maint123
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 4:18 pm

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:57 am

trpmb6 wrote:
dwachdorf wrote:
Dumb Question (And forgot my ignorance, I'm not an aviation expert) - Why doesn't Boeing just disable MCAS? Is it really necessary? Can you just train pilots on how to deal with the nose up pitch? Seems like the kind of things pilots would naturally want to counter-act.


It is required to maintain proper stability and control characteristics in certain conditions. It was required to make the aircraft certifiable.

Have seen this before but in a non aerospace sector.
We had a high speed crane with a span of 30 m and a speed of 5 m/s, as compared to 1 m/s of normal cranes. With a frequency of 2 reversing operations per min. The drive was controlled by 2 independent AC motors, with one motor trying to match the speed of the other through a drive based system. This put so much stress on the crane body that it sagged and twisted and required constant maintenance. The mechanical shortcomings were being compensated by the drive (trying), but when the speeds didn't match, the couplings, shafts, would shear, etc. Our learning was that a inherently unstable mechanical system requires too much electrical/control attention to perform reliably. And at a certain point it fails.
Now before ppl here start giving egs of fighter jets which are deliberately made unstable to assist in response, compare the masses of the 2 planes - a fighter jet vs passenger plane.
My take away is that the max performs OK till some mechanical fault develops and then the control algorithms are unable to save this inherently unstable design.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 14897
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:58 am

Moose135 wrote:
United1 wrote:
Sky News is reporting Boeing is going to be pushing a software update for the MCAS in the next few weeks. It way to early for anyone (even Boeing) to know what caused the crash but if it was MCAS related hopefully this fixes it.

This update has been in the works since the Lion Air crash, it isn't a direct response to this ET crash.

My guess would be a logic upgrade to MCAS + requiring all MAX to be built with/retrofitted with AoA mismatch warnings (no longer optional) + a clear and un-missable indicator when MCAS activates that stays visible (and audible?) until dismissed by the crew.
There will also be likely mandated retraining on runaway stab trim (something pilots are supposed to know).
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19387
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:00 am

gia777 wrote:
I think a simple fix would be, "make it like a cruise control function in your car"....The MCAS can only be activated manually / automatic at certain safe altitude and disengaged automatically below safe altitude.


MCAS is already inhibited when flaps are out, so an altitude margin does exist. More importantly, however...

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
gia777 wrote:
I think a simple fix would be, "make it like a cruise control function in your car"....The MCAS can only be activated manually / automatic at certain safe altitude and disengaged automatically below safe altitude.


And the plane would lose its certification, hence unusable.

GF
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6975
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:09 am

trpmb6 wrote:
dwachdorf wrote:
Dumb Question (And forgot my ignorance, I'm not an aviation expert) - Why doesn't Boeing just disable MCAS? Is it really necessary? Can you just train pilots on how to deal with the nose up pitch? Seems like the kind of things pilots would naturally want to counter-act.


It is required to maintain proper stability and control characteristics in certain conditions. It was required to make the aircraft certifiable.

Nah, don't think that's entirely correct. MCAS was required to certify the MAX with the same pilot rating and same weight and balance criteria as the NG.

If I'm not misinformed, then the MAX could be certified without MCAS with its own type rating.

MCAS adjusts trim to make pitch feel on the yoke identical on the MAX and NG. Move the aft CoG limit a little forward, and/or train pilots to a slightly different feel at high AoA, then it would be certified, but not to be flown by NG rated crews who had only watched a 30 minutes video.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
ikramerica
Posts: 14897
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:12 am

maint123 wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:
dwachdorf wrote:
Dumb Question (And forgot my ignorance, I'm not an aviation expert) - Why doesn't Boeing just disable MCAS? Is it really necessary? Can you just train pilots on how to deal with the nose up pitch? Seems like the kind of things pilots would naturally want to counter-act.


It is required to maintain proper stability and control characteristics in certain conditions. It was required to make the aircraft certifiable.

Have seen this before but in a non aerospace sector.
We had a high speed crane with a span of 30 m and a speed of 5 m/s, as compared to 1 m/s of normal cranes. With a frequency of 2 reversing operations per min. The drive was controlled by 2 independent AC motors, with one motor trying to match the speed of the other through a drive based system. This put so much stress on the crane body that it sagged and twisted and required constant maintenance. The mechanical shortcomings were being compensated by the drive (trying), but when the speeds didn't match, the couplings, shafts, would shear, etc. Our learning was that a inherently unstable mechanical system requires too much electrical/control attention to perform reliably. And at a certain point it fails.
Now before ppl here start giving egs of fighter jets which are deliberately made unstable to assist in response, compare the masses of the 2 planes - a fighter jet vs passenger plane.
My take away is that the max performs OK till some mechanical fault develops and then the control algorithms are unable to save this inherently unstable design.

The Lion Air crash was a recoverable situation. Ask the crew from the night before. Further, not everyone believes the plane was fit to fly in the first place. Now it could be because the design is as you say and had they properly vetted their repair they would have determined, as you are saying, that it was unsafe, but the reality is that when a mission critical system is acting "tricky" and you don't treat it with the proper respect, bad things happen.

In movies we see the cavalier heroes who "tap the warning light" until it goes off and then laugh. But real life isn't like the movies.

As for the claim that having to tweak a complex system means it's inherently flawed, well I don't buy it. Not in aerospace engineering. There are a LOT of edge of the envelope problems that pop up and they are solved by adding weight at strategic points, adjusting computer logic, adding aero tweaks, and a whole bunch of other tricks. The fact those things are needed doesn't make the aircraft inherently unsafe. It only makes it unsafe WITHOUT the fixes...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 14897
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:14 am

prebennorholm wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:
dwachdorf wrote:
Dumb Question (And forgot my ignorance, I'm not an aviation expert) - Why doesn't Boeing just disable MCAS? Is it really necessary? Can you just train pilots on how to deal with the nose up pitch? Seems like the kind of things pilots would naturally want to counter-act.


It is required to maintain proper stability and control characteristics in certain conditions. It was required to make the aircraft certifiable.

Nah, don't think that's entirely correct. MCAS was required to certify the MAX with the same pilot rating and same weight and balance criteria as the NG.

If I'm not misinformed, then the MAX could be certified without MCAS with its own type rating.

MCAS adjusts trim to make pitch feel on the yoke identical on the MAX and NG. Move the aft CoG limit a little forward, and/or train pilots to a slightly different feel at high AoA, then it would be certified, but not to be flown by NG rated crews who had only watched a 30 minutes video.

But it would lose it's certification and be unflyable.

Then again, maybe not. It would just require more difference training and sim time?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
Avgeek21
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:44 am

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:15 am

MD80Ttail wrote:
9w748capt wrote:
Avgeek21 wrote:

Don't know this obsession with hours. Speaking from experience over in Europe I joined a renowned national flag carrier with 185:20hr TOTAL time. That's a CPL (IR+ME) and add to that your usual simulator hours both in training and typerating. I started linetraining with those 185:20hrs and was released on the line with 235 hrs TOTAL time. Never had any training issues, retakes or fails. Just because other parts of the world do it differently doesn't make one or the other better or worse. With the right training, attitude and company ethos it's a non issue in my opinion. I'm now left seat on a 737. Pretty common in Europe at least.


Good to know. I honestly had no idea if this that number of hours was a huge anomaly or not. I'll admit I'm rather unfamiliar even what the US requirements are hours-wise. And I have the utmost respect for ET - I very much doubt they would've put an unqualified FO in the cockpit of a real-life commercial flight.



Never said the FO wasn’t qualified. My argument is at 200hrs total time the FO cannot have enough experience to act as an equal to the Captain in any flight deck.


Correct. He/she can’t and is definately not expected to be equal to the Captain. But even a 1500hr guy/girl is still pretty inexperienced. The nbr of hours doesn’t matter. It’s the training, attitude and company ethos that matters.

I remember in my first 2 simchecks ever I was nailing raw data, engine outs etc like a razor blade. The very experienced Captain I was with was not even close. But he was safe, no retakes or anything and so good in management, CRM and the big picture. That's why he was the Captain. No different now.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19387
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:16 am

prebennorholm wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:
dwachdorf wrote:
Dumb Question (And forgot my ignorance, I'm not an aviation expert) - Why doesn't Boeing just disable MCAS? Is it really necessary? Can you just train pilots on how to deal with the nose up pitch? Seems like the kind of things pilots would naturally want to counter-act.


It is required to maintain proper stability and control characteristics in certain conditions. It was required to make the aircraft certifiable.

Nah, don't think that's entirely correct. MCAS was required to certify the MAX with the same pilot rating and same weight and balance criteria as the NG.

If I'm not misinformed, then the MAX could be certified without MCAS with its own type rating.

MCAS adjusts trim to make pitch feel on the yoke identical on the MAX and NG. Move the aft CoG limit a little forward, and/or train pilots to a slightly different feel at high AoA, then it would be certified, but not to be flown by NG rated crews who had only watched a 30 minutes video.


Fair point, but the whole reason Boeing made the Max instead of a clean sheet design was because they wanted to keep the same type certificate, and thus type rating. Massive savings and attractive commonality for the customers. And thus they needed to introduce patches that made two somewhat different designs flyable on the same rating.

If Boeing designed a clean sheet narrowbody, it would probably be similar to a 787 systems-wise. And there would be no need for anything like MCAS. And now we're touching on one of the reasons FBW is such a good idea. Lots of stuff can be done in software without having to account for hardware that is already there and cannot be changed.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3664
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:20 am

No, it didn’t met stability standards at high AOA, the stick force gradient under the conditions MCAS works was light or negative hence the need for nose down trim. The other option, better IMO, was the addition of a pusher, which might have made tra8ning or common type rating more problematic.


Gf
 
pintail21
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:22 pm

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:48 am

ikramerica wrote:
maint123 wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:

It is required to maintain proper stability and control characteristics in certain conditions. It was required to make the aircraft certifiable.

Have seen this before but in a non aerospace sector.
We had a high speed crane with a span of 30 m and a speed of 5 m/s, as compared to 1 m/s of normal cranes. With a frequency of 2 reversing operations per min. The drive was controlled by 2 independent AC motors, with one motor trying to match the speed of the other through a drive based system. This put so much stress on the crane body that it sagged and twisted and required constant maintenance. The mechanical shortcomings were being compensated by the drive (trying), but when the speeds didn't match, the couplings, shafts, would shear, etc. Our learning was that a inherently unstable mechanical system requires too much electrical/control attention to perform reliably. And at a certain point it fails.
Now before ppl here start giving egs of fighter jets which are deliberately made unstable to assist in response, compare the masses of the 2 planes - a fighter jet vs passenger plane.
My take away is that the max performs OK till some mechanical fault develops and then the control algorithms are unable to save this inherently unstable design.

The Lion Air crash was a recoverable situation. Ask the crew from the night before. Further, not everyone believes the plane was fit to fly in the first place. Now it could be because the design is as you say and had they properly vetted their repair they would have determined, as you are saying, that it was unsafe, but the reality is that when a mission critical system is acting "tricky" and you don't treat it with the proper respect, bad things happen.

In movies we see the cavalier heroes who "tap the warning light" until it goes off and then laugh. But real life isn't like the movies.

As for the claim that having to tweak a complex system means it's inherently flawed, well I don't buy it. Not in aerospace engineering. There are a LOT of edge of the envelope problems that pop up and they are solved by adding weight at strategic points, adjusting computer logic, adding aero tweaks, and a whole bunch of other tricks. The fact those things are needed doesn't make the aircraft inherently unsafe. It only makes it unsafe WITHOUT the fixes...


If that plane was unrecoverable how did the previous crew manage to fly the plane safely the day prior?

Was there all these hysterics after the rash of 777 mishaps? Judging by some posters here you’d think they should have scrapped the fleet after Asiana and Malaysian x2 because those darn planes kept crashing!
 
maint123
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 4:18 pm

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:52 am

ikramerica wrote:
maint123 wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:

It is required to maintain proper stability and control characteristics in certain conditions. It was required to make the aircraft certifiable.

Have seen this before but in a non aerospace sector.
We had a high speed crane with a span of 30 m and a speed of 5 m/s, as compared to 1 m/s of normal cranes. With a frequency of 2 reversing operations per min. The drive was controlled by 2 independent AC motors, with one motor trying to match the speed of the other through a drive based system. This put so much stress on the crane body that it sagged and twisted and required constant maintenance. The mechanical shortcomings were being compensated by the drive (trying), but when the speeds didn't match, the couplings, shafts, would shear, etc. Our learning was that a inherently unstable mechanical system requires too much electrical/control attention to perform reliably. And at a certain point it fails.
Now before ppl here start giving egs of fighter jets which are deliberately made unstable to assist in response, compare the masses of the 2 planes - a fighter jet vs passenger plane.
My take away is that the max performs OK till some mechanical fault develops and then the control algorithms are unable to save this inherently unstable design.

The Lion Air crash was a recoverable situation. Ask the crew from the night before. Further, not everyone believes the plane was fit to fly in the first place. Now it could be because the design is as you say and had they properly vetted their repair they would have determined, as you are saying, that it was unsafe, but the reality is that when a mission critical system is acting "tricky" and you don't treat it with the proper respect, bad things happen.

In movies we see the cavalier heroes who "tap the warning light" until it goes off and then laugh. But real life isn't like the movies.

As for the claim that having to tweak a complex system means it's inherently flawed, well I don't buy it. Not in aerospace engineering. There are a LOT of edge of the envelope problems that pop up and they are solved by adding weight at strategic points, adjusting computer logic, adding aero tweaks, and a whole bunch of other tricks. The fact those things are needed doesn't make the aircraft inherently unsafe. It only makes it unsafe WITHOUT the fixes...

Do you have hands on engineering experience in mech and control systems? I do and all this knife edge nonsense does not work in industry. Equipment is supposed to run stable in a wide band, not in a narrow band, which if it exceeds would fail. That's why a factor of safety is incorporated into every design.
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1578
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:56 am

Here is the FAA Continued Airworthiness Notification to the International Community (CANIC) on Boeing 787-8:

https://www.scribd.com/document/4016332 ... -787-Max-8

Continued Airworthiness Notification to the International Community

To: Civil Aviation Authorities Date: March 11, 2019

From: Federal Aviation Administration
Aircraft Certification Service System Oversight Division, AIR-800
2200 South 216th Street
Des Moines, WA 98198

Subject: This message provides information regarding FAA continued operational safety activity related to the Boeing 737-8 and Boeing 737-9 (737 MAX) fleet.

Situation description: Following the accident of an Ethiopian Airlines Boeing Model 737-8 airplane on March 10, 2019, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) as the accredited representative, and the FAA as Technical Advisors, are supporting the Ethiopian Accident Investigation Bureau. The FAA has dispatched personnel to support the investigative authorities in determining the circumstances of this event. All data will be closely examined during this investigation, and the FAA will take appropriate action if the data indicates the need to do so. External reports are drawing similarities between this accident and the Lion Air Flight 610 accident on October 29, 2018. However, this investigation has just begun and to date we have not been provided data to draw any conclusions or take any actions. Following the Lion Air Flight 610 accident, the FAA has completed these activities in support of continued operational safety of the fleet:

  • Issued FAA emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2018-23-51 on November 7, 2018

  • Validated that airplane maintenance and functional check instructions on Angle of Attack (AOA) vane replacement were adequate

  • Conducted simulator sessions to verify the Operational Procedures called out in FAA AD 2018-23-51

  • Validated AOA vane bench check calibration procedures were adequate

  • Reviewed Boeing’s production processes related to the AOA vane and Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS)

Ongoing oversight activities by the FAA include:

  • Boeing’s completion of the flight control system enhancements, which provide reduced reliance on procedures associated with required pilot memory items. The FAA anticipates mandating these design changes by AD no later than April 2019.


  • Design changes include:

  • - MCAS Activation Enhancements

  • - MCAS AOA Signal Enhancements

  • - MCAS Maximum Command Limit

  • Boeing’s plans to update training requirements and flight crew manuals to go with the MCAS design change include:

  • - Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) and Flight Crew Operations Manual (FCOM)

  • - Quick Reference Handbook (QRH) - notes in Speed Trim Fail checklist

  • - Airplane Maintenance Manual (AMM)

  • - Interactive Fault Isolation Manual (iFIM)

  • - Boeing has proposed Level A training impacts

Aircraft/engine make, model, and series: The Boeing Company Model 737-8 and 737-9 airplanes (737 MAX)

U.S.-registered fleet: 74 airplanes; Worldwide fleet: 387 airplanes

Operators: 59 operators worldwide: 9 Air, Aerolineas Argentinas, Aeromexico, Air Canada, Air China, Air Fiji, AIR ITALY S.P.A., American Airlines, Arkefly, Britannia Airways AB, Cayman Airways, China Eastern Airlines, China Southern Airlines, Comair, COPA Airlines, Corendon Airlines, Eastar Jet, Enter Air Sp. Z O.O., Ethiopian Airlines, Fertitta Enterprises, Inc., flydubai, Fuzhou Airlines Co., Ltd, Garuda Indonesia, Gol Linhas Aereas S.A., Hainan Airlines, Icelandair, Jet Airways, Jet Aviation Business Jets, JSC Aircompany SCAT, Kunming Airlines, Lion Air, Globus Airlines, LOT Polish Airlines, Lucky Air, Mauritania Airlines, Mongolian Airlines MIAT, Norwegian Air International Lt, Norwegian Air Norway, Norwegian Air Shuttle AS, Norwegian Air Sweden, Okay Airways Company Limited, Oman Air, Qatar Airways, Royal Air Maroc, Shandong Airlines, Shanghai Airlines, Shenzhen Airlines, SilkAir, Smartwings, Southwest Airlines, SpiceJet, Sunwing Airlines Inc., Thai Lion, TUI Airlines Belgium, TUI Airways, Turkish Airlines (THY), United Airlines, WestJet, Xiamen Airlines

FAA contact: Jeffrey E. Duven, Director, System Oversight Division
Telephone and Fax: (206) 231-3200
Last edited by Finn350 on Tue Mar 12, 2019 4:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
apodino
Posts: 3577
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 4:13 am

I don't want to speculate on what caused the crash. One thing I did find noteworthy from initial reports. Eyewitnesses either reported smoke coming from the plane as it dived, or flames. If this is true, it would suggest that the cause was something other than an MCAS issue, and the two incidents may not be related at all. If only we had that black box data.....
 
chiawei
Posts: 984
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2000 9:07 am

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 4:23 am

Singapore has now banned all 737max from coming and taking off.
 
User avatar
LIJet
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 2:16 pm

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 4:27 am

apodino wrote:
I don't want to speculate on what caused the crash. One thing I did find noteworthy from initial reports. Eyewitnesses either reported smoke coming from the plane as it dived, or flames. If this is true, it would suggest that the cause was something other than an MCAS issue, and the two incidents may not be related at all. If only we had that black box data.....


Interesting. I just saw that as well. Two separate people reported seeing smoke coming from the back of the airplane. One person said it rotated twice before it went in. Something to ponder I suppose. We really need to see what that FDR says.

https://nypost.com/2019/03/11/doomed-et ... ore-crash/
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6975
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 4:39 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
No, it didn’t met stability standards at high AOA, the stick force gradient under the conditions MCAS works was light or negative hence the need for nose down trim. The other option, better IMO, was the addition of a pusher, which might have made tra8ning or common type rating more problematic.
Gf

Yes. But when that left hand AoA sensor fails, then the cure is to switch off automatic trim which disables MCAS. That's what the Lion crew was critizised for failing to do, and what the crew of the previous flight managed to do, to land safely. MCAS (working properly) only activates in such extreme corner of the envelope that a crew should easily be trained to avoid that corner when AoA sensors show disagree warning.

A pusher. Yes, but a pusher is also dependent on properly working AoA sensing, as is the shaker which was activated for most of the Lion flight.

I'm not a fan of all those bandaid systems on old-fashioned designs. Give me failure tolerance instead. Give me triple sensors with voting out the bad guy. It is out there in the sky. I'm not sure, but it wouldn't surprise me if the 737 is the only jet airliner being produced today without triple sensors and voting.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1621
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 4:41 am

Finn350 wrote:
The FAA anticipates mandating these design changes by AD no later than April 2019.[/list]

  • Design changes include:

  • - MCAS Activation Enhancements

  • - MCAS AOA Signal Enhancements

  • - MCAS Maximum Command Limit

  • Boeing’s plans to update training requirements and flight crew manuals to go with the MCAS design change include:

Notice Boeing has until April 2019 to fit these changes.

Has any Max aircraft had the changes installed?

Was Boeing forced to make the changes to all existing aircraft?

Did the Ethopian plane get the changes fitted?

Who determined that date?

If the crash was MCAS related had it been March 2019 the Ethopian aircraft might have had the changes installed.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19387
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 4:41 am

LIJet wrote:
apodino wrote:
I don't want to speculate on what caused the crash. One thing I did find noteworthy from initial reports. Eyewitnesses either reported smoke coming from the plane as it dived, or flames. If this is true, it would suggest that the cause was something other than an MCAS issue, and the two incidents may not be related at all. If only we had that black box data.....


Interesting. I just saw that as well. Two separate people reported seeing smoke coming from the back of the airplane. One person said it rotated twice before it went in. Something to ponder I suppose. We really need to see what that FDR says.

https://nypost.com/2019/03/11/doomed-et ... ore-crash/


As mentioned upthread, eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. IMHO, at this point anything a witness claims to have seen should be treated as hearsay.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1578
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 4:46 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Finn350 wrote:
The FAA anticipates mandating these design changes by AD no later than April 2019.[/list]

  • Design changes include:

  • - MCAS Activation Enhancements

  • - MCAS AOA Signal Enhancements

  • - MCAS Maximum Command Limit

  • Boeing’s plans to update training requirements and flight crew manuals to go with the MCAS design change include:

Notice Boeing has until April 2019 to fit these changes.

Has any Max aircraft had the changes installed?

Was Boeing forced to make the changes to all existing aircraft?

Did the Ethopian plane get the changes fitted?

Who determined that date?

If the crash was MCAS related had it been March 2019 the Ethopian aircraft might have had the changes installed.


The MCAS changes are not yet validated by the FAA, and therefore not installed on any 737MAX yet. The changes are software updates in practice. If simulator training is required for the pilots, then it will be good days for the 737MAX simulator manufacturers.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19387
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:09 am

Finn350 wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
Finn350 wrote:
The FAA anticipates mandating these design changes by AD no later than April 2019.[/list]

  • Design changes include:

  • - MCAS Activation Enhancements

  • - MCAS AOA Signal Enhancements

  • - MCAS Maximum Command Limit

  • Boeing’s plans to update training requirements and flight crew manuals to go with the MCAS design change include:

Notice Boeing has until April 2019 to fit these changes.

Has any Max aircraft had the changes installed?

Was Boeing forced to make the changes to all existing aircraft?

Did the Ethopian plane get the changes fitted?

Who determined that date?

If the crash was MCAS related had it been March 2019 the Ethopian aircraft might have had the changes installed.


The MCAS changes are not yet validated by the FAA, and therefore not installed on any 737MAX yet. The changes are software updates in practice. If simulator training is required for the pilots, then it will be good days for the 737MAX simulator manufacturers.



I seem to recall reading after the Lion Air crash that there are no 737Max sims, with NG sims being used instead. But I could be remembering that wrong.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:16 am

speedking wrote:
Interesting this discussion about what should be done with the MAX while waiting for the results of the investigations.
I myself don't trust any corporation. I don't need government to tell me what to do. I leave it to the Europeans.
Until the reason for the crashes is clear:
If it's Boeing and it's MAX
I ain't going, I ain't pa
x


Are you trying to trademark this or something?
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:17 am

tenHangar wrote:
39% grounded

Number of 737 MAX 8s in Fleet Status Airline
22 Grounded China Southern Airlines
15 Grounded Air China
11 Grounded Hainan Airlines
11 Grounded Shanghai Airlines
10 Grounded Xiamen Airlines
10 Grounded Lion Air
7 Grounded Shandong Airlines
7 Grounded GOL Airlines
6 Grounded Shenzhen Airlines
4 Grounded Ethiopian Airlines
4 Grounded China Eastern Airlines
3 Grounded Lucky Air
2 Grounded Cayman Airways
2 Grounded Fuzhou Airlines
2 Grounded Kunming Airlines
2 Grounded Okay Airways
1 Grounded 9 Air
1 Grounded Garuda Indonesia
1 Grounded Comair
6 Grounded Aeromexico
5 Grounded Aerolineas Argentinas
2 Grounded Eastar Jet
2 Grounded Royal Air Maroc
1 Grounded MIAT Mongolian Airlines
34 In use Southwest Airlines
24 In use Air Canada
24 In use American Airlines
18 In use Norwegian Air
15 In use TUI fly
13 In use SpiceJet
13 In use WestJet
11 In use FlyDubai
11 In use Turkish Airlines
7 In use Smartwings
5 In use Oman Air
4 In use Sunwing Airlines
3 In use Air Italy
3 In use Icelandair
2 In use Fiji Airways
2 In use S7 Airlines
1 In use SCAT
9 Unknown Jet Airways
6 Unknown SilkAir
5 Unknown LOT
2 Unknown Enter Air
1 Unknown Mauritania Airlines
1 Unknown Corendon Airlines

nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/11/world/boeing-737-max-which-airlines.html


Thank you for the list - it's a good reference for where we're at with the groundings. Are you able to post it in the grounding thread? I know it would be appreciated there, and I know the mods are trying to separate out all the regulatory arguments from the ET crash discussion.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
jasonelantra
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:47 am

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:26 am

tenHangar wrote:
39% grounded

Number of 737 MAX 8s in Fleet Status Airline
22 Grounded China Southern Airlines
15 Grounded Air China
11 Grounded Hainan Airlines
11 Grounded Shanghai Airlines
10 Grounded Xiamen Airlines
10 Grounded Lion Air
7 Grounded Shandong Airlines
7 Grounded GOL Airlines
6 Grounded Shenzhen Airlines
4 Grounded Ethiopian Airlines
4 Grounded China Eastern Airlines
3 Grounded Lucky Air
2 Grounded Cayman Airways
2 Grounded Fuzhou Airlines
2 Grounded Kunming Airlines
2 Grounded Okay Airways
1 Grounded 9 Air
1 Grounded Garuda Indonesia
1 Grounded Comair
6 Grounded Aeromexico
5 Grounded Aerolineas Argentinas
2 Grounded Eastar Jet
2 Grounded Royal Air Maroc
1 Grounded MIAT Mongolian Airlines
34 In use Southwest Airlines
24 In use Air Canada
24 In use American Airlines
18 In use Norwegian Air
15 In use TUI fly
13 In use SpiceJet
13 In use WestJet
11 In use FlyDubai
11 In use Turkish Airlines
7 In use Smartwings
5 In use Oman Air
4 In use Sunwing Airlines
3 In use Air Italy
3 In use Icelandair
2 In use Fiji Airways
2 In use S7 Airlines
1 In use SCAT
9 Unknown Jet Airways
6 Unknown SilkAir
5 Unknown LOT
2 Unknown Enter Air
1 Unknown Mauritania Airlines
1 Unknown Corendon Airlines

nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/11/world/boeing-737-max-which-airlines.html


Singapore just grounded theirs.
 
luv2cattlecall
Posts: 806
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 6:25 am

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:39 am

prebennorholm wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
No, it didn’t met stability standards at high AOA, the stick force gradient under the conditions MCAS works was light or negative hence the need for nose down trim. The other option, better IMO, was the addition of a pusher, which might have made tra8ning or common type rating more problematic.
Gf

Yes. But when that left hand AoA sensor fails, then the cure is to switch off automatic trim which disables MCAS. That's what the Lion crew was critizised for failing to do, and what the crew of the previous flight managed to do, to land safely. MCAS (working properly) only activates in such extreme corner of the envelope that a crew should easily be trained to avoid that corner when AoA sensors show disagree warning.

A pusher. Yes, but a pusher is also dependent on properly working AoA sensing, as is the shaker which was activated for most of the Lion flight.

I'm not a fan of all those bandaid systems on old-fashioned designs. Give me failure tolerance instead. Give me triple sensors with voting out the bad guy. It is out there in the sky. I'm not sure, but it wouldn't surprise me if the 737 is the only jet airliner being produced today without triple sensors and voting.


How were the Lion Air pilots supposed to quickly diagnose an AoA sensor failure? What if they were spatially disoriented?

Keep in mind that the AoA disagree warning was an option that wasn't installed (I can't for the life of me understand why this is an extra cost option from Boeing).

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reu ... SKCN1NZ0QL
 
juliuswong
Moderator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:22 am

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:47 am

Starlionblue wrote:
Finn350 wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
Notice Boeing has until April 2019 to fit these changes.

Has any Max aircraft had the changes installed?

Was Boeing forced to make the changes to all existing aircraft?

Did the Ethopian plane get the changes fitted?

Who determined that date?

If the crash was MCAS related had it been March 2019 the Ethopian aircraft might have had the changes installed.


The MCAS changes are not yet validated by the FAA, and therefore not installed on any 737MAX yet. The changes are software updates in practice. If simulator training is required for the pilots, then it will be good days for the 737MAX simulator manufacturers.



I seem to recall reading after the Lion Air crash that there are no 737Max sims, with NG sims being used instead. But I could be remembering that wrong.

I think Lion Air pilot did their MAX training by completing online course. Read it somewhere....Need to find the source after I get home from work.
- Life is a journey, travel it well -
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:50 am

luv2cattlecall wrote:
prebennorholm wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
No, it didn’t met stability standards at high AOA, the stick force gradient under the conditions MCAS works was light or negative hence the need for nose down trim. The other option, better IMO, was the addition of a pusher, which might have made tra8ning or common type rating more problematic.
Gf

Yes. But when that left hand AoA sensor fails, then the cure is to switch off automatic trim which disables MCAS. That's what the Lion crew was critizised for failing to do, and what the crew of the previous flight managed to do, to land safely. MCAS (working properly) only activates in such extreme corner of the envelope that a crew should easily be trained to avoid that corner when AoA sensors show disagree warning.

A pusher. Yes, but a pusher is also dependent on properly working AoA sensing, as is the shaker which was activated for most of the Lion flight.

I'm not a fan of all those bandaid systems on old-fashioned designs. Give me failure tolerance instead. Give me triple sensors with voting out the bad guy. It is out there in the sky. I'm not sure, but it wouldn't surprise me if the 737 is the only jet airliner being produced today without triple sensors and voting.


How were the Lion Air pilots supposed to quickly diagnose an AoA sensor failure? What if they were spatially disoriented?

Keep in mind that the AoA disagree warning was an option that wasn't installed (I can't for the life of me understand why this is an extra cost option from Boeing).

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reu ... SKCN1NZ0QL


I don't understand why some things are options vs standard, but then again, I don't understand why an airline would choose to save a few bucks rather than install a system that would make flying safer?
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1741
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:04 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
I’m still wrapping my mind around how, assuming the engines were operating and the basic airframe and controls were intact, crews could crash the plane in Day VFR conditions.

That's the anomaly with the MAX. There are too few of them, too close to EIS on the timescale, to have the number of uncontrollable (or near uncontrollable) flights. It is unheard nowadays that planes fly around like drunken sailors before crashing, even when flown by sub-standard crews.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
The Boeing Runaway/Uncommanded Stab Trim procedure hasn’t changed since the 737 entered service in 1967. …. If it’s an uncommanded stab trim, turn it off.

Thing is, the checklist looks like this:
1) Control Column .................................... Hold Firmly
2) Autopilot (if engaged) ........................ Disengage

Do NOT re-engage the autopilot.

Control airplane pitch attitude manually with
control column and main electric trim as needed.

3) IF the runaway STOPS: checklist completed

4) IF the runaway CONTINUES:
STAB TRIM CUTOUT
switches (both) ............................... CUTOUT


This means, that line item 4 is never reached as MCAS stops every time, the main electric trim is used. This also means, that Boeings NNC since 1967, if applied correctly, would not safe you from malfunctioning MCAS because you end the checklist each time at line item 3. Only the emergency AD last November changed that.

Therefore in a technical sense, MCAS requires the pilots to deviate from the original checklist to survive. The pilots in the Lionair flight before did it. The ones, who crashed not.

ikramerica wrote:
The Lion Air crash was a recoverable situation. Ask the crew from the night before.

One crew made it. One not. A failure rate of 50% is not tolerable in aviation. Even if only flown by US crews and say 9 would survive and the 10th would crash: not tolerable.

And don't forget: with Lionair the condition of a malfunctioning MCAS might have been maintenance induced, but the next time a simple bird strike could bring any MAX in the same condition. Anywhere, any airline, no matter how many hours the pilot has...
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
simking
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 3:18 am

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:13 am

I guess I am surprised that a new aircraft could have such a flaw with all the testing that was done wouldn't something like an MCAS or faulty software error be found..or is it more likely that its not enough training in such a new platform with new procedures and knowing the new aircraft?
 
ArtV
Posts: 68
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 2:29 pm

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:29 am

simking wrote:
I guess I am surprised that a new aircraft could have such a flaw with all the testing that was done wouldn't something like an MCAS or faulty software error be found..or is it more likely that its not enough training in such a new platform with new procedures and knowing the new aircraft?


Be careful that you are not conflating the MCAS issued identified as a contributing factor to the Lion Air crash, to the purely speculative and conflicting information on the ET crash.
 
A320FlyGuy
Posts: 260
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 8:31 pm

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:30 am

simking wrote:
I guess I am surprised that a new aircraft could have such a flaw with all the testing that was done wouldn't something like an MCAS or faulty software error be found..or is it more likely that its not enough training in such a new platform with new procedures and knowing the new aircraft?


I agree with what you are saying here.

I was speaking to a close friend earlier today who was a director of maintenance for American Airlines for the last 25 years. As you might expect, our conversation drifted around to the 737 MAX8 and as he pointed out, no aircraft that carries passengers should rely on a stability augmention system to maintain stability in flight. The fact that this was done simply to maintain the MAX on the same TC as the Next Generation is evidence of the mindset at Boeing - instead of taking the time and expense to properly develop solutions that would preclude the need for MCAS, Boeing came up with this system that has been tacked on to the aircraft. It really is a case of putting makeup on a pig...you can’t make a 737 into a modern aircraft that is competitive and trying to make the plane operate missions previously served by the 757.

Not that anyone cares about my opinion - but it really seems that Boeing should have taken the time and expense to properly solve these issues instead of tacking on a poorly executed software system - and then, not bothering to disclose it’s existence to the operating airlines. That’s not acceptable and I can’t help but wonder what software fixes Boeing has come up with for the 777X....I hope that they do a better job with that aircraft than they have done with the MAX.

You can say a lot about Airbus and it’s approach to engineering, but having flown the A320 for the last 10 years, I can honestly say that Airbus does a much better job of integrating systems and features than Boeing. I just completed training on ROPS - Runway Overrun Prevention System and it is truly seamless in it’s operation - it doesn’t feel like a new feature that was tacked on. It has the same level of seamless operation that every other avionic system on the A320.
My other car is an A320-200
 
User avatar
monomojo
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2018 12:39 pm

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:31 am

rheinwaldner wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
I’m still wrapping my mind around how, assuming the engines were operating and the basic airframe and controls were intact, crews could crash the plane in Day VFR conditions.

That's the anomaly with the MAX. There are too few of them, too close to EIS on the timescale, to have the number of uncontrollable (or near uncontrollable) flights. It is unheard nowadays that planes fly around like drunken sailors before crashing, even when flown by sub-standard crews.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
The Boeing Runaway/Uncommanded Stab Trim procedure hasn’t changed since the 737 entered service in 1967. …. If it’s an uncommanded stab trim, turn it off.

Thing is, the checklist looks like this:
1) Control Column .................................... Hold Firmly
2) Autopilot (if engaged) ........................ Disengage

Do NOT re-engage the autopilot.

Control airplane pitch attitude manually with
control column and main electric trim as needed.

3) IF the runaway STOPS: checklist completed

4) IF the runaway CONTINUES:
STAB TRIM CUTOUT
switches (both) ............................... CUTOUT


This means, that line item 4 is never reached as MCAS stops every time, the main electric trim is used. This also means, that Boeings NNC since 1967, if applied correctly, would not safe you from malfunctioning MCAS because you end the checklist each time at line item 3. Only the emergency AD last November changed that.

Therefore in a technical sense, MCAS requires the pilots to deviate from the original checklist to survive. The pilots in the Lionair flight before did it. The ones, who crashed not.


If all that was needed was something to process checklists and nothing further, then there wouldn't be a need for a pilot. If you stop at step 3 because the uncommanded trim stops, but then have it start again and not move immediately to step 4 and then allow the aircraft to fly you into the ground, because "that's what the checklist says to do", then you're not doing what you were put into that seat to do.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1422
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:32 am

A320FlyGuy wrote:
simking wrote:
I guess I am surprised that a new aircraft could have such a flaw with all the testing that was done wouldn't something like an MCAS or faulty software error be found..or is it more likely that its not enough training in such a new platform with new procedures and knowing the new aircraft?


I agree with what you are saying here.

I was speaking to a close friend earlier today who was a director of maintenance for American Airlines for the last 25 years. As you might expect, our conversation drifted around to the 737 MAX8 and as he pointed out, no aircraft that carries passengers should rely on a stability augmention system to maintain stability in flight. The fact that this was done simply to maintain the MAX on the same TC as the Next Generation is evidence of the mindset at Boeing - instead of taking the time and expense to properly develop solutions that would preclude the need for MCAS, Boeing came up with this system that has been tacked on to the aircraft. It really is a case of putting makeup on a pig...you can’t make a 737 into a modern aircraft that is competitive and trying to make the plane operate missions previously served by the 757.

Not that anyone cares about my opinion - but it really seems that Boeing should have taken the time and expense to properly solve these issues instead of tacking on a poorly executed software system - and then, not bothering to disclose it’s existence to the operating airlines. That’s not acceptable and I can’t help but wonder what software fixes Boeing has come up with for the 777X....I hope that they do a better job with that aircraft than they have done with the MAX.

You can say a lot about Airbus and it’s approach to engineering, but having flown the A320 for the last 10 years, I can honestly say that Airbus does a much better job of integrating systems and features than Boeing. I just completed training on ROPS - Runway Overrun Prevention System and it is truly seamless in it’s operation - it doesn’t feel like a new feature that was tacked on. It has the same level of seamless operation that every other avionic system on the A320.



Do you realize that the 777 is a full FBW aircraft?
 
A320FlyGuy
Posts: 260
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 8:31 pm

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:35 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
A320FlyGuy wrote:
simking wrote:
I guess I am surprised that a new aircraft could have such a flaw with all the testing that was done wouldn't something like an MCAS or faulty software error be found..or is it more likely that its not enough training in such a new platform with new procedures and knowing the new aircraft?


I agree with what you are saying here.

I was speaking to a close friend earlier today who was a director of maintenance for American Airlines for the last 25 years. As you might expect, our conversation drifted around to the 737 MAX8 and as he pointed out, no aircraft that carries passengers should rely on a stability augmention system to maintain stability in flight. The fact that this was done simply to maintain the MAX on the same TC as the Next Generation is evidence of the mindset at Boeing - instead of taking the time and expense to properly develop solutions that would preclude the need for MCAS, Boeing came up with this system that has been tacked on to the aircraft. It really is a case of putting makeup on a pig...you can’t make a 737 into a modern aircraft that is competitive and trying to make the plane operate missions previously served by the 757.

Not that anyone cares about my opinion - but it really seems that Boeing should have taken the time and expense to properly solve these issues instead of tacking on a poorly executed software system - and then, not bothering to disclose it’s existence to the operating airlines. That’s not acceptable and I can’t help but wonder what software fixes Boeing has come up with for the 777X....I hope that they do a better job with that aircraft than they have done with the MAX.

You can say a lot about Airbus and it’s approach to engineering, but having flown the A320 for the last 10 years, I can honestly say that Airbus does a much better job of integrating systems and features than Boeing. I just completed training on ROPS - Runway Overrun Prevention System and it is truly seamless in it’s operation - it doesn’t feel like a new feature that was tacked on. It has the same level of seamless operation that every other avionic system on the A320.



Do you realize that the 777 is a full FBW aircraft?


Wow....really? :roll:

Of course I know that the 777 is a full Fly by Wire aircraft - my point was that I hope that whatever software changes that Boeing makes to the 777 software are more throughly tested, developed and executed than what we have seen thus far.
My other car is an A320-200
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:38 am

A320FlyGuy wrote:
simking wrote:
I guess I am surprised that a new aircraft could have such a flaw with all the testing that was done wouldn't something like an MCAS or faulty software error be found..or is it more likely that its not enough training in such a new platform with new procedures and knowing the new aircraft?


I agree with what you are saying here.

I was speaking to a close friend earlier today who was a director of maintenance for American Airlines for the last 25 years. As you might expect, our conversation drifted around to the 737 MAX8 and as he pointed out, no aircraft that carries passengers should rely on a stability augmention system to maintain stability in flight. The fact that this was done simply to maintain the MAX on the same TC as the Next Generation is evidence of the mindset at Boeing - instead of taking the time and expense to properly develop solutions that would preclude the need for MCAS, Boeing came up with this system that has been tacked on to the aircraft. It really is a case of putting makeup on a pig...you can’t make a 737 into a modern aircraft that is competitive and trying to make the plane operate missions previously served by the 757.

Not that anyone cares about my opinion - but it really seems that Boeing should have taken the time and expense to properly solve these issues instead of tacking on a poorly executed software system - and then, not bothering to disclose it’s existence to the operating airlines. That’s not acceptable and I can’t help but wonder what software fixes Boeing has come up with for the 777X....I hope that they do a better job with that aircraft than they have done with the MAX.

You can say a lot about Airbus and it’s approach to engineering, but having flown the A320 for the last 10 years, I can honestly say that Airbus does a much better job of integrating systems and features than Boeing. I just completed training on ROPS - Runway Overrun Prevention System and it is truly seamless in it’s operation - it doesn’t feel like a new feature that was tacked on. It has the same level of seamless operation that every other avionic system on the A320.


Your opinion is certainly every bit as worthy as anyone else's.

1. If Boeing thought they implemented a proper solution, then presumably they took "the time and expense" to do so properly. As happens with aircraft, it turns out the system wasn't adequate.

2. I keep hearing that Boeing never told the airlines about MCAS, but I've never seen definitive proof of that.

3. Are you saying all Boeing planes are inferior, or are you comparing the A320 to the 737? I don't personally care, but if your experience has been on the A320, which was designed in 1988, I'm just wondering if the 787 would be considered worthy of comparison?
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
Pluto707
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2019 2:59 pm

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:43 am

In one line: their latest child was born with a congenital disorder, and under the time pressure they solved it with a patch... https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/v ... ircraft-2/
Last edited by Pluto707 on Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1422
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:44 am

A320FlyGuy wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
A320FlyGuy wrote:

I agree with what you are saying here.

I was speaking to a close friend earlier today who was a director of maintenance for American Airlines for the last 25 years. As you might expect, our conversation drifted around to the 737 MAX8 and as he pointed out, no aircraft that carries passengers should rely on a stability augmention system to maintain stability in flight. The fact that this was done simply to maintain the MAX on the same TC as the Next Generation is evidence of the mindset at Boeing - instead of taking the time and expense to properly develop solutions that would preclude the need for MCAS, Boeing came up with this system that has been tacked on to the aircraft. It really is a case of putting makeup on a pig...you can’t make a 737 into a modern aircraft that is competitive and trying to make the plane operate missions previously served by the 757.

Not that anyone cares about my opinion - but it really seems that Boeing should have taken the time and expense to properly solve these issues instead of tacking on a poorly executed software system - and then, not bothering to disclose it’s existence to the operating airlines. That’s not acceptable and I can’t help but wonder what software fixes Boeing has come up with for the 777X....I hope that they do a better job with that aircraft than they have done with the MAX.

You can say a lot about Airbus and it’s approach to engineering, but having flown the A320 for the last 10 years, I can honestly say that Airbus does a much better job of integrating systems and features than Boeing. I just completed training on ROPS - Runway Overrun Prevention System and it is truly seamless in it’s operation - it doesn’t feel like a new feature that was tacked on. It has the same level of seamless operation that every other avionic system on the A320.



Do you realize that the 777 is a full FBW aircraft?


Wow....really? :roll:

Of course I know that the 777 is a full Fly by Wire aircraft - my point was that I hope that whatever software changes that Boeing makes to the 777 software are more throughly tested, developed and executed than what we have seen thus far.


What have we seen? There has been no conclusion to either crash. I get that you are biased toward Airbus but come on. Would you have supported grounding the A320 after the XL Airways crash and the A330 after the Qantas plunge? Apparently when a little water gets in the AOA sensors on the A320 it can seriously mess with the ADIRU. But fortunately cooler heads prevailed in those cases.
 
1989worstyear
Posts: 640
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:53 pm

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:52 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
A320FlyGuy wrote:
simking wrote:
I guess I am surprised that a new aircraft could have such a flaw with all the testing that was done wouldn't something like an MCAS or faulty software error be found..or is it more likely that its not enough training in such a new platform with new procedures and knowing the new aircraft?


I agree with what you are saying here.

I was speaking to a close friend earlier today who was a director of maintenance for American Airlines for the last 25 years. As you might expect, our conversation drifted around to the 737 MAX8 and as he pointed out, no aircraft that carries passengers should rely on a stability augmention system to maintain stability in flight. The fact that this was done simply to maintain the MAX on the same TC as the Next Generation is evidence of the mindset at Boeing - instead of taking the time and expense to properly develop solutions that would preclude the need for MCAS, Boeing came up with this system that has been tacked on to the aircraft. It really is a case of putting makeup on a pig...you can’t make a 737 into a modern aircraft that is competitive and trying to make the plane operate missions previously served by the 757.

Not that anyone cares about my opinion - but it really seems that Boeing should have taken the time and expense to properly solve these issues instead of tacking on a poorly executed software system - and then, not bothering to disclose it’s existence to the operating airlines. That’s not acceptable and I can’t help but wonder what software fixes Boeing has come up with for the 777X....I hope that they do a better job with that aircraft than they have done with the MAX.

You can say a lot about Airbus and it’s approach to engineering, but having flown the A320 for the last 10 years, I can honestly say that Airbus does a much better job of integrating systems and features than Boeing. I just completed training on ROPS - Runway Overrun Prevention System and it is truly seamless in it’s operation - it doesn’t feel like a new feature that was tacked on. It has the same level of seamless operation that every other avionic system on the A320.


Your opinion is certainly every bit as worthy as anyone else's.

1. If Boeing thought they implemented a proper solution, then presumably they took "the time and expense" to do so properly. As happens with aircraft, it turns out the system wasn't adequate.

2. I keep hearing that Boeing never told the airlines about MCAS, but I've never seen definitive proof of that.

3. Are you saying all Boeing planes are inferior, or are you comparing the A320 to the 737? I don't personally care, but if your experience has been on the A320, which was designed in 1988, I'm just wondering if the 787 would be considered worthy of comparison?


The current generation of aircraft (which includes the likes of the 787 and A350) began in 1988 with the EIS of the A320. Technological progress on that scale hasn't happened since.
Stuck at age 15 thanks to the certification date of the A320-200 and my parents' decision to postpone having a kid by 3 years. At least there's Dignitas...
 
SeoulIncheon
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 4:52 am

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:54 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
tenHangar wrote:
39% grounded

Number of 737 MAX 8s in Fleet Status Airline
22 Grounded China Southern Airlines
15 Grounded Air China
11 Grounded Hainan Airlines
11 Grounded Shanghai Airlines
10 Grounded Xiamen Airlines
10 Grounded Lion Air
7 Grounded Shandong Airlines
7 Grounded GOL Airlines
6 Grounded Shenzhen Airlines
4 Grounded Ethiopian Airlines
4 Grounded China Eastern Airlines
3 Grounded Lucky Air
2 Grounded Cayman Airways
2 Grounded Fuzhou Airlines
2 Grounded Kunming Airlines
2 Grounded Okay Airways
1 Grounded 9 Air
1 Grounded Garuda Indonesia
1 Grounded Comair
6 Grounded Aeromexico
5 Grounded Aerolineas Argentinas
2 Grounded Eastar Jet
2 Grounded Royal Air Maroc
1 Grounded MIAT Mongolian Airlines
34 In use Southwest Airlines
24 In use Air Canada
24 In use American Airlines
18 In use Norwegian Air
15 In use TUI fly
13 In use SpiceJet
13 In use WestJet
11 In use FlyDubai
11 In use Turkish Airlines
7 In use Smartwings
5 In use Oman Air
4 In use Sunwing Airlines
3 In use Air Italy
3 In use Icelandair
2 In use Fiji Airways
2 In use S7 Airlines
1 In use SCAT
9 Unknown Jet Airways
6 Unknown SilkAir
5 Unknown LOT
2 Unknown Enter Air
1 Unknown Mauritania Airlines
1 Unknown Corendon Airlines

nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/11/world/boeing-737-max-which-airlines.html


Thank you for the list - it's a good reference for where we're at with the groundings. Are you able to post it in the grounding thread? I know it would be appreciated there, and I know the mods are trying to separate out all the regulatory arguments from the ET crash discussion.


Slight mistake in above list - the 2 Eastar Jets are just going under inspection by South Korean authorities until 15 March - they are not officially grounded yet. They are rather in "unknown" territory until then. They are the only 737 Maxes delivered to Korea yet.

http://mobile.newsis.com/view.html?ar_i ... 5#imadnews (in Korean)
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:55 am

1989worstyear wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
A320FlyGuy wrote:

I agree with what you are saying here.

I was speaking to a close friend earlier today who was a director of maintenance for American Airlines for the last 25 years. As you might expect, our conversation drifted around to the 737 MAX8 and as he pointed out, no aircraft that carries passengers should rely on a stability augmention system to maintain stability in flight. The fact that this was done simply to maintain the MAX on the same TC as the Next Generation is evidence of the mindset at Boeing - instead of taking the time and expense to properly develop solutions that would preclude the need for MCAS, Boeing came up with this system that has been tacked on to the aircraft. It really is a case of putting makeup on a pig...you can’t make a 737 into a modern aircraft that is competitive and trying to make the plane operate missions previously served by the 757.

Not that anyone cares about my opinion - but it really seems that Boeing should have taken the time and expense to properly solve these issues instead of tacking on a poorly executed software system - and then, not bothering to disclose it’s existence to the operating airlines. That’s not acceptable and I can’t help but wonder what software fixes Boeing has come up with for the 777X....I hope that they do a better job with that aircraft than they have done with the MAX.

You can say a lot about Airbus and it’s approach to engineering, but having flown the A320 for the last 10 years, I can honestly say that Airbus does a much better job of integrating systems and features than Boeing. I just completed training on ROPS - Runway Overrun Prevention System and it is truly seamless in it’s operation - it doesn’t feel like a new feature that was tacked on. It has the same level of seamless operation that every other avionic system on the A320.


Your opinion is certainly every bit as worthy as anyone else's.

1. If Boeing thought they implemented a proper solution, then presumably they took "the time and expense" to do so properly. As happens with aircraft, it turns out the system wasn't adequate.

2. I keep hearing that Boeing never told the airlines about MCAS, but I've never seen definitive proof of that.

3. Are you saying all Boeing planes are inferior, or are you comparing the A320 to the 737? I don't personally care, but if your experience has been on the A320, which was designed in 1988, I'm just wondering if the 787 would be considered worthy of comparison?


The current generation of aircraft (which includes the likes of the 787 and A350) began in 1988 with the EIS of the A320. Technological progress on that scale hasn't happened since.


Please stop. I asked the other member for his specific response. If I want to hear your repetitive 1988-centric mantra, I'll let you know.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
A320FlyGuy
Posts: 260
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 8:31 pm

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:57 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
A320FlyGuy wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:


Do you realize that the 777 is a full FBW aircraft?


Wow....really? :roll:

Of course I know that the 777 is a full Fly by Wire aircraft - my point was that I hope that whatever software changes that Boeing makes to the 777 software are more throughly tested, developed and executed than what we have seen thus far.


What have we seen? There has been no conclusion to either crash. I get that you are biased toward Airbus but come on. Would you have supported grounding the A320 after the XL Airways crash and the A330 after the Qantas plunge? Apparently when a little water gets in the AOA sensors on the A320 it can seriously mess with the ADIRU. But fortunately cooler heads prevailed in those cases.


I don’t think that grounding is justified in any of the situations that you indicated above - my airline operates both the A320 and the 737MAX. I know pilots who fly both aircraft and the general concenus is that the 737MAX lacks the refinement one would expect from a brand new aircraft. I freely admit that I am biased towards Airbus. I have spent time in Toulouse, I have seen the aircraft being built and I know the A320 intimately. I don’t like what I am seeing with the 737MAX - I believe that Boeing has pushed the limits a bit far with this aircraft and it is coming back to bite them.
My other car is an A320-200
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19387
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:00 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
luv2cattlecall wrote:
prebennorholm wrote:
Yes. But when that left hand AoA sensor fails, then the cure is to switch off automatic trim which disables MCAS. That's what the Lion crew was critizised for failing to do, and what the crew of the previous flight managed to do, to land safely. MCAS (working properly) only activates in such extreme corner of the envelope that a crew should easily be trained to avoid that corner when AoA sensors show disagree warning.

A pusher. Yes, but a pusher is also dependent on properly working AoA sensing, as is the shaker which was activated for most of the Lion flight.

I'm not a fan of all those bandaid systems on old-fashioned designs. Give me failure tolerance instead. Give me triple sensors with voting out the bad guy. It is out there in the sky. I'm not sure, but it wouldn't surprise me if the 737 is the only jet airliner being produced today without triple sensors and voting.


How were the Lion Air pilots supposed to quickly diagnose an AoA sensor failure? What if they were spatially disoriented?

Keep in mind that the AoA disagree warning was an option that wasn't installed (I can't for the life of me understand why this is an extra cost option from Boeing).

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reu ... SKCN1NZ0QL


I don't understand why some things are options vs standard, but then again, I don't understand why an airline would choose to save a few bucks rather than install a system that would make flying safer?


Importantly, it isn't "a few bucks". In commercial aviation, it is always a lot of the bucks.

If it was deemed necessary to keep the operation "safe", then the instrument would be a regulatory requirement. Since it isn't, the operation is by definition safe without it in the eyes of the regulators, and the widget is a "nice to have".

Example: The A350 always has one display for ISIS (standby instrumentation). A second ISIS display is optional. Having a second one allows you to display navigation data while keeping the first as a standby PFD. Would adding the second one makes the operation safer? Yes, but only very marginally. The chance of ever having to use ISIS are infinitesimal as it is. Would pilots prefer to have both? Yes. Are pilots bothered by the lack of a second one? Not really.
Last edited by Starlionblue on Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1422
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:03 am

A320FlyGuy wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
A320FlyGuy wrote:

Wow....really? :roll:

Of course I know that the 777 is a full Fly by Wire aircraft - my point was that I hope that whatever software changes that Boeing makes to the 777 software are more throughly tested, developed and executed than what we have seen thus far.


What have we seen? There has been no conclusion to either crash. I get that you are biased toward Airbus but come on. Would you have supported grounding the A320 after the XL Airways crash and the A330 after the Qantas plunge? Apparently when a little water gets in the AOA sensors on the A320 it can seriously mess with the ADIRU. But fortunately cooler heads prevailed in those cases.


I don’t think that grounding is justified in any of the situations that you indicated above - my airline operates both the A320 and the 737MAX. I know pilots who fly both aircraft and the general concenus is that the 737MAX lacks the refinement one would expect from a brand new aircraft. I freely admit that I am biased towards Airbus. I have spent time in Toulouse, I have seen the aircraft being built and I know the A320 intimately. I don’t like what I am seeing with the 737MAX - I believe that Boeing has pushed the limits a bit far with this aircraft and it is coming back to bite them.


Of course you don't. Nevermind that Qantas 72 nearly dived into the ocean only one year before AF 447 did. Two A330's roughly a year apart. And not a peep for grounding the fleet immediately after the crash (and that was the right decision imo). No talk that Airbus was building deathtraps either. Why do you think Airbus gets the benefit of the doubt but not Boeing?
 
gia777
Posts: 130
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 4:12 pm

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:06 am

Singapore is banning all B737max flying in and out from their airport now...
Cheers,

GIA777 :coffee:
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:07 am

Starlionblue wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
luv2cattlecall wrote:

How were the Lion Air pilots supposed to quickly diagnose an AoA sensor failure? What if they were spatially disoriented?

Keep in mind that the AoA disagree warning was an option that wasn't installed (I can't for the life of me understand why this is an extra cost option from Boeing).

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reu ... SKCN1NZ0QL


I don't understand why some things are options vs standard, but then again, I don't understand why an airline would choose to save a few bucks rather than install a system that would make flying safer?


Importantly, it isn't "a few bucks". In commercial aviation, it is always a lot of the bucks.

If it was deemed necessary to keep the operation "safe", then the instrument would be a regulatory requirement. Since it isn't, the operation is by definition safe without it in the eyes of the regulators, and the widget is a "nice to have".

Example: The A350 always has one display for ISIS (standby instrumentation). A second ISIS display is optional. Having a second one allows you to display navigation data while keeping the first as a standby PFD. Would adding the second one makes the operation safer? Yes, but only very marginally. The chance of ever having to use ISIS are infinitesimal as it is. Would pilots prefer to have both? Yes. Are pilots bothered by the lack of a second one? Not really.


Well, "few bucks" was relative, but point taken.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:08 am

gia777 wrote:
Singapore is banning all B737max flying in and out from their airport now...


1. Thank you. The numbers keep climbing.
2. It's been said a number of times in this thread already.
3. There is a grounding thread that the mods have requested we use for that info so that we can keep this one devoted to this crash.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
A320FlyGuy
Posts: 260
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 8:31 pm

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:10 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
A320FlyGuy wrote:
simking wrote:
I guess I am surprised that a new aircraft could have such a flaw with all the testing that was done wouldn't something like an MCAS or faulty software error be found..or is it more likely that its not enough training in such a new platform with new procedures and knowing the new aircraft?


I agree with what you are saying here.

I was speaking to a close friend earlier today who was a director of maintenance for American Airlines for the last 25 years. As you might expect, our conversation drifted around to the 737 MAX8 and as he pointed out, no aircraft that carries passengers should rely on a stability augmention system to maintain stability in flight. The fact that this was done simply to maintain the MAX on the same TC as the Next Generation is evidence of the mindset at Boeing - instead of taking the time and expense to properly develop solutions that would preclude the need for MCAS, Boeing came up with this system that has been tacked on to the aircraft. It really is a case of putting makeup on a pig...you can’t make a 737 into a modern aircraft that is competitive and trying to make the plane operate missions previously served by the 757.

Not that anyone cares about my opinion - but it really seems that Boeing should have taken the time and expense to properly solve these issues instead of tacking on a poorly executed software system - and then, not bothering to disclose it’s existence to the operating airlines. That’s not acceptable and I can’t help but wonder what software fixes Boeing has come up with for the 777X....I hope that they do a better job with that aircraft than they have done with the MAX.

You can say a lot about Airbus and it’s approach to engineering, but having flown the A320 for the last 10 years, I can honestly say that Airbus does a much better job of integrating systems and features than Boeing. I just completed training on ROPS - Runway Overrun Prevention System and it is truly seamless in it’s operation - it doesn’t feel like a new feature that was tacked on. It has the same level of seamless operation that every other avionic system on the A320.


Your opinion is certainly every bit as worthy as anyone else's.

1. If Boeing thought they implemented a proper solution, then presumably they took "the time and expense" to do so properly. As happens with aircraft, it turns out the system wasn't adequate.

2. I keep hearing that Boeing never told the airlines about MCAS, but I've never seen definitive proof of that.

3. Are you saying all Boeing planes are inferior, or are you comparing the A320 to the 737? I don't personally care, but if your experience has been on the A320, which was designed in 1988, I'm just wondering if the 787 would be considered worthy of comparison?


1. Aviation doesn’t always take the time needed to properly resolve a problem - look at the DC-10 cargo door or the 737 rudder or the various bugs that have plagued Airbus. It’s happened before, it could certainly happen again.

2. In the first 2 versions of the 737MAX FCOM, there was no mention of the MCAS. I haven’t been able to download a copy of the FCOM from our corporate intranet since I’m not on that aircraft but I’ve seen a copy of a friends manual and during some downtime in the crew room, we went through it and found no reference to the MCAS at all. Even doing a search in the .PDF for MCAS/Augmentaiton System, etc. There was nothing found. So if that is one airline, there are certainly others out there. Several pilot unions have also stated they had no knowledge of this system.

In some respects, it is similar to what McDonnell-Douglas did with the MD-80 and the inclusion of Automatic Thrust Restoration on later aircraft. If you recall, when SAS lost an MD-80 due to clear ice being shed and ingested by the engines, the ATR system was trying to add power despite the engines being critically damaged. SAS had no knowledge of the ATR’s inclusion in it’s later build aircraft and it was not mentioned in any documentation that the airline had.

3. I’m not saying all Boeing planes are inferior - I just think that the company is not as engineering driven as it once was. I think there is greater drive for volume and some of the engineering excellence that Boeing was known for has evaporated.
My other car is an A320-200
 
Virtual737
Posts: 616
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:15 am

TTailedTiger wrote:

Of course you don't. Nevermind that Qantas 72 nearly dived into the ocean only one year before AF 447 did. Two A330's roughly a year apart. And not a peep for grounding the fleet immediately after the crash (and that was the right decision imo). No talk that Airbus was building deathtraps either. Why do you think Airbus gets the benefit of the doubt but not Boeing?


A330 wasn't a new type. A330 didn't have a known, unresolved issue awaiting a final fix from Airbus. The two A330 incidents you mention (by your timescales, I've not looked them up) were more than twice the timespan apart and one crashed and the other didn't, so there were not 2 hull losses.

Is your best argument for no immediate action really the fact that no action was taken against Airbus? Come on, surely you can do better.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:16 am

A320FlyGuy wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
A320FlyGuy wrote:

I agree with what you are saying here.

I was speaking to a close friend earlier today who was a director of maintenance for American Airlines for the last 25 years. As you might expect, our conversation drifted around to the 737 MAX8 and as he pointed out, no aircraft that carries passengers should rely on a stability augmention system to maintain stability in flight. The fact that this was done simply to maintain the MAX on the same TC as the Next Generation is evidence of the mindset at Boeing - instead of taking the time and expense to properly develop solutions that would preclude the need for MCAS, Boeing came up with this system that has been tacked on to the aircraft. It really is a case of putting makeup on a pig...you can’t make a 737 into a modern aircraft that is competitive and trying to make the plane operate missions previously served by the 757.

Not that anyone cares about my opinion - but it really seems that Boeing should have taken the time and expense to properly solve these issues instead of tacking on a poorly executed software system - and then, not bothering to disclose it’s existence to the operating airlines. That’s not acceptable and I can’t help but wonder what software fixes Boeing has come up with for the 777X....I hope that they do a better job with that aircraft than they have done with the MAX.

You can say a lot about Airbus and it’s approach to engineering, but having flown the A320 for the last 10 years, I can honestly say that Airbus does a much better job of integrating systems and features than Boeing. I just completed training on ROPS - Runway Overrun Prevention System and it is truly seamless in it’s operation - it doesn’t feel like a new feature that was tacked on. It has the same level of seamless operation that every other avionic system on the A320.


Your opinion is certainly every bit as worthy as anyone else's.

1. If Boeing thought they implemented a proper solution, then presumably they took "the time and expense" to do so properly. As happens with aircraft, it turns out the system wasn't adequate.

2. I keep hearing that Boeing never told the airlines about MCAS, but I've never seen definitive proof of that.

3. Are you saying all Boeing planes are inferior, or are you comparing the A320 to the 737? I don't personally care, but if your experience has been on the A320, which was designed in 1988, I'm just wondering if the 787 would be considered worthy of comparison?


1. Aviation doesn’t always take the time needed to properly resolve a problem - look at the DC-10 cargo door or the 737 rudder or the various bugs that have plagued Airbus. It’s happened before, it could certainly happen again.

2. In the first 2 versions of the 737MAX FCOM, there was no mention of the MCAS. I haven’t been able to download a copy of the FCOM from our corporate intranet since I’m not on that aircraft but I’ve seen a copy of a friends manual and during some downtime in the crew room, we went through it and found no reference to the MCAS at all. Even doing a search in the .PDF for MCAS/Augmentaiton System, etc. There was nothing found. So if that is one airline, there are certainly others out there. Several pilot unions have also stated they had no knowledge of this system.

In some respects, it is similar to what McDonnell-Douglas did with the MD-80 and the inclusion of Automatic Thrust Restoration on later aircraft. If you recall, when SAS lost an MD-80 due to clear ice being shed and ingested by the engines, the ATR system was trying to add power despite the engines being critically damaged. SAS had no knowledge of the ATR’s inclusion in it’s later build aircraft and it was not mentioned in any documentation that the airline had.

3. I’m not saying all Boeing planes are inferior - I just think that the company is not as engineering driven as it once was. I think there is greater drive for volume and some of the engineering excellence that Boeing was known for has evaporated.


Thanks for the replies.

1. I'm just not sure that had they spent more time they would have done something differently? I don't work there so have no idea though.
2. I guess the question is who did Boeing tell and how did they tell it? I've heard conflicting info, including the good feedback you listed above.
3. Could be true.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
ELBOB
Posts: 295
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:56 am

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:16 am

A320FlyGuy wrote:
1. Aviation doesn’t always take the time needed to properly resolve a problem - look at the DC-10 cargo door or the 737 rudder or the various bugs that have plagued Airbus. It’s happened before, it could certainly happen again.


And that's because ( Western ) regulators are beholden to corporate interests. There should be no consideration of commercial impact when reviewing the airworthiness or otherwise of a new type, or when considering a grounding. There should be no grandfathering of type certification. There should certianly be a prohibition on former corporate executives moving into regulatory jobs.

Remember when those crazy Soviets used to schedule a new airliner on mail and freight runs for a couple of years before they were authorised to carry passengers? Flying them on realistic routes in realistic weather with actual airline crews. Back then we laughed at that primitive certification system. Now it doesn't seem so stupid.
Last edited by ELBOB on Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
A320FlyGuy
Posts: 260
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 8:31 pm

Re: Ethiopian Airlines 737MAX crashes enroute to Nairobi

Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:19 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
A320FlyGuy wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:

What have we seen? There has been no conclusion to either crash. I get that you are biased toward Airbus but come on. Would you have supported grounding the A320 after the XL Airways crash and the A330 after the Qantas plunge? Apparently when a little water gets in the AOA sensors on the A320 it can seriously mess with the ADIRU. But fortunately cooler heads prevailed in those cases.


I don’t think that grounding is justified in any of the situations that you indicated above - my airline operates both the A320 and the 737MAX. I know pilots who fly both aircraft and the general concenus is that the 737MAX lacks the refinement one would expect from a brand new aircraft. I freely admit that I am biased towards Airbus. I have spent time in Toulouse, I have seen the aircraft being built and I know the A320 intimately. I don’t like what I am seeing with the 737MAX - I believe that Boeing has pushed the limits a bit far with this aircraft and it is coming back to bite them.


Of course you don't. Nevermind that Qantas 72 nearly dived into the ocean only one year before AF 447 did. Two A330's roughly a year apart. And not a peep for grounding the fleet immediately after the crash (and that was the right decision imo). No talk that Airbus was building deathtraps either. Why do you think Airbus gets the benefit of the doubt but not Boeing?


First of all, Qantas 72 and AF447 were very different situations and really share no commonality other than both are A330s.

With the 737 MAX8, you have two incidents that are superficially similar and have occurred very quickly after EIS and also within 6 months of each other. If it was an Airbus or an Embraer or anything else, the attention would be the same. What makes this different is the fact that we already know that there has been some ambiguity about the MCAS and the documentation of this system has not been clearly established. Some airlines claim to know nothing about it, others claim it was in their manuals. Somewhere in the middle lies the truth.

The difference between the A320 and the 737MAX in this case is that the A320 could very easily have been modified to handle the changes in handling due to different engines (and in fact, this has been done with the neo). However, Boeing had a strong desire to maintain the same TC with the MAX and MCAS became a foregone conclusion. If MCAS proves to be at the root of both accidents, then it becomes clear that the system has flaws.

I’m not about to get into a pissing match over all of this - We all have our opinions about this and the whole point of a discussion forum is to exchange ideas and opinions and thoughts. If we all agreed on everything, it would make for a very boring world...and right now, we don’t know anything about this crash and everything is just a guess.

Let’s not lose sight of the fact that all we know for sure right now is that we don’t really know anything.
My other car is an A320-200

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos