Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi Q1 2019

musicrab · Mon Mar 11, 2019 8:56 am

It appears anybody can post on this thread now (thought it was paying subscribers only - explains the carp that's around). Anyway, video from the site. Contamination of site is terrible. And that is one big hole. I hope the black boxes are found ok.
https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2019/03/ ... -kills-157

Veigar · Mon Mar 11, 2019 8:56 am

tdlewis90 wrote:
What is most distressing is that these problems almost always end with the tragic loss of life. Case in point the DC-10, original 737's, De Havilland Comet, L-1011 etc etc

I do not think the L1011 can go in the same boat as the DC-10 and the Comet.

Starlionblue · Mon Mar 11, 2019 8:57 am

JoeCanuck wrote:
Finn350 wrote:
JoeCanuck wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, from what I recall of the flightradar24 plot, the aircraft didn't get much higher than 1000 -1500' agl. Would they have retracted the flaps that low?

FR24 has only first 3 minutes of the flight recorded, the rest of the flight was out of their coverage.

The pilots reported they had unreliable airspeed straight after the take-off, which might have resulted in the pilots retracting the flaps and MCAS to kick-in, with possibly faulty AoA data.

It seems odd to me that the pilots would retract flaps as a reaction to unreliable speed readings...especially so soon after takeoff. What is the standard or average flaps retraction altitude above ground level, on a typical flight?

Typically 800-1500 feet to start retracting, depending on type and the specific airport.

I can only speak for the A330/A350 but the unreliable airspeed procedure calls for flaps not to be touched unless we are at Flaps Full, in which case retract one notch.

JoeCanuck · Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:00 am

Starlionblue wrote:
JoeCanuck wrote:
Finn350 wrote:

FR24 has only first 3 minutes of the flight recorded, the rest of the flight was out of their coverage.

The pilots reported they had unreliable airspeed straight after the take-off, which might have resulted in the pilots retracting the flaps and MCAS to kick-in, with possibly faulty AoA data.

It seems odd to me that the pilots would retract flaps as a reaction to unreliable speed readings...especially so soon after takeoff. What is the standard or average flaps retraction altitude above ground level, on a typical flight?

Typically 800-1500 feet to start retracting, depending on type and the specific airport.

I can only speak for the A330/A350 but the unreliable airspeed procedure calls for flaps not to be touched unless we are at Flaps Full, in which case retract one notch.

Thanks. At what altitude would they, typically, be fully retracted?

sandyb123 · Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:01 am

akb88 wrote:
Actually to my dismay I just noticed that I'll most likely be on the Max!! https://info.flightmapper.net/flight/No ... =2019-4-18

I think the next 24 hours will be telling for the immediate MAX operations and operators, including the flight you are booked on.

If (and it is an if at this stage) EASA decides to ground the Boeing 737 MAX aircraft then this will be a tough gig for Norwegian. I have noted a number of public concerns posted to Norwegian over the weekend about the MAX aircraft. They only have 8 in service, but given their already tough trading it could hit their operations and financials hard if they have to ground 15% of their short haul fleet.

Sandyb123

Starlionblue · Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:01 am

JoeCanuck wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:
JoeCanuck wrote:

It seems odd to me that the pilots would retract flaps as a reaction to unreliable speed readings...especially so soon after takeoff. What is the standard or average flaps retraction altitude above ground level, on a typical flight?

Typically 800-1500 feet to start retracting, depending on type and the specific airport.

I can only speak for the A330/A350 but the unreliable airspeed procedure calls for flaps not to be touched unless we are at Flaps Full, in which case retract one notch.

Thanks. At what altitude would they, typically, be fully retracted?

Just as a total ballpark, 1000 feet above flap retraction altitude.

JQ321 · Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:02 am

meesh42 wrote:
JQ321 wrote:
Hopefully not related at all to the JT610 Crash . However, all 737MAX Aircraft should be grounded till the cause is determined as seen in these two crashes there may be a design flaw. My condolences to all affected.

100% agree, until the problem is found, ground all of them, its too small a gap in time to carry on flying them, as well as how popular the plane is at the moment

I mostly agree. However, maybe there isn't a problem with the aircraft so finding the cause would be better or maybe they'd have to search for a non-existent problem

StreetF117 · Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:04 am

Accidents are usually caused by a series of chain events and are usually prevented by an action breaking that chain. The main cause may be a technical failure or issue which is prevented by training.

The cause of this accident MAY be related to the MCAS system and may have be prevented on other occasions by training highlighted by the Emergency AD issued by the authorities. But these have not been widely reported by pilots flying the MAX. (Maybe because they cannot do so unless it is through a confidential reporting system)

Everything we do in life involves a calculated risk. If you are in control of that risk then people are usually happy but when you are NOT in control of that risk we hand that responsibility to better informed and knowledgable people.

keesje · Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:06 am

musicrab wrote:
It appears anybody can post on this thread now (thought it was paying subscribers only - explains the carp that's around). Anyway, video from the site. Contamination of site is terrible. And that is one big hole. I hope the black boxes are found ok.
https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2019/03/ ... -kills-157

The massive impact of the crash has created a 10-meter deep pit with 50 meters in diameter, aerial shot of the accident site shows.

Ethiopian Airlines has asked China Railway Seventh Group Co. Ltd., which was undertaking a China-invested project nearby, to pitch in the searching work as the area is difficult to access due to poor transportation condition.

By 15:30 local time, two excavators and a load truck have rallied at the site and the Ethiopian Federal Police (EPF) was there to maintain order.

Rescuers have been able to retrieve some remains of the aircraft's engine and wings by 20:00. The wreckage pieces were scattered in an area as large as 10,000 square meters because of the huge impact force, they said, adding that the excavation would go on overnight.

Looking at the flights speed & the impact, dead came quickly for the 157 victims.

Hopefully the in-flight data recorders survived. High energy impact with lots of fuel.

source: https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2019/03/10/ethiopian-airlines-plane-crash-no-survivors-vpx.cnn

outbackair · Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:10 am

TheDBCooper wrote:
jules48 wrote:
Another Max.Thats what happens when an airline rapidly expands and is in a country that is poverty stricken.Poor maintenance,pilot error or training.

Wow, just wow, please don't let your prejudices hold you back there.

Thoughts with those who have lost their lives on this flight.

Investigators and engineers are going to have to work quickly to find the cause.

Well said TheDBCooper! That prejudiced and very ignorant comment from 'jules48' is sadly far too common on A.net.

I worked on a project with ET and they were fantastic. Amazingly professional, both management and crew. Flew many flights up front with pilots and sooooo professional.

Training - lots of other airlines train with them. Modern simulators from twin GA up to 777/787, fleet of training aircraft.

As for engineering, 55 years of it, doing maintenance for many airlines. Read the following. https://newbusinessethiopia.com/ethiopi ... in-africa/

People, if you don't know about a country or it's people, don't bring your prejudices on here. You are simply showing yourself to be an ignorant bigot. Jules48 please note. Oh, and I felt 100% safe walking around Addis Ababa at night. Just saying.

Magog · Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:10 am

NWNightfly wrote:
Magog wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
I never want to see "So easy a child could fly it" in Boeing's marketing material...

I’d love to see that.

Not to inject too much levity into a somber discussion, but I can imagine some airlines would love to see that, too. They could dispense with their cockpit crews almost entirely, and just ask passengers at the gate for a show of hands as to who uses Prepar3D or X-Plane, then draw straws for who gets to be Captain and First Officer for that flight.

I’m not sure why sarcasm was warranted. My point is that making airplanes easier to fly is, in general, a good thing. Do you disagree?

armchairceonr1 · Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:11 am

Finn350 wrote:
LN-KGL wrote:
Can these problems with the 737Max danger Boeing's future?

No, as even if the 2nd crash is MCAS related, the issue can most likely be mitigated with a software fix. Everybody knows that basic 737 design is 50 years old, and age shows when new features are implemented..

What happen if possible problem cannot be fixed By software. I think that Boeing have very big problem then and it doesn't matter much how old original design is.

Francoflier · Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:15 am

musicrab wrote:
It appears anybody can post on this thread now (thought it was paying subscribers only - explains the carp that's around). Anyway, video from the site. Contamination of site is terrible. And that is one big hole. I hope the black boxes are found ok.
https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2019/03/ ... -kills-157

That hole is frighteningly deep.
This suggests a nose-first high speed dive, much like the Lionair accident, except without the 'luxury' of water to dampen the impact somewhat.

I'll be amazed if any bit of the aircraft survived intact, including the recorders... all that seems to be left at the scene is shrapnel.

Blotto · Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:22 am

Francoflier wrote:
I'll be amazed if any bit of the aircraft survived intact, including the recorders... all that seems to be left at the scene is shrapnel.

Remember the Germanwings crash. Also high speed impact, both FDR and CVR were recovered. I'd be surprised if they have been destroyed here

imthedreamliner · Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:27 am

As far as I know, there is a stall prevention system ( software ) on A320 as well. So such software solutions are common to ensure a stable aircraft, nothing new. If this software is not functioning properly, this is another story. Can anyone compare two systems on Max and 320 ?

nachopants · Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:42 am

I have been reading this thread like many of us day & night.

There's one thing I haven't seen considered.

If MCAS is about countering a "predicted stall" and the pilots were already reporting "air speed trouble" .... could it have kicked in purely because the plane though it was stalling, even though it wasn't, perhaps because of failing engines?

Starlionblue · Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:45 am

imthedreamliner wrote:
As far as I know, there is a stall prevention system ( software ) on A320 as well. So such software solutions are common to ensure a stable aircraft, nothing new. If this software is not functioning properly, this is another story. Can anyone compare two systems on Max and 320 ?

Rather dissimilar in my view. The A320 flight control system was built from the ground up with features such as stall prevention. Even today, the evolutions of that technology seen in the A380 and A350 have almost everything in common with the systems in the original A320.

Importantly, the software solutions in Airbus FBW are not ensuring a stable aircraft. The aircraft, like all airliners, are basically stable. The protections help pilots when they stray, inadvertently or not, to the edges of the flight envelope.

The 737Max protection systems were patched onto a cable and pulley architecture originating in an era where FBW was bleeding edge technology and nowhere close to mainstream. MCAS, in particular, seems like an unpredictable and unelegant solution.

log0008 · Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:51 am

nachopants wrote:
I have been reading this thread like many of us day & night.

There's one thing I haven't seen considered.

If MCAS is about countering a "predicted stall" and the pilots were already reporting "air speed trouble" .... could it have kicked in purely because the plane though it was stalling, even though it wasn't, perhaps because of failing engines?

If MCAS is involved it will definitely be because the aircraft thought it was stalling when it wasn't however this is most likely due to a failed Sensor which feeds the system.

WIederling · Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:53 am

imthedreamliner wrote:
As far as I know, there is a stall prevention system ( software ) on A320 as well. So such software solutions are common to ensure a stable aircraft, nothing new. If this software is not functioning properly, this is another story. Can anyone compare two systems on Max and 320 ?

For the A320 it is integral in the FBW system and highly redundant including a fall back path on (sensor) fault.
For the 737MAX it is a stuck on wart relying on a single input, no fault check, no fall back, no documentation.

AviationBob · Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:04 am

WIederling wrote:
imthedreamliner wrote:
As far as I know, there is a stall prevention system ( software ) on A320 as well. So such software solutions are common to ensure a stable aircraft, nothing new. If this software is not functioning properly, this is another story. Can anyone compare two systems on Max and 320 ?

For the A320 it is integral in the FBW system and highly redundant including a fall back path on (sensor) fault.
For the 737MAX it is a stuck on wart relying on a single input, no fault check, no fall back, no documentation.

The way you talk in such glowing terms about the A320 and then in such clearly disparaging terms about the 737 leads me to think you have an inherent bias and your overall statement can’t be trusted as rational or objective.

RickNRoll · Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:10 am

adnoguez wrote:
I’m socked. I’m not an airliner expert but I do work with some serious numbers. Two airplanes crashed at take off, both brand new 737MAX, that’s way beyond luck. It’s almost impossible by common statistics. Statistically they should ground 737 MaX, it’s a serious anomaly. I also undestand that we need more data to link issues; it’s a dilemma.

Statistics don't predict when an unlikely event will happen. You can have two one in one hundred year floods happen within a few years of each other.

trnswrld · Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:13 am

I still fail to see how an airplane can be flown into the ground in perfect VMC conditions....even IF there was unreliable speed, MCAS causing all sorts of issues...throw all that stuff in there. How in the heck can all that compile to an issue so bad that the airplane is completely uncontrollable? Do these systems literally take over the airplane the these pilots cant do anything to fly the airplane and they are sitting there just trying to diagnose computer issues?

nachopants · Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:16 am

The crater, just doesn't look spread/scattered either

It looks like that "3d render" of Lion air where it kind of pitches up, then falls rapidly and hits the ground at near "coming apart" speeds

I cry every time I think about it.

sandyb123 · Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:25 am

imthedreamliner wrote:
As far as I know, there is a stall prevention system ( software ) on A320 as well. So such software solutions are common to ensure a stable aircraft, nothing new. If this software is not functioning properly, this is another story. Can anyone compare two systems on Max and 320 ?

Yes this is correct, however the A320 has three sensors whereas the 737MAX has only two. If one starts to give erroneous data then the A320 has two others to fall back on whereas the 737MAX FMC has to decide which one to believe. I understand that the problem potentially here is that the system may 'fight back' on corrective pilot inputs on the 737MAX whereas the A320 will switch to 'alternate law' if it doesn't understand the data it is getting, effectively handing full control to the pilots.

Conjecture alert... Boeing, I am sure in good faith, has tried to retrofit automation within the physical limitations of an older design, but this has potentially created an Achilles Heal. That, compounded with a 'systems know best' approach to the logic is dangerous if true, in my opinion.

In summary it's a subtle but potentially significant difference in the coding of the systems.

Sandyb123

Aviation737 · Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:26 am

Did the investigators of the lion air crash confirmed that the crash was caused by the MCAS malfunctioning?

michi · Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:26 am

To me it looks like the crash site is located here:

8°52'38.04"N 39°15'4.28"E

This is approximatley 18NM to the southeast of the last FR24 data point.

I have looked at different pictures and videos of the crash site. The Street pattern, the small canyon or ravine and the hill with trees in the background match.

FabDiva · Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:28 am

AviationBob wrote:
WIederling wrote:
imthedreamliner wrote:
As far as I know, there is a stall prevention system ( software ) on A320 as well. So such software solutions are common to ensure a stable aircraft, nothing new. If this software is not functioning properly, this is another story. Can anyone compare two systems on Max and 320 ?

For the A320 it is integral in the FBW system and highly redundant including a fall back path on (sensor) fault.
For the 737MAX it is a stuck on wart relying on a single input, no fault check, no fall back, no documentation.

The way you talk in such glowing terms about the A320 and then in such clearly disparaging terms about the 737 leads me to think you have an inherent bias and your overall statement can’t be trusted as rational or objective.

Uneducated, but my understanding the A320 was designed with these systems from the start, they are documented and pilots are trained accordingly (see also the FBW 777 and 787 to remove any Airbus Bias). The 73Max system is a retrofit to an existing design with the intention to minimise the changes needed to certification, training and ratings from the previous NG models.

mjoelnir · Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:30 am

[threeid][/threeid]

Finn350 wrote:
Here is a FlightGlobal article that is quite relevant regarding the training changes since Lion Air crash. For some reason, the software update schedule has been delayed (estimated to be available last December in 8 weeks)
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... so-454255/

This article makes two things clear:

One: American Airlines pilots got additional training after the Lion Air accident, training that was not deemed necessary before.

Two: The checklist regarding runaway trim, did not include all MCAS behavior before the Lion air crash. Those information were included first in a 9 of November fleet bulletin at AA.

Richard28 · Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:32 am

reports are coming in that one of the Black Boxes has now been recovered - don't know which one.

RickNRoll · Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:32 am

Francoflier wrote:
musicrab wrote:
It appears anybody can post on this thread now (thought it was paying subscribers only - explains the carp that's around). Anyway, video from the site. Contamination of site is terrible. And that is one big hole. I hope the black boxes are found ok.
https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2019/03/ ... -kills-157

That hole is frighteningly deep.
This suggests a nose-first high speed dive, much like the Lionair accident, except without the 'luxury' of water to dampen the impact somewhat.

I'll be amazed if any bit of the aircraft survived intact, including the recorders... all that seems to be left at the scene is shrapnel.

There is no difference between hitting a brick wall and water at that speed. The only difference is the water will cover up the impact.

Starlionblue · Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:34 am

trnswrld wrote:
I still fail to see how an airplane can be flown into the ground in perfect VMC conditions....even IF there was unreliable speed, MCAS causing all sorts of issues...throw all that stuff in there. How in the heck can all that compile to an issue so bad that the airplane is completely uncontrollable? Do these systems literally take over the airplane the these pilots cant do anything to fly the airplane and they are sitting there just trying to diagnose computer issues?

That's not even remotely how it works. In all modern airliners, mode awareness is key. Know what the aircraft is doing, and what it means.

AviationBob wrote:
WIederling wrote:
imthedreamliner wrote:
As far as I know, there is a stall prevention system ( software ) on A320 as well. So such software solutions are common to ensure a stable aircraft, nothing new. If this software is not functioning properly, this is another story. Can anyone compare two systems on Max and 320 ?

For the A320 it is integral in the FBW system and highly redundant including a fall back path on (sensor) fault.
For the 737MAX it is a stuck on wart relying on a single input, no fault check, no fall back, no documentation.

The way you talk in such glowing terms about the A320 and then in such clearly disparaging terms about the 737 leads me to think you have an inherent bias and your overall statement can’t be trusted as rational or objective.

Sometimes one design is just better. IMHO, the statement by Mr WIederling is factual.

sandyb123 wrote:
imthedreamliner wrote:
As far as I know, there is a stall prevention system ( software ) on A320 as well. So such software solutions are common to ensure a stable aircraft, nothing new. If this software is not functioning properly, this is another story. Can anyone compare two systems on Max and 320 ?

Yes this is correct, however the A320 has three sensors whereas the 737MAX has only two. If one starts to give erroneous data then the A320 has two others to fall back on whereas the 737MAX FMC has to decide which one to believe. I understand that the problem potentially here is that the system may 'fight back' on corrective pilot inputs on the 737MAX whereas the A320 will switch to 'alternate law' if it doesn't understand the data it is getting, effectively handing full control to the pilots.

Conjecture alert... Boeing, I am sure in good faith, has tried to retrofit automation within the physical limitations of an older design, but this has potentially created an Achilles Heal. That, compounded with a 'systems know best' approach to the logic is dangerous if true, in my opinion.

In summary it's a subtle but potentially significant difference in the coding of the systems.

Sandyb123

Well put.

Richard28 · Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:38 am

Richard28 wrote:
reports are coming in that one of the Black Boxes has now been recovered - don't know which one.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-47521744

FabDiva · Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:49 am

BBC reporting CVR has been recovered

flyingturtle · Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:51 am

acechip wrote:
On a related note, here is a question. What if the temporary fix was to restrict the engine thrust a bit? Would it prevent the nose up attitude and minimise the tendencies of MCAS kicking in ? (Apart from this not being in line with the payload/range considerations of the airplane design etc)

The problem is not thrust, it's the size and placement of the engine cowling. In high angles of attack (about 14 degrees), the engines cause quite a lot of lift. Which makes the plane less controllable.

David

trnswrld · Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:54 am

Starlionblue wrote:
trnswrld wrote:
I still fail to see how an airplane can be flown into the ground in perfect VMC conditions....even IF there was unreliable speed, MCAS causing all sorts of issues...throw all that stuff in there. How in the heck can all that compile to an issue so bad that the airplane is completely uncontrollable? Do these systems literally take over the airplane the these pilots cant do anything to fly the airplane and they are sitting there just trying to diagnose computer issues?

That's not even remotely how it works. In all modern airliners, mode awareness is key. Know what the aircraft is doing, and what it means.

Ok understood, but I guess what is throwing me off is what is stopping the pilots from literally just flying the aircraft? they have all the visual references in the world....its day light, its clear. Will the aircraft not respond to control column inputs?

log0008 · Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:54 am

michi wrote:
To me it looks like the crash site is located here:

8°52'38.04"N 39°15'4.28"E

This is approximatley 18NM to the southeast of the last FR24 data point.

I have looked at different pictures and videos of the crash site. The Street pattern, the small canyon or ravine and the hill with trees in the background match.

Very well done sir, I agree

qf789 · Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:59 am

Both black boxes have been found

https://twitter.com/flyethiopian/status ... 75424?s=21

Magog · Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:00 am

LAX772LR wrote:
RB211trent wrote:
then to read after two seemingly similar fatal accidents on the 737MAX people believe grounding is jumping the gun. Unbelievable.

What's unbelievable is such idiotic levels of assumption are taken even remotely seriously.

Repeat after me:
You... Don't... Yet... Know... What... Caused... This... Crash.

You can't even say what the primary contribution (human, mechanical, aeronatical, combination) was on the most *basic* level, yet.

But you want to ground a worldwide fleet?

Now that nearly one-third of the fleet has been grounded, this post has not aged well.

keesje · Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:00 am

Richard28 wrote:
Richard28 wrote:
reports are coming in that one of the Black Boxes has now been recovered - don't know which one.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-47521744

The flight data recorders are designed to withstand crashes & fires. That doesn't mean they always come out undamaged. It guess in this case the FDR and CVR will have survived, be found quickly & send to a specialized lab, possibly in Europe, asap.

musicrab · Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:08 am

log0008 wrote:
michi wrote:
To me it looks like the crash site is located here:

8°52'38.04"N 39°15'4.28"E

This is approximatley 18NM to the southeast of the last FR24 data point.

I have looked at different pictures and videos of the crash site. The Street pattern, the small canyon or ravine and the hill with trees in the background match.

Very well done sir, I agree

Great piece of investigative work there!

FabDiva · Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:12 am

FDR has now been found (CVR was found earlier this am)

michi · Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:14 am

log0008 wrote:

Very well done sir, I agree

Thanks for adding the pictures.

The hill to the east is 8772ft MSL. Otherwise they have been in an area with relatively flat terrain (less than 8000ft MSL). Only a few mountains up to 8772ft MSL are in that area southeast of the AD, with the exception of one 100072ft mountain which they already cleared according to the FR24 data.

As the impact crater is more or less southbound, they might have been in a right turn for downwind. For some still unknown reason they did not make it that far.

The crash site itself appears to be at an elevation of 7873ft MSL.

MikeAlpha95 · Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:18 am

According to CNN

"Gebeyehu Fikadu, an eyewitness to Sunday's fatal crash about two-hour drive south of the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa, told CNN that the plane was "swerving and dipping" and belching smoke as it came down.

"I was in the mountain nearby when I saw the plane reach the mountain before turning around with a lot of smoke coming from the back and then crashed at this site," said the 25-year-old, who was collecting firewood on the mountain with three other locals when it happened.

"It crashed with a large boom. When it crashed luggage and clothes came burning down.

"Before it crashed the plane was swerving and dipping with a lot of smoke coming from the back and also making a very loud unpleasant sound before hitting the ground."

All 157 people on board the flight died in the accident."

bralo20 · Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:18 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
Would you have grounded the 757 after three fatal accidents in 1996? Or how about the A320 after the Air Inter crash?

No one knows why the Lion Air or Ethiopian planes crashed.

Actually yes, but I wouldn't ground every single plane initially. I would search for the common denominator between the 2 crashed planes. Both planes are of the "newer" ones delivered by Boeing. I would look which parts have both planes in common (yes they do have virtually every part in common but I mean on a deeper level). Look for the serial numbers, batch numbers, etc... of the systems installed on the planes, if both planes have one or more systems (or specific software version) that are from the same batch then I would search for the same in the other produced planes, if one of those other planes have something in common with the 2 crashed ones I would ground those specific planes and not ever single one of them.

Boeing makes great planes, so does Airbus, Bombardier, Embraer and many other manufacturers but every single manufacturer relies on part manufacturers and software developers, they also rely on people to put the planes together. So despite the superior quality we all like to believe manufacturer A to Z creates there is always a possibility that something is wrong wetter it's a part that will malfunction after x amount of time or a bug in the coding that only appears in certain cases.

We have now seen 2 relatively similar crashes of virtually brand new planes, I think it's time for Boeing, the FAA, EASA, NTSB, BEA, AAIB, etc... (whatever agency involved) to dig deep and quick and if necessary ground certain planes. With the computers we have today it should be reasonably easy to find out of both planes have something specific in common and then check of other planes are involved as well and start with those planes, even (partly) disassemble one if necessary and get the parts (if any parts are involved) to test them thoroughly to see in which condition a failure might appear.

I think that *might* be a good way to start without causing a massive grounding of every single MAX plane build. Just thinking out loud

ExperimentalFTE · Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:19 am

flyingturtle wrote:
acechip wrote:
On a related note, here is a question. What if the temporary fix was to restrict the engine thrust a bit? Would it prevent the nose up attitude and minimise the tendencies of MCAS kicking in ? (Apart from this not being in line with the payload/range considerations of the airplane design etc)

The problem is not thrust, it's the size and placement of the engine cowling. In high angles of attack (about 14 degrees), the engines cause quite a lot of lift. Which makes the plane less controllable.

David

You are partially correct, but the problem is thrust as well and "pitch up" induced by it in low speed scenarios close to and around stall speeds, ie go-around, power on stall and recovery, etc

Reffering back to my previous post regarding 25.1309 cert requirements, as my buddy would put it, situation can best be described as: "STAND BY FOR G"

LTC8K6 · Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:20 am

MikeAlpha95 wrote:
According to CNN

"Gebeyehu Fikadu, an eyewitness to Sunday's fatal crash about two-hour drive south of the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa, told CNN that the plane was "swerving and dipping" and belching smoke as it came down.

"I was in the mountain nearby when I saw the plane reach the mountain before turning around with a lot of smoke coming from the back and then crashed at this site," said the 25-year-old, who was collecting firewood on the mountain with three other locals when it happened.

"It crashed with a large boom. When it crashed luggage and clothes came burning down.

"Before it crashed the plane was swerving and dipping with a lot of smoke coming from the back and also making a very loud unpleasant sound before hitting the ground."

All 157 people on board the flight died in the accident."

Not sure what it's worth, but it's certainly a specific description.

Buyantukhaa · Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:28 am

michi wrote:
To me it looks like the crash site is located here:

8°52'38.04"N 39°15'4.28"E

This is approximatley 18NM to the southeast of the last FR24 data point.

I have looked at different pictures and videos of the crash site. The Street pattern, the small canyon or ravine and the hill with trees in the background match.

Well spotted! How did you find that? That puts it almost 30 km ENE of Bishoftu, which makes it less likely that they were trying to land Bishoftu air base (possible still, but not that obvious anymore).
This is 20 km (as the crow flies) from the last ADS-B data point, whereas from ADD to the last ADS-B point is just under 40 km. The crash site is 51 km from ADD as the crow flies (assuming the FR24 contributor is located near ADD), and it would seem unlikely that the ADS-B data would suddenly cut out because of the aircraft flying out of range - unless it flew so low that terrain blocked the signal. From the last FR24 data point until the last transponder point on avh, the highest point is 8300ft ASL, then relatively flat, descending to 7600ft where the plane likely turned south.

From the last data point till crash would still have taken about 2 minutes. The Lion Air scenario would see the plane powered and all electrical systems powered until impact. If ADS-B data was lost because of terrain blocking the signal, then it *might* be the same as Lion Air (at least it cannot be ruled out at this stage). If ADS-B stopped because of power being lost/cut, then we're more likely at something else.

edu2703 · Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:30 am

MikeAlpha95 wrote:
According to CNN

"Gebeyehu Fikadu, an eyewitness to Sunday's fatal crash about two-hour drive south of the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa, told CNN that the plane was "swerving and dipping" and belching smoke as it came down.

"I was in the mountain nearby when I saw the plane reach the mountain before turning around with a lot of smoke coming from the back and then crashed at this site," said the 25-year-old

"Before it crashed the plane was swerving and dipping with a lot of smoke coming from the back and also making a very loud unpleasant sound before hitting the ground."

In any air accident, there is always an eyewitness who reports having seen fire or smoke from the aircraft.

Of course we should not disregard it completely, but reports of fire or smoke are something that air crash investigators are already expecting to hear from eyewitnesses and usually are not true.

osupoke07 · Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:35 am

musicrab wrote:
(thought it was paying subscribers only - explains the carp that's around)

That changed a long time ago when they updated the forum software.

MikeAlpha95 · Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:39 am

edu2703 wrote:
MikeAlpha95 wrote:
According to CNN

"Gebeyehu Fikadu, an eyewitness to Sunday's fatal crash about two-hour drive south of the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa, told CNN that the plane was "swerving and dipping" and belching smoke as it came down.

"I was in the mountain nearby when I saw the plane reach the mountain before turning around with a lot of smoke coming from the back and then crashed at this site," said the 25-year-old

"Before it crashed the plane was swerving and dipping with a lot of smoke coming from the back and also making a very loud unpleasant sound before hitting the ground."

In any air accident, there is always an eyewitness who reports having seen fire or smoke from the aircraft.

Of course we should not disregard it completely, but reports of fire or smoke are something that air crash investigators are already expecting to hear from eyewitnesses and usually are not true.

Yes of course. But maybe it's true. I will start my TR on the NG/MAX in a few months and so it would be nice if there was not a general problem with the Max.
First Job and also less than 250h.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net