Interested
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:49 pm

klm617 wrote:
Amsterdam wrote:
klm617 wrote:
If it is proven that these two accidents are not the fault of the airplane but crew training issues can AA and WN go back and sue the US government for not allowing them to operate a perfectly safe aircraft.


There will always be ace crews that can save an aeroplane that 9 out of 10 crews will not save.

What is the standard?

Even amazingly difficult situations can be saved by some crews/pilots.

So you want to asses what percentage of crews could have handled a certain failure in a specifique situation? The same failures can happen at different situations.

At what percentage is it boeings fault and at what percentage the airlines?

If 10% of crews fail and 90% save it, is that the crews fault or boeings?
Or at 20% vs 80%?
Or 1% vs 99%?

What is the crew failure tipping point percentage after which you can blame the aircraft design?


It's like a 16 year old trying to handle a Corvette at top speed. Just because he was unable to handle the car and crashed it because of lack of experience does that mean we should ban all Corvettes from being on the road. I really think there needs to be a worldwide standard put in place for training. How many total flying hours you need to have to get into a seat on the worlds most advance new airliner. You should have to have a reasonable level of experience to get to the next level. There is a reason that the western world has been pretty much crash free for the last 20 years or so and it isn't luck either.


I watched part of a press conference by the Canadian Transport Minister where he said Canadian Pilots were fully trained on how to deal with these issues on 737 Max flights. And probably the best trained in the world. But he still wasn't going to allow them to fly the planes.

Is that not enough for you?
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 1729
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Fri Mar 15, 2019 7:16 pm

klm617 wrote:
It's like a 16 year old trying to handle a Corvette at top speed. Just because he was unable to handle the car and crashed it because of lack of experience does that mean we should ban all Corvettes from being on the road. I really think there needs to be a worldwide standard put in place for training. How many total flying hours you need to have to get into a seat on the worlds most advance new airliner. You should have to have a reasonable level of experience to get to the next level. There is a reason that the western world has been pretty much crash free for the last 20 years or so and it isn't luck either.

No, it's like a perfectly regular driver, who has driven a variety of cars over a number of years, trying to handle a Corvette at top speed.
Or a Lotus.

Been there, done that, narrowly avoided writing one off (& probably myself too)

I would agree there was nothing wrong with the said Lotus; it was my lack of specific training.

They should only sell high-powered RWD sports cars to drivers who have undertaken the requisite training program, and demonstrated sufficient competence.

..

If we are agreed on that, then Boeing should only be able to sell their high performance sports car (737MAX) to airlines that have done the same.

Meanwhile, Airbus can sell their docile, easy-to-handle family saloon car (A320) to anyone and everyone.

Is that what you were looking for? :scratchchin:
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
ELBOB
Posts: 295
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:56 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Fri Mar 15, 2019 7:33 pm

klm617 wrote:
I really think there needs to be a worldwide standard put in place for training. How many total flying hours you need to have to get into a seat on the worlds most advance new airliner. You should have to have a reasonable level of experience to get to the next level. .


So, start with the predictable FBW 777 or 787 with 300 passengers and 'advance' up to the tricky-to-handle, snappy Max with 190 pax? Interesting idea.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13121
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Fri Mar 15, 2019 7:34 pm

Interested wrote:
seahawk wrote:
seahawk wrote:

I am not sure if I should call it good or bad...


10 days says

a) they must have been working on it for some time
b) they must have identified a problem from the Lion air crash
c) they must believe that the ET crash is connected to it

And then they were against grounding the plane 2 days ago....

This is more damaging to my perception of Boeing than the idea of them having as design fault in the 737...


Boeing have already admitted they've been working on the fix since November.


That can't be truth. The MAX is save & you don't fix it if it isn't broken. The LionAir crash origins are unclear, it could be maintenance, the final report comes after the summer. We shouldn't speculate.. :yuck:
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
PixelPilot
Posts: 253
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:19 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Fri Mar 15, 2019 7:39 pm

 
ytz
Posts: 3529
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:31 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:04 pm

bhill wrote:
One thing I have been wondering...and bothering me a ton. Why now? This model has been in service for TWO years! If the only thing that has changed over the years is the Humans operating it.....


Numbers.

Two years ago they had one airplane in service. Now they have ~350. They were probably just coming up on a million cycles for the global fleet. And so they are finding out those 1 in a million problems.
 
decoder
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:45 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:07 pm

So technically, the MCAS has the authority to crank the elevator jackscrew up against the stops, leaving pilots with an unrecoverable hardover? Maybe I'm not understanding something, because several of the engineering decisions made with this aircraft seem questionable at best.
 
User avatar
remcor
Posts: 366
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 9:25 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:15 pm

Well the reports don't say that the elevator trim was at the full down stop, just that it was in an unusual nose down position similar to the Lion Air flight. But yes, from my understanding one of the software fixes will be to limit the total amount of nose-down trim the MCAS system can perform. And apparently it's questionable in the first place why this wasn't done previously because all that trim wasn't apparently necessary to address the condition to trigger an MCAS situation, in the part of the flight envelope that it is expected to perform in.
 
phugoid1982
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 4:02 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:21 pm

ExperimentalFTE wrote:
phugoid1982 wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:

Static stability becoming relaxed/unstable has nothing to do with the empennage - so increasing the size of the elevators is not an avenue of escape. Probably nor is any other active alternative to MCAS - as certifiers may deem it susceptible to new issues in a similar vein to MCAS - indeed I think it is a direct contravention of FAR25 - which stipulates all commercial aircraft must be longitudinally statically stable.

Reprofiling the nacelle? Not even sure how much that would stop the wing acting like a slotted flap to the nacelle. The nacelle is just too high and too far forward.

Look (Leeham):

Image

Upper surface of nacelle is higher than leading edge of wing.

Could they reprofile the wing so the region aft of the nacelle is much more lift neutral? Don't think it would help at higher AoA anyway even if it were a symmetrical aerofoil profile. Deploying spoilers in the local region aft of the nacelle is no use as that would only make the problem worse - more drag, moving aero chord forward...

It's actually a right clusterf___ of a problem the more I think of it.


It is dawning on me that there is a slim but non-zero possibility that the 737max may never be cleared to operate again - unless Boeing are allowed to do something no other aircraft has been under FAR25. The FAA might buy off on it, but really dunno how that will go down across the rest of the world.


Agree with you 100%. Adding more washout to the wing would only increase the drag penalty and negate an fuel savings achieved over the range the MAX operates. Also, most stabilizers given their symmetrical profile are angled at a negative incidence angle to produce a positive moment at zero alpha w.r.t to the zero lift line. Reducing this angle would increase the pitch down moment at higher alpha but it would still remain statically unbalanced especially at rotation. I'm not sure, but I think most commercial airliners have variable incidence tailplanes but they cannot be adjusted in flight and are determined upon take/off based on weight/balance issues. I don't know the location of the c.g. w.r.t to the z-axis but my guess is spoiler deployment would produce a stabilizing pitch down moment. However, in general, at the low speeds pilots would find themselves in typical high alpha regime flight, the last thing I would want is further reduction in airspeed.

All in all, regardless of all the flaming and back and forth, this whole debacle gives me a very uneasy and sad feeling.


I am starting to lean more and more to this being the reason why MCAS was required and implemented in first place:

§ 25.203 Stall characteristics.
(a) It must be possible to produce and to correct roll and yaw by unreversed use of the aileron and rudder controls, up to the time the airplane is stalled. No abnormal nose-up pitching may occur. The longitudinal control force must be positive up to and throughout the stall. In addition, it must be possible to promptly prevent stalling and to recover from a stall by normal use of the controls.

(b) For level wing stalls, the roll occurring between the stall and the completion of the recovery may not exceed approximately 20 degrees.

(c) For turning flight stalls, the action of the airplane after the stall may not be so violent or extreme as to make it difficult, with normal piloting skill, to effect a prompt recovery and to regain control of the airplane. The maximum bank angle that occurs during the recovery may not exceed -

(1) Approximately 60 degrees in the original direction of the turn, or 30 degrees in the opposite direction, for deceleration rates up to 1 knot per second; and

(2) Approximately 90 degrees in the original direction of the turn, or 60 degrees in the opposite direction, for deceleration rates in excess of 1 knot per second.

[Doc. No. 5066, 29 FR 18291, Dec. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 25-84, 60 FR 30750, June 9, 1995]

I am with you wrt fear that there is a chance that MAX "as is" is possibly doomed....



I was wondering whether FAR 25.203 compliance was contingent upon Unaugmented Stability & Control characteristics when I happened upon 26.672b and 26.671

25.672 Stability augmentation and automatic and power-operated systems.
If the functioning of stability augmentation or other automatic or power-operated systems is necessary to show compliance with the flight characteristics requirements of this part, such systems must comply with §25.671 and the following:

(b) The design of the stability augmentation system or of any other automatic or power-operated system must permit initial counteraction of failures of the type specified in §25.671(c) without requiring exceptional pilot skill or strength, [b] by either the deactivation of the system, or a failed portion thereof, or by overriding the failure by movement of the flight controls in the normal sense.
[/b]

§25.671 General.

(c) The airplane must be shown by analysis, tests, or both, to be capable of continued safe flight and landing after any of the following failures or jamming in the flight control system and surfaces (including trim, lift, drag, and feel systems), within the normal flight envelope, without requiring exceptional piloting skill or strength. Probable malfunctions must have only minor effects on control system operation and must be capable of being readily counteracted by the pilot.

(1) Any single failure, excluding jamming (for example, disconnection or failure of mechanical elements, or structural failure of hydraulic components, such as actuators, control spool housing, and valves).

(2) Any combination of failures not shown to be extremely improbable, excluding jamming (for example, dual electrical or hydraulic system failures, or any single failure in combination with any probable hydraulic or electrical failure).

I'm assuming unreliable AOA and pitot-static data contributing to unreliable velocimetry leading to persistent activation of SAS in the presence of erroneous data counts as a probably malfunction. So, it expressly prohibits deactivation of MCAS in the event of a failure to recover. Doesn't disengaging the cut out switches count even though this is a sensor failure contributing to SAS activation rather than SAS failure. Of course, this may just be semantic argument and I'm missing something
 
klm617
Posts: 4378
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:24 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
klm617 wrote:
It's like a 16 year old trying to handle a Corvette at top speed. Just because he was unable to handle the car and crashed it because of lack of experience does that mean we should ban all Corvettes from being on the road. I really think there needs to be a worldwide standard put in place for training. How many total flying hours you need to have to get into a seat on the worlds most advance new airliner. You should have to have a reasonable level of experience to get to the next level. There is a reason that the western world has been pretty much crash free for the last 20 years or so and it isn't luck either.

No, it's like a perfectly regular driver, who has driven a variety of cars over a number of years, trying to handle a Corvette at top speed.
Or a Lotus.

Been there, done that, narrowly avoided writing one off (& probably myself too)

I would agree there was nothing wrong with the said Lotus; it was my lack of specific training.

They should only sell high-powered RWD sports cars to drivers who have undertaken the requisite training program, and demonstrated sufficient competence.

..

If we are agreed on that, then Boeing should only be able to sell their high performance sports car (737MAX) to airlines that have done the same.

Meanwhile, Airbus can sell their docile, easy-to-handle family saloon car (A320) to anyone and everyone.

Is that what you were looking for? :scratchchin:



No Boeing can sell planes to whomever they want but there must be a training standard to which all airlines comply to before operating the planes. The fault should then rest on the airlines that are cutting corners to get people in the cockpit whether they have met the world standard of training or not. The company who built the plane is not reasonable if the carrier who bought it put someone up front without adequate experience. If airlines then want to chose the Airbus product over Boeing that would be up to them.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2298
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:27 pm

Oh and just realised of course static stability is partially defined by the elevators. Boeing increases the tail volume ratio, they'll move the neutral point aft - which will improve static stability.

But what that does for certification....
Last edited by Amiga500 on Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
ELBOB
Posts: 295
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:56 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:27 pm

klm617 wrote:

No Boeing can sell planes to whomever they want but there must be a training standard to which all airlines comply to before operating the planes.


We have to dumb-down aircraft handling because it's simply infeasible to skill-up every pilot to an extreme level. Even the military can't achieve that.

Boeing are obliged to ensure that their aircraft can be handled in all likely scenarios crew of average skill because the nature of humans means that, yes, most people are merely average at what they do.

If it transpires that the aircraft is too complex or difficult for an average crew to operate, the blame lies with the manufacturer and regulator. Otherwise it should have been put on an Experimental certificate and forbidden for commercial use.
 
Interested
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:50 pm

When I've seen comments about the lack of ability of the pilots in both crashes - people have mentioned their flights were in daylight and good weather so they should have been able to visually fly the plane and make the adjustments needed etc that way

Which clearly suggests that if it had been night time or bad weather that wouldn't be an option

So are we describing a plane that we accept might be safer for pilots to just fly during nice weather and daylight

Is that what we've come to with this plane?
 
ytz
Posts: 3529
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:31 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:55 pm

klm617 wrote:
No Boeing can sell planes to whomever they want but there must be a training standard to which all airlines comply to before operating the planes. The fault should then rest on the airlines that are cutting corners to get people in the cockpit whether they have met the world standard of training or not. The company who built the plane is not reasonable if the carrier who bought it put someone up front without adequate experience. If airlines then want to chose the Airbus product over Boeing that would be up to them.


You have any proof that the FO in this case lacked adequate experience? Hours =/= experience. 200 hrs in a proper high intensity training program is not the same as 200 hrs puttering around the countryside in your cessna. So if you have knowledge on the actual experience and skill level of the FO we'd all like to see it.

I'd also like to know where you saw the investigation report, because I'd like to read up on the paragraph where it identifies the FO's lack of experience as a specific cause factor in this crash. Would you care to point me to where I can find that?
 
ytz
Posts: 3529
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:31 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:59 pm

ELBOB wrote:
klm617 wrote:

No Boeing can sell planes to whomever they want but there must be a training standard to which all airlines comply to before operating the planes.


We have to dumb-down aircraft handling because it's simply infeasible to skill-up every pilot to an extreme level. Even the military can't achieve that.

Boeing are obliged to ensure that their aircraft can be handled in all likely scenarios crew of average skill because the nature of humans means that, yes, most people are merely average at what they do.

If it transpires that the aircraft is too complex or difficult for an average crew to operate, the blame lies with the manufacturer and regulator. Otherwise it should have been put on an Experimental certificate and forbidden for commercial use.


And everyone should not that the definition talks about skill. Not hours or on what type those hours were earned on. A properly licensed pilot, qualified on type should be able to operate the jet safely. If it becomes absolutely necessary to have anything more than that to safely operate this aircraft, than the aircraft is not meeting design standards and should have its type certificate revoked.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8746
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:06 pm

ytz wrote:
And everyone should not that the definition talks about skill. Not hours or on what type those hours were earned on. A properly licensed pilot, qualified on type should be able to operate the jet safely. If it becomes absolutely necessary to have anything more than that to safely operate this aircraft, than the aircraft is not meeting design standards and should have its type certificate revoked.

Nods!

Quite interesting to note that the new argumentation line handed out to astro turfers is
"sub par pilot qualification, MAX is a high skills demanding racing airplane"
while the 737 is much nearer the equivalent of a US school bus.
Low sophistication old iron used because it is cheap. :-)
Last edited by WIederling on Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Interested
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:17 pm

From BBC website

How important is the 737 fleet to Boeing?
US regulators say the 737 Max, the fastest-selling plane in Boeing's history, is now likely to be grounded at least until May. The aircraft is a new model, a heavily re-engineered version of its workhorse 737. Deliveries to customers only began in 2017.
Globally, about 370 are in operation but the plane maker has close to 5,000 on order.
Teal Group aviation analyst Richard Aboulafia said although the current 737 Max fleet is relatively small "the future revenue stream is enormously important" to Boeing
Each plane on order was priced at between $45-50m, Mr Aboulafia said, and Boeing has "taken deposits worth a small portion of many of the orders received".
 
klm617
Posts: 4378
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:22 pm

ytz wrote:
ELBOB wrote:
klm617 wrote:

No Boeing can sell planes to whomever they want but there must be a training standard to which all airlines comply to before operating the planes.


We have to dumb-down aircraft handling because it's simply infeasible to skill-up every pilot to an extreme level. Even the military can't achieve that.

Boeing are obliged to ensure that their aircraft can be handled in all likely scenarios crew of average skill because the nature of humans means that, yes, most people are merely average at what they do.

If it transpires that the aircraft is too complex or difficult for an average crew to operate, the blame lies with the manufacturer and regulator. Otherwise it should have been put on an Experimental certificate and forbidden for commercial use.


And everyone should not that the definition talks about skill. Not hours or on what type those hours were earned on. A properly licensed pilot, qualified on type should be able to operate the jet safely. If it becomes absolutely necessary to have anything more than that to safely operate this aircraft, than the aircraft is not meeting design standards and should have its type certificate revoked.


Sorry it's on the airlines to get their crews up to speed when they order an aircraft. There is a market for such an aircraft so Boeing builds it. It's not like the Electra where the wing was falling of the crew has no control in recovering from that but erroneous computer readings is a survivable anomaly if you manually take over the aircraft. With computers there is always going to be system problems here and there but an adequately trained crew should be able to fly the aircraft out of danger.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
Exeiowa
Posts: 151
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2018 4:49 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:31 pm

klm617 wrote:
ytz wrote:
ELBOB wrote:

We have to dumb-down aircraft handling because it's simply infeasible to skill-up every pilot to an extreme level. Even the military can't achieve that.

Boeing are obliged to ensure that their aircraft can be handled in all likely scenarios crew of average skill because the nature of humans means that, yes, most people are merely average at what they do.

If it transpires that the aircraft is too complex or difficult for an average crew to operate, the blame lies with the manufacturer and regulator. Otherwise it should have been put on an Experimental certificate and forbidden for commercial use.


And everyone should not that the definition talks about skill. Not hours or on what type those hours were earned on. A properly licensed pilot, qualified on type should be able to operate the jet safely. If it becomes absolutely necessary to have anything more than that to safely operate this aircraft, than the aircraft is not meeting design standards and should have its type certificate revoked.


Sorry it's on the airlines to get their crews up to speed when they order an aircraft. There is a market for such an aircraft so Boeing builds it. It's not like the Electra where the wing was falling of the crew has no control in recovering from that but erroneous computer readings is a survivable anomaly if you manually take over the aircraft. With computers there is always going to be system problems here and there but an adequately trained crew should be able to fly the aircraft out of danger.



Okay its the airlines responsibility to get the pilots up to speed, but its Boeing's responsibility to tell the airline what speed that is.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 7075
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:36 pm

Interested wrote:
From BBC website

How important is the 737 fleet to Boeing?.


It was a neglected segment until WB market crashed. Way too much R&D money wasted on WBs.

Industry's obsession with WBs resulted in patched up NB designs, even though they are the breadwinners.
 
9Patch
Posts: 333
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:42 pm

Interested wrote:
When I've seen comments about the lack of ability of the pilots in both crashes - people have mentioned their flights were in daylight and good weather so they should have been able to visually fly the plane and make the adjustments needed etc that way

Which clearly suggests that if it had been night time or bad weather that wouldn't be an option

So are we describing a plane that we accept might be safer for pilots to just fly during nice weather and daylight

Is that what we've come to with this plane?


Isn't every plane whether it's made by Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, Comac, etc., safer to fly during nice weather?
Last edited by 9Patch on Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:48 pm, edited 4 times in total.
 
Kinetic
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:05 pm

Re: Should airline regulators consider grounding B737 MAX series

Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:43 pm

Etika wrote:
Kinetic wrote:
As far as I'm aware, Boeing could sue worldwide regulators, in case it's proven the two accidents in question aren't to be caused nor prevented by Boeing, btw.


This kind of thinking is a common misconception, but it simply isn't true, especially in European legal systems. In most jurisdictions, courts would not even consider the issue and even if they would, there would be extremely small chance of them ever finding in favor of Boeing.

Typically there are two different grounds on which it is possible to sue regulators. The first grounds is breach of legal duty by the regulator. This is a complete no-starter in this case because the regulators have legal duty for benefit of travelling public, not for benefit of airplane manufacturers. Thus, courts would consider such an argument to be as obviously without merit. The second basis is would be intentional overstepping of powers, gross negligence, or malfeasance on part of the regulator. Typically, for such a claim one would first need to show one of these in criminal or administrative court.

Importantly, courts will not second-guess the technical judgement of regulators (at least in European legal systems) when the right of such judgement is given to a regulator. And in aviation, such a right is explicitly given to safety regulators. The courts would only consider whether the legal steps have been correctly followed, not review the technical basis. And the legal framework does not require that accidents would have to be caused or been preventable by Boeing as criteria of grounding.


Thank you for your excellent explanation.
I have no expertise on the matter, but rather repeated the essential statement of an article in the context of the MAX grounding.
Apparently, you do have a very valid string of arguments, which by means of common sense might be indeed realized for the unlikely case, that groundings would be suspected to have violated any points within current legal framework and its interpretations. At the same time I have to insist that it does seem, that a grounding based on minor reasons might be an issue, as developed by some within the current debate.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 7075
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:44 pm

I don't buy the argument that third world airlines train their crew any less than developed world. They follow training programs are mandated by manufacturers and crew are either sent to one of the developed countries for training or in-house/locally setup with the help of reputed training establishments like CAE.

A.net makes it sound like ET is writing its own manual and crew are training on FSX.

Developing countries actually spend more money on training because the biased spotlight is always focused on them. They don't have the luxury to cut corners.
 
DDR
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:09 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:49 pm

ytz wrote:
bhill wrote:
One thing I have been wondering...and bothering me a ton. Why now? This model has been in service for TWO years! If the only thing that has changed over the years is the Humans operating it.....


Numbers.

Two years ago they had one airplane in service. Now they have ~350. They were probably just coming up on a million cycles for the global fleet. And so they are finding out those 1 in a million problems.


I don't agree with many of your posts but I think this is correct. It reminds me of the Boeing 737-300 fiasco when they started to plummet into the ground (UA and US) because of a rudder (servo valve) malfunction. Can't imagine a more horrifying way to die.
 
9w748capt
Posts: 1625
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:27 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:56 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
I don't buy the argument that third world airlines train their crew any less than developed world. They follow training programs are mandated by manufacturers and crew are either sent to one of the developed countries for training or in-house/locally setup with the help of reputed training establishments like CAE.

A.net makes it sound like ET is writing its own manual and crew are training on FSX.

Developing countries actually spend more money on training because the biased spotlight is always focused on them. They don't have the luxury to cut corners.


Exactly. I've seen the same nonsense written on other forums too. There are just people out there that think anyone that doesn't look or talk like them is automatically inferior. Of course this is much more accepted in the US these days for obvious reasons.
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1534
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:00 pm

decoder wrote:
So technically, the MCAS has the authority to crank the elevator jackscrew up against the stops, leaving pilots with an unrecoverable hardover? Maybe I'm not understanding something, because several of the engineering decisions made with this aircraft seem questionable at best.


It's not that simple. I think MCAS goes in steps. It makes an adjustment, 2.5 degrees I believe. If the stall conditions persist, it makes another 2.5 degree adjustment. And so on.
 
Kinetic
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:05 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:01 pm

I don't think, MCAS is the problem, btw.
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3766
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:04 pm

klm617 wrote:
Amsterdam wrote:
klm617 wrote:
If it is proven that these two accidents are not the fault of the airplane but crew training issues can AA and WN go back and sue the US government for not allowing them to operate a perfectly safe aircraft.


There will always be ace crews that can save an aeroplane that 9 out of 10 crews will not save.

What is the standard?

Even amazingly difficult situations can be saved by some crews/pilots.

So you want to asses what percentage of crews could have handled a certain failure in a specifique situation? The same failures can happen at different situations.

At what percentage is it boeings fault and at what percentage the airlines?

If 10% of crews fail and 90% save it, is that the crews fault or boeings?
Or at 20% vs 80%?
Or 1% vs 99%?

What is the crew failure tipping point percentage after which you can blame the aircraft design?


It's like a 16 year old trying to handle a Corvette at top speed. Just because he was unable to handle the car and crashed it because of lack of experience does that mean we should ban all Corvettes from being on the road. I really think there needs to be a worldwide standard put in place for training. How many total flying hours you need to have to get into a seat on the worlds most advance new airliner. You should have to have a reasonable level of experience to get to the next level. There is a reason that the western world has been pretty much crash free for the last 20 years or so and it isn't luck either.


There are 16 years out there with much better car control than many other with driving licenses. Heck we even have a Grand Prix winning Formula 1 driver that did not hold driving license.

The thing is that training and back ground is much more important than that 200 hrs number.

No, I'm not claiming that the 200 hr FO was a good fit in the cockpit, the investigation may very well identify serious issues with that.
I'm just saying the blanket statement on "mere 200 hrs thus he must have been a poor fit (or not adding any value in a difficult/high workload situation) is unsubstantiated; I have not seen any evidence for such statements.

These folks have no issue putting serious doubt on the 200 hrs FO, without presenting any hard evidence. Yet the same folks do not accept grounding when no hard evidence is available . . .
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3766
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:16 pm

bhill wrote:
One thing I have been wondering...and bothering me a ton. Why now? This model has been in service for TWO years! If the only thing that has changed over the years is the Humans operating it.....

We have thousands and thousands of 737s flying, with a couple of hundred of them being MAX version. In the timeframe of months we have two 737 crashes, with some similarities (or great similarities, depending on one's view), that is not good. But what are the odds that both would involve the newer model? That in itself, is reason for great worry. If one of those crashes would have involved a NG, no one would even be considering grounding action. But since both were MAX version, that is strong reason to stop using it until one understands if there is some sort of factor steering the odds.
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
peterinlisbon
Posts: 1489
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:37 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:17 pm

LTC8K6 wrote:
decoder wrote:
So technically, the MCAS has the authority to crank the elevator jackscrew up against the stops, leaving pilots with an unrecoverable hardover? Maybe I'm not understanding something, because several of the engineering decisions made with this aircraft seem questionable at best.


It's not that simple. I think MCAS goes in steps. It makes an adjustment, 2.5 degrees I believe. If the stall conditions persist, it makes another 2.5 degree adjustment. And so on.


The problem is that if the sensor is faulty or damaged, it will keep on making 2.5 degree adjustments until the aircraft crashes into the ground.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2298
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:18 pm

phugoid1982 wrote:
I was wondering whether FAR 25.203 compliance was contingent upon Unaugmented Stability & Control characteristics when I happened upon 26.672b and 26.671

25.672 Stability augmentation and automatic and power-operated systems.
If the functioning of stability augmentation or other automatic or power-operated systems is necessary to show compliance with the flight characteristics requirements of this part, such systems must comply with §25.671 and the following:

(b) The design of the stability augmentation system or of any other automatic or power-operated system must permit initial counteraction of failures of the type specified in §25.671(c) without requiring exceptional pilot skill or strength, [b] by either the deactivation of the system, or a failed portion thereof, or by overriding the failure by movement of the flight controls in the normal sense.
[/b]



To throw another spanner in the works. It has been brought to my attention that 25.672 did not exist when the 737 was first certified. Can Boeing use it and retain grandfathering over the rest of the associated systems?
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3766
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:31 pm

peterinlisbon wrote:
LTC8K6 wrote:
decoder wrote:
So technically, the MCAS has the authority to crank the elevator jackscrew up against the stops, leaving pilots with an unrecoverable hardover? Maybe I'm not understanding something, because several of the engineering decisions made with this aircraft seem questionable at best.


It's not that simple. I think MCAS goes in steps. It makes an adjustment, 2.5 degrees I believe. If the stall conditions persist, it makes another 2.5 degree adjustment. And so on.


The problem is that if the sensor is faulty or damaged, it will keep on making 2.5 degree adjustments until the aircraft crashes into the ground.


In the Lion Air crash, the pilots could (and did) successfully re-trim each time the system made a 2.5 degree adjustment with an opposite 2.5 adjustment, presumably through trim switch on the control column. Four or five consecutive 2.5 degree trimming actions (without counter trimming) will put the elevator in a position overriding maximum control column authority. In the Lion crash, the pilots did something like 20+ counter actions, before the elevator went to max trimming. We still don't know why the pilots did/could not counteract that last trimming action(s).
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17382
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:08 am

Kinetic wrote:
I don't think, MCAS is the problem, btw.


Then why is Boeing fixing it and making it operate in a radically different way?
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 7075
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:19 am

32andBelow wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
I don't buy the argument that third world airlines train their crew any less than developed world. They follow training programs are mandated by manufacturers and crew are either sent to one of the developed countries for training or in-house/locally setup with the help of reputed training establishments like CAE.

A.net makes it sound like ET is writing its own manual and crew are training on FSX.

Developing countries actually spend more money on training because the biased spotlight is always focused on them. They don't have the luxury to cut corners.

Then why does every 3rd world airline hire as many expat pilots from the first world as possible? The safety record of lion air or Africa vs any airline in America or Europe is not even close


They cannot hire and train fast enough because of the rapid growth in air travel. Aviation is no longer NA, EU, and Japan-centric.

If you are counting all the runway excursions, aviation infrastructure is not able to catch up with growth. Most of these places wouldn't qualify for a prop plane a few years back, an airport comes on farmland (or) on a beach (or) on a hilltop, next thing you know a brand new 737 landing there.
 
Kinetic
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:05 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:21 am

Have to revise: According to FR24 ET302 made it to 8600 ft
 
AtomicGarden
Posts: 375
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:57 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:25 am

Interested wrote:
When I've seen comments about the lack of ability of the pilots in both crashes - people have mentioned their flights were in daylight and good weather so they should have been able to visually fly the plane and make the adjustments needed etc that way

Which clearly suggests that if it had been night time or bad weather that wouldn't be an option

So are we describing a plane that we accept might be safer for pilots to just fly during nice weather and daylight

Is that what we've come to with this plane?


I feel 'touched' by your comment as I yesterday was not blaming the crew, just trying to better understand the conditions of the flight.

Analyzing weather conditions is essential methinks, particularly in this case: brand new aircraft, safe airline (not only for African standards), experienced crew (captain had what? 8000+ hours?) etc. It aliviates the burden of suspicion on the flight crew. But I still think it was a valid question until other users pointed out that the MCAS made very fast corrections and is not easy to deactivate.

Had it been during a storm and/or night time, we'd be talking about very different things. Hell, maybe without grounded MAX!
You killed a black astronaut, Cyril! That's like killing a unicorn!
 
Kinetic
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:05 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:26 am

But see it like that: If it would be only a software problem, things would have never come to this stage of urgency. There is a factor X in it, also Boeing is puzzled by, which goes way beyond.
 
Boof02671
Posts: 1626
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:15 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:29 am

Kinetic wrote:
Have to revise: According to FR24 ET302 made it to 8600 ft

Actually not as the airport elevation is around 7200 feet above sea leaves.
 
Boof02671
Posts: 1626
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:15 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:30 am

Kinetic wrote:
But see it like that: If it would be only a software problem, things would have never come to this stage of urgency. There is a factor X in it, also Boeing is puzzled by, which goes way beyond.

Yes you should as facts matter.
 
Kinetic
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:05 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:31 am

Boof02671 wrote:
Kinetic wrote:
Have to revise: According to FR24 ET302 made it to 8600 ft

Actually not as the airport elevation is around 7200 feet above sea leaves.


You tell, they have made it to 1600 ft max?
 
Kinetic
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:05 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:41 am

have to revise. apparently they we have two to three minutes of documentation.
 
Kinetic
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:05 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:43 am

There are witnesses however, reporting seeing the airborne plane on fire.
 
User avatar
EstherLouise
Posts: 226
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2017 6:16 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:43 am

Over hill, over dale, Chinese-made AOA sensor will ever fail.
712 722 732 734 737 738 741 742 744 752 762 772 A310 DC91 DC93 DC94 DC1030 DC1040 F100 MD82 MD83
 
Kinetic
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:05 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:49 am

MCAS makes the most sense, given. But why would Lion Air have their flaps out after their turn?
 
beechnut
Posts: 745
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:27 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:18 am

Kinetic wrote:
There are witnesses however, reporting seeing the airborne plane on fire.


Eyewitnesses without aviation experience are notoriously unreliable.

Beech
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3349
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:23 am

beechnut wrote:
Eyewitnesses without aviation experience are notoriously unreliable.

Beech


And yet can't be discounted.
 
Kinetic
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:05 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:34 am

Just realized its really just the same setting, in both scenarios.
No excuse, but I ve heard some senior pilots stating there would be major differences between these two accidents. But...its hard to find them.
 
AngMoh
Posts: 974
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:03 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:35 am

32andBelow wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
I don't buy the argument that third world airlines train their crew any less than developed world. They follow training programs are mandated by manufacturers and crew are either sent to one of the developed countries for training or in-house/locally setup with the help of reputed training establishments like CAE.

A.net makes it sound like ET is writing its own manual and crew are training on FSX.

Developing countries actually spend more money on training because the biased spotlight is always focused on them. They don't have the luxury to cut corners.

Then why does every 3rd world airline hire as many expat pilots from the first world as possible? The safety record of lion air or Africa vs any airline in America or Europe is not even close


They hire them because they can not get enough pilots locally due to the fast growth of the regional aviation industries and therefore hire from markets where there is a more abundant supply due to slower or no growth which is most likely the west. Once they have enough local pilots they happily let the expats go (as has happened with a european pilot I met who moved from SQ to China purely for money is now being slowly forced out over there).

If US or EU pilots would fly into places like Kalimantan or PNG, they would also have far higher rates of crashes. The link is a good example where two "superior western pilots" happily showed poor airmanship and crashed their plane.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airlines_PNG_Flight_1600
727 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 739ER 742 743 744 752 753 762 772 77E 773 77W 788 A300 A310 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 A345 A346 A359 A35K A388 DC-9 DC-10 MD11 MD81 MD82 MD87 F70 ERJ145 E170 E175 E190 E195 ATR72 Q400 CRJ200 CRJ700 CRJ900 BAE146 RJ85
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21520
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:59 am

Amiga500 wrote:
It is dawning on me that there is a slim but non-zero possibility that the 737max may never be cleared to operate again - unless Boeing are allowed to do something no other aircraft has been under FAR25. The FAA might buy off on it, but really dunno how that will go down across the rest of the world.


This has occurred to me, too. They might have to step so far back into the design that it might go outside the boundaries of certification for the type. To make it worse, I understand that the FAA will not certify any more 737 derivatives.

I hope not, because the lead time on a clean-sheet design would be years and Airbus simply can't build enough A320NEOs and A220s to cover the 737 backlog. Ooof, what a mess that would be.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
aerolimani
Posts: 1150
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:46 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Sat Mar 16, 2019 2:52 am

DocLightning wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
It is dawning on me that there is a slim but non-zero possibility that the 737max may never be cleared to operate again - unless Boeing are allowed to do something no other aircraft has been under FAR25. The FAA might buy off on it, but really dunno how that will go down across the rest of the world.


This has occurred to me, too. They might have to step so far back into the design that it might go outside the boundaries of certification for the type. To make it worse, I understand that the FAA will not certify any more 737 derivatives.

I hope not, because the lead time on a clean-sheet design would be years and Airbus simply can't build enough A320NEOs and A220s to cover the 737 backlog. Ooof, what a mess that would be.

This would be a disaster, in so many respects. Boeing legitimately falls into a category of too big too fail. Forget about the USA. This would be a global problem. The economic impacts would be large and widespread. Of course, it would mean a lot more NG’s and A320CEO series would be flying a lot longer, and that would help the situation. Still, the economic impact would be palpable amongst airlines unable to expand, and their affected nations.

Of my own Canada, AC and WS have both gone with the MAX. Only AC is also getting A220s.

But, this is pretty wild speculation. Perhaps not 100% outside the realm of possibility, but still unlikely, if purely for reasons of too big to fail.

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