landed back at the airport at 2:58 p.m., according to flight tracker FlightAware.

The FAA said it is investigating the incident. It said the crew declared an emergency due to a reported engine problem on takeoff.

A group of Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft sit on the tarmac at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport.
A group of Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft sit on the tarmac at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. (Photo: Ralph Freso, Getty Images)

Southwest Airlines said the plane returned to the airport after pilots reported a "performance issue'' with one of the engines.

"The crew followed protocol and safely landed back at the airport,'' Southwest spokesman Dan Landson said in a statement.

The plane will now be moved to Southwest's Orlando maintenance facility for a review, the airline said.

The FAA grounding, announced two weeks ago, allows so-called ferry flights with no passengers. That allows airlines to get the grounded planes to a storage facility or airports with room to accommodate them.

Southwest has 34 Max 8s in its fleet, the most of any U.S. carrier. American is next at 24.

Southwest decided to store its fleet of Max 8s in one place, Victorville.

The airline has already flown more than two dozen Max 8s to Victorville from airports across the country, moving several aircraft a day, and hopes to have the process completed this week, spokesman Dan Landson said.

The airline has regularly used the Victorville facility for certain aircraft maintenance, and having the Max 8s in one place will be efficient because of the maintenance required for parked planes, he said.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/trave...ge/3281138002/

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:34 AM.

Page 5 of 9

Show 25 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Revscene.net cannot be held accountable for the actions of its members nor does the opinions of the members represent that of Revscene.net