Ethiopian Airlines crash kills all 157 on board, 18 Canadians [Archive]

PeanutButter

03-10-2019, 03:45 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40Mfm8NqFrY

An Ethiopian Airlines jet has crashed shortly after take-off from Addis Ababa, killing all on board.

The airline said 149 passengers and eight crew members were on flight ET302 from the Ethiopian capital to Nairobi in Kenya.

It said 32 Kenyans, 18 Canadians, eight Americans and seven British nationals were among the passengers.

The crash happened at 08:44 local time, six minutes after the months-old Boeing 737 Max-8 took off.

Another plane of the same model was involved in a crash less than five months ago, when a Lion Air flight crashed into the sea near Indonesia with nearly 190 people on board.

The cause of the disaster is not yet clear. However, the pilot had reported difficulties and had asked to return to Addis Ababa, the airline said.

"At this stage, we cannot rule out anything," Ethiopian Airlines CEO Tewolde Gebremariam told reporters at Bole International Airport in Addis Ababa.

"We cannot also attribute the cause to anything because we will have to comply with the international regulation to wait for the investigation."

From very light reading there seems to be issues with the Boeing 737 Max aircraft. I wouldn't want to fly on any of those until they figure out those problems
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/10/world/africa/boeing-737-max-8-crash.html

The plane, a Boeing 737 Max 8, was the same model that crashed in Indonesia in October, killing 189 people.

In both cases, brand-new planes faltered minutes after takeoff and plunged into a deadly descent, leaving no survivors.

Infiniti

03-10-2019, 04:43 PM

From very light reading there seems to be issues with the Boeing 737 Max aircraft. I wouldn't want to fly on any of those until they figure out those problems

Thats a big leap..Based on the data that's currently available (which is barely anything - oh, and FR24 data is unreliable) there is absolutely nothing that links this accident with the Lion Air accident that happened a few months ago other than the fact they were both Boeing 737MAX aircrafts.

Hondaracer

03-10-2019, 04:45 PM

and that they both crashed in almost an identical manner.. although most crashes happen in the first 5 minutes regardless i believe.

SkinnyPupp

03-10-2019, 05:32 PM

That's two complete failures of the 737 Max, and it's only been in service for 2 years. Maybe it's just a coincidence, but IMO they should ground them to make sure.

iwantaskyline

03-10-2019, 06:29 PM

^Already starting to happen.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-10/china-asks-local-airlines-to-ground-boeing-737-max-caijing-says?utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=australia&utm_medium=social&cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-australia

GabAlmighty

03-10-2019, 06:37 PM

Here come the armchair pilots!

Please, educate me on airplanes.

Gumby

03-10-2019, 07:02 PM

That's two complete failures of the 737 Max, and it's only been in service for 2 years. Maybe it's just a coincidence, but IMO they should ground them to make sure.
I agree - same model and incident for a relatively young plane? The scary part is that I flew on a 736 max in November last year, not too long after the October incident.

SkinnyPupp

03-10-2019, 07:20 PM

Here come the armchair pilots!

Please, educate me on airplanes.
Yeah maybe once we reach 1000 deaths we can start to consider the possibility that isn't a coincidence...

GabAlmighty

03-10-2019, 07:35 PM

Yeah maybe once we reach 1000 deaths we can start to consider the possibility that isn't a coincidence...

2 King Air's crashed in the span of a week last month. Guess we should ground all King Air's?

Hehe

03-10-2019, 07:54 PM

Fuck... I have a flight in the summers involving 737 Max 8. Hope they find out what's wrong with it before that or AC better let me change the flight for free.

I mean, there's no fucking way I'd get on one of these with kids.

It could totally be a coincidence, but seriously, in the aircraft business, where "accidents" is the lowest of any form of transportation, having 2 of the latest, newly introduced aircraft to go down within 6mth frame... it's going to be a hard sell to me.

SkinnyPupp

03-10-2019, 08:04 PM

2 King Air's crashed in the span of a week last month. Guess we should ground all King Air's?
King Airs have been around for decades, why would you ground them after two crashed? :seriously:

GabAlmighty

03-10-2019, 08:08 PM

King Airs have been around for decades, why would you ground them after two crashed? :seriously:

Fair, I know my statement didn't hold much water haha.

Facts are we have no idea what happened, all we have is speculation as to what happened. So to jump to conclusions based on speculations, no matter how coincidental, is a dangerous thing in my opinion.

Unfortunately it will take a few years for the full reports to come out on the accidents.

SkinnyPupp

03-10-2019, 08:13 PM

Fair, I know my statement didn't hold much water haha.

Facts are we have no idea what happened, all we have is speculation as to what happened. So to jump to conclusions based on speculations, no matter how coincidental, is a dangerous thing in my opinion.

Unfortunately it will take a few years for the full reports to come out on the accidents.
I don't think anyone here is jumping to conclusions. All we're saying is that a brand new aircraft going down twice rapidly right after introduction, there is the possibility that the incidents are due to a flaw in the design.

If they don't know what caused either crash yet, that means that the possibility still exists that there's a flaw. Since the possibility exists, we'd like to see them grounded until they rule it out. Barring that, I think airlines should allow passengers switch to other aircraft for free if they want.

Nobody is assuming that these craft are flawed. We're just saying that there's more than a 0% chance of that being the case, and people shouldn't be put at risk until it's known to be 0%.

Harvey Specter

03-10-2019, 08:16 PM

I remember reading forums and blogs when the 737MAX was been rolled out about the engines been too powerful for a very old frame and Boeing had to do a lot of tweaking to the flying dynamics via software. Not saying this crash is related but it's interesting that people had concerns back then.

twitchyzero

03-10-2019, 09:56 PM

surprised there were 18 Canadians on board

if there's a design fault, wouldn't there have been more incidents in the two years since first operational flight?

i remember quite a bit of hype around the 737m and how budget carriers will further pull away from long haul carriers in profits, so grounding them is gonna hurt big time financially

Mr.HappySilp

03-10-2019, 10:10 PM

That's two complete failures of the 737 Max, and it's only been in service for 2 years. Maybe it's just a coincidence, but IMO they should ground them to make sure.

CHINA already ground all 737Max.

PeanutButter

03-10-2019, 11:26 PM

There's a UN conference going on right now, I believe which may explain the Canadians?

Mr.HappySilp

03-10-2019, 11:53 PM

Gumby

03-11-2019, 12:00 AM

Unless you brought insurance for your flight so a detail report came out before your trips outlining it is the fault of the 737 Max I doubt you will get your flight change.
Not to mention that the passenger picks the flight(time/route), and the airline picks the aircraft. It’s not like the airline has extra aircraft sitting around doing nothing that they can easily swap in...

Raid3n

03-11-2019, 12:02 AM

i'm not 100% on the accuracy, but i saw something mentioned on reddit a bunch.

the new 737-800MAX had a MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) added to the avionics. from a quick skim, the new model had a change in engine design and placement causing the plane to gradually nose up. to counteract this, they added in the MCAS. they marketed the plane as being close enough in design to the previous model that no retraining would be needed and thus airlines could save on that expense and still get the increased efficiency. however they never mentioned the MCAS and did not train pilots on how the new system works.

essentially the MCAS uses sensors to sense the nose raising and will counteract it to prevent possible stalls. it seems there allegedly were issues with the sensors that calculate the angle of attack and cause the MCAS to incorrectly adjust for these.

if the sensor continued to say that the nose was high, and the MCAS was still trying to correct this by pushing the nose down, soon you're in a dive.

i seem to remember an episode of Mayday about a situation similar to this i think.. where the pilots were either flying at night or in a storm where they couldn't visually see the horizon, and the computer was telling them to pull up or something like that because the data it was getting was suggesting they were nose down and picking up speed or something like that.

if any of the allegations that boeing added in a system like that without even mentioning it are true... that could be disastrous for them..

twitchyzero

03-11-2019, 12:32 AM

Not to mention that the passenger picks the flight(time/route), and the airline picks the aircraft

every time you book it states which plane they'll use

Mr.Money

03-11-2019, 12:43 AM

china has the largest 737 Max fleet and have grounded every single one right now for safety reasons,the investigation could take up to years i heard on the current accidents to figure out what the issues are..if any.

lot of experts are coming in saying that a brand new platform for a plane recently come out and have 2 of them involved in an accident so fast is unheard of.

hud 91gt

03-11-2019, 12:49 AM

DragonChi

03-11-2019, 01:06 AM

RIP passengers

StylinRed

03-11-2019, 05:25 AM

hud 91gt

03-11-2019, 09:18 AM

For interests sake. The mechanical issue with Lion Air actually happened the previous leg as well. Improperly corrected by maintenance, it happened again followed by a crash. The difference in outcome is how the pilots dealt with it. Since Lion air, the procedures changed very slightly. Boeing issued thes changes the day of the crash. The plane is not dangerous. But if not operated correctly it could be. ...Just like every other plane out there.

yray

03-11-2019, 09:22 AM

strap bigger engine until a 737 becomes a 757

iwantaskyline

03-11-2019, 09:28 AM

737 max two crashes, and I believe several scares (where pilots cut the flight short by doubling back or landing elsewhere), all in the same manner of it nose diving...say what you want, but I fly often, and Im avoiding them

Yep this was in Dec...

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/christmas-eve-air-canada-flight-turned-back-to-vancouver-for-hydraulic-issue

hud 91gt

03-11-2019, 09:37 AM

Completely unrelated.

For those that really only know aviation from the media, just take a peak at AvHerald. It is a database which lists most reported incidents around the world.

Hydraulic issues, blown tires, electronic problems, hyjackings. You name it. These things do happen. On the mechanical side there is generally a multitude of backups. Some require more attention then others. When aircraft turn around. Sometimes it isn’t safety related. Perhaps where the aircraft is going to, there is no maintenance, or adequate maintenance. It’s hard to understand if you just know that the media is telling you. Do some research and get knowledgeable before you make your decisions :)

Hakkaboy

03-11-2019, 10:04 AM

Just spent the last 6 hours in a max over the ocean. Still alive.

RIP to the passengers and crew. I feel for the friends and families for those lost. It Will be a battle they deal with everyday for years to come.

same here, just came back from a 6hr each way rountrip flight with a 737 Max 8.

RIP to the families

roastpuff

03-11-2019, 10:42 AM

Very good quote from PPrune (professional pilot's forum) via Reddit:

Yes, sounds easy if you're 100% confident that MCAS is wrong. But, MCAS is reacting to sensor data- the same data that the instruments in front of your eyes are relaying to you. If your AOA indicator goes haywire, or your ASI is showing lower than stall speed, then you'll have a difficult situation. What MCAS does... it controls flight surfaces to prevent a stall that is likely to occur given the sensor inputs that it's receiving. If you're flying you'll usually trust the instruments- the same instruments as MCAS. Maybe other MCAS interventions haven't been noticed or reported because the rest of the time it's actually functioned the exact same way as the pilots have operated anyway.

If you've just taken off on most other aircraft, if you get a low reading from ASI, or even stick shaker, your first priority is to try to control the aircraft, stabilize flight, level off if at a safe altitude, call a pan and go through the checklists... whereby you eventually should discover that the ASI sensor is bad, Air speed is fine and switch to the alternate input and go on your merry way. Why MCAS is scary is that it 100% relies on sensor data- you're now in the exact same situation as described above, with the exception being that your aircraft has just trimmed nose down by itself, any breathing space you had to troubleshoot has been eroded by MCAS nose down, and any time you could have used to figure out the problem is now spent trying to pull back on the yoke as hard as you can.

It's very easy to say "just pull a couple of CBs, disconnect trim switch, everything will be fine", but in those circumstances, you're on climb out of airport XYZ, suddenly the stick-shaker goes, the ASI in front of your eyes IS showing a reading that's abnormally 'low', the aircraft just trimmed itself nose down to prevent stall, before you have any chance to diagnose the problem you're fighting against the MCAS nose down attitude, your right hand man has 200 hrs all-in and is panicking.

Again, like I said earlier, absolutely not jumping to conclusions as to what caused this tragedy. Again, just re-examining the MCAS issue that has been brought up. Again, stating that MCAS in and of itself should not be a problem- providing the inputs are 100% reliable the software goes unnoticed and may even act as a safety net in the manner it was designed to be. Again, the problem that I see that I haven't seen highlighted previously is the hardware! MCAS relies on data, sensors are the source of the data, why are the sensors so fallible?? Why can't they spend more money on the hardware- ensuring sensors are foolproof with adequate redundancies that can always be relied upon?

GabAlmighty

03-11-2019, 12:11 PM

The little bit of perusing I did on the MCAS states that it works in increments, trims down for a bit, pauses to see if there's a change, then trims some more. Read that it would take 55 seconds to get a full trim down situation. Furthermore, seems as though it's disconnected when you turn off a couple of the electric trim options...

The plane is not dangerous. But if not operated correctly it could be. ...Just like every other plane out there.

Like that ATR that feathered the wrong engine...

Infiniti

03-11-2019, 01:09 PM

The little bit of perusing I did on the MCAS states that it works in increments, trims down for a bit, pauses to see if there's a change, then trims some more. Read that it would take 55 seconds to get a full trim down situation. Furthermore, seems as though it's disconnected when you turn off a couple of the electric trim options...

Like that ATR that feathered the wrong engine...

MCAS also deactivates once flaps have been retracted

Hondaracer

03-11-2019, 02:32 PM

Bought Boeing today on the dip, dat morbid profit

PeanutButter

03-11-2019, 05:54 PM

Bought Boeing today on the dip, dat morbid profit

What was your entry.. I was looking at it, but pussied out... I was gonna get in at -8%, but didn't know where it was going to go.. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess.

Hondaracer

03-11-2019, 06:42 PM

I think it ended up being around there 8-9%

I’ve been wanting in for a while and just hopped in when I got to work in the morning

PeanutButter

03-12-2019, 08:02 AM

I think it ended up being around there 8-9%

I’ve been wanting in for a while and just hopped in when I got to work in the morning

I hope you sold your gain... otherwise it's pretty much gone today... Boeing taking another beating in the market today.

hud 91gt

03-12-2019, 08:50 AM

UK grounded the aircraft. Now it looks really bad if your still flying them
In the eye of the passenger. Seems it will be a “because they are” game now.

yray

03-12-2019, 08:52 AM

average pax can't tell the difference between 737/738/739/a321/a320 :troll:

Hondaracer

03-12-2019, 09:10 AM

I hope you sold your gain... otherwise it's pretty much gone today... Boeing taking another beating in the market today.

In it for the long haul

originalhypa

03-12-2019, 09:22 AM

Eyewitnesses in Ethernopia said that there was fire coming from the tail, and debris was falling out of the plane as it went down. You have to consider that these are witness reports, and may not be reliable. But if it is true, the cause of the crash could be more sinister than a bad sensor.

Manic!

03-12-2019, 11:18 AM

The European Union and India have banned the Boeing 737 Max from flying over their airspace to ensure passenger safety.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47536502

Also there seems to be some videos from passengers and pilot inside the plane before it crashed.

PeanutButter

03-12-2019, 11:59 AM

From the Lion air flight... Me being am armchair pilot, this seems like it's most likely the cause...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glroNHUZD28

blkgsr

03-12-2019, 01:52 PM

I hope you sold your gain... otherwise it's pretty much gone today... Boeing taking another beating in the market today.

i figure the worst is yet to come...as more countries ban the plane, investigation goes on, finds more fault etc etc

Eastwood

03-12-2019, 04:01 PM

I'm flying back from Tokyo on Saturday. I justed checked the aircraft - Boeing 789 (I think a variant of the 787). :chairdance:

PeanutButter

03-12-2019, 07:49 PM

I'm flying back from Tokyo on Saturday. I justed checked the aircraft - Boeing 789 (I think a variant of the 787). :chairdance:

Two of our friends are flying to Hawaii in july and august and they both are on a 737 max aircraft... They are going to wait and see what the reports say, they are hoping the problems get resolved by then...

If not, they have no problem paying the $200 change fee. shitty the airlines won't let them change for free, but $200 seems a small price to pay for your perceived safety.

Harvey Specter

03-12-2019, 08:01 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is2SSY2eZcM&t=1s

Rich Sandor

03-12-2019, 08:36 PM

I understand it's hard for the average person to feel safe in one of these after the media sensationalizes the situation.

I really shouldn't presume or predict - we should all wait for more conclusive reports after the investigations.

That said, I'm going to make a bold statement anyway. Does anyone think Lion Air or Air Ethiopia is going to have the same standards for training and maintenance as say, your average North American airline???? Does anyone think may, just maybe, it's less an issue with the design of the plane and more an issue of improper training or maintenance?

The post on PPRUNE gave away a little nugget of support evidence to my above claim. ..."your right hand man has 200 hrs all-in and is panicking."

I have 400 hours all-in and the best job I'd get with those hours is dropping skydivers or pulling banners. A Canadian airline will not even consider a co-joe with less than 1200hours for a dash8 never fucking mind for a 737max.

So if an airline has 200, or 400, or 800 hour FOs How much experience do you think the Captain is going to have? Where the flight crew tested on MCAS operation and what was their score on that test??? Don't get me wrong - I am NOT faulting the pilots, I am rather highly skeptical of the standards that some airlines have.

I think the smart money is to buy Boeing stock NOW, because in no time it'll be dealt with a simple training bulletin or a software update and eventually the stock will be back up.

In the meanwhile, I have 100% faith in Air Canada and WestJets training standards and flight crew experience. The min experience threshold is very high for Canadian Airline pilots.. I would have no problem letting my fam flying a 737max as long as I trust the crew is experienced.

Hondaracer

03-12-2019, 08:44 PM

That’s kinda what I was thinking even prior to that Sam Chui video etc. lack of experience and not realizing to disengage that trim feature quick enough most likely caused these indigents. Doesn’t really escape Boeing from the liability and seeming lack of training on this new feature but I wouldn’t want to fly with some of these airlines if i can help it just for the reasons you lined out there.

PeanutButter

03-12-2019, 08:49 PM

CEO of ethiopian airlines saying there was indeed, "Flight control problems". As of right now, they don't know the details of those flight control problems..

Black boxes need to be sent somewhere else for reading as they do not have the equipment to do so. Not sure if I would trust the states with that information..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff44s94HJAU

hud 91gt

03-12-2019, 08:51 PM

Pretty much nailed it. I completely understand the reaction passengers, and even now North American flight attendants are having with this. The media has blown the situation right up. With some countries grounding the aircraft. Some of these countries have awful standards, some of these countries have competing products which really can capitalize on a bad Boeing reputation. Some are just jumping on the bandwagon. I even heard a rumour Sunwing is jumping on the train too. Great PR for them to get a “safe” reputation. Mean while, the big players are keeping things going.

The flight attendants are getting worried now, and I don’t blame them. There isn’t much information out there and they really do not have the knowledge to make a knowledgeable decision.

When you start seeing unionized pilots walking off the line using a right to refuse unsafe work, that is when I would be getting worried as a passenger. Until that point, buy some Boeing stock, and in a few days reap the benefits.

hud 91gt

03-12-2019, 08:54 PM

Mr.Money

03-12-2019, 10:04 PM

lack of training with new flight features added in,there is going to be a class action lawsuit from everyone if that's the case.

imagine if the safety feature overrides everything you're trying to gain control still putting it in a nose dive,the feeling of G-forces going down in that would freak the fuck out of anyone.

hud 91gt

03-12-2019, 10:20 PM

Every Boeing has a very similar memory item for uncontrolled stabilizer trim. This is nothing new. It’s just a new feature which could fail making the pilot do the same drill they were trained to do.

SkinnyPupp

03-13-2019, 02:47 AM

Good quick article on the life of the 737 Max (https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/the-world-pulls-the-andon-cord-on-the-737-max/) itself, from conception up to today

hud 91gt

03-13-2019, 07:51 AM

Canada grounded. Yahtzee!

pastarocket

03-13-2019, 08:02 AM

President Cheetoo is gonna create another Twitterstorm if the FAA decides to follow Canada's decision to ground all 737 Max 8s. :lawl:

"Fake News!" according to Cheeto? :facepalm:

hchang

03-13-2019, 09:15 AM

So my girlfriend and I are going to Mexico next month, flying with WestJet on a Boeing Max aircraft booked through Expedia.

Am I responsible for making my own arrangements? Or will Expedia / WestJet do their dilligence?

TIA

Mr.HappySilp

03-13-2019, 09:21 AM

Twi7ch

03-13-2019, 09:22 AM

Bouncing Bettys

03-13-2019, 09:33 AM

Maybe pick up a phone and call them?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Not worth it.
https://i.imgur.com/IWLpEGf.gif

Manic!

03-13-2019, 10:33 AM

President Cheetoo is gonna create another Twitterstorm if the FAA decides to follow Canada's decision to ground all 737 Max 8s. :lawl:

"Fake News!" according to Cheeto? :facepalm:

You didn't see his:

https://liveandletsfly.boardingarea.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Donald-Trump-737-MAX-Crash-Tweet-02.png

Hehe

03-13-2019, 10:53 AM

Well, the show is done. Canada and US (Trump instead of FAA though) have both grounded 737 Max 8/9.

hud 91gt

03-13-2019, 10:59 AM

Just heard a little intel this could be a loooong process. I take back my guess of Boeing going up in a few days. Crazy

stewie

03-13-2019, 11:32 AM

My parents were heading to Cuba on Sunday for vacation at a 5 star hotel.... I'm guessing that won't be happening now.........

hud 91gt

03-13-2019, 12:11 PM

My parents were heading to Cuba on Sunday for vacation at a 5 star hotel.... I'm guessing that won't be happening now.........

Don’t be so sure.

The airlines have pretty good ways of dealing with these situations. Expect delays, and changes of schedule. But chances are you will get where you need to go.

stewie

03-13-2019, 12:25 PM

Don’t be so sure.

The airlines have pretty good ways of dealing with these situations. Expect delays, and changes of schedule. But chances are you will get where you need to go.

Hopefully it works out with them having a few days advance notice to have the airlines alter a few planes around. I think they're just taking a max8 from here to montreal and then taking a different connecting flight from there.
Really hoping they get to go. I want to house sit so I can chill with my dogs haha

Hondaracer

03-13-2019, 12:35 PM

Harvey Specter

03-13-2019, 12:45 PM

I have to rebook 4 flights with AC, still waiting on the line. Lucky for me my first flight isn't until May. I feel for people who have flights this week because AC uses the MAX on a lot of routes.

Traum

03-13-2019, 01:09 PM

Trump kind of has a point in his tweet..

Watch some documentaries on Concorde. A super sonic jet which was way beyond its time however the cockpit and flight instruments (to my understanding at least) were very rudimentary.
I actually agree with Trump for a change as well.

My favourite example is the disappearance of the dipstick on Porsches. Why is there a need to replace a time-tested, cheap, and dead simple solution with electronic sensors that is prone to inaccurate readings, and expensive to replace when it fails?

The same goes for (side) rearview mirros. Why replace them with cameras when mirrors are dead simple?
FailFish

hud 91gt

03-13-2019, 01:15 PM

One just has to look at accident statistics to see how this technology has not only increased the safety margins of flying but also the efficiency and scheduling.

He has a point in regards to being an engineer vs a pilot. Best case scenario would be using this technology as much as you can while having pilots who are as proficient at hand flying as they were in the ‘70s in case things go sideways.

Luckily in Canada, prior to the last couple of years pilots generally had to get their hands dirty with some nasty hands and feet flying in the middle of nowhere with your first few jobs. Amazing experience which is not trained anywhere, nor really experienced in many places around the world. The new generation of “airline” pilots never get this experience.

whitev70r

03-13-2019, 01:46 PM

Is it time to buy Boeing stocks now?

Great68

03-13-2019, 02:38 PM

I actually agree with Trump for a change as well.

My favourite example is the disappearance of the dipstick on Porsches. Why is there a need to replace a time-tested, cheap, and dead simple solution with electronic sensors that is prone to inaccurate readings, and expensive to replace when it fails?

The same goes for (side) rearview mirros. Why replace them with cameras when mirrors are dead simple?
FailFish

Agree about the dipsticks, the electronic level sensors should augment the manual method, not remove it.

But there are some benefits to going to cameras instead of mirrors:
1) Smaller footprint = Less wind resistance (fuel economy) and better forward visibility
2) Expanded view options (ability to chose wide/narrow angle etc on the fly)
3) Digital enhancement capabilities (Improve night views etc)

highfive

03-13-2019, 03:08 PM

Is it time to buy Boeing stocks now?

I would wait for lawsuits first.

iwantaskyline

03-13-2019, 03:28 PM

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47562727

Boeing grounds global aircraft fleet of 737 Max's

SkinnyPupp

03-13-2019, 04:01 PM

Just heard a little intel this could be a loooong process. I take back my guess of Boeing going up in a few days. Crazy
The Max was supposed to save an already troubled Boeing. This could finish them off completely

Hondaracer

03-13-2019, 04:54 PM

It’s also not just the 737 max, this has delayed the debut of the brand new 777 which was suppose to he yesterday I believe

SkinnyPupp

03-13-2019, 05:06 PM

It’s also not just the 737 max, this has delayed the debut of the brand new 777 which was suppose to he yesterday I believe
And they're still $23 billion in the hole (https://www.boeing.com/investors/accounting-considerations.page/) on the 787

PeanutButter

03-13-2019, 06:39 PM

Just saw my dads friend today who is an ex Air Canada pilot and I asked him about all of this.

He said that the 1st officer was a noob who only had like 200 hours of flying time. He said the 1st officer was pretty much the same as a kid with his learners license. If there was a problem with the aircraft, that first officer was pretty much useless.

He said that before AC would even entertain his application (30 years ago) he would need 5,000 hours of flying before. He also mentioned that pilots in the last 10 years are HIGHLY needed and that it isn't uncommon for developing countries and China to take pilots that aren't as experienced as they should because they need flight crew. Case in point, having a first officer that only has 200 ish hours of flying, he was utterly surprised by that.

He also said that there were many times when he was flying that the first officer was so useless he felt like he was flying the entire trip himself.

He pointed out that after the Lion air crash that every pilot in the WORLD should have gotten that air directive and should have brushed up on how to turn off that MCAS, he also said that MCAS isn't a new type of system, the captain should have known to shut it off right away. He's thinking that the manual switch didn't work to shut it off, or the pilot and first officer was too scared or in too much shock to even shut it off. He said it can get scary up there and if you don't keep a level head, you can get into a lot of trouble.

Harvey Specter

03-13-2019, 07:46 PM

Regarding MCAS...

"The CFM International LEAP engines of the 737 MAX have a higher bypass ratio and have a larger nacelle than the engines of previous Boeing 737 models, so the engines are placed higher and further forward in relation to the wing than on previous models.

This destabilizes the aircraft in pitch at higher angles of attack; to deal with this the MCAS flight control augmentation system is fitted to the 737 MAX.

Former Boeing engineers expressed the opinion that a nose down command triggered by a sensor single point of failure is a design flaw if the crew is not prepared, and the FAA was evaluating a fix of the possible flaw and investigating whether the pilots' transition training is adequate."

hud 91gt

03-13-2019, 07:47 PM

Your dads friend is correct. It is a super simple drill. But you can’t really judge don’t know unless you are there.

If the plane is out of trim it is physically difficult to pull the nose back up. Perhaps the 200 hour wonder (or captain) wasn’t able to physically (together) pull the plane out of this dive. Perhaps the two of them took priority in trying to yank it out of a dive prior to doing the drill. Who knows Every second they didn’t do the drill made it even more difficult to physically maneuver.

GabAlmighty

03-13-2019, 08:13 PM

Once you leave North America pretty much all the big airlines will have some sort of co-pilot program/cadet program that puts 200hr wonders into a wide or narrow body jet. That's just reality. BUT, don't think we're immune here in Canada; Jazz is throwing 200hr pilots in the right seat.

Problem with that is they don't learn the instinctual hands and feet you learn by either spending time in the bush or flying smaller stuff for a bit. Sure they might be encouraged to hand fly a departure or approach from time to time but for the most part the auto pilot is doing everything (because it will fly an ILS better than most humans) and will also be smoother for passenger comfort.

I was talking about this to one of my Captains yesterday. For me personally I am happier and more comfortable tossing a plane around, low level, in shitty weather than I am doing a circling approach on autopilot. And it situations where the plane is doing something weird my first instinct is to mash the autopilot disconnect button (which disables the electric trim as well) and hand fly. My assumption is these 200hr wonders, or people who have solely done big jets, will ride out the auto pilot because that's what they're comfortable with.

One mans biased opinion haha.

yray

03-13-2019, 09:39 PM

so its like trying to manhandle the plane in vnav mode :troll:

Gumby

03-13-2019, 11:07 PM

So it sounds like from Boeing’s point of view, they will say the pilots have inadequate training. But from everybody else’s POV, they will say the plane’s design is flawed?

SkinnyPupp

03-14-2019, 01:32 AM

Manic!

03-14-2019, 02:44 AM

The Max was supposed to save an already troubled Boeing. This could finish them off completely

Never going to happen.

DragonChi

03-14-2019, 04:31 AM

Agreed, they are financially strong. Their annual reports post pretty good numbers.

Hondaracer

03-14-2019, 06:03 AM

They are right up there with banks etc in the “too big to fail” category

Mr.HappySilp

03-14-2019, 06:11 AM

There just aren't enough pilots from what I heard less and less people wanted to be a pilot . You don't really make much money in the beginning because you have to fly smaller jets to get the hours and to be a pilot there are some pretty strict physically rules.

Maybe coz of the pilots shortage airlines are throwing pilots who needs to training inot jets they shouldn't be piloting?

hud 91gt

03-14-2019, 06:52 AM

So it sounds like from Boeing’s point of view, they will say the pilots have inadequate training. But from everybody else’s POV, they will say the plane’s design is flawed?

I’m rated on the Max. The release of the MCAS system does not change the way I operate the aircraft. It brought awareness to the situation. It is nice to know information, but without that information it doesn’t change much. I have 3-4000 hours in other Boeing aircraft and they were operated the same way.

Potentially there is faults with the system which is putting these airplanes in an undesirable state. But pilots should have adequate training to deal with this. In reality, that is our job. To deal with the situations which can’t be controlled by automation.

Really, I need to state again no one really knows what went wrong. It could be as simple as the auto trim function, or it could be way more complex. Who knows. The planes are grounded, and the best thing about accidents is things usually change for the better in the eyes of safety.

whitev70r

03-14-2019, 07:25 AM

So it sounds like from Boeing’s point of view, they will say the pilots have inadequate training. But from everybody else’s POV, they will say the plane’s design is flawed?

Armchair engineer/pilot here - sounds like a software update might rectify the MCAS system which self-adjust too easily. Or take that system off completely ... I heard that some pilots were not even aware MCAS was embedded into the autopilot.

I'm buying into BA ... reminds me a bit like the VW diesel fiasco, buy low and give it a year or two and it will bounce back. Only drawback, it is so damn expensive at $370 US.

PeanutButter

03-14-2019, 09:04 AM

All hearsay and conjecture

Of course it is. It's his opinion. Isn't this entire thread hearsay and conjecture?

iwantaskyline

03-14-2019, 12:14 PM

Armchair engineer/pilot here - sounds like a software update might rectify the MCAS system which self-adjust too easily. Or take that system off completely ... I heard that some pilots were not even aware MCAS was embedded into the autopilot.

I'm buying into BA ... reminds me a bit like the VW diesel fiasco, buy low and give it a year or two and it will bounce back. Only drawback, it is so damn expensive at $370 US.

A software update was in the works after the Lion Air crash but it was delayed due to the government shutdown affecting the FAA.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/13/politics/boeing-737-max-8-software/index.html

Boeing announced Monday it had been working on a software fix for the 737 Max aircraft over "the past several months and in the aftermath" of Lion Air Flight 610 that went down in late October over the Java Sea off Indonesia, killing 189 passengers. The process was underway before the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crash over the weekend, which killed 157 people and also involved a 737 Max. Both flights crashed minutes into their journeys.
The circumstances of the crashes remain under investigation.
Boeing, which said it was working with the Federal Aviation Administration "on development, planning and certification of the software enhancement," said the fix will be on 737 Max planes no later than April.

But the company's software update had initially been expected in early January, the Journal reported.

nabs

03-14-2019, 12:17 PM

A software update was in the works after the Lion Air crash but it was delayed due to the government shutdown affecting the FAA.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/13/politics/boeing-737-max-8-software/index.html

I hesitate on trusting anything that CNN puts out... they would do anything to pull together strings to say that it was Trump's fault.

iwantaskyline

03-14-2019, 12:38 PM

I hesitate on trusting anything that CNN puts out... they would do anything to pull together strings to say that it was Trump's fault.

They are literally reporting on what Boeing announced... If you're into Trump's "fake news" rhetoric do some research on your own then.

This took a 5 second google search:

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/news-releases-statements?item=130402

nabs

03-14-2019, 01:06 PM

They are literally reporting on what Boeing announced... If you're into Trump's "fake news" rhetoric do some research on your own then.

This took a 5 second google search:

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/news-releases-statements?item=130402

It does not mention anything to do with the government shut down delaying this process, that's what I was referring to.

iwantaskyline

03-14-2019, 01:20 PM

It does not mention anything to do with the government shut down delaying this process, that's what I was referring to.

Ok so the article is citing US officials as sources regarding that point but let's just say they have no journalistic integrity and it's all fake news... ResidentSleeper

Lets put two and two together...Boeing says they were working very closely with the FAA regarding the software update since the Lion Air crash. FAA is part of the US government.

JD¹³

03-14-2019, 01:54 PM

I’m rated on the Max. The release of the MCAS system does not change the way I operate the aircraft. It brought awareness to the situation. It is nice to know information, but without that information it doesn’t change much. I have 3-4000 hours in other Boeing aircraft and they were operated the same way.

Potentially there is faults with the system which is putting these airplanes in an undesirable state. But pilots should have adequate training to deal with this. In reality, that is our job. To deal with the situations which can’t be controlled by automation.
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.

GabAlmighty

03-14-2019, 03:32 PM

So it sounds like from Boeing’s point of view, they will say the pilots have inadequate training. But from everybody else’s POV, they will say the plane’s design is flawed?

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

I’m rated on the Max. The release of the MCAS system does not change the way I operate the aircraft. It brought awareness to the situation. It is nice to know information, but without that information it doesn’t change much. I have 3-4000 hours in other Boeing aircraft and they were operated the same way.

Really, I need to state again no one really knows what went wrong. It could be as simple as the auto trim function, or it could be way more complex. Who knows. The planes are grounded, and the best thing about accidents is things usually change for the better in the eyes of safety.

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.

SkinnyPupp

03-14-2019, 05:29 PM

Of course it is. It's his opinion. Isn't this entire thread hearsay and conjecture?
...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

PeanutButter

03-14-2019, 10:28 PM

...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

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

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. (The desert, parts of Asia etc).
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

PeanutButter

03-15-2019, 08:49 AM

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.

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

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..............

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

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.

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

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

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/business/boeing-aerospace/failed-certification-faa-missed-safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/

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

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...

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-737-max-approval-is-probed-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

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

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

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 (http://avherald.com/h?article=4c534c4a&opt=0)

...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

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

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/business/boeing-simulation-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..

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/travel/flights/2019/03/26/southwest-airlines-boeing-737-max-8-makes-emergency-landing-way-storage/3281138002/

Nlkko

03-27-2019, 11:03 AM

Just set them on fire at this point. I'm never gonna set foot on one of these planes.

PeanutButter

03-27-2019, 02:51 PM

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

This could be a different issue? or they could just be covering it up..

That's scary AF because if it was a MCAS issue, FOR SURE every pilot in the world would know how to shut it off now...

Gumby

03-27-2019, 05:41 PM

Seems like a different issue, and the only reason it made the news is because the 737 max 8 is currently under a microscope.

hud 91gt

03-27-2019, 06:19 PM

Pretty sure it was an engine failure. Irrelevant.

twitchyzero

03-28-2019, 10:28 AM

Boeing grounds global aircraft fleet of 737 Max's

'dem armchair pilots at Boeing :derp:

SkinnyPupp

03-28-2019, 05:30 PM

:pokerface:

iwantaskyline

03-28-2019, 07:53 PM

Nlkko

03-28-2019, 10:05 PM

Life is cheap when it isn't related to you. Back up the truck boys.

SkinnyPupp

03-29-2019, 01:42 AM

Think of all the money that can be made off these tragedies! :toot:

hud 91gt

03-29-2019, 05:59 AM

:pokerface:

Few days, few weeks, few months, few ye.... so I shouldn’t be a stock broker. The rest remains true. But as you can see from these posts, the public is spooked. The long process will have to be seen through.

roastpuff

04-03-2019, 08:39 AM

https://leehamnews.com/2019/04/03/et302-used-the-cut-out-switches-to-stop-mcas/

Some more news and analysis from Leeham News. Pretty damn scary. They disengaged the MCAS but were unable to regain control of the elevator trim and get the attitude fixed.

hud 91gt

04-03-2019, 10:00 AM

I was just about to post a similar article. If that is true, now we are into some serious Boeing doo doo, and I will be the first to say I could be wrong.

68style

04-03-2019, 10:25 AM

I don't see how the plane can get re-certified with this type of actual design fault.

Nlkko

04-03-2019, 12:22 PM

All these carriers bagholding the 737 Max 8 gonna hike price to make up for these lemon scrap metals. Looking at you, Air Canada.

Bouncing Bettys

04-03-2019, 01:14 PM

Wasn't it not too long ago that Boeing blocked the sale of 737 competitors by Bombardier to Delta?

Gumby

04-03-2019, 01:34 PM

Does this article do a decent job of explaining issues around the 737 max?

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/business-and-finance/2019/3/29/18281270/737-max-faa-scandal-explained

whitev70r

04-03-2019, 02:27 PM

Stock price of Airbus rising.

Hondaracer

04-03-2019, 04:11 PM

Wasn't it not too long ago that Boeing blocked the sale of 737 competitors by Bombardier to Delta?

Personally I’d rather fly a 737 max than any Bombardier jet.

hud 91gt

04-03-2019, 04:39 PM

Nlkko

04-03-2019, 04:42 PM

I'll fly any plane that doesn't kill me because of a known issue that pilots couldn't do shit to correct. :)

Hondaracer

04-03-2019, 05:15 PM

Lol I’m curious your reasoning? From what I’ve heard, the new A220 is apparently amazing. Bombardier has also made solid planes. Minus the Q400’s wheel issues, it is one of a kind. Old Bombardiers are solid as a rock.

All the embarears (sp) i've been on have been more uncomfortable than the 737's, and thats saying A LOT imo..

While Boeing clearly has their shortcomings in terms of being inept, you'd have to think Bombardier is as bad, if not worse than Boeing just from an operations standpoint.

hud 91gt

04-03-2019, 05:25 PM

But Embreaer is Brazillion. That says enough. Lol. I think the 190/175 was a good plane. Have a few hours in that bird too. But it’s no Boeing, but the 190 being the largest Embraer is substantially smaller (fuselage diameter) then any Boeing. Different class. But Bombardier makes good planes and I’m excited to get my hands on the new one. Err Airbus. Yuck. I hate airbus. Lol

CivicBlues

04-04-2019, 09:00 AM

All the embarears (sp) i've been on have been more uncomfortable than the 737's, and thats saying A LOT imo..

While Boeing clearly has their shortcomings in terms of being inept, you'd have to think Bombardier is as bad, if not worse than Boeing just from an operations standpoint.

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

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

Two different companies bro. Unless I'm missing something in this thread, how did Embraer get dragged into this. Did someone do a ghost edit?

iwantaskyline

04-04-2019, 11:26 AM

^No he's just a moron. Lol.

Hondaracer

04-04-2019, 12:22 PM

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

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

Two different companies bro. Unless I'm missing something in this thread, how did Embraer get dragged into this. Did someone do a ghost edit?

ehhhhh.... i've always been under the impression that the Embrarear or whatever they are called was under Bombardier.. my bad :badpokerface:

GabAlmighty

04-04-2019, 01:11 PM

Bombardier is sort of cool, because they sort of make a DeHavilland, but not really. And DeHavilland's being the best plane of all time; makes Bombardier sort of cool. :flamemad:

I was just about to post a similar article. If that is true, now we are into some serious Boeing doo doo, and I will be the first to say I could be wrong.

Never thought about physically being unable to manually trim out a plane... That's a new one.

I don't see how the plane can get re-certified with this type of actual design fault.

They'll find a way i'm sure. I mean, there's a float plane that's certified for passengers where it's near impossible to open the back/passenger doors from the inside haha.

SkinnyPupp

04-04-2019, 05:30 PM

hud 91gt

04-04-2019, 08:13 PM

Lol well thanks Skinny. Don’t think I add that much. Certainly don’t take my word as gospel. I just realized I lied about Boeing/Embraer comparison. The Boeing 717 is probably considered a competitor to the Emb 190. Not my fault though, no one bought those things except for that Hawaian airline.

There is lots of good knowledgeable people in this thread. Gabby up there is all over it too.

... but besides that. Do we really need a reason to like Bombardier? Show some Canadian pride! Playing with the big boys from our own home.

hud 91gt

04-04-2019, 09:01 PM

iwantaskyline

04-04-2019, 09:33 PM

So even some of the people who have worked on Boeing’s new 737 MAX airplane were baffled to learn that the company had designed an automated safety system that abandoned the principles of component redundancy, ultimately entrusting the automated decision-making to just one sensor — a type of sensor that was known to fail.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/a-lack-of-redundancies-on-737-max-system-has-baffled-even-those-who-worked-on-the-jet/

Gumby

04-04-2019, 09:38 PM

Hopefully I’m not the only one who doesn’t know, but what does “trim” mean in this airplane context?

hud 91gt

04-04-2019, 09:48 PM

The only way I can somehow relate it to a vehicle (easier said with a boat)... but....

A trim system uses an aerodynamic advantage to ease the control forces of a control surface. In simple terms...

Let’s say you are driving down the road and you want to put on your make up, and eat your Big Mac but your steering wheel keeps going left. A trim system would be an “on the fly” knob (manual trim) or some buttons (electric power trim) which could adjust your alignment so your car is now straight as an arrow down the road. The MCAS would be like a lane departure system. If it senses things it doesn’t like, it will use the power trim system (powered on the fly alignment) to put the car back in the lane. So if there is a failure in the lane departure system (MCAS), a driver has been taught to shut off the electric alignment system (power trim) so they can use a manual system to get the car straight again. Once it is straight you can use the steering wheel to make your inputs. The thing is with this preliminary report, is that manual knob appears to have been disabled when the lane departure system was doing its job(whether in error or not).You now put down your mascara, and even drop the Big Mac to use your man strength to hold the car in the lane. The thing is, the faster your going the harder and more severe those inputs are. You don’t have much time to correct, and or are not physically able to do so. Due to how an aircraft literally flies, a trim system is required even on the smallest of aircraft. There are huge forces on the control surfaces and we little humans can’t physically control the plane with out this “trim”.

Hope that helps. I had to edit it about a million times.

JD¹³

04-04-2019, 10:19 PM

The goods from the preliminary report. The fact the crew did everything possible gave me goosebumps. The fact the MCAS was able to overpower any manual trim input is scary. I am truely amazed this aircraft was not grounded immediately (by Boeing, knowing the power of the system). The “Stabilizer cutout” system is basically disconnect the power cable from the power trim system from what was taught. A “manual trim” system is taught to always be there just in case. I suppose that is what happens when we get further away from cables and rods, and more into electronics. RIP, and I’m sorry for having any doubt in the crews actions.

I am going to have to review the Lion air preliminary report. I was 90% sure the crew did not take appropriate action. This is a whole other level. I’ve encountered an uncontrollable stickshaker just after takeoff. It was incredibly distracting, nevermind any other issues.

“2 INITIAL FINDINGS
On the basis of the initial information gathered during the course of the investigation, the following facts have been determined:
3
 The Aircraft possessed a valid certificate of airworthiness;
 The crew obtained the license and qualifications to conduct the flight;
 The takeoff roll appeared normal, including normal values of left and right angle-of-attack
(AOA).
 Shortly after liftoff, the value of the left angle of attack sensor deviated from the right one
and reached 74.5 degrees while the right angle of attack sensor value was 15.3 degrees;
then after; the stick shaker activated and remained active until near the end of the flight.
 After autopilot engagement, there were small amplitude roll oscillations accompanied by lateral acceleration, rudder oscillations and slight heading changes; these oscillations also
continued after the autopilot disengaged.
 After the autopilot disengaged, the DFDR recorded an automatic aircraft nose down (AND)
trim command four times without pilot’s input. As a result, three motions of the stabilizer trim were recorded. The FDR data also indicated that the crew utilized the electric manual trim to counter the automatic AND input.
 The crew performed runaway stabilizer checklist and put the stab trim cutout switch to cutout position and confirmed that the manual trim operation was not working.”
Scary. Very scary.

Gumby - in addition to hud's explanation, in aviation terms:
An aircraft at a specific speed, in order to remain in level flight, will have a tab or stabilizer on the elevator (up and down control) that will keep the aerodynamic forces where they need to be to maintain that attitude (straight and level). As you speed up or slow down the trim helps alleviate forces on the pilots controls as a result of the aerodynamic forces of the airflow over the flight controls. This video shows how it works:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cznwTASH2I4

In these crashes the MCAS (automatic trim) was pushing the nose forward excessively and the pilots could not reverse it. They were pulling back on the controls that were fighting them with more than 100lbs of force. It was so much force, and the aircraft was at such a speed and accelerating in a dive, that they could not manually re-trim the aircraft to regain control. They were being aerodynamically overpowered. They actually turned the MCAS system back on in hopes of that allowing their manual nose-up trim inputs through the system to work. MCAS reacted to its bad sensor input and pushed the nose forward even more. The pilots had no way of regaining control of the aircraft despite going above and beyond the recommended emergency procedures for the situation. Hope this helps your understanding.

The first lawsuit against Boeing and the FAA was filed in the US today. I expect many more to follow, they are going to win.

RIP to all the victims, those pilots fought hard.

twitchyzero

04-04-2019, 11:12 PM

appreciate the ones here that tryna explain technical details/mechanisms to interested layman

web forums should be about educating the poorly-informed instead of mocking them

SkinnyPupp

04-05-2019, 02:26 AM

Exactly, that's why I mentioned how I appreciate Hud's posts. He only really talks about what he knows, explains it well (and a lot of the time the topic is fascinating) along with some informed opinions which may or may not be correct but are still more valuable than a layperson's. At the very least, the perspective is valuable and appreciated.

The findings are sad and scary. I only ever wanted to err on the side of caution until we knew more. I didn't assume the worst, I just thought it might be possible and wanted to see. And it looks like grounding the craft was the right move.

I also didn't like the comments from that guy's pilot friend about supposed low quality of inexperienced, non Canadian pilots. I don't care if they came from a pilot or anyone else - I hated the idea of blaming people without knowing more, and now that we do, you can see why. That's a perfect example of two people who can both provide valuable insight, but one chose rumors, speculation, and bad faith assumptions instead.

I didn't even want to bring up all the people talking about how much money they planned to make buying Boeing stock... I hate stock trading and this is an example why. It seems that you have to lose your humanity in order to make money on crises like these, and I don't see how that doesn't just make your skin crawl when doing so. BTW I am NOT hoping for Boeing to die so all the greedy investors lose money (because a ton of people who don't care about stock prices would suffer even more), but come on.

SkunkWorks

04-05-2019, 05:09 AM

Brutal. Got goosebumps reading through the flight recorder transcript.

All the internet armchair pilots scoffing and blaming it on the "third world crew" need to eat their words.

hud 91gt

04-05-2019, 06:56 AM

Scary. Very scary.

In these crashes the MCAS (automatic trim) was pushing the nose forward excessively and the pilots could not reverse it. They were pulling back on the controls that were fighting them with more than 100lbs of force. It was so much force, and the aircraft was at such a speed and accelerating in a dive, that they could not manually re-trim the aircraft to regain control. They were being aerodynamically overpowered. They actually turned the MCAS system back on in hopes of that allowing their manual nose-up trim inputs through the system to work. MCAS reacted to its bad sensor input and pushed the nose forward even more. The pilots had no way of regaining control of the aircraft despite going above and beyond the recommended emergency procedures for the situation. Hope this helps your understanding.

The first lawsuit against Boeing and the FAA was filed in the US today. I expect many more to follow, they are going to win.

RIP to all the victims, those pilots fought hard.

From your understanding, it sounds like the manual trim was still operational, just not successful in correcting the situation. I haven’t actually read the whole report yet, but “confirmed that the manual trim was not working” makes me believe it was innopriative. There is obviously a huge difference between the two.

For those who don’t quite understand.
1) the manual trim still works, but the aircraft is in such a state it cannot be recovered quickly enough. This could have been remedied by quicker action of the cutout switches, stopping the erratic trim operation earlier on, hoping the aircraft is in a decent state.
2) the manual trim is no longer operative. The aircraft lost that control input completely.

Big difference. If you look at the data analysis of the “trim indiciation”, there is a huge flat spot where it is stated the manual trim is not working. You would think, even a little turn of the manual trim would be indicated. It also does not state the cutoff switches were returned to normal, but the data shows electric manual and the MCAS were used after. Not a lot of info in the report.

hud 91gt

04-05-2019, 08:47 AM

Boeing takes the blame.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/04/04/ethiopia-plane-crash-boeing/3361880002/

GabAlmighty

04-05-2019, 09:01 AM

Well, i'll be the first to admit that this didn't play out the way I foresaw it.

Scary stuff. Very scary...

I think i'm going to stick to my smaller/bush planes for a little while longer haha. At least there it's all on me.

Nlkko

04-05-2019, 11:17 AM

Man they had just over a minute from the report to do everything they can and they did and still wasn't enough.

JD¹³

04-05-2019, 12:50 PM

From your understanding, it sounds like the manual trim was still operational, just not successful in correcting the situation. I haven’t actually read the whole report yet, but “confirmed that the manual trim was not working” makes me believe it was innopriative. There is obviously a huge difference between the two.

For those who don’t quite understand.
1) the manual trim still works, but the aircraft is in such a state it cannot be recovered quickly enough. This could have been remedied by quicker action of the cutout switches, stopping the erratic trim operation earlier on, hoping the aircraft is in a decent state.
2) the manual trim is no longer operative. The aircraft lost that control input completely.

Big difference. If you look at the data analysis of the “trim indiciation”, there is a huge flat spot where it is stated the manual trim is not working. You would think, even a little turn of the manual trim would be indicated. It also does not state the cutoff switches were returned to normal, but the data shows electric manual and the MCAS were used after. Not a lot of info in the report.
It's still a bit gray. From what I saw/read the use of the manual trim was ineffective and they pointed to the aircraft's speed and heavy pilot input on the controls as limiting the ability of the manual trim, so they turned MCAS back on in hopes that it would give more authority to their trim inputs in order to recover. Didn't specifically say 'not operational'. Obviously with MCAS having a single point of failure flaw in its design it just made the situation worse and put them in to a steeper dive. It alluded to Scenario 1 but until ALL data is released the exact chain of events is still speculative.

GabAlmighty

04-05-2019, 02:30 PM

I'm curious if a full fly by wire system would have allowed them to put in the correct amount of control input. Or if the plane would essentially stop them from over g'ing the plane... I know that fly by wire pushes back on the pilot to give the "sensation" of control forces, I wonder how strong the system is able to push back against the pilot.

Regardless I know I wouldn't be comfortable flying a plane where I couldn't 100% manually control and make it do what I want it to do when shit hits the fan.

Sounds like a question I'm going to ask in ground school one day haha.

hud 91gt

04-05-2019, 04:05 PM

You can easily G these things out. I see it all the time recovering from unusual attitudes in the sim. The odd acrobatic maneuver does it too.... when they do it wrong. Not that I’ve never screwed up :badpokerface:

After reading the report, there is certainly lots of holes and missing information. Interesting things I’d like to know is if the FDR actually record the action of the cutoff switch. If you notice in the report, it is a verbal confirmation. Whether the FDR records manual trim input. These two things would tell a lot more of the story.

hud 91gt

09-21-2019, 11:10 AM

Infiniti

09-21-2019, 01:33 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/magazine/boeing-737-max-crashes.html

Excellent article, it took me a good 30 minutes to read, but I suggest anyone who was interested in this accident give it a long thorough read. Long story short, it goes back to our initial thoughts on the crews performance and decades of industry cost cutting, industry expansion and lack of due diligence.

Not to sound alarmist and I do implore you to take this with a grain of salt, but this is why I avoid on trips to Asia, when possible, certain carriers. Its gotten to the point where you are playing roulette with your life on specific airlines. Pilots for these companies have low levels of airmanship and overly rely on automated systems. When shit hits the fan, these guys are not the types of pilots you want flying the aircraft manually. Look no further than the Asiana crash in SFO.

nah

09-21-2019, 11:28 PM

Not to sound alarmist and I do implore you to take this with a grain of salt, but this is why I avoid on trips to Asia, when possible, certain carriers. Its gotten to the point where you are playing roulette with your life on specific airlines. Pilots for these companies have low levels of airmanship and overly rely on automated systems. When shit hits the fan, these guys are not the types of pilots you want flying the aircraft manually. Look no further than the Asiana crash in SFO.

It's true, you get what you pay for. Air Asia is another low cost airline that has their own training academy. They however do fly A320s that according to this article is more forgiving to lack of pilot skills.

twitchyzero

09-21-2019, 11:51 PM

which ones to avoid?

air asia, lion air, allegiant air, ryanair

the 30 min $25 flight i flew in africa seemed okay LUL

nah

09-22-2019, 08:18 PM

which ones to avoid?

air asia, lion air, allegiant air, ryanair

the 30 min $25 flight i flew in africa seemed okay LUL

I think the stat is like 1 in 300 million to die in a plane crash. It's just your chances go up quite a bit to maybe 1 in 50 million with an airline that doesn't have the best safety records.

danned

09-22-2019, 09:33 PM

you can't avoid
if you have to die, you have to die

whitev70r

09-22-2019, 09:52 PM

hud 91gt

09-23-2019, 06:43 AM

Media, politics, lack of due diligence from oversight like the FAA. It opened a can full of worms. There are issues with the aircraft. Fact of the matter is, the issues with the aircraft still being grounded are issues related to the 737 as a whole, not just the max. Some articles I’ve read in the past 6 months state Airbus has similar issues, it’s not grounded because it did not crash.

In reality it does seem to lack some detail regarding the faults with the aircraft, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this was a Boeing Funded article, it brings up some really valid points.

Infiniti

09-23-2019, 03:08 PM

you can't avoid
if you have to die, you have to die

This isn't one of the movies from the Final Destination series

welfare

09-23-2019, 04:35 PM

Well there are some who believe it's predestined.

Infiniti

09-23-2019, 05:52 PM

Well there are some who believe it's predestined.

Nice avatar

Rallydrv

09-24-2019, 11:29 AM

why the hell these lcc still flying max 8. Booked my flight from bkk-nrt in dec. didn't realize then, plane is max 8. :heckno:

gonna update my will.

hud 91gt

09-24-2019, 11:57 AM

hud 91gt

09-24-2019, 11:58 AM

why the hell these lcc still flying max 8. Booked my flight from bkk-nrt in dec. didn't realize then, plane is max 8. :heckno:

gonna update my will.

I’m about 99.9% sure Boeing grounded the aircraft worldwide. They probably have not updated their system to reflect the change. The odd bird is out flying, but non with passengers onboard.

Hondaracer

09-24-2019, 12:45 PM

Jmac

09-24-2019, 01:27 PM

Another great article... another great longgg article. This time more of a hit on Boeing.

https://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/2019/09/23/crash-course-how-boeings-managerial-revolution-created-the-737-max-disaster/
And people think autonomous cars will be the norm in the near future.

The average person has no idea the kind of fire they’re playing with when it comes to automation.

HonestTea

09-24-2019, 01:28 PM

hud_91gt posted this article https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/magazine/boeing-737-max-crashes.html

Great read!

Infiniti

09-24-2019, 03:30 PM

And people think autonomous cars will be the norm in the near future.

The average person has no idea the kind of fire they’re playing with when it comes to automation.

To be fair, comparing self-driving cars to fully automated aircraft is not a proper comparison due to the complexities of aviation. There are so many other factors at play in aircrafts compared to automobiles.

hud 91gt

09-24-2019, 07:55 PM

To be fair, comparing self-driving cars to fully automated aircraft is not a proper comparison due to the complexities of aviation. There are so many other factors at play in aircrafts compared to automobiles.

Except pedestrians and dogs! Lol

nah

09-24-2019, 08:00 PM

Whether that article is bias or not hopefully these crashes may result in pilots realizing they need more “airmanship” or whatever it’s called there.

Kinda scary to think some pilots literally fly on auto pilot (both literal and physical) for most of their career. Need dem Sully’s?

The only thing needing manual intervention is take off and landing. If you want to compliment a pilot, say good landing as that requires skill for a good landing.

I was on a flight once where a junior was landing the plane and as it was approaching, the pilot forcefully made the plane come down with a bang. That was not a pleasant landing. Been in too many rough landings that I hate the approach now.

Hondaracer

09-24-2019, 08:13 PM

The last two flights I was on, west jets 787 to Dublin and Transat A330 from London Gatwick were both two of the smoothest landings I’ve felt. Especially the A330 back in YVR, it was like butter

nah

09-24-2019, 08:24 PM

Look at these scary ass landings...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xpH6BQyWwk

hud 91gt

09-25-2019, 06:46 AM

The only thing needing manual intervention is take off and landing. If you want to compliment a pilot, say good landing as that requires skill for a good landing.

I was on a flight once where a junior was landing the plane and as it was approaching, the pilot forcefully made the plane come down with a bang. That was not a pleasant landing. Been in too many rough landings that I hate the approach now.

Although a pilot would always appreciate a “nice landing” comment, and the rough ones that happen once in a while make one want to hide behind their hat. It has no merit on the pilots overall skill. Landing are generally manually flown. Every pilot under the sun repeats this process. Some are good at it, some aren’t great. Although there can be a relationship between a pilots landings and hand eye cowardination, it is a bit far fetched to label one a “good or bad pilot” based on their landing.

A good pilot will be skilled with their hands and feet, as well as extremely knowledgeable in their trade. Being prepared for every circumstance they can think of is much more important then the greaser at the end of the day.

hud 91gt

09-25-2019, 07:23 AM

...and to continue that point. A lot of the “greasers” are probably less safe then a nice firm touchdown that you experienced the prior leg. A lot of pilots will try very hard to grease it on, and by doing this float down the runway a few inches from the pavement waiting for the tires to spin up and the oleos to start compressing. Eating up precious pavement. A good example is military pilots (especially the fighter guys). I’ve flown with more fighter pilots which just smack it on like they were landing on an aircraft carrier. Absolutely nothing wrong with it. The plane is meant to take the hit. More important is they put the airplane on the pavement where they wanted, with plenty of room to stop.

yray

09-25-2019, 08:29 AM

website says max8, plane shows up is a 733 :troll:

if its raining, you want the pilot to smash it in :lol

StylinRed

12-16-2019, 05:49 PM

So FAA knew the Max would have a high rate of crashes in its lifetime, after the first crash, but still allowed the Max to operate, until the second crash. Which they now call a "mistake"

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50750746

whitev70r

12-16-2019, 06:57 PM

I don't understand what the hell is taking so long to fix the 737's ... I mean if it is hardware, change the damn sensor/part. If it is software, surely, someone has the right coding now.

yray

12-16-2019, 07:19 PM

I don't understand what the hell is taking so long to fix the 737's ... I mean if it is hardware, change the damn sensor/part. If it is software, surely, someone has the right coding now.

its physically fucked, they thought software could've fixed it but nope...

kinda like diesel gate and how all the TDI got the massive detuned after the fix

belka

12-17-2019, 04:02 AM

blkgsr

12-17-2019, 06:04 AM

did i see a news prompt that Boeing is stopping production of the MAX in January?

so they're still making them after all this?? lol

Hondaracer

12-17-2019, 06:57 AM

They’ve got a tonne of orders from recent displays like Dubai air show etc.

However they are being branded as the -8 and -9 instead of max to the carriers

hud 91gt

12-17-2019, 07:58 AM

They’ve been making them because they figure it would be a quick fix. This is the first “uhoh” this could be a while moment I’ve seen. Or they are just running out of
Room to park the things. Haha. The more they build, the more money coming in as soon as they are flying again. Keep the workers working, stopping production would be a nightmare.

blkgsr

12-17-2019, 08:44 AM

whitev70r

12-17-2019, 09:15 AM

The MCAS software was fixed months ago..

So what's the hold up, then?

Hondaracer

12-17-2019, 09:26 AM

if the carriers are still buying them/not cancelling contracts, then sure why not keep building them

just surprised some the carriers haven't taken this as an opportunity to end their purchase contracts

Dubai air show was only two weeks ago and I’m pretty sure I watched some videos saying there were like, hundreds of additional orders there

I’d say the worst case scenario for these hold ups is if the issue is mechanical. Then you’re going to have this whole grounded fleet needing to be retro fit on site

hud 91gt

12-17-2019, 09:37 AM

They are years behind on orders. Need to keep making them, which is why stopping production is such a massive headline. It’s not easy to get out of the purchase contracts. The carrot dangling “were very close, only a few months away,” makes any large decision like a fleet change a huuuge decision. If they said it was going to be 1.5 years+, things would have been completely different.

This is all about everyone covering there own asses now. No one wants to be liable, this take a ton of time.

PiuYi

12-17-2019, 09:56 AM

I don't understand what the hell is taking so long to fix the 737's ... I mean if it is hardware, change the damn sensor/part. If it is software, surely, someone has the right coding now.

With aviation there's so much testing and certifying involved in every system, code, part, down to each rivet. A 99.99% reliability rate on the MCAS would still be the equivalent of a crash a day. That's what makes planes so expensive, making them "aviation-grade"

roastpuff

12-17-2019, 01:02 PM

From what I read, while fixing the MCAS they found more software bugs, and are fixing those and getting the fix certified.

Software development... 99 bugs on the wall, 99 bugs, squash one, pass it around, 127 bugs on the wall!

JD¹³

12-17-2019, 01:47 PM

Boeing has been forced to halt production because they no longer have anywhere to store the jets. Boeing field and portions of Seatac are FULL of them. I think I heard the number that inside/outside Boeing there are something like 200 jets that are complete but can't be delivered because they can't be flown out, even to paint. There's literally nowhere else to house all the aircraft, they're even in the car parking lots now. The MCAS investigation opened a can of worms within Boeing and numerous issues with the aircraft have been unearthed. Until they're all resolved and the aircraft are ungrounded and can start clearing out Boeing's production will be shut down.

https://i.imgur.com/kuUEdYo.jpg

Hehe

12-17-2019, 06:02 PM

I am just waiting for BA to dip below 300. :fuckthatshit:

I suspect it's when the whole shitshow is going to end, including the compensation to families... etc

StylinRed

12-19-2020, 02:08 PM

So you guys may e heard that the max was cleared for use again in the USA and Brazil has an airline flying em again, but here's another recent bit o news

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55372499

Boeing 'inappropriately coached' pilots during 737 Max recertification, U.S. Senate report says

Report says officials attempted to cover up information that may have contributed to fatal crashes
Thomson Reuters · Posted: Dec 18, 2020 8:55 PM ET | Last Updated: December 18
Boeing officials "inappropriately coached" test pilots during recertification efforts after two fatal 737 Max crashes, according to a lengthy U.S. government report released on Friday.

The report from the Senate commerce committee said testing of a key safety system known as MCAS tied to both fatal crashes was contrary to proper protocol.

The committee concluded Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Boeing officials "had established a pre-determined outcome to reaffirm a long-held human factor assumption related to pilot reaction time.... It appears, in this instance, FAA and Boeing were attempting to cover up important information that may have contributed to the 737 Max tragedies."

All Max planes were grounded worldwide after crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia killed a total of 346 people in October 2018 and March 2019, respectively. Last month, the FAA approved the 737 Max's return to service, and flights have resumed in Brazil. The first U.S. 737 Max commercial flight with paying passengers is set for Dec. 29.

According to a whistleblower who was an FAA safety inspector, Boeing representatives watched and gave advice to help test pilots in a flight simulator respond to a nose-down pitch of the plane in a few seconds. The reaction of three flight crews was still slower than Boeing had assumed, according to the report. Each time the plane would have been thrown into a nose-down pitch, although recovery would have been possible, the investigators said.

In the two Max crashes, a failure of the MCAS pushed the nose down repeatedly, sending the planes into fatal dives.

The FAA countered that it was an FAA pilot who discovered a separate computer issue in the plane, a flaw that took Boeing additional months to fix.

Investigators also said an FAA division manager was first invited, then excluded from a review of the Max crashes even though his position normally would call for him to participate in the review. The official said he believes he was excluded to shield the FAA from criticism.

Numerous reports have found Boeing failed to adequately consider how pilots respond to cockpit emergencies in its development of the 737 Max.

Boeing said Friday it takes "seriously the committee's findings and will continue to review the report in full."The FAA said Friday it was "carefully reviewing the document, which the committee acknowledges contains a number of unsubstantiated allegations."

The agency added that it is "confident that the safety issues that played a role in the tragic [737 Max] accidents involving Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 have been addressed through the design changes required and independently approved by the FAA and its partners."

'Lapses in aviation safety oversight'
Senate commerce committee chair Roger Wicker said the report "details a number of significant examples of lapses in aviation safety oversight and failed leadership in the FAA."

The committee also said "multiple independent whistleblowers contacted the committee to allege FAA senior management was complicit in determining the 737 Max training certification level prior to any evaluation."

Boeing resisted requiring simulator training for pilots before operating the 737 Max but reversed course in January.

The report also noted Southwest Airlines was able to operate more than 150,000 flights carrying 17.2 million passengers on jets without confirmation that required maintenance had been completed.

The Senate report said the Southwest flights "put millions of passengers at potential risk." Southwest did not immediately comment. Southwest said Friday it was aware of the report and added "we do not tolerate any relaxing of standards that govern ultimate safety across our operation."

Victims' families tell MPs Boeing 737 Max should stay grounded for now
Boeing still faces an ongoing criminal probe into the Max. The committee said its review was "constrained due to the continued criminal investigation"

Last month, the Senate committee unanimously passed a bill to reform how FAA certifies new airplanes and grant new protections for whistleblowers, among other reforms, while the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously passed a similar bill.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/boeing-coached-pilots-737max-senate-report-1.5848305