kalvado
Posts: 2014
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon May 06, 2019 11:00 pm

OldAeroGuy wrote:
kalvado wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:



I don't understand these constant "bias" comments. Please drop this recurrent innuendo. It's not in my line of argument.

No problem, once you drop prejudice against the crew - my impression disappears as well. Otherwise we can keep our opinions intact - both are justified to approximately same extent.


I've merely pointed out the facts of the crew actions that have been published to date versus the Boeing published procedures.

It's strange that you judge that as "prejudice". Since you have decided that I'm "prejudiced", please provide some examples.

Please note the definition: Prejudice - "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience"


Again, you did convince me that unreliable airspeed procedure should apply. I do see reasons for not following, those may be not too good ones though. I suspect - and I don't see argument otherwise - that same operation in NG would, with the damage they had, allow to stabilize and troubleshoot; so I don't see this as totally unacceptable - and I understand you don't buy that anyway). I can totally accept your logic up to this point. And I see your conclusion of " crew actions that have been published to date versus the Boeing published procedures." as reasonable. Not necessarily fully correct for that particular situation - but it is based on facts and experience, no question about that. I wish we could listen to the other side first.
But your conclusion that those action indicates the intention to proceed to the destination is not based on facts or experience. That's where you totally lose me.
 
MrBretz
Posts: 396
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:13 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon May 06, 2019 11:21 pm

I think the request for FL320 might be the final straw that leads OldAeroGuy to that conclusion??
 
kayik
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Mon May 06, 2019 11:44 pm

OldAeroGuy wrote:

Please present a good argument where retracting Flaps at low altitude with an active stick shaker is a proper course of action.


Not an argument but a question. Let's assume that whatever the crew did was not in accordance with Boeing procedures. The aircraft was actually not in stall and over speeding, pilots probably could see that being close to the ground. Despite one shaking stick, their priority was to climb. They retracted the flaps and MCAS intervened. Would it be possible to climb if there was no MCAS?
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9046
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 12:28 am

The throttles remained at take off thrust, have we forgotten that?
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3886
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 1:28 am

kayik wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:

Please present a good argument where retracting Flaps at low altitude with an active stick shaker is a proper course of action.


Not an argument but a question. Let's assume that whatever the crew did was not in accordance with Boeing procedures. The aircraft was actually not in stall and over speeding, pilots probably could see that being close to the ground. Despite one shaking stick, their priority was to climb. They retracted the flaps and MCAS intervened. Would it be possible to climb if there was no MCAS?


With both engines operating, the airplane would have climbed just fine at Flaps 5.

This question was answered several pages ago on this thread. Its flight profile would have been better than the engine inoperative profile used to insure obstacle and terrain clearance.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
kayik
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 2:04 am

OldAeroGuy wrote:
kayik wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:

Please present a good argument where retracting Flaps at low altitude with an active stick shaker is a proper course of action.


Not an argument but a question. Let's assume that whatever the crew did was not in accordance with Boeing procedures. The aircraft was actually not in stall and over speeding, pilots probably could see that being close to the ground. Despite one shaking stick, their priority was to climb. They retracted the flaps and MCAS intervened. Would it be possible to climb if there was no MCAS?


With both engines operating, the airplane would have climbed just fine at Flaps 5.

This question was answered several pages ago on this thread. Its flight profile would have been better than the engine inoperative profile used to insure obstacle and terrain clearance.

It was a simple question, everything the pilots did remains constant, would they fly away if the aircraft was an NG? Yes or No?
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9046
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 2:37 am

I am somewhat confused in the way the thread has turned, earlier it was all about Boeing not listing MCAS in the manual with procedures to deal with it, this was a major failing, criminal, negligent, pilots cannot respond if manual does not exist and if they did exist they would have been fine.
Now we are looking at actual procedures that do exist and were not followed but any mention of that is throwing the pilots under the bus and they had good reasons for not following the procedures in the manual.
 
UpNAWAy
Posts: 526
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 12:42 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 3:09 am

Today's news puts Boeing in a very bad position. They knew months before the Lion Air crash of the warning light malfunction and decided that since it could be fixed in the next software update they would just wait. They did not notify airlines or government agencies.

They have serious legal risk now. Not just financial but likely criminal.
Last edited by UpNAWAy on Tue May 07, 2019 3:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
speedking
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2018 3:00 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 3:10 am

OldAeroGuy wrote:
kalvado wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:

You're exactly correct. If a stick shaker is active, you don't want the crew doing an analysis.

One or both, the procedure is the same.

If you will, deviation from prescribed procedure can be an honest mistake, an evil wrongdoing, or a thoughtful analysis - or anything in between. For some reason, you're adamant on conviction. Which, actually, can have some interesting implications if your style of thinking is followed.


It comes down to a crew training issue. It is fairly easy to train for normal operation, particularly with today's automation levels. Hence the description "Children of the Magenta Line".

I hope that every crew is capable of "Good Airmanship" and is well schooled on how to apply the NNC's (Non-Normal Checklists) when faced with something other than Day-to-Day operation.

NNC's are created to simplify situations and devolve to safe outcomes. Crews can always deviate from them but then become responsible for the results of the deviation.


If we take this a bit further, some people just don't learn. Doesn't matter how much training or schooling they have been given.
 
planecane
Posts: 1144
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 4:10 am

UpNAWAy wrote:
Today's news puts Boeing in a very bad position. They knew months before the Lion Air crash of the warning light malfunction and decided that since it could be fixed in the next software update they would just wait. They did not notify airlines or government agencies.

They have serious legal risk now. Not just financial but likely criminal.

Except that, especially in the case of Lion Air, the warning message (it isn't a light) wouldn't have done anything to avoid the crash. The crew had no idea MCAS existed and had no idea what an AoA disagree would lead to.

Having a stick shaker on only one side is a pretty good indication of an AoA disagree.

The financial risk already existed and won't be made worse by news about the AoA disagree. As far as criminal, I still don't know what law could actually apply. The crash happened in foreign countries so Washington State or Illinois law would not apply. I can't find a federal statute for criminal negligence so I don't think there is anything to charge anyone with.

It would have to be something like mail fraud if hard copies of false or misleading documents were mailed to the FAA.
 
airnorth
Posts: 375
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 7:30 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 4:29 am

kayik wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:
kayik wrote:

Not an argument but a question. Let's assume that whatever the crew did was not in accordance with Boeing procedures. The aircraft was actually not in stall and over speeding, pilots probably could see that being close to the ground. Despite one shaking stick, their priority was to climb. They retracted the flaps and MCAS intervened. Would it be possible to climb if there was no MCAS?


With both engines operating, the airplane would have climbed just fine at Flaps 5.

This question was answered several pages ago on this thread. Its flight profile would have been better than the engine inoperative profile used to insure obstacle and terrain clearance.

It was a simple question, everything the pilots did remains constant, would they fly away if the aircraft was an NG? Yes or No?

I think any plane would, all things being equal, wouldn't it?
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1750
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 6:31 am

7BOEING7 wrote:
Good cut and paste (except for the digital airspeed) -- it would have been even better if you had shown the AOA DISAGREE hardly noticeable in the lower righthand corner (737NG).

But, if you actually had a bad AOA the "red squares" would have probably extended from the bottom to the top of the displayed airspeed tape so the very visible flaps up demarcation would not have been near as visible as it is in your example.

I continue to answer OAGs question, why they have raised the flaps. His initial remark about the 250 limit was correct, I read the table wrongly, the correct diagram is here:
Image

OAG spent dozens of posts and probably hundreds of lines criticizing the raised flaps, so it is important that we understand that they were reaching flaps placard speed and that this condition was clearly shown on both PFDs. At that point, raising the flaps was obvious and not wrong. The full picture is: they got stick shaker on one side, IAS disagree, but still nearly the same IAS readout on both sides and were quickly approaching flaps placard speed -> flaps up was logical.

About your remarks:
The copied part is irrelevant. Is not AOA disagree the feature that Boeing failed to tell, that it was not there on the MAX altogether? Anyway AOA is not involved for the maximum speed indication. The red max speed squares indicate the lowest of the following:
• Vmo/Mmo
• landing gear placard speed
• flap placard speed.
See? AOA is not involved.

So much about the question, why the pilots have raised the flaps. There is nothing to criticize about raising the flaps when speed is approaching 250 quickly.

So OldAeroGuy IMO is wrong calling the raised flaps a failure. Second point where he is wrong is the FL320 topic. Neither raising the flaps nor targeting FL320 equals to "they wanted to continue the mission". Why not? The FL320 simply came from activating the flight director VNAV SPEED pitch mode less than 20 seconds after lift off. So the 32000 ft were coming from the flightplan and were later reduced to 14000, which indicated their intend to return.

If you want to blame the pilots, I would focus on these questions:
- Why did they not stick to the IAS disagree memory items?
- Why did they try to engage the autopilot?

About the first question, I agree with Kalvado, that applying 80% thrust with MTOW in Adis right after lifting off probably would not be a good idea. And if the IAS disagree memory items were not appropriate the moment when IAS disagree occurred, all bets were off how to handle the developing incident with over the time conflicting failure indications. Stick shaker -> return asap, speed could be slow, IAS disagree -> unworkable memory items but requires to keep pitch fixed. Suddenly speed appeared as too high. And actions were needed to handle overspeed (-> hence flaps up).

I would say Boeings nice procedures in isolation would have worked (except the 80% N1 memory item, which is questionable to be generally used IMO), but the flavors of these failure combination made it very hard, to fid the right outcome.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8723
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 6:46 am

par13del wrote:
The throttles remained at take off thrust, have we forgotten that?


Just like pilots do on the NG:

http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-r ... 1o0031.pdf

They did exactly what the NG checklist demands.
Last edited by seahawk on Tue May 07, 2019 6:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
aerolimani
Posts: 1207
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:46 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 6:46 am

If the accident crews were flying an NG, had malfunctioning AOA sensors, received all the same warnings/alerts, and took all the same actions, would the planes have crashed? It seems that the answer is no. Yet, you've got Boeing saying that a brief training course on a tablet is sufficient, because the NG and the MAX are basically the same plane; you don't even need a MAX-specific simulator.

So, folks can harp on, all they want, about the crew not following procedure, and how it would have saved the day. If Boeing says the planes fly nearly identically, and if the crews' actions wouldn't have crashed an NG, then by far the greater fault lies with Boeing. Let's not whitewash the situation with these broad statements of "there's lots of blame to go around."

We can say that the crew could have done things differently, and maybe even fault them a little for that. From what we know so far, it's possible their planes wouldn't have crashed had they not retracted flaps. Regardless, it's almost certain that these crews wouldn't have crashed an NG, as a result of their actions.

Boeing needs to eat an entire humble pie… or maybe 346 of them. The same goes for some of those posters here, banging on about the stick shaker and the flaps. From what we know so far, it's fair to say that pilots' fault is minimal. Boeing is the primary party responsible, and by a wide margin.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2014
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 7:08 am

speedking wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:
kalvado wrote:
If you will, deviation from prescribed procedure can be an honest mistake, an evil wrongdoing, or a thoughtful analysis - or anything in between. For some reason, you're adamant on conviction. Which, actually, can have some interesting implications if your style of thinking is followed.


It comes down to a crew training issue. It is fairly easy to train for normal operation, particularly with today's automation levels. Hence the description "Children of the Magenta Line".

I hope that every crew is capable of "Good Airmanship" and is well schooled on how to apply the NNC's (Non-Normal Checklists) when faced with something other than Day-to-Day operation.

NNC's are created to simplify situations and devolve to safe outcomes. Crews can always deviate from them but then become responsible for the results of the deviation.


If we take this a bit further, some people just don't learn. Doesn't matter how much training or schooling they have been given.

Yep, and too bad that such people are in charge at Boeing. If only they could properly respond to JT crash....
 
Chemist
Posts: 579
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 7:12 am

Most of us know that MCAS was a disaster and that Boeing's actions with that system were a mess.
But thatt doesn't also change the fact that the crew didn't follow procedures.
Most accidents are caused by a chain of failures. You want to recognize all of them to develop mitigations.
Focusing on one set of errors doesn't mean the others aren't there as well.
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 628
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 7:31 am

MrBretz wrote:
I think the request for FL320 might be the final straw that leads OldAeroGuy to that conclusion??


It could be argued, at this point, the PIC had not yet resolved their issues. The FO responded to instruction from ATC as is his job at this moment.

At 05:39:29, radar controller identified ET-302 and instructed to climb FL 340 and when able right turns direct to RUDOL and the First-Officer acknowledged.
At 05:39:42, Level Change mode was engaged. The selected altitude was 32000 ft. Shortly after the mode change, the selected airspeed was set to 238 kt.

PIC commanded maintain runway heading 8sec later is not consistent with intention to continue to destination in my view.

At 05:39:50, the selected heading started to change from 072 to 197 degrees and at the same time the Captain asked the First-Officer to request to maintain runway heading.

15 secs later, with flaps up and autopilot disengaged, things changed for the worse.

At 05:39:57, the Captain advised again the First-Officer to request to maintain runway heading and that they are having flight control problems.

After 50 secs fighting with MCAS AND commands, an altitude request actually made by the crew.

At 05:40:50, the Captain instructed the First Officer to advise ATC that they would like to maintain 14,000 ft and they have flight control problem.
At 05:40:56, the First-Officer requested ATC to maintain 14,000 ft and reported that they are having flight control problem. ATC approved.

~1min 15sec between ATC altitude instruction and crew altitude request.

Ray
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 628
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 9:27 am

Chemist wrote:
Most of us know that MCAS was a disaster and that Boeing's actions with that system were a mess.
But thatt doesn't also change the fact that the crew didn't follow procedures.
Most accidents are caused by a chain of failures. You want to recognize all of them to develop mitigations.
Focusing on one set of errors doesn't mean the others aren't there as well.

What some are baulking at and responding to is apparent co-ordinated and persistent 'selective' use of information to deflect and trot out the line that everything would have been fine but for those pesky kids and relegating the manufacturers role to irrelevant minor mix ups.

Please remember that we have evidence of 4 crews all responding similarly to very similar circumstances written off as they were all wrong. Anybody who disputes their narrative is plain wrong, a fool or worse.

Ray
 
Noshow
Posts: 1013
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 9:36 am

Most of us know that MCAS was a disaster and that Boeing's actions with that system were a mess.
But thatt doesn't also change the fact that the crew didn't follow procedures.


The Lion Air crew had no knowledge and procedure for unwanted MCAS activation. The system had been kept unknown to them.
Repeated automatic trim is not a trim runaway. No wonder they did not follow the runaway trim checklist.

Blaming crews will not solve the problem
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 628
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 10:13 am

Pointless fun. (No offence intended)

There was a pointless AOA Disagree indicator on the NG. In order to pointlessly mimic the NG, the pointless indicator was to be similarly included on the MAX just so it would be pointlessly look the same as the NG cause it was pointless otherwise right?. They decided to add a pointless AOA angle display as an optional extra because it looks nice maybe? However, it was cocked up and the pointless indicator was not displayed unless the optional pointless angle display was pointlessly paid for. After several months service it was discovered that the pointless indictor was not enabled if the pointless angle display was not pointlessly paid for first. Because the pointless indicator was pointless, it was concluded that it did not need to be addressed by fixing it immediately and it would be pointless advising the operators or regulator that the pointless indicator was not enabled. Its pointless to suggest that the omitted pointless indicator may have had any effect on the accidents because it is a pointless indicator. The pointless indicator and the pointless angle display will now pointlessly to be standard on all MAXs to pointlessly look like the NG maybe since it is pointless otherwise is it not?

All sounds totally pointless.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 14318
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 10:27 am

Those that think Boeing executives will ever face criminal charges in the USA or the company ever paying out huge civil damages to individual victims of the 2 MAX crashes, it won't happen. Our laws, our pro-corporate biased Prosecutors and civil laws as to access to courts by foreign national victims will make sure of that. Boeing will lose billions in payouts to airlines for the grounding and fixes, lost sales to Airbus and loss of consumer confidence. Problem is that Airbus cannot make enough aircraft to make up for the shortages from the 737MAX.

There is a terrible design flaw in the 737MAX that cannot be easily rectified, indeed possible cures may make things worse due to more complicated computer controls, training and so on. The only possible cure would be to fit new, smaller and less efficient engines and do a compressed development of the so-called 797 replacement for the 737 series.
 
User avatar
hilram
Posts: 734
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:12 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 10:30 am

UpNAWAy wrote:
Today's news puts Boeing in a very bad position. They knew months before the Lion Air crash of the warning light malfunction and decided that since it could be fixed in the next software update they would just wait. They did not notify airlines or government agencies.

They have serious legal risk now. Not just financial but likely criminal.

I'd like to see the Boeing CEO wrestle himself out of this one.

It is just one bad decision after another, but of course "Boeing always puts safety first"...

Whatever happened to Boeing? They used to be better than this. Way better.
Flown on: A319, 320, 321, 332, 333, 343 | B732, 734, 735, 736, 73G, 738, 743, 744, 772, 77W | BAe-146 | DHC-6, 7, 8 | F50 | E195 | MD DC-9 41, MD-82, MD-87
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1728
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 11:40 am

MrBretz wrote:
For those of you who think AI is just around the corner, I recall a statement made by an MIT professor who taught AI. He said something like “they say AI is just around the corner. I think it will always be just around the corner.”


We're not talking about AI. We're talking about systems less complicated than automation already found in certain electric vehicles...
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
brunoguemes
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:55 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 12:10 pm

Noshow wrote:
Most of us know that MCAS was a disaster and that Boeing's actions with that system were a mess.
But thatt doesn't also change the fact that the crew didn't follow procedures.


The Lion Air crew had no knowledge and procedure for unwanted MCAS activation. The system had been kept unknown to them.
Repeated automatic trim is not a trim runaway. No wonder they did not follow the runaway trim checklist.

Blaming crews will not solve the problem


Totally agree.
Of course it will not but apparently many are still trying to blame anyone but the plane. Had this happened on US soil, probably less people would be blaming the pilots.
After all we know about Boeing and the accidents, I am amazed that we keep looking at what pilots under tremendous pressure did. Of course they did not follow manuals 100%, but the plane was not behaving according to manuals. It is so easy to judge not being there.
In an over speeding plane that is moving erratically and which you are trying to get to climb, retracting flaps might be the right course of action after you've tried everything else.

So does anyone have any news on the grounding? Or shall we keep blaming the dead pilots who had not been informed or trained on this issue as Boeing and the FAA thought they would just update the software at some point so let's cross our fingers so that nothing happens before that ?
 
morrisond
Posts: 1391
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 12:15 pm

XRAYretired wrote:
Chemist wrote:
Most of us know that MCAS was a disaster and that Boeing's actions with that system were a mess.
But thatt doesn't also change the fact that the crew didn't follow procedures.
Most accidents are caused by a chain of failures. You want to recognize all of them to develop mitigations.
Focusing on one set of errors doesn't mean the others aren't there as well.

What some are baulking at and responding to is apparent co-ordinated and persistent 'selective' use of information to deflect and trot out the line that everything would have been fine but for those pesky kids and relegating the manufacturers role to irrelevant minor mix ups.

Please remember that we have evidence of 4 crews all responding similarly to very similar circumstances written off as they were all wrong. Anybody who disputes their narrative is plain wrong, a fool or worse.

Ray


Ray - No one is disputing that Boeing and the FAA really screwed up.

However unless you can guarantee that future versions of regulators are perfect and Engineers never make mistakes and that parts never fail - you need pilots to be able to perform at a certain minimum standard.

In the majority of the fatal crashes in the last decade (I'm not saying all) - Crews did not follow procedures that they were supposed to know as part of their type ratings on those aircraft. The certification process assumes those Crews have that knowledge and that is what allows FU's like MCAS to slip through as they are relying on the crew as backup.

Is that a fault of the crews - not really - it's a fault of the training system - which if you dig around you will realize has become incredibly complacent due to the thankfully very small loss of life and airlines hyper focus on reducing costs to a minimum.

If you don't want to see crashes like these again (nobody does), you have a choice - Immediately legislate an improved training regime worldwide or severely tighten certification standards mandating even more redundancy in airplane systems.

Severely tightening certification standards will be great for new aircraft that might enter the Worldwide fleet in a decade or so - but what about all the Aircraft in the current fleet or those that will be produced until they are replaced with new models designed under the new regulations. You are looking at 30-35 years before complete fleet renewal.

Expect more fatal crashes from Procedure errors until such time unless training improves materially.
 
Noshow
Posts: 1013
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 12:34 pm

Should the FAA prohibit that automatic trim is used to interfere with the elevators? (beyound the NG's STS level)
Let's better train the pilots to hand fly the MAX without MCAS.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3136
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 12:44 pm

ltbewr wrote:
Those that think Boeing executives will ever face criminal charges in the USA or the company ever paying out huge civil damages to individual victims of the 2 MAX crashes, it won't happen. Our laws, our pro-corporate biased Prosecutors and civil laws as to access to courts by foreign national victims will make sure of that. Boeing will lose billions in payouts to airlines for the grounding and fixes, lost sales to Airbus and loss of consumer confidence. Problem is that Airbus cannot make enough aircraft to make up for the shortages from the 737MAX.

There is a terrible design flaw in the 737MAX that cannot be easily rectified, indeed possible cures may make things worse due to more complicated computer controls, training and so on. The only possible cure would be to fit new, smaller and less efficient engines and do a compressed development of the so-called 797 replacement for the 737 series.


Your first two assertions are wrong. The first by a little, Boeing executives may and have faced criminal sanctions (and have served time in prison). Then the legal system in somewhat random and not entirely rational fashion is known for assessing HUGE payout to certain classes of victims (even supposed victims). This at the same time forbidding real victims from any damages.

Your assessment of the problems with the MAX are likely to be proven as wrong. It does need a fair amount of fixing. Possibly more than MCAS.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
sgbroimp
Posts: 199
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 6:35 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 1:01 pm

There is no doubt, whatever the outcome of this sad scenario, that training must improve. I wish I could put my finger on the AW article, but some years ago several high time US commercial pilots were brought into a sim for the aircraft type they flew. (I think it was a 747, but maybe another wide body) Unlike a normal re-qualification, they were told nothing about what would take place. The majority of the pilots failed to take the correct action and put the aircraft at risk. And they even had the advantage of high hours in type and knowing they were sitting on the ground and that no one could get killed! So I hope this event will be a watershed moment that demonstrates we have a long way to go in the training area. A friend of mine who instructs for one of the majors is pushing this with his company as well. And with more technology comes the need for more training, not less as perhaps once believed.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3886
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 1:07 pm

rheinwaldner wrote:
So much about the question, why the pilots have raised the flaps. There is nothing to criticize about raising the flaps when speed is approaching 250 quickly.

So OldAeroGuy IMO is wrong calling the raised flaps a failure.


If you look at the facts of the flight, ET302 did not approach 250 KIAS quickly.

Liftoff was at around 150 KIAS and stick shaker started at liftoff.

Acceleration to near 235 KIAS took approximately a minute. Average acceleration was approximately 1.5 kt/sec, a rather low rate.

During the speed increase, speed could have been controlled by:

- Thrust reduction
- Pitch angle increase to increase climb angle
- A combination of the two.

Raising Flaps with an active stick shaker counter to the published Boeing Procedure was not the ET302 crew's only option as the Flaps 5 placard approached.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 292
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 1:14 pm

morrisond wrote:
In the majority of the fatal crashes in the last decade (I'm not saying all) - Crews did not follow procedures that they were supposed to know as part of their type ratings on those aircraft. The certification process assumes those Crews have that knowledge and that is what allows FU's like MCAS to slip through as they are relying on the crew as backup.

Is that a fault of the crews - not really - it's a fault of the training system - which if you dig around you will realize has become incredibly complacent due to the thankfully very small loss of life and airlines hyper focus on reducing costs to a minimum.

If you don't want to see crashes like these again (nobody does), you have a choice - Immediately legislate an improved training regime worldwide or severely tighten certification standards mandating even more redundancy in airplane systems.

Severely tightening certification standards will be great for new aircraft that might enter the Worldwide fleet in a decade or so - but what about all the Aircraft in the current fleet or those that will be produced until they are replaced with new models designed under the new regulations. You are looking at 30-35 years before complete fleet renewal.

Expect more fatal crashes from Procedure errors until such time unless training improves materially.


Boeing could actually mandate that certain training is necessary to fly their aircraft and a FO needs at least 1000h flight hours in commercial service and a 1h simulator training before he can safely fly the MAX for example.

If they would state this in their selling contract.

The airlines can of course not follow that guideline but this would lead to two consequences:

1. Boeing would have no responsibility (or only partially) if something goes wrong when the above conditions are not fulfilled
2. Insurance companies would not pay out any coverage

In that case no untrained pilots would operate Boeing aircraft and if they do the airlines doing it would most likely be bankrupt after one crash.

Of course you lose a selling point for your aircraft but you at least have no bad headlines is untrained crew makes mistakes. Safety before profits.
 
Elementalism
Posts: 466
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 1:51 pm

Noshow wrote:
Most of us know that MCAS was a disaster and that Boeing's actions with that system were a mess.
But thatt doesn't also change the fact that the crew didn't follow procedures.


The Lion Air crew had no knowledge and procedure for unwanted MCAS activation. The system had been kept unknown to them.
Repeated automatic trim is not a trim runaway. No wonder they did not follow the runaway trim checklist.

Blaming crews will not solve the problem


True however the flight right before it the same plane had the exact same problem and a pilot in the jump seat somehow knew to pull the trim switch to fix the issue??? That Lions Air crash the plane was having obvious systems problems. But they put the plane back into the air. As said before crashes are usually a series of bad decisions and bad luck.

Lions Air putting an aircraft with faulty equipment back into the air, insufficient information about MCAS, and Boeing implementing MCAS in the most horrible way caused a crash that day.

The second crash it sounds like they didnt quite follow the procedures to the T. And eventually turned back on electronic trim in a last ditch attempt to let the electric trim do what manual could not. But the pilots are not 100% from the clear on this neither. They recognized the issue but left the throttles at takeoff power. Which increased their speed to the point manual trim was nearly impossible. Pull the throttles back and they probably survive using manual trim. At the speeds they were going any trim was going to be exaggerated. And at the altitude they were at, they did not have the capability to push the nose forward to ease pressure off the trim wheel to get it under control.

Both crashes were a series of mistakes from Boeings implementation, to the procedures, to the decisions by the airlines and pilots. The totality of what happened in both will be taught in flight schools for decade.
 
Elementalism
Posts: 466
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 1:55 pm

ltbewr wrote:
Those that think Boeing executives will ever face criminal charges in the USA or the company ever paying out huge civil damages to individual victims of the 2 MAX crashes, it won't happen. Our laws, our pro-corporate biased Prosecutors and civil laws as to access to courts by foreign national victims will make sure of that. Boeing will lose billions in payouts to airlines for the grounding and fixes, lost sales to Airbus and loss of consumer confidence. Problem is that Airbus cannot make enough aircraft to make up for the shortages from the 737MAX.

There is a terrible design flaw in the 737MAX that cannot be easily rectified, indeed possible cures may make things worse due to more complicated computer controls, training and so on. The only possible cure would be to fit new, smaller and less efficient engines and do a compressed development of the so-called 797 replacement for the 737 series.


There will be a civil settlement. Litigation is a 300+ billion dollar a year industry in the United States. To say our laws prevent civil lawsuits and protect corporations is silly. Our criminal law is designed to make it difficult to convict individuals for a collective screwup. What is the problem with that? I prefer that over laws in places like Italy that criminally charge scientists for not predicting an earthquake.

What is the terrible design flaw in the 737MAX that cant be rectified?
 
Noshow
Posts: 1013
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 2:17 pm

Possibly it's raw flight behavior in manual thrust and with flaps up that needs MCAS to be certifiable?
 
User avatar
enilria
Posts: 9620
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 2:29 pm

Elementalism wrote:
Litigation is a 300+ billion dollar a year industry in the United States.

The way this is going just the MAX litigation will be a big chunk of that.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 292
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 2:57 pm

Elementalism wrote:

What is the terrible design flaw in the 737MAX that cant be rectified?


They made changes to one area of the aircraft that changed the aerodynamics in a way the aircraft was not certifyable but instead of making changes to a different part (stabilizer) they decided to correct the behavior by a software.

This is a shortcut you can only take if you prepare the operator (by training) for given software and the effects of possible failures.

Its like changing the engine of your perfectly balanced sportscar to a more efficient but heavier version. Now the car has significant oversteer in certain situations and you implement a software to aid you in this situations. If this software fails or malfunctions you possibly crash the car if you are not prepared for this situation.

The real mistake of Boeing was the fact pilots and airlines were not fully (and probably sill arent fully) aware of all MAX functions and also were not mandated to train for them. That was a pure business decision to make more money and sell more aircrafts. If MAX is as good as stated additional training would be not a problem to sell the aircraft.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1750
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 3:10 pm

OldAeroGuy wrote:
rheinwaldner wrote:
So much about the question, why the pilots have raised the flaps. There is nothing to criticize about raising the flaps when speed is approaching 250 quickly.

So OldAeroGuy IMO is wrong calling the raised flaps a failure.


If you look at the facts of the flight, ET302 did not approach 250 KIAS quickly.

Liftoff was at around 150 KIAS and stick shaker started at liftoff.

Acceleration to near 235 KIAS took approximately a minute. Average acceleration was approximately 1.5 kt/sec, a rather low rate.

During the speed increase, speed could have been controlled by:

- Thrust reduction
- Pitch angle increase to increase climb angle
- A combination of the two.

Raising Flaps with an active stick shaker counter to the published Boeing Procedure was not the ET302 crew's only option as the Flaps 5 placard approached.

Your first two items contradict the IAS disagree checklist. So you are saying, they should have complied with one procedure but disobey the other.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3039
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 3:30 pm

rheinwaldner wrote:
7BOEING7 wrote:
Good cut and paste (except for the digital airspeed) -- it would have been even better if you had shown the AOA DISAGREE hardly noticeable in the lower righthand corner (737NG).

But, if you actually had a bad AOA the "red squares" would have probably extended from the bottom to the top of the displayed airspeed tape so the very visible flaps up demarcation would not have been near as visible as it is in your example.


Image


About your remarks:
The copied part is irrelevant. Is not AOA disagree the feature that Boeing failed to tell, that it was not there on the MAX altogether? Anyway AOA is not involved for the maximum speed indication. The red max speed squares indicate the lowest of the following:
• Vmo/Mmo
• landing gear placard speed
• flap placard speed.
See? AOA is not involved.

So much about the question, why the pilots have raised the flaps. There is nothing to criticize about raising the flaps when speed is approaching 250 quickly..


Didn't do your homework very well. The red speed squares also provide you with minimum speed indication i. e. stick shaker which was on at all speeds -- therefore the red squares went from top to bottom of the speed tape.

True the AOA DISAGREE is on all NG's and only MAX's that ordered the AOA indicator like AAL. However if you had shown the entire PFD with the AOA DISAGREE alert people would have seen how insignificant it is. It's not a light, it's not a warning.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3886
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 3:39 pm

rheinwaldner wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:
rheinwaldner wrote:
So much about the question, why the pilots have raised the flaps. There is nothing to criticize about raising the flaps when speed is approaching 250 quickly.

So OldAeroGuy IMO is wrong calling the raised flaps a failure.


If you look at the facts of the flight, ET302 did not approach 250 KIAS quickly.

Liftoff was at around 150 KIAS and stick shaker started at liftoff.

Acceleration to near 235 KIAS took approximately a minute. Average acceleration was approximately 1.5 kt/sec, a rather low rate.

During the speed increase, speed could have been controlled by:

- Thrust reduction
- Pitch angle increase to increase climb angle
- A combination of the two.

Raising Flaps with an active stick shaker counter to the published Boeing Procedure was not the ET302 crew's only option as the Flaps 5 placard approached.

Your first two items contradict the IAS disagree checklist. So you are saying, they should have complied with one procedure but disobey the other.


So you're arguing that ignoring the Boeing Procedure of not raising Flaps with an active stick shaker is OK, but changing power or pitch is not OK because it doesn't follow the Boeing Procedure for Flaps down "Unreliable Airspeed" to the letter?

How about some consistency of thought.

First, changing power or pitch can be a prelude to the "Unreliable Airspeed" Procedure of 80% N1 and 10 deg pitch.

Second, the 80% N1 and 10 deg pitch is a preliminary recommendation. It can be modified as conditions require.

Third, previously you discounted using the "Unreliable Airspeed" Procedure as being inappropriate.

Finally, you should revise the ADI in your cut and paste if you want it to reflect the point where ET302 Flaps were retracted. At that point, the FDR traces show the attitude was about 5 deg Nose Up, not Nose Down as you have shown.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3039
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 3:42 pm

rheinwaldner wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:
rheinwaldner wrote:
So much about the question, why the pilots have raised the flaps. There is nothing to criticize about raising the flaps when speed is approaching 250 quickly.

So OldAeroGuy IMO is wrong calling the raised flaps a failure.


If you look at the facts of the flight, ET302 did not approach 250 KIAS quickly.

Liftoff was at around 150 KIAS and stick shaker started at liftoff.

Acceleration to near 235 KIAS took approximately a minute. Average acceleration was approximately 1.5 kt/sec, a rather low rate.

During the speed increase, speed could have been controlled by:

- Thrust reduction
- Pitch angle increase to increase climb angle
- A combination of the two.

Raising Flaps with an active stick shaker counter to the published Boeing Procedure was not the ET302 crew's only option as the Flaps 5 placard approached.

Your first two items contradict the IAS disagree checklist. So you are saying, they should have complied with one procedure but disobey the other.


I assume you mean AIRSPEED UNRELIABLE checklist. Correct terminology helps people understand what you're talking about and it makes you look like you actually know what you're taliking about.
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1553
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 3:48 pm

par13del wrote:
The throttles remained at take off thrust, have we forgotten that?


Disengage the AT on ET 302 and everyone lives. One flies the other runs the lists. Not being simplistic or being unrealistic as to the CRM demands in the 6min flight. Just stating my opinion.
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
 
User avatar
PixelFlight
Posts: 648
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:09 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 4:15 pm

rheinwaldner wrote:
7BOEING7 wrote:
Good cut and paste (except for the digital airspeed) -- it would have been even better if you had shown the AOA DISAGREE hardly noticeable in the lower righthand corner (737NG).

But, if you actually had a bad AOA the "red squares" would have probably extended from the bottom to the top of the displayed airspeed tape so the very visible flaps up demarcation would not have been near as visible as it is in your example.

I continue to answer OAGs question, why they have raised the flaps. His initial remark about the 250 limit was correct, I read the table wrongly, the correct diagram is here:
Image

OAG spent dozens of posts and probably hundreds of lines criticizing the raised flaps, so it is important that we understand that they were reaching flaps placard speed and that this condition was clearly shown on both PFDs. At that point, raising the flaps was obvious and not wrong. The full picture is: they got stick shaker on one side, IAS disagree, but still nearly the same IAS readout on both sides and were quickly approaching flaps placard speed -> flaps up was logical.

About your remarks:
The copied part is irrelevant. Is not AOA disagree the feature that Boeing failed to tell, that it was not there on the MAX altogether? Anyway AOA is not involved for the maximum speed indication. The red max speed squares indicate the lowest of the following:
• Vmo/Mmo
• landing gear placard speed
• flap placard speed.
See? AOA is not involved.

So much about the question, why the pilots have raised the flaps. There is nothing to criticize about raising the flaps when speed is approaching 250 quickly.

So OldAeroGuy IMO is wrong calling the raised flaps a failure. Second point where he is wrong is the FL320 topic. Neither raising the flaps nor targeting FL320 equals to "they wanted to continue the mission". Why not? The FL320 simply came from activating the flight director VNAV SPEED pitch mode less than 20 seconds after lift off. So the 32000 ft were coming from the flightplan and were later reduced to 14000, which indicated their intend to return.

If you want to blame the pilots, I would focus on these questions:
- Why did they not stick to the IAS disagree memory items?
- Why did they try to engage the autopilot?

About the first question, I agree with Kalvado, that applying 80% thrust with MTOW in Adis right after lifting off probably would not be a good idea. And if the IAS disagree memory items were not appropriate the moment when IAS disagree occurred, all bets were off how to handle the developing incident with over the time conflicting failure indications. Stick shaker -> return asap, speed could be slow, IAS disagree -> unworkable memory items but requires to keep pitch fixed. Suddenly speed appeared as too high. And actions were needed to handle overspeed (-> hence flaps up).

I would say Boeings nice procedures in isolation would have worked (except the 80% N1 memory item, which is questionable to be generally used IMO), but the flavors of these failure combination made it very hard, to fid the right outcome.

:checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark:
Very cleaver analyze. Many thanks for this detailed scenario description.
 
SEU
Posts: 177
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:21 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 4:16 pm

OldAeroGuy wrote:
rheinwaldner wrote:
So much about the question, why the pilots have raised the flaps. There is nothing to criticize about raising the flaps when speed is approaching 250 quickly.

So OldAeroGuy IMO is wrong calling the raised flaps a failure.


If you look at the facts of the flight, ET302 did not approach 250 KIAS quickly.

Liftoff was at around 150 KIAS and stick shaker started at liftoff.

Acceleration to near 235 KIAS took approximately a minute. Average acceleration was approximately 1.5 kt/sec, a rather low rate.

During the speed increase, speed could have been controlled by:

- Thrust reduction
- Pitch angle increase to increase climb angle
- A combination of the two.

Raising Flaps with an active stick shaker counter to the published Boeing Procedure was not the ET302 crew's only option as the Flaps 5 placard approached.


You are literally clutching at straws and focusing on one aspect of the crash. The plane had a fault that flew it nose down into the ground, nothing you are saying shows us that if they did those procedures correctly, that wouldve changed.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1750
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 4:17 pm

7BOEING7 wrote:
rheinwaldner wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:

If you look at the facts of the flight, ET302 did not approach 250 KIAS quickly.

Liftoff was at around 150 KIAS and stick shaker started at liftoff.

Acceleration to near 235 KIAS took approximately a minute. Average acceleration was approximately 1.5 kt/sec, a rather low rate.

During the speed increase, speed could have been controlled by:

- Thrust reduction
- Pitch angle increase to increase climb angle
- A combination of the two.

Raising Flaps with an active stick shaker counter to the published Boeing Procedure was not the ET302 crew's only option as the Flaps 5 placard approached.

Your first two items contradict the IAS disagree checklist. So you are saying, they should have complied with one procedure but disobey the other.


I assume you mean AIRSPEED UNRELIABLE checklist. Correct terminology helps people understand what you're talking about and it makes you look like you actually know what you're taliking about.

"IAS disagree" is an established term if you ask google. And it is generally used by people, who know what they are talking about. E.g. if you have a hard time to understand this term, you would have trouble following e.g. Bjorn Fehrm or the editor of avherald.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3886
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 4:27 pm

SEU wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:
rheinwaldner wrote:
So much about the question, why the pilots have raised the flaps. There is nothing to criticize about raising the flaps when speed is approaching 250 quickly.

So OldAeroGuy IMO is wrong calling the raised flaps a failure.


If you look at the facts of the flight, ET302 did not approach 250 KIAS quickly.

Liftoff was at around 150 KIAS and stick shaker started at liftoff.

Acceleration to near 235 KIAS took approximately a minute. Average acceleration was approximately 1.5 kt/sec, a rather low rate.

During the speed increase, speed could have been controlled by:

- Thrust reduction
- Pitch angle increase to increase climb angle
- A combination of the two.

Raising Flaps with an active stick shaker counter to the published Boeing Procedure was not the ET302 crew's only option as the Flaps 5 placard approached.


You are literally clutching at straws and focusing on one aspect of the crash. The plane had a fault that flew it nose down into the ground, nothing you are saying shows us that if they did those procedures correctly, that wouldve changed.


I believe you need to educate yourself on the nuances of the accident.

- MCAS is not active if Flaps are down.

- The Flaps were retracted with an active stick shaker, contrary to Boeing procedure.

- If the Flaps were left extended, then MCAS with an erroneous AoA vane signal would not issued any nose down commands.

Are you saying that ET302 would have crashed if no MCAS nose down commands were issued?
Last edited by OldAeroGuy on Tue May 07, 2019 4:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
Amexair
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:16 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 4:32 pm

OldAeroGuy wrote:
rheinwaldner wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:

If you look at the facts of the flight, ET302 did not approach 250 KIAS quickly.

Liftoff was at around 150 KIAS and stick shaker started at liftoff.

Acceleration to near 235 KIAS took approximately a minute. Average acceleration was approximately 1.5 kt/sec, a rather low rate.

During the speed increase, speed could have been controlled by:

- Thrust reduction
- Pitch angle increase to increase climb angle
- A combination of the two.

Raising Flaps with an active stick shaker counter to the published Boeing Procedure was not the ET302 crew's only option as the Flaps 5 placard approached.

Your first two items contradict the IAS disagree checklist. So you are saying, they should have complied with one procedure but disobey the other.


So you're arguing that ignoring the Boeing Procedure of not raising Flaps with an active stick shaker is OK, but changing power or pitch is not OK because it doesn't follow the Boeing Procedure for Flaps down "Unreliable Airspeed" to the letter?

How about some consistency of thought.

First, changing power or pitch can be a prelude to the "Unreliable Airspeed" Procedure of 80% N1 and 10 deg pitch.

Second, the 80% N1 and 10 deg pitch is a preliminary recommendation. It can be modified as conditions require.

Third, previously you discounted using the "Unreliable Airspeed" Procedure as being inappropriate.

Finally, you should revise the ADI in your cut and paste if you want it to reflect the point where ET302 Flaps were retracted. At that point, the FDR traces show the attitude was about 5 deg Nose Up, not Nose Down as you have shown.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QytfYyHmxtc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBqDcUqJ5_Q&t=1279s


Even veteran US pilots working at major US Airlines are in agreement with the actions taken by the pilots. So please take a word or two from them and give us a break.

If that doesn't convince you then I don't know what will.
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3039
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 4:58 pm

Amexair wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:
rheinwaldner wrote:
Your first two items contradict the IAS disagree checklist. So you are saying, they should have complied with one procedure but disobey the other.


So you're arguing that ignoring the Boeing Procedure of not raising Flaps with an active stick shaker is OK, but changing power or pitch is not OK because it doesn't follow the Boeing Procedure for Flaps down "Unreliable Airspeed" to the letter?

How about some consistency of thought.

First, changing power or pitch can be a prelude to the "Unreliable Airspeed" Procedure of 80% N1 and 10 deg pitch.

Second, the 80% N1 and 10 deg pitch is a preliminary recommendation. It can be modified as conditions require.

Third, previously you discounted using the "Unreliable Airspeed" Procedure as being inappropriate.

Finally, you should revise the ADI in your cut and paste if you want it to reflect the point where ET302 Flaps were retracted. At that point, the FDR traces show the attitude was about 5 deg Nose Up, not Nose Down as you have shown.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QytfYyHmxtc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBqDcUqJ5_Q&t=1279s


Even veteran US pilots working at major US Airlines are in agreement with the actions taken by the pilots. So please take a word or two from them and give us a break.

If that doesn't convince you then I don't know what will.


There's a lot of youtube talking heads out there and they all want to make money doing it -- criticizing the dead doesn't add to there bottom line.

When the final reports come out both flight crews will share a portion of the blame, the ET crew probably more than the Lion Air crew. They were both links in the chain that could have been broken with proper CRM, correct use of checklists and above all flying the airplane, not letting it fly them.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3886
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 5:24 pm

PixelFlight wrote:
rheinwaldner wrote:
7BOEING7 wrote:
Good cut and paste (except for the digital airspeed) -- it would have been even better if you had shown the AOA DISAGREE hardly noticeable in the lower righthand corner (737NG).

But, if you actually had a bad AOA the "red squares" would have probably extended from the bottom to the top of the displayed airspeed tape so the very visible flaps up demarcation would not have been near as visible as it is in your example.

I continue to answer OAGs question, why they have raised the flaps. His initial remark about the 250 limit was correct, I read the table wrongly, the correct diagram is here:
Image

OAG spent dozens of posts and probably hundreds of lines criticizing the raised flaps, so it is important that we understand that they were reaching flaps placard speed and that this condition was clearly shown on both PFDs. At that point, raising the flaps was obvious and not wrong. The full picture is: they got stick shaker on one side, IAS disagree, but still nearly the same IAS readout on both sides and were quickly approaching flaps placard speed -> flaps up was logical.

About your remarks:
The copied part is irrelevant. Is not AOA disagree the feature that Boeing failed to tell, that it was not there on the MAX altogether? Anyway AOA is not involved for the maximum speed indication. The red max speed squares indicate the lowest of the following:
• Vmo/Mmo
• landing gear placard speed
• flap placard speed.
See? AOA is not involved.

So much about the question, why the pilots have raised the flaps. There is nothing to criticize about raising the flaps when speed is approaching 250 quickly.

So OldAeroGuy IMO is wrong calling the raised flaps a failure. Second point where he is wrong is the FL320 topic. Neither raising the flaps nor targeting FL320 equals to "they wanted to continue the mission". Why not? The FL320 simply came from activating the flight director VNAV SPEED pitch mode less than 20 seconds after lift off. So the 32000 ft were coming from the flightplan and were later reduced to 14000, which indicated their intend to return.

If you want to blame the pilots, I would focus on these questions:
- Why did they not stick to the IAS disagree memory items?
- Why did they try to engage the autopilot?

About the first question, I agree with Kalvado, that applying 80% thrust with MTOW in Adis right after lifting off probably would not be a good idea. And if the IAS disagree memory items were not appropriate the moment when IAS disagree occurred, all bets were off how to handle the developing incident with over the time conflicting failure indications. Stick shaker -> return asap, speed could be slow, IAS disagree -> unworkable memory items but requires to keep pitch fixed. Suddenly speed appeared as too high. And actions were needed to handle overspeed (-> hence flaps up).

I would say Boeings nice procedures in isolation would have worked (except the 80% N1 memory item, which is questionable to be generally used IMO), but the flavors of these failure combination made it very hard, to fid the right outcome.

:checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark:
Very cleaver analyze. Many thanks for this detailed scenario description.


It is an adequate answer for normal operation. But this flight was not normal as it had an active stick shaker.

If you have to retract the Flaps to avoid a Flap placard when you have complete control over airplane airspeed, you are not flying the airplane. It is flying you.

The original question was:

With an active stick shaker, is there a good reason to retract the Flaps?

Does anyone have a good reason?
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
morrisond
Posts: 1391
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 5:32 pm

Amexair wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:
rheinwaldner wrote:
Your first two items contradict the IAS disagree checklist. So you are saying, they should have complied with one procedure but disobey the other.


So you're arguing that ignoring the Boeing Procedure of not raising Flaps with an active stick shaker is OK, but changing power or pitch is not OK because it doesn't follow the Boeing Procedure for Flaps down "Unreliable Airspeed" to the letter?

How about some consistency of thought.

First, changing power or pitch can be a prelude to the "Unreliable Airspeed" Procedure of 80% N1 and 10 deg pitch.

Second, the 80% N1 and 10 deg pitch is a preliminary recommendation. It can be modified as conditions require.

Third, previously you discounted using the "Unreliable Airspeed" Procedure as being inappropriate.

Finally, you should revise the ADI in your cut and paste if you want it to reflect the point where ET302 Flaps were retracted. At that point, the FDR traces show the attitude was about 5 deg Nose Up, not Nose Down as you have shown.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QytfYyHmxtc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBqDcUqJ5_Q&t=1279s


Even veteran US pilots working at major US Airlines are in agreement with the actions taken by the pilots. So please take a word or two from them and give us a break.

If that doesn't convince you then I don't know what will.


Maybe you should post the other Video from the Pilot in the second video where he says the ET pilots are at fault. I would do it but can't access Youtube from work - but I believe it's in the previous thread.
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 450
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 5:34 pm

7BOEING7 wrote:
Amexair wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:

So you're arguing that ignoring the Boeing Procedure of not raising Flaps with an active stick shaker is OK, but changing power or pitch is not OK because it doesn't follow the Boeing Procedure for Flaps down "Unreliable Airspeed" to the letter?

How about some consistency of thought.

First, changing power or pitch can be a prelude to the "Unreliable Airspeed" Procedure of 80% N1 and 10 deg pitch.

Second, the 80% N1 and 10 deg pitch is a preliminary recommendation. It can be modified as conditions require.

Third, previously you discounted using the "Unreliable Airspeed" Procedure as being inappropriate.

Finally, you should revise the ADI in your cut and paste if you want it to reflect the point where ET302 Flaps were retracted. At that point, the FDR traces show the attitude was about 5 deg Nose Up, not Nose Down as you have shown.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QytfYyHmxtc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBqDcUqJ5_Q&t=1279s


Even veteran US pilots working at major US Airlines are in agreement with the actions taken by the pilots. So please take a word or two from them and give us a break.

If that doesn't convince you then I don't know what will.


There's a lot of youtube talking heads out there and they all want to make money doing it -- criticizing the dead doesn't add to there bottom line.

When the final reports come out both flight crews will share a portion of the blame, the ET crew probably more than the Lion Air crew. They were both links in the chain that could have been broken with proper CRM, correct use of checklists and above all flying the airplane, not letting it fly them.


Of course, Mr 7Boeing7.
Why don't we put you on a MAX with an inop AoA sensor and try out how good your CRM and checklist skills are with the stickshaker going mad just after rotating, your airspeeds and altimeters going nuts, the aircraft pitching down as soon as you raise the flaps, the trim wheel seemingly stuck, a captain who can't release the column because the aircraft has an extreme pitch down trim.

Boeing better apologise and pay out, settle this and go back to designing aircraft. Boeing is not a lawfirm, it's not a PR office, it's not a financial institution. It's an aircraft manufacturer, one of the best if not the best, so they should humbly focus on what they do best and the profits will follow, all the rest is noise and a distraction from their main business.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 5:45 pm

I'm surprised the solution wasn't to aggressively use the automatic trim switch to level the aircraft. That Boeing didn't emphasize this in the AD, and that any pilots after LionAir wouldn't have thought of this. Maybe the trim switch didn't override MCAS or something. Or the hack that wasn't in the AD, put on the flaps to shut off MCAS and then use the trim switch to trim up.
With the knowledge from LionAir, Boeing and the pilots had more information and awareness to go off of on how to beat an MCAS malfunction in some way, shape, or form.

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