User avatar
PixelFlight
Posts: 478
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:09 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri May 31, 2019 6:21 pm

planecane wrote:
A plaintiff's attorney making your arguments doesn't prove them correct.

Like the repetitive arguments here about pilots error on a so simple procedure.
 
morrisond
Posts: 1149
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri May 31, 2019 6:53 pm

AirlineCritic wrote:
sillystrings wrote:
morrisond wrote:
I don't think the MAX specifically needed more training as I see the real problem is lack of hand flying skills and confidence in flying without the nannies.

I think there is a really simple test to prove your assertion wrong. All other things being equal, had they been flying NG instead MAX, this thread wouldn't exist and there wouldn't be two craters in the ground.


Indeed. I think there's (for some reason) an attempt to confuse the issue by turning to attention from, say, airplane engineering skills to solely pilot skills (both could be questioned here) and by repeating ad nauseum. And making everything very simple. If only you flip a switch... NOT realising that the pilots in these situations are very close to ground in the most vulnerable moment of the flight, their speed instruments are malfunctioning (or at least some of them), stick shaker is going off, a potential bird hit has been made, the trim system is moving erratically but in a manner that isn't easy to observe. And perhaps, the manual backup isn't so easy to use.

In the end, I think some very bad design decisions were made which significantly contributed to the accident (but of course not only those). Boeing can and will fix this, but they also will end up paying for the loss of confidence and quite possibly in the lawsuits. May it be so. What I'm worried about is that neither Boeing nor the aviation community (at least as seen by some on a.net) seems to take the full lesson or see their errors. If the full lesson isn't learned, the fear is that this accident will repeat.


So you are worried about the full lesson not being learned and you don't want to look at how pilot training may have been a factor? Did you miss all the times I (and others who have been pointing out potential errors by the pilots) have said Boeing and the FAA screwed up as well?

I can't really think of anyone who is saying that it's all the pilots or trainings fault - but I can think of quite of few who continue to assert with 100% confidence that it's all Boeing's fault and no one else did anything wrong - no matter how much evidence you give them to the contrary as it disrupts there narrative.
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3250
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri May 31, 2019 7:08 pm

sillystrings wrote:
I think there is a really simple test to prove your assertion wrong. All other things being equal, had they been flying NG instead MAX, this thread wouldn't exist and there wouldn't be two craters in the ground.


Good try, but..

1) Your conclusion isn't valid. In particular the ET crew placed the aircraft into a dangerous situation before MCAS was a factor, meaning a definitive predictive statement of a safe flight isn't correct.

2) If we change the criteria to "all else equal, had a different crew been piloting, this thread may not exist" is also highly plausible.

Morrisond is right.
 
User avatar
SamYeager2016
Posts: 200
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 6:22 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri May 31, 2019 7:09 pm

morrisond wrote:
In retrospect - I think Boeing should have gone for this approach - They should have skipped MCAS all together - apply for an exception on the stick force gradient and just required some SIM time to show that the control forces get a little light at far aft COG and light weights.

It should not have been a big deal for any pilot and taken 5 minutes in a SIM.

However, as has been mentioned numerous times in various threads requiring SIM time would have meant paying several million dollars to Southwest and MCAS was "cheaper", or so Boeing thought.
 
morrisond
Posts: 1149
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri May 31, 2019 7:41 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
sillystrings wrote:
I think there is a really simple test to prove your assertion wrong. All other things being equal, had they been flying NG instead MAX, this thread wouldn't exist and there wouldn't be two craters in the ground.


Good try, but..

1) Your conclusion isn't valid. In particular the ET crew placed the aircraft into a dangerous situation before MCAS was a factor, meaning a definitive predictive statement of a safe flight isn't correct.

2) If we change the criteria to "all else equal, had a different crew been piloting, this thread may not exist" is also highly plausible.

Morrisond is right.


Also see ET409 - a 737NG flight that crashed due to Pilot Error
 
morrisond
Posts: 1149
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri May 31, 2019 7:44 pm

SamYeager2016 wrote:
morrisond wrote:
In retrospect - I think Boeing should have gone for this approach - They should have skipped MCAS all together - apply for an exception on the stick force gradient and just required some SIM time to show that the control forces get a little light at far aft COG and light weights.

It should not have been a big deal for any pilot and taken 5 minutes in a SIM.

However, as has been mentioned numerous times in various threads requiring SIM time would have meant paying several million dollars to Southwest and MCAS was "cheaper", or so Boeing thought.


Yes they did which is why we ended up with what tragically happened.

That is why I said in Retrospect - that or designed MCAS properly the first time.
 
SEU
Posts: 117
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:21 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri May 31, 2019 9:00 pm

PixelFlight wrote:
Interested wrote:
According to the lawsuit reported in this article - the same tactics to hide design flaws and deflect blame onto the pilots have been used on previous Boeing crashes

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/21/politics ... index.html

From the document:
109. BOEING intentionally designed the MCAS to take data from one of the 737 MAX 8's two angle of attack (AOA) sensors and to alternate the sensor from which it accepts data each flight.
110. BOEING hos not publicly disclosed why it decided to have the MCAS take data from only one indicator,
[...]
113. Even though Rockwell Collins (Collins Aerospace) build the 737 MAX 8 flight control computer and the software and coding that run the MCAS, and Rosemount manufactured and supplied the Angle of Attack indicator, BOEING remains responsible for its suppliers and contractors, and for the design, production, manufacture, certification and airworthiness of its BOEING aircraft,
114. Rockwell Collins witch produced the flight controls computers and software on the 737 MAX 8 also provided software update to BOEING after the crash of Lion Air in 2018, but BOEING has not taken the necessary action to make all changes needed on 737 MAX 8 and the subject aircraft before the crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302.
[... lot of blames on BOEING ...]
134. As a result of BOEING's intentional and knowing decisions, the pilots of the subject aircraft had not received any simulator training or testing on how to handle emergencies caused by the BOEING 737 MAX 8 airplane's MCAS.
135. BOEING knowingly failed to conduct a proper failure mode and effect analysis during development of the BOEING 737-8 MAX to ensure that the airplane's MCAS was safe.
[...]
139, In BOEING's rush to get the 737 MAX 8 to market, BOEING knowingly, intentionally, wantonly, callously, egregiously, negligently, and possibly criminally, compromised and endangered the safety of BOEING 737 MAX 8 crews and passengers, and killed two plane loads of people.

BOEING DECEIVED THE FAA AND PURCHASERS OF THE BOEING 737-8 MAX BY
ASSERTING THAT CRITICAL SAFETY FEATURES NEED NOT BE STANDARD,
OFFERING THEN ONLY AS OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT AT EXTRA COST

140. Evidence that BOEING put its profits ahead of safety in its design, production, assembly, manufacture, and marketing of the BOEING 737 MAX 8 airplane includes that BOEING charged it customers extra for the installation of important safety features.
[...]
155. BOEING has so completely assumed the FAA certification process that the FAA airworthiness certification of an airplane or airplane system no longer means that the FAA independently considered and determined whether that airplane or airplane system was safe, but rather that BOEING has largely supplemented the role of the FAA. For example: [...]
[... lot of blames about the BOEING lobbying the U.S federal government ...]
BOEING "FIX" AFTER TEH LION AIT CRASH DID NOT WORK
210. Rather than grounding the Boeing 737 MAX 8 until it was fixed and made safe, BOEING chose to prioritize profits over passenger safety, keeping its Boeing 737 MAX 8 airplane in service first after Lion Air and again after subject crash, intentionally misleading its customers, the FAA, passengers and the public that the airplane was safe to fly. Such acts and omissions demonstrate intentional reckless indifference and conscious disregard for the safety of the flying public and Decedent.
[...]
THE PILOTS DID NOT CAUSE THE PLANE TO MALFUNCTION
250. The pilots had completed all the training which BOEING claimed was necessary to operate the aircraft.
251. The pilot(s) on the subject aircraft followed the protocol that had been make known to them as best they could under emergent circumstances, with little altitude and thus little time to troubleshoot and overcome the MCAS system.
[...]
254. The investigations by the air accident investigators to date has not found other cause that interfered with normal operation or caused the crash.
[... no less than 11 counts ...]


Everyone just going to ignore this post?
 
Jamie514
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu May 18, 2017 4:36 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri May 31, 2019 9:19 pm

morrisond wrote:
MSPNWA wrote:
sillystrings wrote:
I think there is a really simple test to prove your assertion wrong. All other things being equal, had they been flying NG instead MAX, this thread wouldn't exist and there wouldn't be two craters in the ground.


Good try, but..

1) Your conclusion isn't valid. In particular the ET crew placed the aircraft into a dangerous situation before MCAS was a factor, meaning a definitive predictive statement of a safe flight isn't correct.

2) If we change the criteria to "all else equal, had a different crew been piloting, this thread may not exist" is also highly plausible.

Morrisond is right.


Also see ET409 - a 737NG flight that crashed due to Pilot Error


Please. This is a thread about the 737MAX grounding.

If you want to bring up a ten year old 737NG incident, we can go ahead and list several more recent and alarming runway excursions and hard landings on US soil by US operators including ones that also fly the MAX.

We could also expand to other appalling loss of control incidents involving western made aircraft, also by US airlines since the 90's that point back to training or crew performance failure. But, since this is a thread about the 737MAX grounding, not one about the NG and nor is the topic of the thread specific other crashes that expose training failure at other airlines, we are not going to go down that path, right?
 
User avatar
QuarkFly
Posts: 368
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri May 31, 2019 9:23 pm

morrisond wrote:
AirlineCritic wrote:
Indeed. I think there's (for some reason) an attempt to confuse the issue by turning to attention from, say, airplane engineering skills to solely pilot skills (both could be questioned here) and by repeating ad nauseum. And making everything very simple. If only you flip a switch... NOT realising that the pilots in these situations are very close to ground in the most vulnerable moment of the flight, their speed instruments are malfunctioning (or at least some of them), stick shaker is going off, a potential bird hit has been made, the trim system is moving erratically but in a manner that isn't easy to observe. And perhaps, the manual backup isn't so easy to use.

In the end, I think some very bad design decisions were made which significantly contributed to the accident (but of course not only those). Boeing can and will fix this, but they also will end up paying for the loss of confidence and quite possibly in the lawsuits. May it be so. What I'm worried about is that neither Boeing nor the aviation community (at least as seen by some on a.net) seems to take the full lesson or see their errors. If the full lesson isn't learned, the fear is that this accident will repeat.

So you are worried about the full lesson not being learned and you don't want to look at how pilot training may have been a factor? Did you miss all the times I (and others who have been pointing out potential errors by the pilots) have said Boeing and the FAA screwed up as well?

I can't really think of anyone who is saying that it's all the pilots or trainings fault - but I can think of quite of few who continue to assert with 100% confidence that it's all Boeing's fault and no one else did anything wrong - no matter how much evidence you give them to the contrary as it disrupts there narrative.


This whole pilots and training discussion is a distraction. The airline industry is full of a spectrum of competently trained pilots ranging from poor to excellent. But, even the very best pilots with extensive training have bad days....And when that happens, the aircraft they are flying should not throw obstacles in the way of a safe flight. The 737-Max does just that.

Other newly introduced aircraft over the past decade don't seem to have the same issue as the Max (multiple crashes with a related reason)...the 787, A350, A320-Neo, the C-Series/A220. These aircraft, just like the Max, regularly have some poorly trained pilots flying...but only the 737-Max does nose dive crashes on multiple occasions. The recovery checklist that requires the electric-trim cutoff is flawed. So even if well-trained -- the pilots, good or bad, are being trained in a flawed manner.

The problem is Boeing -- and the fix is not just a software patch. Never turn off a perfectly good the electric-trim and go to manual-trim when some sensor or software screws up. That is stupid! The Max should not fly until a proper fix is installed -- such that an AOA or other flight-control issue does not require manual-trim.

If the FAA lets the Max fly with Boeing's software patch alone -- when traveling, look for carriers that fly the A320-Neo, A220, 737-NG...even mediocre pilots don't seem to have problems with these aircraft...the Max is a lemon.
Always take the Red Eye if possible
 
sillystrings
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 7:06 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri May 31, 2019 9:42 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
sillystrings wrote:
I think there is a really simple test to prove your assertion wrong. All other things being equal, had they been flying NG instead MAX, this thread wouldn't exist and there wouldn't be two craters in the ground.


Good try, but..

1) Your conclusion isn't valid. In particular the ET crew placed the aircraft into a dangerous situation before MCAS was a factor, meaning a definitive predictive statement of a safe flight isn't correct.

2) If we change the criteria to "all else equal, had a different crew been piloting, this thread may not exist" is also highly plausible.

Morrisond is right.


Which specific action was going to result in the ET crew planting the nose in the ground? Additionally, what about the other crew?
 
planecane
Posts: 872
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri May 31, 2019 9:48 pm

DenverTed wrote:
planecane wrote:

Ok I found it. It was the flight crew training manual. It wasn't exactly removed, but described in a different way. This is from an NG training manual I found online.

Excessive airloads on the stabilizer may require effort by both pilots to correct the
mis-trim. In extreme cases it may be necessary to aerodynamically relieve the
airloads to allow manual trimming. Accelerate or decelerate towards the in-trim
speed while attempting to trim manually.

"effort by both pilots"? That's vague. Does that imply they are both supposed to turn the manual trim wheel or not? That should be definitively stated by Boeing in revised literature required by the ungrounding, IMO.

Accel or decel? This sounds like a different approach than the 'fishing pole' (yoyo rollercoaster) approach of relieving winding pressure by changing elevator input.


If you see the whole section it is pretty clear they mean effort to turn the wheel.

I'd like confirmation from a pilot but to me it is pretty clear that if the mis-trim is nose down the instruction means to lower the nose and vice versa.

The point I was trying to make is that the situation of use of the manual trim wheel under extreme loads is in the NG training manual. The media articles and some posters on here have made it seem like the pilots had absolutely no idea what to do when the manual wheel is difficult to turn. Well, it appears to be in the TRAINING MANUAL. Therefore, pilots of the 737 should have been TRAINED to deal with the situation.

I know the next response is going to be how even the NG simulators didn't properly simulate the required force. However, mentour pilot's video shows that it takes plenty of effort under those conditions. Does it make a big difference that in the simulator it is really hard to turn but in reality it is really really hard?
 
planecane
Posts: 872
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri May 31, 2019 9:51 pm

SEU wrote:
PixelFlight wrote:
Interested wrote:
According to the lawsuit reported in this article - the same tactics to hide design flaws and deflect blame onto the pilots have been used on previous Boeing crashes

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/21/politics ... index.html

From the document:
109. BOEING intentionally designed the MCAS to take data from one of the 737 MAX 8's two angle of attack (AOA) sensors and to alternate the sensor from which it accepts data each flight.
110. BOEING hos not publicly disclosed why it decided to have the MCAS take data from only one indicator,
[...]
113. Even though Rockwell Collins (Collins Aerospace) build the 737 MAX 8 flight control computer and the software and coding that run the MCAS, and Rosemount manufactured and supplied the Angle of Attack indicator, BOEING remains responsible for its suppliers and contractors, and for the design, production, manufacture, certification and airworthiness of its BOEING aircraft,
114. Rockwell Collins witch produced the flight controls computers and software on the 737 MAX 8 also provided software update to BOEING after the crash of Lion Air in 2018, but BOEING has not taken the necessary action to make all changes needed on 737 MAX 8 and the subject aircraft before the crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302.
[... lot of blames on BOEING ...]
134. As a result of BOEING's intentional and knowing decisions, the pilots of the subject aircraft had not received any simulator training or testing on how to handle emergencies caused by the BOEING 737 MAX 8 airplane's MCAS.
135. BOEING knowingly failed to conduct a proper failure mode and effect analysis during development of the BOEING 737-8 MAX to ensure that the airplane's MCAS was safe.
[...]
139, In BOEING's rush to get the 737 MAX 8 to market, BOEING knowingly, intentionally, wantonly, callously, egregiously, negligently, and possibly criminally, compromised and endangered the safety of BOEING 737 MAX 8 crews and passengers, and killed two plane loads of people.

BOEING DECEIVED THE FAA AND PURCHASERS OF THE BOEING 737-8 MAX BY
ASSERTING THAT CRITICAL SAFETY FEATURES NEED NOT BE STANDARD,
OFFERING THEN ONLY AS OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT AT EXTRA COST

140. Evidence that BOEING put its profits ahead of safety in its design, production, assembly, manufacture, and marketing of the BOEING 737 MAX 8 airplane includes that BOEING charged it customers extra for the installation of important safety features.
[...]
155. BOEING has so completely assumed the FAA certification process that the FAA airworthiness certification of an airplane or airplane system no longer means that the FAA independently considered and determined whether that airplane or airplane system was safe, but rather that BOEING has largely supplemented the role of the FAA. For example: [...]
[... lot of blames about the BOEING lobbying the U.S federal government ...]
BOEING "FIX" AFTER TEH LION AIT CRASH DID NOT WORK
210. Rather than grounding the Boeing 737 MAX 8 until it was fixed and made safe, BOEING chose to prioritize profits over passenger safety, keeping its Boeing 737 MAX 8 airplane in service first after Lion Air and again after subject crash, intentionally misleading its customers, the FAA, passengers and the public that the airplane was safe to fly. Such acts and omissions demonstrate intentional reckless indifference and conscious disregard for the safety of the flying public and Decedent.
[...]
THE PILOTS DID NOT CAUSE THE PLANE TO MALFUNCTION
250. The pilots had completed all the training which BOEING claimed was necessary to operate the aircraft.
251. The pilot(s) on the subject aircraft followed the protocol that had been make known to them as best they could under emergent circumstances, with little altitude and thus little time to troubleshoot and overcome the MCAS system.
[...]
254. The investigations by the air accident investigators to date has not found other cause that interfered with normal operation or caused the crash.
[... no less than 11 counts ...]


Everyone just going to ignore this post?


Not ignored. I pointed out a while ago that these are plaintiff's claims in a lawsuit. They carry no more weight factually than any poster on here.
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3022
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri May 31, 2019 10:00 pm

SEU wrote:
PixelFlight wrote:
Interested wrote:
According to the lawsuit reported in this article - the same tactics to hide design flaws and deflect blame onto the pilots have been used on previous Boeing crashes

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/21/politics ... index.html

From the document:
109. BOEING intentionally designed the MCAS to take data from one of the 737 MAX 8's two angle of attack (AOA) sensors and to alternate the sensor from which it accepts data each flight.
110. BOEING hos not publicly disclosed why it decided to have the MCAS take data from only one indicator,
[...]
113. Even though Rockwell Collins (Collins Aerospace) build the 737 MAX 8 flight control computer and the software and coding that run the MCAS, and Rosemount manufactured and supplied the Angle of Attack indicator, BOEING remains responsible for its suppliers and contractors, and for the design, production, manufacture, certification and airworthiness of its BOEING aircraft,
114. Rockwell Collins witch produced the flight controls computers and software on the 737 MAX 8 also provided software update to BOEING after the crash of Lion Air in 2018, but BOEING has not taken the necessary action to make all changes needed on 737 MAX 8 and the subject aircraft before the crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302.
[... lot of blames on BOEING ...]
134. As a result of BOEING's intentional and knowing decisions, the pilots of the subject aircraft had not received any simulator training or testing on how to handle emergencies caused by the BOEING 737 MAX 8 airplane's MCAS.
135. BOEING knowingly failed to conduct a proper failure mode and effect analysis during development of the BOEING 737-8 MAX to ensure that the airplane's MCAS was safe.
[...]
139, In BOEING's rush to get the 737 MAX 8 to market, BOEING knowingly, intentionally, wantonly, callously, egregiously, negligently, and possibly criminally, compromised and endangered the safety of BOEING 737 MAX 8 crews and passengers, and killed two plane loads of people.

BOEING DECEIVED THE FAA AND PURCHASERS OF THE BOEING 737-8 MAX BY
ASSERTING THAT CRITICAL SAFETY FEATURES NEED NOT BE STANDARD,
OFFERING THEN ONLY AS OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT AT EXTRA COST

140. Evidence that BOEING put its profits ahead of safety in its design, production, assembly, manufacture, and marketing of the BOEING 737 MAX 8 airplane includes that BOEING charged it customers extra for the installation of important safety features.
[...]
155. BOEING has so completely assumed the FAA certification process that the FAA airworthiness certification of an airplane or airplane system no longer means that the FAA independently considered and determined whether that airplane or airplane system was safe, but rather that BOEING has largely supplemented the role of the FAA. For example: [...]
[... lot of blames about the BOEING lobbying the U.S federal government ...]
BOEING "FIX" AFTER TEH LION AIT CRASH DID NOT WORK
210. Rather than grounding the Boeing 737 MAX 8 until it was fixed and made safe, BOEING chose to prioritize profits over passenger safety, keeping its Boeing 737 MAX 8 airplane in service first after Lion Air and again after subject crash, intentionally misleading its customers, the FAA, passengers and the public that the airplane was safe to fly. Such acts and omissions demonstrate intentional reckless indifference and conscious disregard for the safety of the flying public and Decedent.
[...]
THE PILOTS DID NOT CAUSE THE PLANE TO MALFUNCTION
250. The pilots had completed all the training which BOEING claimed was necessary to operate the aircraft.
251. The pilot(s) on the subject aircraft followed the protocol that had been make known to them as best they could under emergent circumstances, with little altitude and thus little time to troubleshoot and overcome the MCAS system.
[...]
254. The investigations by the air accident investigators to date has not found other cause that interfered with normal operation or caused the crash.
[... no less than 11 counts ...]


Everyone just going to ignore this post?


Yes, it’s just ambulance chaser b**ls**t.
 
2175301
Posts: 1426
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri May 31, 2019 10:23 pm

SEU wrote:
PixelFlight wrote:
Interested wrote:
According to the lawsuit reported in this article - the same tactics to hide design flaws and deflect blame onto the pilots have been used on previous Boeing crashes

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/21/politics ... index.html

From the document:
109. BOEING intentionally designed the MCAS to take data from one of the 737 MAX 8's two angle of attack (AOA) sensors and to alternate the sensor from which it accepts data each flight.
110. BOEING hos not publicly disclosed why it decided to have the MCAS take data from only one indicator,
[...]
113. Even though Rockwell Collins (Collins Aerospace) build the 737 MAX 8 flight control computer and the software and coding that run the MCAS, and Rosemount manufactured and supplied the Angle of Attack indicator, BOEING remains responsible for its suppliers and contractors, and for the design, production, manufacture, certification and airworthiness of its BOEING aircraft,
114. Rockwell Collins witch produced the flight controls computers and software on the 737 MAX 8 also provided software update to BOEING after the crash of Lion Air in 2018, but BOEING has not taken the necessary action to make all changes needed on 737 MAX 8 and the subject aircraft before the crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302.
[... lot of blames on BOEING ...]
134. As a result of BOEING's intentional and knowing decisions, the pilots of the subject aircraft had not received any simulator training or testing on how to handle emergencies caused by the BOEING 737 MAX 8 airplane's MCAS.
135. BOEING knowingly failed to conduct a proper failure mode and effect analysis during development of the BOEING 737-8 MAX to ensure that the airplane's MCAS was safe.
[...]
139, In BOEING's rush to get the 737 MAX 8 to market, BOEING knowingly, intentionally, wantonly, callously, egregiously, negligently, and possibly criminally, compromised and endangered the safety of BOEING 737 MAX 8 crews and passengers, and killed two plane loads of people.

BOEING DECEIVED THE FAA AND PURCHASERS OF THE BOEING 737-8 MAX BY
ASSERTING THAT CRITICAL SAFETY FEATURES NEED NOT BE STANDARD,
OFFERING THEN ONLY AS OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT AT EXTRA COST

140. Evidence that BOEING put its profits ahead of safety in its design, production, assembly, manufacture, and marketing of the BOEING 737 MAX 8 airplane includes that BOEING charged it customers extra for the installation of important safety features.
[...]
155. BOEING has so completely assumed the FAA certification process that the FAA airworthiness certification of an airplane or airplane system no longer means that the FAA independently considered and determined whether that airplane or airplane system was safe, but rather that BOEING has largely supplemented the role of the FAA. For example: [...]
[... lot of blames about the BOEING lobbying the U.S federal government ...]
BOEING "FIX" AFTER TEH LION AIT CRASH DID NOT WORK
210. Rather than grounding the Boeing 737 MAX 8 until it was fixed and made safe, BOEING chose to prioritize profits over passenger safety, keeping its Boeing 737 MAX 8 airplane in service first after Lion Air and again after subject crash, intentionally misleading its customers, the FAA, passengers and the public that the airplane was safe to fly. Such acts and omissions demonstrate intentional reckless indifference and conscious disregard for the safety of the flying public and Decedent.
[...]
THE PILOTS DID NOT CAUSE THE PLANE TO MALFUNCTION
250. The pilots had completed all the training which BOEING claimed was necessary to operate the aircraft.
251. The pilot(s) on the subject aircraft followed the protocol that had been make known to them as best they could under emergent circumstances, with little altitude and thus little time to troubleshoot and overcome the MCAS system.
[...]
254. The investigations by the air accident investigators to date has not found other cause that interfered with normal operation or caused the crash.
[... no less than 11 counts ...]


Everyone just going to ignore this post?


Those claims represent at best partial truths... When considered with the other truths most of them melt away as for impact.

As for the last one (line 254); it appears to be a total fabrication; The investigations have not even published their results. A preliminary report summarizing key facts of what is known a month or two after an event is not an accurate reflection of what the investigators knew at the time - or will conclude.

If this lawsuit is for the Loins Air crash Line 254 also appears to not be true at all. I understand that it is known and documented that the previous Lion Air flight the day before had a similar (if not the same) issue and correctly managed and flew the aircraft. The Lion Air Flight that crashed: It is my understanding that the Pilot was adequately controlling the situation and flying the aircraft (by manual inputs using the trim switch) - and the crash did not occur until the controls were handed over to the Co-Pilot; who did not use manual trim inputs. So: at least 2 pilots could adequately fly the aircraft and not crash. A 3rd pilot did crash.

That looks to me very much like there was another issue - other than the malfunctioning MCAS system - that caused the crash of the Lion Air flight.

Now my personal opinion is that gets to communications and procedures between scheduled flights and between a flight crew. Training may have been involved as well. Possibly pilot error; however, I caution that much of what most people call pilot error here on A-Net and other forums is often incorrect procedures and training. That does not mean that actual pilot error is not possible (it is); it's just I will only conclude that if procedures. training, and other things are ruled out first.

Have a great day,
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20629
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri May 31, 2019 10:27 pm

planecane wrote:
Not ignored. I pointed out a while ago that these are plaintiff's claims in a lawsuit. They carry no more weight factually than any poster on here.

Even less, because the author has a huge financial incentive to push a certain agenda.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
kalvado
Posts: 1783
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri May 31, 2019 10:36 pm

Revelation wrote:
planecane wrote:
Not ignored. I pointed out a while ago that these are plaintiff's claims in a lawsuit. They carry no more weight factually than any poster on here.

Even less, because the author has a huge financial incentive to push a certain agenda.

Following the same logic, should we believe anything Boeing says about MAX?
 
User avatar
PixelFlight
Posts: 478
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:09 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri May 31, 2019 10:36 pm

Revelation wrote:
planecane wrote:
Not ignored. I pointed out a while ago that these are plaintiff's claims in a lawsuit. They carry no more weight factually than any poster on here.

Even less, because the author has a huge financial incentive to push a certain agenda.

Not like Boeing... :crazy:
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20629
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri May 31, 2019 10:43 pm

kalvado wrote:
Revelation wrote:
planecane wrote:
Not ignored. I pointed out a while ago that these are plaintiff's claims in a lawsuit. They carry no more weight factually than any poster on here.

Even less, because the author has a huge financial incentive to push a certain agenda.

Following the same logic, should we believe anything Boeing says about MAX?

I guess you understand little about the legal world.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3643
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri May 31, 2019 10:45 pm

morrisond wrote:
PW100 wrote:
There is NO evidence that the pilots did not properly use electric trimming. Au contraire, the FDR charts clearly show the use of electric up-trimming being applied many times. So they did understand how that works . . .
The FDR traces show a total of four electric up-trims after MCAS became alive. And ALL FOUR of them stopped at exactly the same pitch trim: 2.3 degrees. Coincidence? Can any crew do such a thing on purpose? I'm having a hard time accepting that.
It must be noted that after take-off, electric trimming was applied several times (both up and down) resulting in a balanced control column. So again, they clearly knew how that works . . .
The cut out switches were flipped before the control column was balanced in pitch. You (again) ASSUME that was by pilot action. We have no evidence of that.
So the question is, a) did up-trimming stop because the cut-out switches were flipped, or b) did they flip the switches because electric up-trimming stopped (uncommandedly) and was not working for them (beyond 2.3 deg Pitch Trim)?
I can’t find that answer in the report nor the FDR traces. You though, seem to have made your mind up already . . .

With respect to the flaps, the pilots could not have known the interaction between flaps up and MCAS waking up. What checklist should they have followed, preventing them from putting up the flaps?

Yes - that is weird about the 2.3 - I think OldAeroGuy or Galaxyflyer yesterday surmised that due to TOGA thrust and Overspeed plus all the Column pressure it overloaded the Trim Motor. - Solution reduce Thrust and it should have returned to normal operation if it wasn't permanently damaged.

The Flap thing has been debated multiple times - NNC for Unreliable airspeed says to not raise flaps or try to engage autopilot or leave autothrottle engaged - all things a big no-no and required memory items.


The first uptrim cut short at 2.3 pitch trim was nowhere near Overspeed/Vmo. The second uptrim cut short at 2.3 pitch trim was approaching Vmo, but not exceeding it yet (on neither airspeeds, Left nor Right). Would that be aerodynamic loading, especially the first one at around 260 kts? I can definitely see that for the last two short uptrim blips, but not for the first two, which were at (much) lower speeds.


At what point should they have intiated NNC for Unreliable airspeed? Can't imagine doing it right after take-off with stall warning going off, as it entails reducing thrust. I can imagine that the stall warning and stick shaker should take priority over unreliable air speed? Note that only 75 seconds elapsed from lift off to first MCAS cycle.

In any case, I don't disagree that at first sight the picture of aviate does not look good on the crew. But at the same time I'm feeling that you may not fully take into account the multiple issues they were facing. It is easy to concentrate on one particular issue, when not being faced with multiple issues. I also gfeel that we simply have not sufficient info and background on the crews actions to use harsh words on them at this point in time. Especially since they are in no position to defend themselves and explain their actions . . .
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3643
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri May 31, 2019 10:49 pm

morrisond wrote:
I don't think the real reason ET crashed was because they failed to electrically trim out the control forces before switching off - the real issue they needed to correct was leaving it in TOGA thrust where the Manual trim wheels were next to impossible to use out of trim - that made everything harder. It's as bad as leaving it at idle.


I agree with the thrust setting. That seems very strange, and is good cause to take a deep look at general aviation and CRM skills.

At the same time, the first two uptrims should not have been hindered by air speed, as they were nowhere near Vmo at that stage.
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3643
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri May 31, 2019 10:54 pm

planecane wrote:
You are developing a bit of tunnel vision on the trim stopping at 2.3 units. It is certainly something that should be looked at and it will be helpful if the CVR analysis is able to hear exactly when the switches were flipped.


Perhaps, but it certainy is not stronger tunnel vision than "the crew did not follow procedures". . .
One can not be seen without the other.
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
kalvado
Posts: 1783
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri May 31, 2019 11:05 pm

Revelation wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Even less, because the author has a huge financial incentive to push a certain agenda.

Following the same logic, should we believe anything Boeing says about MAX?

I guess you understand little about the legal world.

It takes only basic logic, no need for legal degree:
if financial interest makes statements of one party questionable, it has to be considered the same way for all parties involved, including the party which has most to lose.
Of course, you may think otherwise, but first please be sure to disclose if you own any Boeing stock either directly or indirectly, e.g. via a retirement investment fund.
 
asdf
Posts: 271
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:03 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri May 31, 2019 11:18 pm

because the engines are to large
the horizontal stabilizers are not large enough

root cause of problem found

isnt it that simple?
 
User avatar
PixelFlight
Posts: 478
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:09 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri May 31, 2019 11:29 pm

asdf wrote:
because the engines are to large
the horizontal stabilizers are not large enough

root cause of problem found

isnt it that simple?

:?: Strange idea, as Airbus don't seem to have increased the horizontal stabilizers on the A320neo compared to the A320ceo.
 
MrBretz
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:13 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri May 31, 2019 11:30 pm

asdf wrote:
because the engines are to large
the horizontal stabilizers are not large enough

root cause of problem found

isnt it that simple?


It has been awhile since anyone brought up the engines. I was wondering when it would come back.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20629
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri May 31, 2019 11:37 pm

kalvado wrote:
Revelation wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Following the same logic, should we believe anything Boeing says about MAX?

I guess you understand little about the legal world.

It takes only basic logic, no need for legal degree:
if financial interest makes statements of one party questionable, it has to be considered the same way for all parties involved, including the party which has most to lose.

Let me spell out the not so advanced logic you're seeking:
    o It's easy for lawyers to sue corporations claiming they've made incorrect statements
    o In fact this is what this lawsuit is doing
    o It's almost impossible to get one lawyer to sue another
    o Especially when the issue is making a incorrect claim in a lawsuit against a corporation
    o Clearly the consequences of Boeing making incorrect statements is greater than consequences of an ambulance chaser making incorrect statements
If you don't see this I can't help you further.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
kalvado
Posts: 1783
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:03 am

Revelation wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Revelation wrote:
I guess you understand little about the legal world.

It takes only basic logic, no need for legal degree:
if financial interest makes statements of one party questionable, it has to be considered the same way for all parties involved, including the party which has most to lose.

Let me spell out the not so advanced logic you're seeking:
    o It's easy for lawyers to sue corporations claiming they've made incorrect statements
    o In fact this is what this lawsuit is doing
    o It's almost impossible to get one lawyer to sue another
    o Especially when the issue is making a incorrect claim in a lawsuit against a corporation
    o Clearly the consequences of Boeing making incorrect statements is greater than consequences of an ambulance chaser making incorrect statements
If you don't see this I can't help you further.

I still don't see how this removes Boeing's financial incentives in the present situation. On the same token, Boeing has clear incentive to minimize the number of accidents with their planes - which didn't encourage proper responce to Lion crash, though.
 
AABusDrvr
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 6:48 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:28 am

Have we done this one yet?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ethiopian-pilot-pleaded-training-lion-204958229.html

A few quotes from the full article, it’s worth the read.


“We are asking for trouble,” veteran pilot Bernd Kai von Hoesslin wrote in a December email obtained by The Associated Press, adding that if several alarms go off in the cockpit at once, “it will be a crash for sure.”

“Ethiopian Airlines is a rapidly expanding airline and they have extremely inexperienced crews,” von Hoesslin said in documents obtained by the AP. “You need to spoon-feed them the information and make sure they understand.”


“To underscore his point, von Hoesslin made a video shortly after the Ethiopian crash in which he quizzed a Max pilot on a Boeing list of warning signs on the stall system that crew members were required to commit to memory. That video, obtained by AP, shows him going blank on most of it.”
 
smartplane
Posts: 979
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:31 am

morrisond wrote:
smartplane wrote:
Interested wrote:

If only the one they had could replicate MCAS

And trim wheel loads, and.................


I don't think any simulator would be able to simulate trim wheel loads at above Vmo and TOGA thrust - nor should it. That would be an immediate fail in any simulator check session.

Why do you assume they are accurate below Vmo, with or without TOGA?
 
smartplane
Posts: 979
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:46 am

PW100 wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Interested wrote:
So if you agree with the above isn't that substantial enough to stop worrying about the pilots actions and to focus on what Boeing need to do to stop pilots anywhere in the world facing a similar situation in the future.
. . . .
For sure Morrison if you want these guys trained to use the trim etc let's do it as well. But that's not the real issue here. The Max flawed design has led us to spend weeks analysing and dissecting the ins and outs of something we should never even need to be discussing.


Nice - taking partial quotes again and ignoring my comments about training. I have always said it's a training issue.

You better never fly on an A320 then either as it has a backup trim wheel.

The technical writer said - it might have been saved - there was a lot of hedging in his response. If they had trimmed out the out of trim with Electric before switching it off or never put up the flaps or disengaged TOGA thrust they might have been saved as well.


There is NO evidence that the pilots did not properly use electric trimming. Au contraire, the FDR charts clearly show the use of electric up-trimming being applied many times. So they did understand how that works . . .

The FDR traces show a total of four electric up-trims after MCAS became alive. And ALL FOUR of them stopped at exactly the same pitch trim: 2.3 degrees. Coincidence? Can any crew do such a thing on purpose? I'm having a hard time accepting that.
It must be noted that after take-off, electric trimming was applied several times (both up and down) resulting in a balanced control column. So again, they clearly knew how that works . . .

The cut out switches were flipped before the control column was balanced in pitch. You (again) ASSUME that was by pilot action. We have no evidence of that.

So the question is, a) did up-trimming stop because the cut-out switches were flipped, or b) did they flip the switches because electric up-trimming stopped (uncommandedly) and was not working for them (beyond 2.3 deg Pitch Trim)?
I can’t find that answer in the report nor the FDR traces. You though, seem to have made your mind up already . . .

With respect to the flaps, the pilots could not have known the interaction between flaps up and MCAS waking up. What checklist should they have followed, preventing them from putting up the flaps?

Could one of the major defects testing has thrown up with the MAX, and now NG, be the FDR doesn't, in all instances, ID the source of commands? Shows outcomes, and in most cases the source of the commands, but not all, and in some cases where mitigated by alternative action, attributes the full magnitude of the command to a single source.
 
planecane
Posts: 872
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:51 am

smartplane wrote:
PW100 wrote:
morrisond wrote:

Nice - taking partial quotes again and ignoring my comments about training. I have always said it's a training issue.

You better never fly on an A320 then either as it has a backup trim wheel.

The technical writer said - it might have been saved - there was a lot of hedging in his response. If they had trimmed out the out of trim with Electric before switching it off or never put up the flaps or disengaged TOGA thrust they might have been saved as well.


There is NO evidence that the pilots did not properly use electric trimming. Au contraire, the FDR charts clearly show the use of electric up-trimming being applied many times. So they did understand how that works . . .

The FDR traces show a total of four electric up-trims after MCAS became alive. And ALL FOUR of them stopped at exactly the same pitch trim: 2.3 degrees. Coincidence? Can any crew do such a thing on purpose? I'm having a hard time accepting that.
It must be noted that after take-off, electric trimming was applied several times (both up and down) resulting in a balanced control column. So again, they clearly knew how that works . . .

The cut out switches were flipped before the control column was balanced in pitch. You (again) ASSUME that was by pilot action. We have no evidence of that.

So the question is, a) did up-trimming stop because the cut-out switches were flipped, or b) did they flip the switches because electric up-trimming stopped (uncommandedly) and was not working for them (beyond 2.3 deg Pitch Trim)?
I can’t find that answer in the report nor the FDR traces. You though, seem to have made your mind up already . . .

With respect to the flaps, the pilots could not have known the interaction between flaps up and MCAS waking up. What checklist should they have followed, preventing them from putting up the flaps?

Could one of the major defects testing has thrown up with the MAX, and now NG, be the FDR doesn't, in all instances, ID the source of commands? Shows outcomes, and in most cases the source of the commands, but not all, and in some cases where mitigated by alternative action, attributes the full magnitude of the command to a single source.


There's plenty of speculating going on in this thread that we don't need to be inventing scenarios of how the FDR works improperly. Not one investigator or expert source has said anything like this so I don't think it is likely that Boeing engineers didn't know how to wire the FDR inputs to the correct outputs and sensors.
 
smartplane
Posts: 979
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:58 am

morrisond wrote:
[They should have skipped MCAS all together - apply for an exception on the stick force gradient and just required some SIM time to show that the control forces get a little light at far aft COG and light weights.

It should not have been a big deal for any pilot and taken 5 minutes in a SIM.

Five minutes additional time, if already in the simulator.

But Boeing promised NO simulator time.

Takes a lot longer than 5 minutes to set up and perform one-off simulator sessions.
 
smartplane
Posts: 979
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:02 am

morrisond wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
morrisond wrote:


Yes - that is weird about the 2.3 - I think OldAeroGuy or Galaxyflyer yesterday surmised that due to TOGA thrust and Overspeed plus all the Column pressure it overloaded the Trim Motor. - Solution reduce Thrust and it should have returned to normal operation if it wasn't permanently damaged.

The Flap thing has been debated multiple times - NNC for Unreliable airspeed says to not raise flaps or try to engage autopilot or leave autothrottle engaged - all things a big no-no and required memory items.


10.1 Airspeed Unreliable
NNC.10 Non-Normal Checklists-Flight Instruments, Displays
1 Adjust the airplane attitude and thrust. Maintain airplane control.
2 PROBE HEAT switches. - Check ON
3 Cross check the MACH/AIRSPEED indicators.
4 Cross check the IRS and FMC ground speed and winds to determine airspeed accuracy if indicated airspeed is questionable.
5 Attitude and thrust information is located in the Performance Inflight section.737-800 Performance Inflight - QRH Chapter PI-QRH General

Section 10
QRH.10.1
PI-QRH.10 Performance Inflight - QRH-General General Flight With Unreliable Airspeed/ TurbulentAirPenetration Altitude and/or vertical speed indications may also be unreliable.
Climb (280/.76) Flaps Up, Set Max Climb Thrust


Sorry - I wasn't thinking of the right checklist - others have posted it many times - was it the AOA failure checklist?

No. Because the AOA disagree failure icon wasn't displayed, due to Boeing having erroneously disabled it, and deciding not to disclose this to customers, despite having been aware of the issue since 2017.
 
smartplane
Posts: 979
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:11 am

planecane wrote:
The point I was trying to make is that the situation of use of the manual trim wheel under extreme loads is in the NG training manual. The media articles and some posters on here have made it seem like the pilots had absolutely no idea what to do when the manual wheel is difficult to turn. Well, it appears to be in the TRAINING MANUAL. Therefore, pilots of the 737 should have been TRAINED to deal with the situation.

I know the next response is going to be how even the NG simulators didn't properly simulate the required force. However, mentour pilot's video shows that it takes plenty of effort under those conditions. Does it make a big difference that in the simulator it is really hard to turn but in reality it is really really hard?

If it's impossible to turn, unless both pilots use both hands, then it is a big difference.
 
planecane
Posts: 872
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:29 am

smartplane wrote:
planecane wrote:
The point I was trying to make is that the situation of use of the manual trim wheel under extreme loads is in the NG training manual. The media articles and some posters on here have made it seem like the pilots had absolutely no idea what to do when the manual wheel is difficult to turn. Well, it appears to be in the TRAINING MANUAL. Therefore, pilots of the 737 should have been TRAINED to deal with the situation.

I know the next response is going to be how even the NG simulators didn't properly simulate the required force. However, mentour pilot's video shows that it takes plenty of effort under those conditions. Does it make a big difference that in the simulator it is really hard to turn but in reality it is really really hard?

If it's impossible to turn, unless both pilots use both hands, then it is a big difference.


But if the training manual says "In extreme cases it may be necessary to aerodynamically relieve the airloads to allow manual trimming. Accelerate or decelerate towards the in-trim speed while attempting to trim manually," shouldn't a crew figure out that when they can't turn the wheel, it is time to perform this action from their training? Of course, this assumes they were actually trained per the manual. I mean the manual for the NG pretty much says that there can be situations where manual trim is impossible without taking action to relieve the loads on the stabilizer.

This is part of runaway stabilizer training and I would expect ALL 737 type rated pilots to have been trained on it and know what to do. The ET crew probably would have crashed anyway at that point because it was so far out of trim, they were going so fast and they were so low. However, the fact that they didn't attempt it either indicates that they didn't try the manual wheel or they were not properly trained for this situation.
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3022
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 01, 2019 3:09 am

smartplane wrote:
planecane wrote:
The point I was trying to make is that the situation of use of the manual trim wheel under extreme loads is in the NG training manual. The media articles and some posters on here have made it seem like the pilots had absolutely no idea what to do when the manual wheel is difficult to turn. Well, it appears to be in the TRAINING MANUAL. Therefore, pilots of the 737 should have been TRAINED to deal with the situation.

I know the next response is going to be how even the NG simulators didn't properly simulate the required force. However, mentour pilot's video shows that it takes plenty of effort under those conditions. Does it make a big difference that in the simulator it is really hard to turn but in reality it is really really hard?

If it's impossible to turn, unless both pilots use both hands, then it is a big difference.


There's a reason the handles are "out of phase" -- so you can apply maximum force with two pilots.
 
User avatar
aerolimani
Posts: 1116
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:46 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 01, 2019 4:04 am

7BOEING7 wrote:
smartplane wrote:
planecane wrote:
The point I was trying to make is that the situation of use of the manual trim wheel under extreme loads is in the NG training manual. The media articles and some posters on here have made it seem like the pilots had absolutely no idea what to do when the manual wheel is difficult to turn. Well, it appears to be in the TRAINING MANUAL. Therefore, pilots of the 737 should have been TRAINED to deal with the situation.

I know the next response is going to be how even the NG simulators didn't properly simulate the required force. However, mentour pilot's video shows that it takes plenty of effort under those conditions. Does it make a big difference that in the simulator it is really hard to turn but in reality it is really really hard?

If it's impossible to turn, unless both pilots use both hands, then it is a big difference.


There's a reason the handles are "out of phase" -- so you can apply maximum force with two pilots.

Ah, yes. Two pilots required. Something the FAA now frowns upon. It nicely highlights the problems with the current grandfathering system. No modern design would allow this.

Over the years, FAA rules for approving new planes or derivatives of existing models typically barred emergency procedures requiring two pilots. “There’s signs of a potential weakness of that checklist,” Mr. Tajer said.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/maxs-retur ... eakingnews
 
planecane
Posts: 872
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 01, 2019 4:15 am

aerolimani wrote:
7BOEING7 wrote:
smartplane wrote:
If it's impossible to turn, unless both pilots use both hands, then it is a big difference.


There's a reason the handles are "out of phase" -- so you can apply maximum force with two pilots.

Ah, yes. Two pilots required. Something the FAA now frowns upon. It nicely highlights the problems with the current grandfathering system. No modern design would allow this.

Over the years, FAA rules for approving new planes or derivatives of existing models typically barred emergency procedures requiring two pilots. “There’s signs of a potential weakness of that checklist,” Mr. Tajer said.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/maxs-retur ... eakingnews


They either have to allow grandfathering or not. It would be too subjective if they said you can grandfather certain things but not others. This would apply to all manufacturers and probably eliminate derivatives more than 6 or 7 years after the first model.

Requiring 2 pilots should help in the severe out of trim situation because they won't be able to hold back pressure and help with the wheel simultaneously. If the second pilot helps with the wheel, they will basically do the roller coaster procedure by default.
 
Interested
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 01, 2019 6:43 am

MSPNWA wrote:
sillystrings wrote:
I think there is a really simple test to prove your assertion wrong. All other things being equal, had they been flying NG instead MAX, this thread wouldn't exist and there wouldn't be two craters in the ground.


Good try, but..

1) Your conclusion isn't valid. In particular the ET crew placed the aircraft into a dangerous situation before MCAS was a factor, meaning a definitive predictive statement of a safe flight isn't correct.

2) If we change the criteria to "all else equal, had a different crew been piloting, this thread may not exist" is also highly plausible.

Morrisond is right.


If the Ethiopia plane hadn't crashed it would have just been a matter of time before another Max 737 did crash

Let's not pretend any different
 
Interested
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 01, 2019 6:46 am

kalvado wrote:
Revelation wrote:
planecane wrote:
Not ignored. I pointed out a while ago that these are plaintiff's claims in a lawsuit. They carry no more weight factually than any poster on here.

Even less, because the author has a huge financial incentive to push a certain agenda.

Following the same logic, should we believe anything Boeing says about MAX?


That's a fabulous reply
 
Interested
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 01, 2019 7:05 am

http://fortune.com/2019/05/31/gm-boeing ... anagement/

The above article published today seriously questions how Boeing have handled this crisis

I have to agree

We are on a forum where surely we all just want EVERY plane we fly on to be safe. We all are aghast when there is a plane disaster. We all should just be debating how to make all planes as safe as possible. We should all be together on this.

I have no agenda despite being accused so many times of having one on here.

Yet I freely admit I feel very anti Boeing right now.

The reason is the failure to accept responsibility, hold their hands up - say they seriously messed up. Apologise to all impacted with sincerity and no diversions and just get on with fixing it.

The posters on here who keep defending Boeing and blaming pilot error IMO are creating the distrust and dislike of Boeing for me.

So people with my point of view go aggressive back at boeing. It's a vicious circle.

I'm sure without so much defence of boeing and without the blame being put on pilots on here - in turn us guys going the other way would just be showing more empathy with Boeing and might actually trust them to do the right thing.

Does that make sense to those of you with the opposite point of view?

I feel you guys are fuelling a fire that doesn't even need to be there with a different approach.
 
Interested
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 01, 2019 8:21 am

Interested wrote:
MSPNWA wrote:
sillystrings wrote:
I think there is a really simple test to prove your assertion wrong. All other things being equal, had they been flying NG instead MAX, this thread wouldn't exist and there wouldn't be two craters in the ground.


Good try, but..

1) Your conclusion isn't valid. In particular the ET crew placed the aircraft into a dangerous situation before MCAS was a factor, meaning a definitive predictive statement of a safe flight isn't correct.

2) If we change the criteria to "all else equal, had a different crew been piloting, this thread may not exist" is also highly plausible.

Morrisond is right.


If the Ethiopia plane hadn't crashed it would have just been a matter of time before another Max 737 did crash

Let's not pretend any different
 
kalvado
Posts: 1783
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 01, 2019 10:58 am

7BOEING7 wrote:
smartplane wrote:
planecane wrote:
The point I was trying to make is that the situation of use of the manual trim wheel under extreme loads is in the NG training manual. The media articles and some posters on here have made it seem like the pilots had absolutely no idea what to do when the manual wheel is difficult to turn. Well, it appears to be in the TRAINING MANUAL. Therefore, pilots of the 737 should have been TRAINED to deal with the situation.

I know the next response is going to be how even the NG simulators didn't properly simulate the required force. However, mentour pilot's video shows that it takes plenty of effort under those conditions. Does it make a big difference that in the simulator it is really hard to turn but in reality it is really really hard?

If it's impossible to turn, unless both pilots use both hands, then it is a big difference.


There's a reason the handles are "out of phase" -- so you can apply maximum force with two pilots.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but handles are offset quarter turn, not half a turn - meaning there is still a position where they may be inconvenient for both pilots.
 
morrisond
Posts: 1149
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:21 am

Interested wrote:
MSPNWA wrote:
sillystrings wrote:
I think there is a really simple test to prove your assertion wrong. All other things being equal, had they been flying NG instead MAX, this thread wouldn't exist and there wouldn't be two craters in the ground.


Good try, but..

1) Your conclusion isn't valid. In particular the ET crew placed the aircraft into a dangerous situation before MCAS was a factor, meaning a definitive predictive statement of a safe flight isn't correct.

2) If we change the criteria to "all else equal, had a different crew been piloting, this thread may not exist" is also highly plausible.

Morrisond is right.


If the Ethiopia plane hadn't crashed it would have just been a matter of time before another Max 737 did crash

Let's not pretend any different


If Pilots had read the bulletin and taken the time to understand it - quite possibly not. Or if the AOA failure had happened to a crew with good hand flying skills - quite possibly not either.

Plus Boeing started working on MCAS v2 right after Lionair - I believe I read it was due to be rolled out around April/May as it takes some time to certify new software.
 
smartplane
Posts: 979
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:23 am

planecane wrote:
aerolimani wrote:
7BOEING7 wrote:

There's a reason the handles are "out of phase" -- so you can apply maximum force with two pilots.

Ah, yes. Two pilots required. Something the FAA now frowns upon. It nicely highlights the problems with the current grandfathering system. No modern design would allow this.

Over the years, FAA rules for approving new planes or derivatives of existing models typically barred emergency procedures requiring two pilots. “There’s signs of a potential weakness of that checklist,” Mr. Tajer said.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/maxs-retur ... eakingnews


They either have to allow grandfathering or not. It would be too subjective if they said you can grandfather certain things but not others. This would apply to all manufacturers and probably eliminate derivatives more than 6 or 7 years after the first model.

Requiring 2 pilots should help in the severe out of trim situation because they won't be able to hold back pressure and help with the wheel simultaneously. If the second pilot helps with the wheel, they will basically do the roller coaster procedure by default.

Requiring 2 out of 2 pilots to be working on the trim wheels at low altitude, and nose pointing down, seems rather optimistic.

Requiring 2 pilot operation was an oversight. Fine for a 707 or 727 with three in the cockpit, but not for a 737 with only two. No formal grandfathering in those days, but presumably the argument was lets carry over a successful design from old models to new.

One benefit of grandfathering is the ability to build on an established safe base, but there still should be a review of grandfathered functionality every X years. Can't keep working on the basis 'we've always done it this way', because the trim wheel is a perfect example. It was a design error in the 100/200, and subsequent changes have made it less practical, especially in the NG and MAX.
 
kalvado
Posts: 1783
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:06 pm

morrisond wrote:
Interested wrote:
MSPNWA wrote:

Good try, but..

1) Your conclusion isn't valid. In particular the ET crew placed the aircraft into a dangerous situation before MCAS was a factor, meaning a definitive predictive statement of a safe flight isn't correct.

2) If we change the criteria to "all else equal, had a different crew been piloting, this thread may not exist" is also highly plausible.

Morrisond is right.


If the Ethiopia plane hadn't crashed it would have just been a matter of time before another Max 737 did crash

Let's not pretend any different


If Pilots had read the bulletin and taken the time to understand it - quite possibly not. Or if the AOA failure had happened to a crew with good hand flying skills - quite possibly not either.

Plus Boeing started working on MCAS v2 right after Lionair - I believe I read it was due to be rolled out around April/May as it takes some time to certify new software.

Should we believe Boeing that they started working on MCAS update back then? As it was pointed out, they have financial reasons to paint things beautiful. Then, does it take that long to do one procedure? How many decades does it take to design new plane with such pace?
Last, but not the least... What was supposed to be a quick fix is not submitted to FAA yet.
My bet whatever (and IF anything) was done after lion crash was inadequate and real work started some time in April..
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 421
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:19 pm

kalvado wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Interested wrote:

If the Ethiopia plane hadn't crashed it would have just been a matter of time before another Max 737 did crash

Let's not pretend any different


If Pilots had read the bulletin and taken the time to understand it - quite possibly not. Or if the AOA failure had happened to a crew with good hand flying skills - quite possibly not either.

Plus Boeing started working on MCAS v2 right after Lionair - I believe I read it was due to be rolled out around April/May as it takes some time to certify new software.

Should we believe Boeing that they started working on MCAS update back then? As it was pointed out, they have financial reasons to paint things beautiful. Then, does it take that long to do one procedure? How many decades does it take to design new plane with such pace?
Last, but not the least... What was supposed to be a quick fix is not submitted to FAA yet.
My bet whatever (and IF anything) was done after lion crash was inadequate and real work started some time in April..


Six months is prety quick for a modification to safety critical flight control software. Dont forget, as well as validating the change to the procedures intended, you must also verify that everything else continues to function as intended when the change is integrated into the whole. If anything, I would suggest the quick change is actually indicative of a concern that the gamble taken to keep the max in service and get the change in before another event might be lost. It was. A further delay was acrued due to a problem found with the flap system. It may have been identified as a result of verification of the MCAS change or a separate review convened due to the events.

Reason for the current delay? anybodies guess, but it may be related to the review of NNCs/Training with Boeing wanting to submit a whole change pack in one go and not have manual changes outstanding.

Ray
 
AVGeekNY
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat May 04, 2019 2:31 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:31 pm

morrisond wrote:
Interested wrote:
MSPNWA wrote:

Good try, but..

1) Your conclusion isn't valid. In particular the ET crew placed the aircraft into a dangerous situation before MCAS was a factor, meaning a definitive predictive statement of a safe flight isn't correct.

2) If we change the criteria to "all else equal, had a different crew been piloting, this thread may not exist" is also highly plausible.

Morrisond is right.


If the Ethiopia plane hadn't crashed it would have just been a matter of time before another Max 737 did crash

Let's not pretend any different


If Pilots had read the bulletin and taken the time to understand it - quite possibly not. Or if the AOA failure had happened to a crew with good hand flying skills - quite possibly not either.

Plus Boeing started working on MCAS v2 right after Lionair - I believe I read it was due to be rolled out around April/May as it takes some time to certify new software.


Did you not watch the 60 minutes and the pilot interviews? You seem more interested in scapegoating the pilots rather than placing blame on BA for a lousy design and the FAA/BA for shoddy certification.
Just curious what are your credentials? Are you an ATP or Commercial Pilot? Do you have a type rating for a jet?
I'm just a well educated engineer and PPL and find a lot of how they got to the point of two crashes alarming.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8361
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:36 pm

morrisond wrote:
Interested wrote:
MSPNWA wrote:

Good try, but..

1) Your conclusion isn't valid. In particular the ET crew placed the aircraft into a dangerous situation before MCAS was a factor, meaning a definitive predictive statement of a safe flight isn't correct.

2) If we change the criteria to "all else equal, had a different crew been piloting, this thread may not exist" is also highly plausible.

Morrisond is right.


If the Ethiopia plane hadn't crashed it would have just been a matter of time before another Max 737 did crash

Let's not pretend any different


If Pilots had read the bulletin and taken the time to understand it - quite possibly not. Or if the AOA failure had happened to a crew with good hand flying skills - quite possibly not either.

Plus Boeing started working on MCAS v2 right after Lionair - I believe I read it was due to be rolled out around April/May as it takes some time to certify new software.


If Boeing would have done its design right and not produced a death trap for pilots and passengers, none of the two accidents would have happened.

If you want serious training for pilots, look again at Boeing. The did sell minimal training from NG to MAX. They are responsible for that the 737MX simulator did not simulate a 737MAX well. They hid MCAS, because nobody was supposed to train on it.

But the blame where it belongs.
 
kalvado
Posts: 1783
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:52 pm

XRAYretired wrote:
kalvado wrote:
morrisond wrote:

If Pilots had read the bulletin and taken the time to understand it - quite possibly not. Or if the AOA failure had happened to a crew with good hand flying skills - quite possibly not either.

Plus Boeing started working on MCAS v2 right after Lionair - I believe I read it was due to be rolled out around April/May as it takes some time to certify new software.

Should we believe Boeing that they started working on MCAS update back then? As it was pointed out, they have financial reasons to paint things beautiful. Then, does it take that long to do one procedure? How many decades does it take to design new plane with such pace?
Last, but not the least... What was supposed to be a quick fix is not submitted to FAA yet.
My bet whatever (and IF anything) was done after lion crash was inadequate and real work started some time in April..


Six months is prety quick for a modification to safety critical flight control software. Dont forget, as well as validating the change to the procedures intended, you must also verify that everything else continues to function as intended when the change is integrated into the whole. If anything, I would suggest the quick change is actually indicative of a concern that the gamble taken to keep the max in service and get the change in before another event might be lost. It was. A further delay was acrued due to a problem found with the flap system. It may have been identified as a result of verification of the MCAS change or a separate review convened due to the events.

Reason for the current delay? anybodies guess, but it may be related to the review of NNCs/Training with Boeing wanting to submit a whole change pack in one go and not have manual changes outstanding.

Ray

Which is basically saying that there was no system in software development, there were no proper component tests, no modularity. Which seems pretty accurate given what happened to MCAS - and way more scary than anything said so far about MAX.
Again, we had Toyota fiasco - which was exactly that situation.

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