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

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:23 pm

morrisond wrote:
Interested wrote:
Interested wrote:

The Wall Street Journal article said that Boeing have still not answered why they turned off the the AOA disagree feature without informing customers.

The Journal has also had sight of internal emails about this issues between FAA officials - one of whom wrote:

"It would be irresponsible to have MAX aircraft operating with AOA Disagree Warning system inoperative"

And they discussed grounding the planes until it was fixed

The concerns were then dismissed higher up the chain.

In today's press conference the CEO said these warnings would now be standard at Boeing's expense and will be retro-fitted on every MAX plane


In the press conference the CEO said even without the warning lights the pilots had all the information they needed to fly the plane. And that pilots need things like altitude and speed info to fly planes and they were all part of what was on screens to allow them to fly the MAX safely. And that the warning lights aren't necessary etc etc etc

He had an answer for every mistake

He's even better than Morisson!!


It's obvious I coached him.


Respect. I think you've got the same scriptwriters!!

Lol

Hope you get the same money he's on!!
 
kalvado
Posts: 1993
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:24 pm

OldAeroGuy wrote:
kalvado wrote:
I tried to bring it up before.. These are ballpark conditions for maintaining altitude. There is something specific in ET situation: hot and high airport with nearby mountains. Would those recommended conditions allow a safe climb above terrain? Yes, engine out performance should be such that they can get above mountains with reduced thrust - but would a handicap of extended gear and flaps outweigh that performance of extra engine?


Gear would not have been extended and Flaps 5 L/D is perhaps 40% lower than Flaps Up. The loss in L/D is more than made up by having 100% more engine thrust (two engines vs one engine). Plenty of climb performance would have been available.

In addition, ET302 crew were at their home airport in clear air. Maneuvering for an immediate return to land should have been a non-event.

Gear was down when they got error message; and SOP assumes no configuration changes. Once you say "bring gear up", you already deviate from that.
 
n92r03
Posts: 495
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 10:46 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:24 pm

flyer737sw wrote:
All Safety features should be “standard” equipment from this point going forward. Period


Should the same be true for automobiles? Is it a coincidence that the anti-collision features work much better on the more expensive models? Should the BMW 1 series buyer have the same "safety" options as the 7 series customers?
 
morrisond
Posts: 1338
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:25 pm

kalvado wrote:
morrisond wrote:
kalvado wrote:
I tried to bring it up before.. These are ballpark conditions for maintaining altitude. There is something specific in ET situation: hot and high airport with nearby mountains. Would those recommended conditions allow a safe climb above terrain? Yes, engine out performance should be such that they can get above mountains with reduced thrust - but would a handicap of extended gear and flaps outweigh that performance of extra engine?


Yes apparently they are sufficient for all situations - at lower altitudes (assume under 20,000') it will produce a climb.

One thing not talked about much on this website but came from the Flight Global article is that they never deviated from Take Off thrust. Apparently that is different from Climb thrust and they did not even adjust down to this value.

94% would have have been the computed take-off thrust - what would climb thrust been?

Brought up many times. For me it is perfectly obvious: one pilot is fighting with yoke, the other is with trim wheel. Thrust is way lower in priority. Assuming trim would be actually movable, 30 seconds to return trim to a managable state, there would be no issue with overspeed or engine.
As for "it results in climb" - is the rate of climb sufficient to avoid mountains? In a plane which may or may not handle a turn?


That wasn't my question - what should the take off thrust setting have been? I understand it was a high workload situation.
 
Interested
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:28 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
art wrote:
I heard a little of what the Boeing representative said. He maintained that the primary consideration was always safety. If that were true the company would have redesigned the wingbox (or whatever) to avoid pushing the engines forward and up on the successor to NG, Or gone for NSA.

Which was not done because Boeing's secondary consideration was safety. Their primary consideration was maintaining market share by producing an A320NEO competitor ASAP..


Insider hint (not): Safety is always in a balance with other factors. One can say it's #1, but in reality there always come a point where feasibility or finances are #1.

You know what isn't putting safety as a primary concern? Only focusing on MCAS and ignoring the other significant factors at play in these crashes. Like the CEO said, the accidents were a chain of events. Boeing will fix their link (and it's the easiest to fix). It's up to the rest of the world to improve the other links.


One journalist at the press conference did point out that without the MCAS link the crash wouldn't have happened

Does he not have a point. To call everything that followed the MCAS flaw a link is a bit tenuous. The whole driving force for the crash was MCAS

Let's be honest

Now it's just a link in a chain of events!!

Are we all supposed to be stupid??
Last edited by Interested on Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Interested
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:31 pm

n92r03 wrote:
flyer737sw wrote:
All Safety features should be “standard” equipment from this point going forward. Period


Should the same be true for automobiles? Is it a coincidence that the anti-collision features work much better on the more expensive models? Should the BMW 1 series buyer have the same "safety" options as the 7 series customers?


If a safety option is standard on the grandfathered plane. Can it just be removed without telling FAA or the airlines?

Clearly at least one FAA official above thought not and wanted the planes grounded. He called it "irresponsible" - not the kind or word you associate with safety is it?

And worse still the safety option feature was included as being present in South West Pilots manuals despite being de-activated!!

The manuals were wrong and didn't reflect it had been de-activated!!

Anyone think thats acceptable??

It's so poor and not sure how the CEO can defend it all with any integrity tbh
Last edited by Interested on Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3886
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:31 pm

kalvado wrote:
Brought up many times. For me it is perfectly obvious: one pilot is fighting with yoke, the other is with trim wheel. Thrust is way lower in priority. Assuming trim would be actually movable, 30 seconds to return trim to a managable state, there would be no issue with overspeed or engine.
As for "it results in climb" - is the rate of climb sufficient to avoid mountains? In a plane which may or may not handle a turn?


- If the Flaps had not been retracted as called for by Procedure, no one is fighting the yoke or the trim wheel.

- If you are in an overspeed condition, thrust is never a lower priority. Remember at the point they elected to turn TRIM back on, they were 7000' above the ground.

- At 360 KIAS, there should be no question relative to turn capability.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
morrisond
Posts: 1338
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:39 pm

Interested wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Interested wrote:

In the press conference the CEO said even without the warning lights the pilots had all the information they needed to fly the plane. And that pilots need things like altitude and speed info to fly planes and they were all part of what was on screens to allow them to fly the MAX safely. And that the warning lights aren't necessary etc etc etc

He had an answer for every mistake

He's even better than Morisson!!


It's obvious I coached him.


Respect. I think you've got the same scriptwriters!!

Lol

Hope you get the same money he's on!!


I only wish!

I actually think he is a not a very good CEO ( An opinion I held before the crashes), and reinforced by his recent performance.

I think he has been squandering the fantastic cash flow on buying back stock whereas he should have been investing it in new product when his main competitor would not have been able to respond as fast.

It's good for the share price in the short term but terrible in the long term. Keep investing in product to keep Airbus on there back foot and so the Chinese can't get a foothold in the market - for when they do (and they will) - Poof! there goes 50% of the market for both A&B.

It was a huge missed opportunity to not start NMA sooner and base an NSA off that platform.
 
OldProp
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2019 4:06 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:43 pm

SuperGee wrote:
"Boeing shareholder meeting turns tense amid 737 Max crisis"

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/29/investin ... index.html


I heard a lot of vague answers to direct questions. His safety "filibuster" answers and quick exit prevented any more embarrassment.

One question was, "Is Boeing going to reimburse the Airlines that lost money during the grounding of the 737 Max?" His answer was that Boeing is in talks with each Airline, but he wouldn't comment on it. I believe the answer to that question is a BIG yes.
 
kalvado
Posts: 1993
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:43 pm

OldAeroGuy wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Brought up many times. For me it is perfectly obvious: one pilot is fighting with yoke, the other is with trim wheel. Thrust is way lower in priority. Assuming trim would be actually movable, 30 seconds to return trim to a managable state, there would be no issue with overspeed or engine.
As for "it results in climb" - is the rate of climb sufficient to avoid mountains? In a plane which may or may not handle a turn?


- If the Flaps had not been retracted as called for by Procedure, no one is fighting the yoke or the trim wheel.

- If you are in an overspeed condition, thrust is never a lower priority. Remember at the point they elected to turn TRIM back on, they were 7000' above the ground.

- At 360 KIAS, there should be no question relative to turn capability.

The only more or less sound argument is that they shouldn't retract the flaps. However, this alone would not lead to a catastrophic consequences in their situation, and likely not even be an issue in NG with unreliable airspeed in that situation.
They got into overspeed way later, and only by the time they realized they cannot trim - so that is THE problem at that point.
And handling turn speed wise is not the same as control wise. Fine manipulation for a turn may be difficult if it takes a lot of brut force to hold the nose up.
So I agree that fallen heroes are not totally blame free, but it is really very minor fraction.
 
Interested
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:45 pm

https://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKCN1S51SI

Morrison the above links in with your thoughts about missed opportunities at Boeing

It's actually suggesting airbus don't want Max to fail. As it stands they will have 60/40 in the market place for the narrow body planes against Boeing. And will happily work with that ratio etc. Making a fortune. Whereas if Max was not allowed to fly again Boeing would have to react with a better plane and that would force airbus to have to react back

So as it stands airbus are perfectly happy with the situation and actually want max to be OK. As it's an easy plane for them to compete with etc

So much politics in this industry!!
 
AirwayBill
Posts: 141
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2019 8:37 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:51 pm

This clown of a CEO is really willing to drag Boeing down the abyss with him it would seem.

Sometimes I wonder if they're not actually interviewing a robot replica, giving the sickly repetitive jibber jabber content of his "speech".
 
Interested
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:54 pm

AirwayBill wrote:
This clown of a CEO is really willing to drag Boeing down the abyss with him it would seem.

Sometimes I wonder if they're not actually interviewing a robot replica, giving the sickly repetitive jibber jabber content of his "speech".


I think he needs o go to allow Boeing to start afresh, take some responsibility, take the huge financial hit and start again

I think everybody watching that press conference at some stage no matter how pro Boeing they are would be shaking their heads thinking this guy cannot be taken seriously with some of what he is saying

He couldn't convince the journalists. He ran from the questions. How will he cope with the authorities etc who he can't hide from questions or BS like that. Those answers aren't going to work for them? Amp

I think it was a desperate performance from someone in an impossible position in so many ways

He needs replacing with someone who has played no part in Max 737 and has nothing to defend or cling on to

IMO

(His attitude today was so shallow and see through. He doesn't have the charisma to get away with it)
Last edited by Interested on Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9034
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:56 pm

art wrote:
I heard a little of what the Boeing representative said. He maintained that the primary consideration was always safety. If that were true the company would have redesigned the wingbox (or whatever) to avoid pushing the engines forward and up on the successor to NG, Or gone for NSA.

Which was not done because Boeing's secondary consideration was safety. Their primary consideration was maintaining market share by producing an A320NEO competitor ASAP..

I agree, a class action suit should be filed against every airline who bought the MAX, they are the one's who told Boeing that they would not wait for the NSA which was being pushed at them for years, in their effort to chase market share and compete with other airlines flying NEO's they had Boeing continue the progression of the obsolete 737.
Hmmm.....
 
Interested
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:57 pm

AirwayBill wrote:
This clown of a CEO is really willing to drag Boeing down the abyss with him it would seem.



He's certainly capable of making a bad thing far worse based on his answers and approach today!
 
oschkosch
Posts: 287
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:41 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:59 pm

Interested wrote:

He needs replacing with someone who has played no part in Max 737 and has nothing to defend or cling on to

IMO


He said he has been with Boeing 34 years? Obviously he has become blind after so many years. That is often the case after being so long in the same company; i.e we always did that in this way and it worked is a prime example.

Boeing needs a fresh face from outside to see all mistakes and internal issues. Only that will really help them. My 2 cents.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk
 
Interested
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:04 pm

oschkosch wrote:
Interested wrote:

He needs replacing with someone who has played no part in Max 737 and has nothing to defend or cling on to

IMO


He said he has been with Boeing 34 years? Obviously he has become blind after so many years. That is often the case after being so long in the same company; i.e we always did that in this way and it worked is a prime example.

Boeing needs a fresh face from outside to see all mistakes and internal issues. Only that will really help them. My 2 cents.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk


He's obviously being told what to say - however, I feel a CEO with any class or real quality would not be prepared to take this route and would find a better way

He's the guy in charge. Bad things have happened on his watch. And he's the one who has to be happy with what Boeing do and say about it. He seemed very weak and shallow today.

And he's taken a route that too many who can have an impact will not accept I'm sure. It's one thing giving journalists the run around. But those journalists will go even harder now.
Last edited by Interested on Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9034
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:04 pm

So to be clear, Boeing fell down when they moved HQ to Chicago and filled up the buildings with non-technical and non-Boeing centric employee's, now the proposed solution is to bring someone in from outside, where MDD (long gone) or one of the other companies making military Jet's, I can just imagine the howls of protest of tax breaks using military contracts.
 
Interested
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:08 pm

par13del wrote:
So to be clear, Boeing fell down when they moved HQ to Chicago and filled up the buildings with non-technical and non-Boeing centric employee's, now the proposed solution is to bring someone in from outside, where MDD (long gone) or one of the other companies making military Jet's, I can just imagine the howls of protest of tax breaks using military contracts.


I think a new CEO needs a strong background in ethics and integrity more than anything else

He or she doesnt need to be able to design planes. But just set a vision and some standards and gain some trust and respect back

They would join with a clean slate. What a brilliant job and opportunity for the right person. The only way is up.
 
hivue
Posts: 1937
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:11 pm

Interested wrote:
The whole driving force for the crash was MCAS


This remains to be determined. To recycle a type of post seen often on anet in response to simple, universal conclusions like this: OK, you can shut down the investigation. We can all go home now. It's been figured out.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
kalvado
Posts: 1993
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:21 pm

par13del wrote:
I agree, a class action suit should be filed against every airline who bought the MAX, they are the one's who told Boeing that they would not wait for the NSA which was being pushed at them for years, in their effort to chase market share and compete with other airlines flying NEO's they had Boeing continue the progression of the obsolete 737.
Hmmm.....

So you never been in a situation when you need something ASAP, and cannot wait another X weeks/months for delivery?
There are lots of cases where availability is at the top of requirements list. Just assume you have water leak in your kitchen, meanwhile your preferred service guy is on vacation and will be back in a week...
 
morrisond
Posts: 1338
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:28 pm

Interested wrote:
oschkosch wrote:
Interested wrote:

He needs replacing with someone who has played no part in Max 737 and has nothing to defend or cling on to

IMO


He said he has been with Boeing 34 years? Obviously he has become blind after so many years. That is often the case after being so long in the same company; i.e we always did that in this way and it worked is a prime example.

Boeing needs a fresh face from outside to see all mistakes and internal issues. Only that will really help them. My 2 cents.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk


He's obviously being told what to say - however, I feel a CEO with any class or real quality would not be prepared to take this route and would find a better way

He's the guy in charge. Bad things have happened on his watch. And he's the one who has to be happy with what Boeing do and say about it. He seemed very weak and shallow today.

And he's taken a route that too many who can have an impact will not accept I'm sure. It's one thing giving journalists the run around. But those journalists will go even harder now.


Yes he was very weak and shallow - but it is possible he wasn't lying.

The MCAS system may have been okay according to Certification rules and Boeing's implementation.

If this is the case the Certification rules were not stringent enough. Unfortunately new Certification rules are usually written in blood - as they will be in this case if the rules are changed.

It doesn't excuse the way this is being handled but it gives them an out if they can make it stick.

It also gives them somewhat of an out with there customers. I'm sure there will be compensation (probably in the form of discounts on new orders) but it would be a lot more if it can be proved that the design was flawed vs the regulations.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3886
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:40 pm

kalvado wrote:
Gear was down when they got error message; and SOP assumes no configuration changes. Once you say "bring gear up", you already deviate from that.


Good, glad to know you agree that they should be following standard procedures. For the 737, gear will add about 5% - 10% to overall drag at takeoff and departure conditions.

All engines operating, Flaps 5 and Gear down, the 737 will have more climb capability than the One engine inoperative, Flaps 5 Gear up climb capability or the One engine inoperative, Flaps Up, Gear up climb capability the obstacle and terrain clearance profiles are based on.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
kalvado
Posts: 1993
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:46 pm

OldAeroGuy wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Gear was down when they got error message; and SOP assumes no configuration changes. Once you say "bring gear up", you already deviate from that.


Good, glad to know you agree that they should be following standard procedures. For the 737, gear will add about 5% - 10% to overall drag at takeoff and departure conditions.

All engines operating, Flaps 5 and Gear down, the 737 will have more climb capability than the One engine inoperative, Flaps 5 Gear up climb capability or the One engine inoperative, Flaps Up, Gear up climb capability the obstacle and terrain clearance profiles are based on.

Yes, this appears to be the 0.5% of accident fault which are the crew's share of it.
 
Interested
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:47 pm

I found it strange that that statement last night about what's happened to get Max planes back certified just said that the fixes they've been working on since Lion Air are now ready

I find it poor they can say that in a statement without pausing and thinking well really the plane should have been grounded since that crash. Not since the second crash.

That's just kind of been taken for granted now that despite knowing they had stuff to fix that had caused a crash already they kept the planes in the air

Let alone didn't want to ground the planes after the second crash

What were they thinking?
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3126
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 7:04 pm

So not following several procedures counts only as 0.5% of error. There is another truism in some versions of ethics that fault multiplies. Boeing could have prevented the accident and did not. The pilots could have prevented the accident and did not. I suspect that maritime courts may have some precedent for this. Fault is apportioned out. What civil courts will do regarding damages is another matter.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
kalvado
Posts: 1993
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 7:10 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
So not following several procedures counts only as 0.5% of error. There is another truism in some versions of ethics that fault multiplies. Boeing could have prevented the accident and did not. The pilots could have prevented the accident and did not. I suspect that maritime courts may have some precedent for this. Fault is apportioned out. What civil courts will do regarding damages is another matter.

With unclear conclusion that "keep configuration" SOP is applicable right after takeoff.
Would be interesting to see what comes out of a sim session with reduced thrust, gear and flaps down and mountains straight ahead. I suspect we would have to praise the crew for their airmanship.
 
morrisond
Posts: 1338
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 7:18 pm

kalvado wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Gear was down when they got error message; and SOP assumes no configuration changes. Once you say "bring gear up", you already deviate from that.


Good, glad to know you agree that they should be following standard procedures. For the 737, gear will add about 5% - 10% to overall drag at takeoff and departure conditions.

All engines operating, Flaps 5 and Gear down, the 737 will have more climb capability than the One engine inoperative, Flaps 5 Gear up climb capability or the One engine inoperative, Flaps Up, Gear up climb capability the obstacle and terrain clearance profiles are based on.

Yes, this appears to be the 0.5% of accident fault which are the crew's share of it.


I think you made a typo - you had the right characters but the ET flight is probably a lot more like 50%. It was save able. I would concede however that if it is found that AVherald is right and the crews were never properly informed on the new procedures somewhere between 0.5-5.0% Crews fault is more appropriate.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9034
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 7:27 pm

Interested wrote:
I think a new CEO needs a strong background in ethics and integrity more than anything else

He or she doesnt need to be able to design planes. But just set a vision and some standards and gain some trust and respect back

They would join with a clean slate. What a brilliant job and opportunity for the right person. The only way is up.

...and how would you have expected him to answer the questions at the new conference?
One of the things being overlooked is that this is a USA company where the principals have to be very careful what they say in public because liability is attached, criminal and or civil.
The USA is a country of litigation, it should not be overlooked when we adapt a moral position and expect key persons of commercial companies to do the same.
The shareholders are going to bear the brunt of this debacle, his job is not to interject his personal feelings / ambitions, he still has to do his due diligence as an employee.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9034
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 7:31 pm

kalvado wrote:
So you never been in a situation when you need something ASAP, and cannot wait another X weeks/months for delivery?
There are lots of cases where availability is at the top of requirements list. Just assume you have water leak in your kitchen, meanwhile your preferred service guy is on vacation and will be back in a week...

Based on your analogy, no one would have bought the MAX, everyone would have bought NEO's and would be waiting how many years to get one?
You really believe that Airbus would have been able to fill all the MAX orders during the time that the NEO was available and the MAX deployed?
I guess we really have to wonder whether folks really believe that this is a duopoly.
 
kalvado
Posts: 1993
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 7:33 pm

morrisond wrote:
kalvado wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:

Good, glad to know you agree that they should be following standard procedures. For the 737, gear will add about 5% - 10% to overall drag at takeoff and departure conditions.

All engines operating, Flaps 5 and Gear down, the 737 will have more climb capability than the One engine inoperative, Flaps 5 Gear up climb capability or the One engine inoperative, Flaps Up, Gear up climb capability the obstacle and terrain clearance profiles are based on.

Yes, this appears to be the 0.5% of accident fault which are the crew's share of it.


I think you made a typo - you had the right characters but the ET flight is probably a lot more like 50%. It was save able. I would concede however that if it is found that AVherald is right and the crews were never properly informed on the new procedures somewhere between 0.5-5.0% Crews fault is more appropriate.

I know Boeing want to twist it that way. It is logical from some perspective, blame it on human mistake, pretend you shouldn't plan for that in the design.
But then the logical conclusion is that Boeing doesn't know how to design planes, and doesn't want to learn. Which is the third escalation step - from an honest mistake leading to JT crash, to inability to analyze errors leading to a second crash and to unwillingness to improve. That is way too scary.
You see, I don't expect to fly on JT or ET in forseeable future, but avoiding Boeing planes may be difficult.
I really wonder if MAX is BOeing's version of MD-11, last straw that breaks the back..
 
kalvado
Posts: 1993
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 7:39 pm

par13del wrote:
kalvado wrote:
So you never been in a situation when you need something ASAP, and cannot wait another X weeks/months for delivery?
There are lots of cases where availability is at the top of requirements list. Just assume you have water leak in your kitchen, meanwhile your preferred service guy is on vacation and will be back in a week...

Based on your analogy, no one would have bought the MAX, everyone would have bought NEO's and would be waiting how many years to get one?
You really believe that Airbus would have been able to fill all the MAX orders during the time that the NEO was available and the MAX deployed?
I guess we really have to wonder whether folks really believe that this is a duopoly.

I am saying that this is a normal negotiation:
-I can deliver in X weeks for $ZZ.
-I cannot wait that long, X/2 weeks, and Z-10% or I am going to another guy
-Uh, oh... well lets see... khm... OK, I can do that, but you would need to....

It's the right of seller to offer conditions, it's the right of buyer to make a counteroffer or request certain conditions. Boeing could turn down AA/WN request and proceed with a clean sheet design. Narrowbody orders are ongoing, so loss of even a big customer is not the end of the world. Cash flow could be difficult if NG orders would go down, but that is a whole different story.
 
morrisond
Posts: 1338
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 7:48 pm

kalvado wrote:
morrisond wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Yes, this appears to be the 0.5% of accident fault which are the crew's share of it.


I think you made a typo - you had the right characters but the ET flight is probably a lot more like 50%. It was save able. I would concede however that if it is found that AVherald is right and the crews were never properly informed on the new procedures somewhere between 0.5-5.0% Crews fault is more appropriate.

I know Boeing want to twist it that way. It is logical from some perspective, blame it on human mistake, pretend you shouldn't plan for that in the design.
But then the logical conclusion is that Boeing doesn't know how to design planes, and doesn't want to learn. Which is the third escalation step - from an honest mistake leading to JT crash, to inability to analyze errors leading to a second crash and to unwillingness to improve. That is way too scary.
You see, I don't expect to fly on JT or ET in forseeable future, but avoiding Boeing planes may be difficult.
I really wonder if MAX is BOeing's version of MD-11, last straw that breaks the back..


They were working on MCAS v2 after Lionair but these things take time. They had thought the checklists would have been sufficient but apparently they were not due to the training system (be it overall or lack of ET informing there pilots).

If the Pilots (ET) had done everything right and the plane still crashed then of course then 100% Boeing - but I don't think anyone can make the argument anymore that they didn't make multiple mistakes. Probably if there was one less the flight would have been successful.

If they had not retracted flaps, or if they had trimmed up before disengaging, or if they had maintained speed in a normal range or if they hadn't turned Electric Trim back on the Outcome probably could have been a lot different.
 
kalvado
Posts: 1993
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 8:15 pm

morrisond wrote:
kalvado wrote:
morrisond wrote:

I think you made a typo - you had the right characters but the ET flight is probably a lot more like 50%. It was save able. I would concede however that if it is found that AVherald is right and the crews were never properly informed on the new procedures somewhere between 0.5-5.0% Crews fault is more appropriate.

I know Boeing want to twist it that way. It is logical from some perspective, blame it on human mistake, pretend you shouldn't plan for that in the design.
But then the logical conclusion is that Boeing doesn't know how to design planes, and doesn't want to learn. Which is the third escalation step - from an honest mistake leading to JT crash, to inability to analyze errors leading to a second crash and to unwillingness to improve. That is way too scary.
You see, I don't expect to fly on JT or ET in forseeable future, but avoiding Boeing planes may be difficult.
I really wonder if MAX is BOeing's version of MD-11, last straw that breaks the back..


They were working on MCAS v2 after Lionair but these things take time. They had thought the checklists would have been sufficient but apparently they were not due to the training system (be it overall or lack of ET informing there pilots).

If the Pilots (ET) had done everything right and the plane still crashed then of course then 100% Boeing - but I don't think anyone can make the argument anymore that they didn't make multiple mistakes. Probably if there was one less the flight would have been successful.

If they had not retracted flaps, or if they had trimmed up before disengaging, or if they had maintained speed in a normal range or if they hadn't turned Electric Trim back on the Outcome probably could have been a lot different.

That's exactly what I say: relying on accidental coincidence in a checklist as a defense, which has little to do with the problem at hand, and claiming it is significant part of the blame.. Think about it in terms of birdstrike after flaps retraction - and you'll see what I mean..
It really goes to the point when euthanizing the company may be the best thing for everyone.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3886
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 8:18 pm

kalvado wrote:
With unclear conclusion that "keep configuration" SOP is applicable right after takeoff.
Would be interesting to see what comes out of a sim session with reduced thrust, gear and flaps down and mountains straight ahead. I suspect we would have to praise the crew for their airmanship.


Zeke is an ATR pilot that works for a respected international airline. In several replies on this thread and others, he has said he concurs with the Boeing procedure for stick shaker on takeoff, even going so far as to provide the exact Boeing language. He would not have retracted the Flaps.

I suspect that if any crew had a simulator session with a stick shaker at liftoff and one of their actions had been to retract Flaps, particularly at low AGL, they would have flunked the session. Their actions would have been the opposite of good airmanship which would stress:

Turning off the automation, setting pitch, setting power, monitoring performance, trimming the aircraft and moving to a safe altitude.

This is consistent with the "Unreliable Airspeed" procedure which the ET302 crew never performed. The ET302 Captain attempted to engage the autopilot with an active stick shaker another questionable action.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1647
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 8:22 pm

To preface what I'm about to say, I think the MAX is a fine plane once this particular issue is corrected. And it will be corrected. I would also like to once again note that we don't know everything. The note that has been circulating on the board clarified many things, but it didn't for instance talk about the usability of the manual trim system in different parts of the flight envelope. I think it would be very beneficial to release that information so we can all appreciate that the plane is indeed safe.

But I also think these recent Boeing press appearances are ... painful to be honest. They may be doing it for legal reasons, but it only goes so far. Any correction of an issue, any proper safety culture, the safe action begins with the recognition of mistakes. I'm willing to cut Boeing slack and have them correct their plane and move on. But if they insist on we made no mistake, I think it doesn't look honest and credible. The process wasn't wrong, there's no technical issue, but yet we're changing the aircraft. Don't get me wrong, it is the right thing to change the aircraft. Their fix seems the right fix.

But my suspicion is that before this is all said and done, current leadership has changed and the airplane has a new marketing name. Both of those have gotten be a burden for the company.

Or would you want to fly on "MAX casualties"?
 
kalvado
Posts: 1993
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 8:28 pm

OldAeroGuy wrote:
kalvado wrote:
With unclear conclusion that "keep configuration" SOP is applicable right after takeoff.
Would be interesting to see what comes out of a sim session with reduced thrust, gear and flaps down and mountains straight ahead. I suspect we would have to praise the crew for their airmanship.


Zeke is an ATR pilot that works for a respected international airline. In several replies on this thread and others, he has said he concurs with the Boeing procedure for stick shaker on takeoff, even going so far as to provide the exact Boeing language. He would not have retracted the Flaps.

I suspect that if any crew had a simulator session with a stick shaker at liftoff and one of their actions had been to retract Flaps, particularly at low AGL, they would have flunked the session. Their actions would have been the opposite of good airmanship which would stress:

Turning off the automation, setting pitch, setting power, monitoring performance, trimming the aircraft and moving to a safe altitude.

This is consistent with the "Unreliable Airspeed" procedure which the ET302 crew never performed. The ET302 Captain attempted to engage the autopilot with an active stick shaker another questionable action.

I remember Zeke's comments, and surely he's one of most knowledgeable people over here.
I confess I am lazy and didn't look up original document; but my understanding of logic behind "set safe thrust and don't touch anything" is that it is good for established flight, not for just after takeoff below terrain situation, when things should be fluid. I don't see a fundamental problem with establishing a stable configuration before switching to pitch and thrust. We may argue what they knew and what they didn't; they seem to have rotated normally - and that should give a pretty recent reference point of being at a relatively low speed.
Think about it in such a way - if they crashed unable to clear the mountain, comments would be "don't follow it blindly!".
I may be missing something, but I don't see them getting a problem cleaning up and going up to sort out the situation in a failsafe config - well, problem without MCAS at play.
 
User avatar
PixelFlight
Posts: 618
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:09 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 8:30 pm

morrisond wrote:
They were working on MCAS v2 after Lionair but these things take time. They had thought the checklists would have been sufficient but apparently they were not due to the training system (be it overall or lack of ET informing there pilots).

If the Pilots (ET) had done everything right and the plane still crashed then of course then 100% Boeing - but I don't think anyone can make the argument anymore that they didn't make multiple mistakes. Probably if there was one less the flight would have been successful.

If they had not retracted flaps, or if they had trimmed up before disengaging, or if they had maintained speed in a normal range or if they hadn't turned Electric Trim back on the Outcome probably could have been a lot different.

Are you serious ? The lives of others is not a video game where you are allowed to fail.
Out of 7 pilots, 6 was not able to cope with that evil machine (JT-43 was saved by an extra crew).
From decision to not add emergency slides to allow a extra clearance under the wings, the non ideal placement of the engine nacelles, the single AoA input, the addition of a ill designed MCAS, the hidden modification to the MCAS, the failure of the safety assessment activity, the abnormal relation with the FAA, the removing of AoA disagree indicator, the goal to not add training while it obviously require to, to the inability to ground the 737 MAX after the JT-610, Boeing have done WAY more mistakes while having a lot of peoples working for many years on this project.
This can't be compared to the few minutes the 2 pilots have to save the lives of all onboard with a lot of erratic information and so many procedures to choose that it take multiple months on this forum to possibly agree the one there should follow.
 
uta999
Posts: 738
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:10 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 8:30 pm

Boeing are still looking at this from completely the wrong direction. Still trying to certify something that should never have been certified in the first place. What can we do to get the MAX flying again, regardless of whether it should. Still building them FFS.

This speaks volumes about their view of safety. It comes after economics. If it costs too much to can the program, let’s keep putting salt on the wound, until we get it back in the air.

Let’s make a safe aircraft safer, because it’s cheaper. This CEO should go, like yesterday.
Your computer just got better
 
BravoOne
Posts: 3580
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 8:31 pm

Interested wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
jollo wrote:

I'll second this question: there have been hints in the last couple of pages of this thread about a warning light which was standard in the NG but became an optional extra with the MAX. To be clear: I'm not talking about the "AoA disagree" flag and AoA indicator, which were optional both for the NG and for the MAX. So is there any warning (other than AoA disagree) that was standard in the NG but became optional with the MAX?



I see nothing in the Boeing documents that supports this line of thinking. I'll keep looking but I would not get two wrapped up in this issue.


The Wall Street Journal article said that Boeing have still not answered why they turned off the the AOA disagree feature without informing customers.

The Journal has also had sight of internal emails about this issues between FAA officials - one of whom wrote:

"It would be irresponsible to have MAX aircraft operating with AOA Disagree Warning system inoperative"

And they discussed grounding the planes until it was fixed

The concerns were then dismissed higher up the chain.

In today's press conference the CEO said these warnings would now be standard at Boeing's expense and will be retro-fitted on every MAX plane



I read the WSJ regularly, but having said that I don't go to it for avaition accident information. Just saying that what you hear and read from the mainstream media is very often incorrect when dealing aviation matters.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9034
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 8:44 pm

kalvado wrote:
Boeing could turn down AA/WN request and proceed with a clean sheet design. Narrowbody orders are ongoing, so loss of even a big customer is not the end of the world. Cash flow could be difficult if NG orders would go down, but that is a whole different story.

Except, more 737's are deployed outside of the USA, AA and WN may be large users but they will not account for 50% or more of the installed base.
At present, they have more a/c deployed than anyone else, which is a result of preferential treatment, but if you check the order book.....
 
kalvado
Posts: 1993
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 8:50 pm

par13del wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Boeing could turn down AA/WN request and proceed with a clean sheet design. Narrowbody orders are ongoing, so loss of even a big customer is not the end of the world. Cash flow could be difficult if NG orders would go down, but that is a whole different story.

Except, more 737's are deployed outside of the USA, AA and WN may be large users but they will not account for 50% or more of the installed base.
At present, they have more a/c deployed than anyone else, which is a result of preferential treatment, but if you check the order book.....

Which is irrelevant. I am talking about different thing.
There is an impression that AA pushed Boeing into MAX by saying "give us a new plane, or we order 320NEO", and WN pushed into a no-training commitment by writing a penalty into contract. As big customers, these airlines have a significant influence on Boeing's decisions, no question about that. .
What I am saying, that shouldn't mean Boeing was improperly influenced. They could, at any time, turn down AA and WN if they thought they were unable to deliver. Or make a counteroffer - wait longer for new design. In either case, I don't see any ethical or legal problems with hard-line business negotiations in competitive environment.
 
morrisond
Posts: 1338
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 8:57 pm

PixelFlight wrote:
morrisond wrote:
They were working on MCAS v2 after Lionair but these things take time. They had thought the checklists would have been sufficient but apparently they were not due to the training system (be it overall or lack of ET informing there pilots).

If the Pilots (ET) had done everything right and the plane still crashed then of course then 100% Boeing - but I don't think anyone can make the argument anymore that they didn't make multiple mistakes. Probably if there was one less the flight would have been successful.

If they had not retracted flaps, or if they had trimmed up before disengaging, or if they had maintained speed in a normal range or if they hadn't turned Electric Trim back on the Outcome probably could have been a lot different.

Are you serious ? The lives of others is not a video game where you are allowed to fail.
Out of 7 pilots, 6 was not able to cope with that evil machine (JT-43 was saved by an extra crew).
From decision to not add emergency slides to allow a extra clearance under the wings, the non ideal placement of the engine nacelles, the single AoA input, the addition of a ill designed MCAS, the hidden modification to the MCAS, the failure of the safety assessment activity, the abnormal relation with the FAA, the removing of AoA disagree indicator, the goal to not add training while it obviously require to, to the inability to ground the 737 MAX after the JT-610, Boeing have done WAY more mistakes while having a lot of peoples working for many years on this project.
This can't be compared to the few minutes the 2 pilots have to save the lives of all onboard with a lot of erratic information and so many procedures to choose that it take multiple months on this forum to possibly agree the one there should follow.


So I take it you are in the it's Boeing's fault ET302 crashed 100% camp?

I was just pointing out that you can't blame Boeing 100% for the crash - you can blame them and the FAA 100% for the issues that led to the crash - and you are right the failure modes should have been caught by them or the FAA if the regulations were more robust or they applied common sense.

But you can't blame them 100% for the failure of the crew to save the plane. There were multiple things the ET crew didn't do right that they should have known (Required Memory Items) and they should have had enough time in SIMS to practice similar situations so if they were faced with similar situations in real life panic didn't set it and there reactions were reflex.

If they missed one - then okay - but I think we are at least 5 if you include them trying to reengage the Autopilot which is a big no-no and would have led to them failing a check ride.

Out of the 7 pilots only 1 knew what to do. I would argue that maybe 2 had a clue (The Co-pilot on ET) but the failure to trim properly before turning off Electric Trim, not maintaining control of the airspeed and turning Electric Trim back on led to the crash. That doesn't say a lot about the training at Lionair or ET.
 
kalvado
Posts: 1993
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:06 pm

morrisond wrote:
PixelFlight wrote:
morrisond wrote:
They were working on MCAS v2 after Lionair but these things take time. They had thought the checklists would have been sufficient but apparently they were not due to the training system (be it overall or lack of ET informing there pilots).

If the Pilots (ET) had done everything right and the plane still crashed then of course then 100% Boeing - but I don't think anyone can make the argument anymore that they didn't make multiple mistakes. Probably if there was one less the flight would have been successful.

If they had not retracted flaps, or if they had trimmed up before disengaging, or if they had maintained speed in a normal range or if they hadn't turned Electric Trim back on the Outcome probably could have been a lot different.

Are you serious ? The lives of others is not a video game where you are allowed to fail.
Out of 7 pilots, 6 was not able to cope with that evil machine (JT-43 was saved by an extra crew).
From decision to not add emergency slides to allow a extra clearance under the wings, the non ideal placement of the engine nacelles, the single AoA input, the addition of a ill designed MCAS, the hidden modification to the MCAS, the failure of the safety assessment activity, the abnormal relation with the FAA, the removing of AoA disagree indicator, the goal to not add training while it obviously require to, to the inability to ground the 737 MAX after the JT-610, Boeing have done WAY more mistakes while having a lot of peoples working for many years on this project.
This can't be compared to the few minutes the 2 pilots have to save the lives of all onboard with a lot of erratic information and so many procedures to choose that it take multiple months on this forum to possibly agree the one there should follow.


So I take it you are in the it's Boeing's fault ET302 crashed 100% camp?

I was just pointing out that you can't blame Boeing 100% for the crash - you can blame them and the FAA 100% for the issues that led to the crash - and you are right the failure modes should have been caught by them or the FAA if the regulations were more robust or they applied common sense.

But you can't blame them 100% for the failure of the crew to save the plane. There were multiple things the ET crew didn't do right that they should have known (Required Memory Items) and they should have had enough time in SIMS to practice similar situations so if they were faced with similar situations in real life panic didn't set it and there reactions were reflex.

If they missed one - then okay - but I think we are at least 5 if you include them trying to reengage the Autopilot which is a big no-no and would have led to them failing a check ride.

Out of the 7 pilots only 1 knew what to do. I would argue that maybe 2 had a clue (The Co-pilot on ET) but the failure to trim properly before turning off Electric Trim, not maintaining control of the airspeed and turning Electric Trim back on led to the crash. That doesn't say a lot about the training at Lionair or ET.

We may fully blame Boeing for creating a crash scenario with significant probability, and we have to thank ET pilots for exposing that scenario. Think about a birdstrike after flaps are retracted - and plane crashing into NYC.... Since those would be lives of first tier people, Boeing CEO would be lynched with their current altitude.
 
lhrnue
Posts: 296
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 2:47 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:11 pm

In case the Boeing CEO tried to convince people to fly with the MAX again ... well he failed me.
 
User avatar
PixelFlight
Posts: 618
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:09 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:27 pm

morrisond wrote:
PixelFlight wrote:
morrisond wrote:
They were working on MCAS v2 after Lionair but these things take time. They had thought the checklists would have been sufficient but apparently they were not due to the training system (be it overall or lack of ET informing there pilots).

If the Pilots (ET) had done everything right and the plane still crashed then of course then 100% Boeing - but I don't think anyone can make the argument anymore that they didn't make multiple mistakes. Probably if there was one less the flight would have been successful.

If they had not retracted flaps, or if they had trimmed up before disengaging, or if they had maintained speed in a normal range or if they hadn't turned Electric Trim back on the Outcome probably could have been a lot different.

Are you serious ? The lives of others is not a video game where you are allowed to fail.
Out of 7 pilots, 6 was not able to cope with that evil machine (JT-43 was saved by an extra crew).
From decision to not add emergency slides to allow a extra clearance under the wings, the non ideal placement of the engine nacelles, the single AoA input, the addition of a ill designed MCAS, the hidden modification to the MCAS, the failure of the safety assessment activity, the abnormal relation with the FAA, the removing of AoA disagree indicator, the goal to not add training while it obviously require to, to the inability to ground the 737 MAX after the JT-610, Boeing have done WAY more mistakes while having a lot of peoples working for many years on this project.
This can't be compared to the few minutes the 2 pilots have to save the lives of all onboard with a lot of erratic information and so many procedures to choose that it take multiple months on this forum to possibly agree the one there should follow.


So I take it you are in the it's Boeing's fault ET302 crashed 100% camp?

I was just pointing out that you can't blame Boeing 100% for the crash - you can blame them and the FAA 100% for the issues that led to the crash - and you are right the failure modes should have been caught by them or the FAA if the regulations were more robust or they applied common sense.

But you can't blame them 100% for the failure of the crew to save the plane. There were multiple things the ET crew didn't do right that they should have known (Required Memory Items) and they should have had enough time in SIMS to practice similar situations so if they were faced with similar situations in real life panic didn't set it and there reactions were reflex.

If they missed one - then okay - but I think we are at least 5 if you include them trying to reengage the Autopilot which is a big no-no and would have led to them failing a check ride.

Out of the 7 pilots only 1 knew what to do. I would argue that maybe 2 had a clue (The Co-pilot on ET) but the failure to trim properly before turning off Electric Trim, not maintaining control of the airspeed and turning Electric Trim back on led to the crash. That doesn't say a lot about the training at Lionair or ET.

It's not about percent, but about time to think, the number of peoples thinking, the knowledge there have, the environment there have to think, and the deadly consequences for them.
The training of the pilots is part of the cost to safely operate a particular aircraft. When Boeing claim that an aircraft is safe, this include the necessary training cost to reach that safety. There obviously fail on that critical point in addition to all the others. It's socking to blame pilots that was not properly trained while Boeing explicitly avoided the cost of extra pilot training. Please remember that no pilots was ever trained for that life critical situation on a 737 MAX simulator before JT610, and I doubt there are a significant number that have do that before ET302. The 737 MAX simulator is a very rare machine.

The 737 MAX is subject to a failure mode that did not exist on any 737 model before. And this failure mode is deadly critical. This require an adequate extra training. Certainly more than 15 minutes on a computer screen. Did you think about the relatives when there heard that a software patch and 15 minutes of training would have saved there loved one ? How can a so big company pretending making always safer aircraft have missed that and still communicate like nothing was wrong ? It's look so unreal.
Last edited by PixelFlight on Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
kalvado
Posts: 1993
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:38 pm

PixelFlight wrote:
The 737 MAX is subject to a failure mode that did not exist on any 373 model before. And this failure mode is deadly critical. This require an adequate extra training. Certainly more than 15 minutes on a computer screen. Did you think about the relatives when there heard that a software patch and 15 minutes of training would have saved there loved one ? How can a so big company pretending making always safer aircraft have missed that and still communicate like nothing was wrong ? It's look so unreal.

Worst part is that this is mostly true. Software - and mistakes in software - can be very powerful source of problems, and they can - and they do - cost lives. A relatively minor software fix can be make-it or brake-it thing.
This is not the first - and likely not the last - instance of such failure type. Because of the nail the kingdom falls...
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3807
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:39 pm

OldAeroGuy wrote:
keesje wrote:
Stick shaker -> stall, IAS 250 kts, TOGA, but don't retract the flaps (with their nose down moment) while fighting unexplained nose down forces! .. yeah.. If an airlines average pilots aren't good enough to fly that aircraft, they better don't buy such aircraft.


Please go back and review the JT610 and ET302 FDR traces. MCAS is only active when Flaps are retracted.

Before the Flaps are retracted, there were no "unexpected nose down forces". Retracting Flaps with an active stick shaker is contrary to Boeing operational procedures.

If either JT610 and ET302 had left Flaps extended per Boeing procedure for an active stick shaker with Flaps extended and returned to land, neither airplane would have crashed.


Does the procedure mention anything about one or both stick shakers going off? Is a crew at liberty to determine that such procedure may not be appropriate when only one single shaker is active? For instance, when they have diagnosed the single stick shaker as false?
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
nikeherc
Posts: 660
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 8:40 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:48 pm

Boeing started working on the MCAS fix after the Lion crash. They did not wait for the second accident. Lion dispatched a non-airworthy plane. There is reason to believe that both Lion and Ethiopian crews made mistakes. The Ethiopian plane was apparently damaged after takeoff. Boeing should have made the MCAS better. Lion should have fixed their plane before dispatching it again. The Ethiopian crew should have kept the flaps down. Ok, now I get it: Dennis Muilenburg is a cold blooded murder. Boeing should be shut down. All Boeing employees should go to jail. Is that pretty much it?
DC6 to 777 and most things in between
 
dakota123
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:03 pm

Re: B737MAX Grounded Worldwide

Mon Apr 29, 2019 10:02 pm

PixelFlight wrote:
morrisond wrote:
PixelFlight wrote:
Are you serious ? The lives of others is not a video game where you are allowed to fail.
Out of 7 pilots, 6 was not able to cope with that evil machine (JT-43 was saved by an extra crew).
From decision to not add emergency slides to allow a extra clearance under the wings, the non ideal placement of the engine nacelles, the single AoA input, the addition of a ill designed MCAS, the hidden modification to the MCAS, the failure of the safety assessment activity, the abnormal relation with the FAA, the removing of AoA disagree indicator, the goal to not add training while it obviously require to, to the inability to ground the 737 MAX after the JT-610, Boeing have done WAY more mistakes while having a lot of peoples working for many years on this project.
This can't be compared to the few minutes the 2 pilots have to save the lives of all onboard with a lot of erratic information and so many procedures to choose that it take multiple months on this forum to possibly agree the one there should follow.


So I take it you are in the it's Boeing's fault ET302 crashed 100% camp?

I was just pointing out that you can't blame Boeing 100% for the crash - you can blame them and the FAA 100% for the issues that led to the crash - and you are right the failure modes should have been caught by them or the FAA if the regulations were more robust or they applied common sense.

But you can't blame them 100% for the failure of the crew to save the plane. There were multiple things the ET crew didn't do right that they should have known (Required Memory Items) and they should have had enough time in SIMS to practice similar situations so if they were faced with similar situations in real life panic didn't set it and there reactions were reflex.

If they missed one - then okay - but I think we are at least 5 if you include them trying to reengage the Autopilot which is a big no-no and would have led to them failing a check ride.

Out of the 7 pilots only 1 knew what to do. I would argue that maybe 2 had a clue (The Co-pilot on ET) but the failure to trim properly before turning off Electric Trim, not maintaining control of the airspeed and turning Electric Trim back on led to the crash. That doesn't say a lot about the training at Lionair or ET.

It's not about percent, but about time to think, the number of peoples thinking, the knowledge there have, the environment there have to think, and the deadly consequences for them.
The training of the pilots is part of the cost to safely operate a particular aircraft. When Boeing claim that an aircraft is safe, this include the necessary training cost to reach that safety. There obviously fail on that critical point in addition to all the others. It's socking to blame pilots that was not properly trained while Boeing explicitly avoided the cost of extra pilot training. Please remember that no pilots was ever trained for that life critical situation on a 737 MAX simulator before JT610, and I doubt there are a significant number that have do that before ET302. The 737 MAX simulator is a very rare machine.

The 737 MAX is subject to a failure mode that did not exist on any 737 model before. And this failure mode is deadly critical. This require an adequate extra training. Certainly more than 15 minutes on a computer screen. Did you think about the relatives when there heard that a software patch and 15 minutes of training would have saved there loved one ? How can a so big company pretending making always safer aircraft have missed that and still communicate like nothing was wrong ? It's look so unreal.



I'm sorry, as has been pointed out by, you know, those that actually fly for a living or otherwise, or are again, you know, in the industry in a directly meaningful way, there are so many inexplicable actions/inactions by both crews (and the crew of JT43) that it's much scarier to me how ill-prepared they generally seemed to be. I'm not necessarily blaming the crews; they were very badly served, apparently. (I would love to know what specific programs each went through.) There was no critical situation to train for -- plane is trimming nose-down inappropriately, trim it up (which worked fine).*** Happens again, it's obvious something bizarre is happening, get it in trim and disable. Doesn't take a procedure to even figure that one out. And then get it back on the ground, where it belongs until it can be resolved. Seems to me like there may be a lot of general pressure to complete the mission.

And yes, absolutely, similar failure modes exist on the NG,and literally every other plane with an electric trim system.

Boeing's primary mistake was to believe that a crew could handle a pretty straightforward situation. They're going to have to rethink that one, unfortunately.

It's equally puzzling to me how folks who have never flown a plane in their lives are so sure they have all the answers (to the point of arrogance), and so willing to discount those that have years and even decades in the field.

*** I do blame Boeing for allowing multiple applications, rather than just one. DUMB.
“And If I claim to be a wise man, well surely it means that I don’t know”

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