Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3926
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 5:48 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.


:checkmark: Agree completely. Boeing will have a share of the responsibility, as will the Airlines and the crews and maybe even the vane supplier.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 870
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 6:23 pm

morrisond wrote:
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.


In my view, De-regulation doesn't work, never has. Go back to the DER system it has a proven track record.
It is not an engineer making a mistake its an abject failure of a company to meet basic design standards for two sensor design for a hazardous system, or potentially worse, they pinched an effective two sensor system from the tankers and intentionally destroyed its dependability by reducing it to one sensor.
Sensors fail, one of the reasons a two senor system is necessary. Not extra training.
There would not have been any question of using pilots as back-up if the system was competently designed and certified with sufficient independence.
There is no need to tighten certification or design standards, just apply the ones that exist effectively.

I have never had a problem with better training proposals, just the justification of the manufacturer and regulator oversight omissions being made on the basis that pilot training was not good enough in this case.

Ray
 
Elementalism
Posts: 603
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 7:02 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
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.


That is not true in the least. They added in MCAS because in certain high angle of attack situations the position of the engines caused a more light feel on the yoke. To keep it type rated and feel of the NG. They added MCAS to push the nose down and make it feel like a NG. If Boeing and its customers didnt want the single type rating. Boeing could had forgone MCAS all together and the MAX would be perfectly certifiable.

Then Boeing gave MCAS way too much power in what it can do. But they are fixing that via software. The plane is perfectly stable.
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 870
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 7:25 pm

sgbroimp wrote:
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.


Surely not! or does commercial mean TV Ad. Our pilots on this thread here woud have done the right thing always.

Ray
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 726
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 7:29 pm

Elementalism wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
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.


That is not true in the least. They added in MCAS because in certain high angle of attack situations the position of the engines caused a more light feel on the yoke. To keep it type rated and feel of the NG. They added MCAS to push the nose down and make it feel like a NG. If Boeing and its customers didnt want the single type rating. Boeing could had forgone MCAS all together and the MAX would be perfectly certifiable.

Then Boeing gave MCAS way too much power in what it can do. But they are fixing that via software. The plane is perfectly stable.


I never said its unstable just that it is aerodynamically a different aircraft than the NG and you are right, I should have specified it as:

The aircraft was not certifyable in the way Boeing wanted to certify it, as a derivative of the NG.

There would have been other ways to make it feel like the NG, like changing the stabilizer for example and they didnt do that and chose software instead. And I wrote that this is ok if and only if the pilots are trained to fly it if the software fails or malfunctions.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 506
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 7:41 pm

How much different does the -600 feel from the 900? How much different is the -800 from the 8? And, how much different is the -7 from the -10? I do not buy the justification for MCAS without quantifiable data that shows the magnitude of those differences, that the MAX from the NG is a larger variation than within the families.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 506
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 7:52 pm

The pilots had seven minutes to do everything perfectly by the book and people expect 100%. Boeing design had seven years. I would expect a higher level of perfection and crosscheck from them given the time they had. MCAS 1.0 was sloppy design and they have no alibi. Where is the scrutiny of that process? Boeing says it followed FAA rules. Does the FAA agree? Does EASA agree that the design process which produced MCAS 1.0 followed all of their rules to the letter?
Pilots have to be 90%, the design process has to be 99.999%.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2790
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 7:58 pm

DenverTed wrote:
The pilots had seven minutes to do everything perfectly by the book and people expect 100%. Boeing design had seven years. I would expect a higher level of perfection and crosscheck from them given the time they had. MCAS 1.0 was sloppy design and they have no alibi. Where is the scrutiny of that process? Boeing says it followed FAA rules. Does the FAA agree? Does EASA agree that the design process which produced MCAS 1.0 followed all of their rules to the letter?
Pilots have to be 90%, the design process has to be 99.999%.


Yes - but in the case of ET they were well below 90% - that is the issue many of us are having. They didn't just miss one thing - they missed multiple things.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2898
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 8:08 pm

BTW, an interesting quote from one serious accident investigation report in somewhat similar situation:
NTSB wrote:
According to {companyname}, the {whathappened} Failure checklist was originally developed “based on the highest probability in time of exposure that a {whathappened} failure would occur.” Because {companyname} airplanes spend much more time at higher altitudes and, therefore, a {whathappened} failure had the highest probability of occurring at a high rather than a low altitude, {companyname} designed the{whathappened} Failure checklist for the occurrence of a {whathappened} failure above 20,000 feet. {companyname} indicated that it had not considered developing a {whathappened} failure checklist for use at a low altitude.
Last edited by kalvado on Tue May 07, 2019 8:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
airnorth
Posts: 458
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 7:30 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 8:10 pm

Waterbomber2 wrote:
7BOEING7 wrote:
Amexair wrote:

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.


But I guess that is the point, from I have read, is that if the stick shaker is active, DO NOT raise flaps.
This is the whole issue that keeps going around and around, trying to lay all of the blame on either the pilots, the manufacturer, maintenance, the regulatory authority etc.
Bottom line is, they are all to blame, I really don't think there is any question in any of it. What the portion of blame is who knows, but all parties share some blame, of course some more than others.
Stick shaker has a procedure that has been explained many many times, it appears that procedures for this were not followed. This does not exonerate anyone from blame, nor does it lay all the blame at the pilots, but it seems that errors were made.
 
Amexair
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:16 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 8:18 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.


Leaving the cynicism aside, what I take from this is that even experienced airmen have different opinions as to how the crew reacted given the same facts. My point is that at the end of the day, it is ALWAYS possible to look back and say they should have done this/that regardless of the procedures they followed or their experience level etc...
I do agree with you that we should wait for the final report. Personally, I would be quite astonished to find fault on either of the crew given the situation they were in (but that's just my opinion).
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3926
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 8:24 pm

This part of your post is not true.

Elementalism wrote:
They added MCAS to push the nose down and make it feel like a NG. If Boeing and its customers didnt want the single type rating. Boeing could had forgone MCAS all together and the MAX would be perfectly certifiable.


Without MCAS, the 737 MAX would not be certifiable. Stick lightening while approaching stall is not acceptable handling per FAR 25.203.
Last edited by OldAeroGuy on Tue May 07, 2019 8:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1865
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 8:27 pm

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?

No. I mainly want to highlight that they faced more than one non-normal condition and they had to apply more than one non normal checklist. The second thing you need to acknowledge is that the checklists contradict: e.g. full thrust shall be applied in case of stick shaker(!) and 80% of thrust required for the ias disagree memory items. No pilot can comply with both of these procedures at the same time. It is impossible. But they were facing both conditions! Only then we can discuss about the priority of NNCs if two or more conditions occur simultaneously.

So I ask you: if you have ias disagree and stick shaker, which procedure would you follow? And why would you ignore the other? What if a third condition would arise (overspeed)? Stick shaker and overspeed procedures conflict to the largest possible extend. Once their speed reached 250, it did not matter, why they were not able to climb or cut thrust (maybe the stick shaker made them keeping thrust at 100%), at that point they had to raise the flaps in order to maintain structural integrity.

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

That is not correct. It is a binding memory item to ensure a safe flight regime if the airspeed cant be trusted until the QRH can be consulted.

OldAeroGuy wrote:
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.

As the ADI is not relevant to the flaps-up discussion, this remark comes across as smoke an mirrors. I have added part of the ADI only so less educated people immediately see, which instrument it is. You dont need it, ignore it.

OldAeroGuy wrote:
The original question was:
With an active stick shaker, is there a good reason to retract the Flaps?
Does anyone have a good reason?

Overspeed seems to be a good one, even a mandatory one.

Or do you think they should have kept the flaps set also when their speed reached 350?

The flaps-up debate is not about why they went so fast. The flaps-up debate is not about what they could have done to avoid overspeed. Fact is, their speed was high and in that situation raising the flaps at least should not be considered as a mistake (the moment when the flaps were raised, speed was clearly approaching placard speed; as accurate as I can read the chart, the speed trend vector was just below 250).
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24659
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 8:44 pm

XRAYretired wrote:
In my view, De-regulation doesn't work, never has. Go back to the DER system it has a proven track record.

After reading the ST article, I share this opinion.

I think the AR system makes it too easy for management to intimidate direct reports that have delegated responsibilities.

I'm wondering if any of the insiders on this thread care to share their opinion.

DenverTed wrote:
The pilots had seven minutes to do everything perfectly by the book and people expect 100%. Boeing design had seven years.

IMHO this is a false equivalence.

Not raising flaps when the stick shaker is active should be second nature to the pilots.

100% accuracy was not expected.

One of two pilots being aware of not raising flaps when stick shaker is active is only 50%, and that mark was not achieved.

As OAG and others say, Boeing will take its share of the blame, but so will the operators and so will the regulators.
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
PixelFlight
Posts: 1026
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:09 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 8:47 pm

OldAeroGuy wrote:
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.

I have read your arguments (so many times). But I also have read others arguments that go far deeper in analyzing not just a very limited set of points, but as many points as possible.

OldAeroGuy wrote:
The original question was:
With an active stick shaker, is there a good reason to retract the Flaps?
Does anyone have a good reason?

Sorry but my original questions was: https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1421471&start=400#p21335535
I don't understand how not preventing to select the autopilot when the stick shaker is active allow to make a point about the situation. Can you explain in more details please ?
I agree that a stall require pilot awareness and action. Now imagine that the pilots makes the observation that the aircraft is obviously not in a stall. Should there follow the stall procedure ?
:stirthepot: 737-8 MAX: "For all speeds higher than 220 Kts and trim set at a value of 2.5 units, the difficulity level of turning the manual trim wheel was level A (trim wheel not movable)." :stirthepot:
 
Amexair
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:16 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 8:50 pm

rheinwaldner 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?

No. I mainly want to highlight that they faced more than one non-normal condition and they had to apply more than one non normal checklist. The second thing you need to acknowledge is that the checklists contradict: e.g. full thrust shall be applied in case of stick shaker(!) and 80% of thrust required for the ias disagree memory items. No pilot can comply with both of these procedures at the same time. It is impossible. But they were facing both conditions! Only then we can discuss about the priority of NNCs if two or more conditions occur simultaneously.


This is perfectly phrased from my point of view. Notwithstanding the unique Airport Procedures out of Addis - a high airport with high terrain all around. 2) "Company procedures" - could be different from Boeing "recommended" procedures since airlines may modify based on their specific context.

Btw - not that it matters but ET has a very rigorous training program. I have a friend with 3 type ratings, one from ET, who told me that their simulator training was one of the most difficult he has ever faced, although he said the class training could be better.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24659
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 8:54 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 is a good reason why Boeing is using the strategy of saying its only mistake was putting too much workload on the pilots: a mistake in judgement will not result in criminal charges and will reduce civil liabilities.

As I've written before, it's a risky strategy.

God help them if the ongoing DoJ/FBI probe finds information that it is more than a simple mistake in judgement.

Also, if the various international regulators find the line of reasoning that this was just a simple mistake in judgement is not credible, the clock on the grounding will be set back to zero and a lot of ground that could have been covered in parallel with the current work will end up being tacked on to the end of the grounding timeline.

Personally I don't think Muilenberg's job is at serious risk right now, but if any of the above adverse situations occur and shows the chosen strategy was wrong, it surely will be.
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: 2898
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 9:11 pm

Amexair wrote:
I do agree with you that we should wait for the final report. Personally, I would be quite astonished to find fault on either of the crew given the situation they were in (but that's just my opinion).

Unfortunately, stage is already setup for "these lousy [countryname] officials did that to whitewash their third world pilots!"
 
StTim
Posts: 3733
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 9:16 pm

Hold the front page. Pilots make mistakes.

The pilot is the last line of defence. This frame made it necessary for them to be nigh on perfect not to get overwhelmed by the situation where a simple sensor failed (or its processor did).

It is the manufacturers responsibility to make the frame as safe as can be and that all reasonable failure modes are as benign as possible.

It is the certification authorities responsibility to ensure the manufacturer has done so AND they have defined rigorous maintenance procedures and the correct training requirements.

It is the airlines responsibility to adhere to the maintenance requirements and to ensure pilots are trained in accordance with the requirements.

It is the pilots responsibility to keep up to date and to apply their skills in a crisis under severe pressure. If this is something not trained for and time critical then the outcomes are not certain.

No single entity in this comes out blameless.

I would say it starts with Boeing, then the FAA then a large step down to the airlines and finally another large step down to the pilots.

Those pilots may have made mistakes under pressure and in doing so they lost their lives. All the others in this gain went home to their families.

Please respect the last line of defence - the pilots.
 
planecane
Posts: 1579
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 9:26 pm

XRAYretired wrote:
morrisond wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
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.


In my view, De-regulation doesn't work, never has. Go back to the DER system it has a proven track record.
It is not an engineer making a mistake its an abject failure of a company to meet basic design standards for two sensor design for a hazardous system, or potentially worse, they pinched an effective two sensor system from the tankers and intentionally destroyed its dependability by reducing it to one sensor.
Sensors fail, one of the reasons a two senor system is necessary. Not extra training.
There would not have been any question of using pilots as back-up if the system was competently designed and certified with sufficient independence.
There is no need to tighten certification or design standards, just apply the ones that exist effectively.

I have never had a problem with better training proposals, just the justification of the manufacturer and regulator oversight omissions being made on the basis that pilot training was not good enough in this case.

Ray

Do you really believe that any regulator would have actually caught the MCAS design error? I personally think it is doubtful and that you put way too much faith in government employees.

NASA designed and approved the Space Shuttle with an abort mode that contained a maneuver that nobody believed could actually be performed. This has nothing to do with the "unforseen" failures that led to Challenger and Columbia.

I can guarantee you that all Boeing designs going forward will be the safest designs ever because they know that if they mess up again they will have to exit the commercial aircraft business. They are motivated by profit a lot more than some FAA bureaucrat is motivated by his duty to the public.
 
hivue
Posts: 2078
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 9:45 pm

kalvado wrote:
BTW, an interesting quote from one serious accident investigation report in somewhat similar situation:
NTSB wrote:
According to {companyname}, the {whathappened} Failure checklist was originally developed “based on the highest probability in time of exposure that a {whathappened} failure would occur.” Because {companyname} airplanes spend much more time at higher altitudes and, therefore, a {whathappened} failure had the highest probability of occurring at a high rather than a low altitude, {companyname} designed the{whathappened} Failure checklist for the occurrence of a {whathappened} failure above 20,000 feet. {companyname} indicated that it had not considered developing a {whathappened} failure checklist for use at a low altitude.


What's similar?

Why the redactions? {companyname] = Airbus, {whathappend] = dual engine failure. US1549.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2790
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 9:45 pm

Amexair wrote:
rheinwaldner 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?

No. I mainly want to highlight that they faced more than one non-normal condition and they had to apply more than one non normal checklist. The second thing you need to acknowledge is that the checklists contradict: e.g. full thrust shall be applied in case of stick shaker(!) and 80% of thrust required for the ias disagree memory items. No pilot can comply with both of these procedures at the same time. It is impossible. But they were facing both conditions! Only then we can discuss about the priority of NNCs if two or more conditions occur simultaneously.


This is perfectly phrased from my point of view. Notwithstanding the unique Airport Procedures out of Addis - a high airport with high terrain all around. 2) "Company procedures" - could be different from Boeing "recommended" procedures since airlines may modify based on their specific context.

Btw - not that it matters but ET has a very rigorous training program. I have a friend with 3 type ratings, one from ET, who told me that their simulator training was one of the most difficult he has ever faced, although he said the class training could be better.


The airport is at 7,500' the only terrain was slightly to the left of the nose at 10,000' - slightly to the right was the Great Rift Valley with an Elevation 5,000' below the airport - Terrain was not a factor.

His other training could just have been woefully inadequate - ET just adequate - and it appears in this case for the ET302 Pilots definitively inadequate.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2898
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 9:56 pm

hivue wrote:
kalvado wrote:
BTW, an interesting quote from one serious accident investigation report in somewhat similar situation:
NTSB wrote:
According to {companyname}, the {whathappened} Failure checklist was originally developed “based on the highest probability in time of exposure that a {whathappened} failure would occur.” Because {companyname} airplanes spend much more time at higher altitudes and, therefore, a {whathappened} failure had the highest probability of occurring at a high rather than a low altitude, {companyname} designed the{whathappened} Failure checklist for the occurrence of a {whathappened} failure above 20,000 feet. {companyname} indicated that it had not considered developing a {whathappened} failure checklist for use at a low altitude.


What's similar?

Why the redactions? {companyname] = Airbus, {whathappend] = dual engine failure. US1549.

Similar as in failure on takeoff with not enough altitude. Redactions to see if the pilot, who (perfectly reasonably) ignored checklists would be trashed for not following those.
 
hivue
Posts: 2078
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 10:15 pm

kalvado wrote:
Redactions to see if the pilot, who (perfectly reasonably) ignored checklists would be trashed for not following those.


They didn't ignore checklists. They ran the only one that was close to applicable. The Captain did order the APU on prior to reaching that item in the checklist, which is one of the decisions that likely saved everyone's lives.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 506
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 10:57 pm

I suppose Boeing is caught between if they admit too much responsibility it increases their monetary damage in court, but if they don't admit responsibility, the world's certifying agencies will not release the MAX, and will US airlines fly the MAX alone in the world? The same dynamics that led to the grounding in the US are the dynamics at play to unground the aircraft. How much responsibility does Boeing have to admit to appease the world? I think it was 90% Boeing, 10% pilots. On AF447, I thought the sidestick design was a contributing factor, since it was not linked, did not have pressure feedback, and wasn't as obvious to the rest of the crew as a yoke. But I'd put that at 10% Airbus design, 90% pilot error.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3926
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Tue May 07, 2019 10:57 pm

rheinwaldner wrote:
No. I mainly want to highlight that they faced more than one non-normal condition and they had to apply more than one non normal checklist. The second thing you need to acknowledge is that the checklists contradict: e.g. full thrust shall be applied in case of stick shaker(!) and 80% of thrust required for the ias disagree memory items. No pilot can comply with both of these procedures at the same time. It is impossible.


You are not correct that the Stall Warning recovery procedure says use full thrust. Instead, it says "Advance thrust levers as needed".

You can see the procedure in the link below.

https://imgur.com/JyM0nKQ

Note that the procedure says "Do not change gear or flap configuration, except during lift off, if flaps up, call for flaps 1".

rheinwaldner wrote:
So I ask you: if you have ias disagree and stick shaker, which procedure would you follow? And why would you ignore the other? What if a third condition would arise (overspeed)? Stick shaker and overspeed procedures conflict to the largest possible extend. Once their speed reached 250, it did not matter, why they were not able to climb or cut thrust (maybe the stick shaker made them keeping thrust at 100%), at that point they had to raise the flaps in order to maintain structural integrity.


This is where "Airmanship" comes into play. The pilots have to decide what guidance to follow. A safe course would have been to fly out to the Flap 5 placard of 250 KIAS to lessen the chance a stall, then pitch up to control airspeed and climb to a safe altitude at 250 KIAS, say 5000' AGL. At that point, perform the 80% N1, 10 deg pitch "Airspeed Unreliable" drill to sort out the Airspeed issue. After assessing the condition of the airplane, planning could have been done to Return to Land. Zeke, a well know and respected ATR pilot on this forum, has endorsed this course of action.

rheinwaldner wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:
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.

As the ADI is not relevant to the flaps-up discussion, this remark comes across as smoke an mirrors. I have added part of the ADI only so less educated people immediately see, which instrument it is. You dont need it, ignore it.


If you are going to try to illustrate your point with a diagram you should at least made it accurate. Even your speed marker and the trend vector is inaccurate. Flaps up was selected around 235 KIAS. ET302 was not at 246 KIAS Flaps down as you are implying.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
speedking
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2018 3:00 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed May 08, 2019 12:17 am

Problem with training. What are we actually talking about?
- The airlines are stupid as not providing opportunities for the pilots to learn?
- The teachers are stupid as they cannot provide good training?
- The pilots are stupid and cannot be trained?
 
Virtual737
Posts: 734
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed May 08, 2019 1:10 am

The posts that are starting to irk me the most are those along the lines of "the airlines, the pilots, the sensor manufacturer and Boeing will all end up sharing the blame". While this *might* actually hold some truth, it totally diverts away from the monumental, totally avoidable, highly unforgivable cock-up that Boeing has made.

If you are going to talk about blame, please also give some indication of how much of that blame you apportion to each entity. For example, Boeing 80% and the rest shared among the other links in the chain. If you're in a position to blame something or someone, you're in a position to justify that blame and so then quantify it.

Starting at "making a safe plane safer", through "not wanting to give pilots too much workload" and onto "a chain of events" and "relentless commitment to safety" are too far from "we effed up" for me to have anything other than a feeling of disgust about this whole episode.
 
airnorth
Posts: 458
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 7:30 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed May 08, 2019 5:50 am

Virtual737 wrote:
The posts that are starting to irk me the most are those along the lines of "the airlines, the pilots, the sensor manufacturer and Boeing will all end up sharing the blame". While this *might* actually hold some truth, it totally diverts away from the monumental, totally avoidable, highly unforgivable cock-up that Boeing has made.

If you are going to talk about blame, please also give some indication of how much of that blame you apportion to each entity. For example, Boeing 80% and the rest shared among the other links in the chain. If you're in a position to blame something or someone, you're in a position to justify that blame and so then quantify it.

Starting at "making a safe plane safer", through "not wanting to give pilots too much workload" and onto "a chain of events" and "relentless commitment to safety" are too far from "we effed up" for me to have anything other than a feeling of disgust about this whole episode.

Not until the investigations are complete.
Since you are assigning most of the blame to Boeing, how did you come up with 80%?
 
Virtual737
Posts: 734
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed May 08, 2019 6:03 am

airnorth wrote:
Virtual737 wrote:
The posts that are starting to irk me the most are those along the lines of "the airlines, the pilots, the sensor manufacturer and Boeing will all end up sharing the blame". While this *might* actually hold some truth, it totally diverts away from the monumental, totally avoidable, highly unforgivable cock-up that Boeing has made.

If you are going to talk about blame, please also give some indication of how much of that blame you apportion to each entity. For example, Boeing 80% and the rest shared among the other links in the chain. If you're in a position to blame something or someone, you're in a position to justify that blame and so then quantify it.

Starting at "making a safe plane safer", through "not wanting to give pilots too much workload" and onto "a chain of events" and "relentless commitment to safety" are too far from "we effed up" for me to have anything other than a feeling of disgust about this whole episode.

Not until the investigations are complete.
Since you are assigning most of the blame to Boeing, how did you come up with 80%?


An arbitary value that I've used as an example, and high for the reasons I stated. Their eff up based on what appears to be known so far is of astronomical proportions and the only pressure they were under at the time they made the eff up was financial.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 726
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed May 08, 2019 6:15 am

Virtual737 wrote:
The posts that are starting to irk me the most are those along the lines of "the airlines, the pilots, the sensor manufacturer and Boeing will all end up sharing the blame". While this *might* actually hold some truth, it totally diverts away from the monumental, totally avoidable, highly unforgivable cock-up that Boeing has made.

If you are going to talk about blame, please also give some indication of how much of that blame you apportion to each entity. For example, Boeing 80% and the rest shared among the other links in the chain. If you're in a position to blame something or someone, you're in a position to justify that blame and so then quantify it.

Starting at "making a safe plane safer", through "not wanting to give pilots too much workload" and onto "a chain of events" and "relentless commitment to safety" are too far from "we effed up" for me to have anything other than a feeling of disgust about this whole episode.


One thing I want to add here is that there will be a behind the scenes splitting of the liability. Instead of fighting, the different insurers form the parties involved (Boeing, Airlines, etc.) will sit together and share the overall costs they have to pay out. As it will be cheaper to just settle this than fight for it, no matter who is really to blame.

Every claim that goes over the insured value will be fought for in court. This will be civil lawsuits that cannot be settled with the payout agreed by the insurers.

Another thing is the actual blame the public gives. PR costs will be highest with the party the public blames, no matter if it is true or not.

The class action lawsuit will be insured as well, Boeing will try to get a settlement within the coverage provided by their insurers.

And even if all the costs Boeing and the other involved parties face are actually covered by the insurers, the real costs are the extremely high followup premiums.

If it turns out corners were cut in the certification and the FAA and other Agencies still unground the MAX. it could be that insurers will raise premiums for MAX-fleets and this would be a big handicap for the airlines operating the aircraft.
 
Ertro
Posts: 140
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:28 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed May 08, 2019 6:43 am

If we start calculating resposibilities Boeing has responsibility in the system and aerodynamics design department making a plane that needs years of SW tweaking in MCAS to make the plane fly safely. Another one in MCAS SW design department. Another responsibility in the AoA difference display design department. Another one in the checklist writing department to make the items not to be in correct order and not naming the checklists clearly to fit to a big problem. Fourth responsibility in the "lets not describe all the problems to pilots so they could work the MCAS and trimming problems by understanding what is going on instead of just blindly following checklists" department. Another responsibility in the "Let's ram this thing through FAA selfsertification and not consider trimming difficulties and AoA difference displays as big problems" department. Another one in sales and marketing department for making promises that require engineers to wipe problems under a rug. Another responsibility in the "Let's not ground the planes after second crash even though we know of big problems" department.

In my opinion one responsibility goes to FAA for not noticing what is going on. One responsibility goes to pilots. Some responsibility goes to those airlines that required problems to be wiped under a rug and not to have comprehensive pilot training.

So in my opinion the responsibilities are:
8/10=80% Boeing.
1/10=10% FAA.
1/10=10% pilots.
Zero responsibility to vane manufacturers.
Less than zero responsibility to Lion air or Ethiopian because they had none to start with and they have paid a big penalty for it already.
Some responsibility to Southwest and other airlines that indirectly required not to train and educate pilots properly.
 
Noshow
Posts: 1707
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed May 08, 2019 6:53 am

I'd say the FAA's (and politics...) part is bigger. They have contributed to the chaotic system of outsourced certification work without their direct oversight. We need to bring back more independent certification work. Only this, not pushing things through the pipeline again, will convince global aviation authorities to reclear the MAX.

Well and IF it physically should just not be the same airplane anymore, different procedures and training are needed. Let's be real and honest.
 
User avatar
PixelFlight
Posts: 1026
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:09 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed May 08, 2019 9:00 am

Very strong claim from the whistleblower !
From the 60 Minutes video at 35:42: https://youtu.be/QytfYyHmxtc?t=2142
MCAS was designed using data from only one of the sensors because we knew the FAA would not have certified a two sensor system without level D training

As I understand the D level certification training require flight simulator, breaking the Boeing promise to important customers, so there avoided it at all cost (of lives).
But I want to understand why the FAA require a higher level certification training for a "two sensor system" than for a "only one of the sensors" system. Look like a terribly wrong logic to me.
:stirthepot: 737-8 MAX: "For all speeds higher than 220 Kts and trim set at a value of 2.5 units, the difficulity level of turning the manual trim wheel was level A (trim wheel not movable)." :stirthepot:
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9683
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed May 08, 2019 9:30 am

Because if you need to use 2 sensors, the failure of system is usually of higher consequence. A system that can run with only one sensor must have minor influence on flight safety.
 
User avatar
PixelFlight
Posts: 1026
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:09 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed May 08, 2019 9:42 am

seahawk wrote:
Because if you need to use 2 sensors, the failure of system is usually of higher consequence. A system that can run with only one sensor must have minor influence on flight safety.

But this assertion is very obviously wrong for the MCAS that directly command the horizontal stabilizer trim actuator, one of the main control surface. How this can have be missed ?

Did Boeing trade a D level certification training for a breach in the safety rules ?
Now that the MCAS fix work on two sensors, will the level certification training be raised to D (or more) ?
Will pilots be trained for it malfunction ?
Will Boeing pay the training and the training penalty to the customers that contracted that provision ?
:stirthepot: 737-8 MAX: "For all speeds higher than 220 Kts and trim set at a value of 2.5 units, the difficulity level of turning the manual trim wheel was level A (trim wheel not movable)." :stirthepot:
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 870
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed May 08, 2019 9:53 am

planecane wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
morrisond wrote:

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.


In my view, De-regulation doesn't work, never has. Go back to the DER system it has a proven track record.
It is not an engineer making a mistake its an abject failure of a company to meet basic design standards for two sensor design for a hazardous system, or potentially worse, they pinched an effective two sensor system from the tankers and intentionally destroyed its dependability by reducing it to one sensor.
Sensors fail, one of the reasons a two senor system is necessary. Not extra training.
There would not have been any question of using pilots as back-up if the system was competently designed and certified with sufficient independence.
There is no need to tighten certification or design standards, just apply the ones that exist effectively.

I have never had a problem with better training proposals, just the justification of the manufacturer and regulator oversight omissions being made on the basis that pilot training was not good enough in this case.

Ray

Do you really believe that any regulator would have actually caught the MCAS design error? I personally think it is doubtful and that you put way too much faith in government employees.

NASA designed and approved the Space Shuttle with an abort mode that contained a maneuver that nobody believed could actually be performed. This has nothing to do with the "unforseen" failures that led to Challenger and Columbia.

I can guarantee you that all Boeing designs going forward will be the safest designs ever because they know that if they mess up again they will have to exit the commercial aircraft business. They are motivated by profit a lot more than some FAA bureaucrat is motivated by his duty to the public.


I would put more faith in the track record of the DER system rather than the current system that has patently failed. The mere existence of an independent overview tends to steer organisations on to the straight and narrow. DERs are not government employees by the way.

I have little knowledge of NASA. From what I do remember from the documentaries, the loss of dependability of the booster o rings at low temperatures was well known, flight restriction was in place, and objections to launch were overruled. The damage to heat shield was well known and the potential consequences well known. Flights were continued well aware of the risk. This is probably what you might expect from high risk military operations. Is there an independent regulator for NASA? Not that I know of.

No you cant guarantee anything any more than I can. If the FAA has been turned into a bureaucracy, it Will have been largely at the behest of Boeing through their money and insurgency in my view. Time to fix it.

Ray
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9683
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed May 08, 2019 9:54 am

Those are good question. I can not answer them.
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 870
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed May 08, 2019 9:56 am

seahawk wrote:
Because if you need to use 2 sensors, the failure of system is usually of higher consequence. A system that can run with only one sensor must have minor influence on flight safety.


All part of the pretence that it was just a tweak to STS to hide it away most probably?

Ray
 
felipekk
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 4:06 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed May 08, 2019 10:08 am

PixelFlight wrote:
But this assertion is very obviously wrong for the MCAS that directly command the horizontal stabilizer trim actuator, one of the main control surface.


But it is only a minor command, which happens only on some rather extreme parts of the flight envelope, and which can be immediately countered with manual electric trim...

(I'm playing devil's advocate here, I do not endorse my statement above as being truthful).
 
Olddog
Posts: 1521
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:41 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed May 08, 2019 10:29 am

I think that EASA is fed up with Boeing media campaign and issued a counter balance declaration:

Europe Says 737 Max Won’t Fly Until Its Design Review Complete

The European Aviation Safety Agency is running a parallel investigation into the design of Boeing Co.’s 737 Max and says it won’t clear the grounded jet to fly again until that is finished.

“The completion of the independent EASA design review is a prerequisite to the return to service of the aircraft for EASA,” a spokesman for the agency said Tuesday by email.

The decision to conduct its own review is not unusual for the European regulator but underscores a splintering in trust between the world’s two most important safety agencies triggered by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration’s response to the crash of an Ethiopian Airways Max jet in March. EASA issued instructions to carriers to ground the aircraft ahead of the FAA, breaking previous convention.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2290
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed May 08, 2019 10:29 am

Not until the investigations are complete! :roll:
airnorth wrote:
Virtual737 wrote:
The posts that are starting to irk me the most are those along the lines of "the airlines, the pilots, the sensor manufacturer and Boeing will all end up sharing the blame". While this *might* actually hold some truth, it totally diverts away from the monumental, totally avoidable, highly unforgivable cock-up that Boeing has made.

If you are going to talk about blame, please also give some indication of how much of that blame you apportion to each entity. For example, Boeing 80% and the rest shared among the other links in the chain. If you're in a position to blame something or someone, you're in a position to justify that blame and so then quantify it.

Starting at "making a safe plane safer", through "not wanting to give pilots too much workload" and onto "a chain of events" and "relentless commitment to safety" are too far from "we effed up" for me to have anything other than a feeling of disgust about this whole episode.

Not until the investigations are complete.

Not that much over-used phrase again, please!
It seems to be a standard Boeing defense strategy.
It started with "Don't ground the MAX until all the facts are known"
And has morphed into "Don't blame Boeing until the investigations are complete."

Without doubt it is a very good strategy, relying on the fact that when (many months down the road) the full investigation finally publishes it's findings, the public will have become bored with something that happened so very long ago (like, you know, a whole year... like it's history, man). Consequently the public will have lost interest and the media can quietly report the findings as a small paragraph down on page five, somewhere below an article headed "housewife abducted by aliens for the second time!"

So full marks for continuing to push that strategy. :lol:

Meanwhile, I see no reason at all why you, I, and anybody else here cannot assign blame as a personal opinion.
That is what these forums are all about. An exchange of views.
(and sometimes some of us even learn a thing or two along the way...)

So whilst you might try valiantly to hush up any negative views because it might damage Boeing's reputation.
a) that ship has already sailed
b) we're just avgeeks talking in an avgeek forum.

airnorth wrote:
Since you are assigning most of the blame to Boeing, how did you [Virtual737] come up with 80%?

What an excellent question!
I hope you enjoyed Virtual's answer.
Personally, I felt he was a bit on the high side; I thought it was much closer to 78.35% :lol:
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2790
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed May 08, 2019 10:59 am

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Not until the investigations are complete! :roll:
airnorth wrote:
Virtual737 wrote:
The posts that are starting to irk me the most are those along the lines of "the airlines, the pilots, the sensor manufacturer and Boeing will all end up sharing the blame". While this *might* actually hold some truth, it totally diverts away from the monumental, totally avoidable, highly unforgivable cock-up that Boeing has made.

If you are going to talk about blame, please also give some indication of how much of that blame you apportion to each entity. For example, Boeing 80% and the rest shared among the other links in the chain. If you're in a position to blame something or someone, you're in a position to justify that blame and so then quantify it.

Starting at "making a safe plane safer", through "not wanting to give pilots too much workload" and onto "a chain of events" and "relentless commitment to safety" are too far from "we effed up" for me to have anything other than a feeling of disgust about this whole episode.

Not until the investigations are complete.

Not that much over-used phrase again, please!
It seems to be a standard Boeing defense strategy.
It started with "Don't ground the MAX until all the facts are known"
And has morphed into "Don't blame Boeing until the investigations are complete."

Without doubt it is a very good strategy, relying on the fact that when (many months down the road) the full investigation finally publishes it's findings, the public will have become bored with something that happened so very long ago (like, you know, a whole year... like it's history, man). Consequently the public will have lost interest and the media can quietly report the findings as a small paragraph down on page five, somewhere below an article headed "housewife abducted by aliens for the second time!"

So full marks for continuing to push that strategy. :lol:

Meanwhile, I see no reason at all why you, I, and anybody else here cannot assign blame as a personal opinion.
That is what these forums are all about. An exchange of views.
(and sometimes some of us even learn a thing or two along the way...)

So whilst you might try valiantly to hush up any negative views because it might damage Boeing's reputation.
a) that ship has already sailed
b) we're just avgeeks talking in an avgeek forum.

airnorth wrote:
Since you are assigning most of the blame to Boeing, how did you [Virtual737] come up with 80%?

What an excellent question!
I hope you enjoyed Virtual's answer.
Personally, I felt he was a bit on the high side; I thought it was much closer to 78.35% :lol:



I would suggest whatever proportion of blame anyone doesn't assign to Boeing and the FAA is more like 90% Airline and 10% Pilot.

The individual airlines are responsible for the content of there own individual training programs and can decide how far to go beyond the bare regulatory minimums in terms of teaching non-normal procedures.

As Zeke stated some Majors do a lot - while most airlines don't teach this at all beyond the initial type rating.

There have been examples in these forums of pilots progressing to the 737 without even knowing the Manual trim wheel has a fold out handle and others where the manual trim wheel was only used once in dozens of sim sessions.

Pilots can't be proficient at things unless they are taught them and practise them.
 
Olddog
Posts: 1521
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:41 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed May 08, 2019 11:11 am

So according to your maths the blame should be 99% Boeing, 0.9 % Airlines, 0.1 % pilots or your maths are just an other attempt to exonerate Boeing?
 
morrisond
Posts: 2790
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed May 08, 2019 12:01 pm

Olddog wrote:
So according to your maths the blame should be 99% Boeing, 0.9 % Airlines, 0.1 % pilots or your maths are just an other attempt to exonerate Boeing?


I wish People would stop assuming I find Boeing blameless. My Whole Agenda has been to point out that the training system has been sorely lacking and is not as robust as it should be.

Opinions change as more information becomes available.

If I had to put a number on it today?

Lionair - I would put it something like 60% Boeing/FAA/20%Lionair Maintenance (If they allowed dispatch with Faulty Parts), 18% Lionair Training, 2% Pilots (All they had to do was turn off the system that was giving them problems - which should have been drilled into them by training)

Ethiopian - I would say something like 60% Boeing/FAA, 36% Ethiopian Training System and 4% Pilots. There are reports that the pilots were never even notified of the new procedures and the training the pilots received was obviously not good enough given all the fundamental mistakes they made. The biggest one in my mind is leaving thrust at TOGA - that's as bad as leaving it at idle.

Maybe they were taught never to touch the autothrottles and let the Autopilot do it all - that might explain why they were trying to reengage the Autopilot and selected 238 as a speed.
 
User avatar
hilram
Posts: 753
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:12 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed May 08, 2019 1:36 pm

morrisond wrote:
Olddog wrote:
So according to your maths the blame should be 99% Boeing, 0.9 % Airlines, 0.1 % pilots or your maths are just an other attempt to exonerate Boeing?


I wish People would stop assuming I find Boeing blameless. My Whole Agenda has been to point out that the training system has been sorely lacking and is not as robust as it should be.

Opinions change as more information becomes available.

If I had to put a number on it today?

Lionair - I would put it something like 60% Boeing/FAA/20%Lionair Maintenance (If they allowed dispatch with Faulty Parts), 18% Lionair Training, 2% Pilots (All they had to do was turn off the system that was giving them problems - which should have been drilled into them by training)

Ethiopian - I would say something like 60% Boeing/FAA, 36% Ethiopian Training System and 4% Pilots. There are reports that the pilots were never even notified of the new procedures and the training the pilots received was obviously not good enough given all the fundamental mistakes they made. The biggest one in my mind is leaving thrust at TOGA - that's as bad as leaving it at idle.

Maybe they were taught never to touch the autothrottles and let the Autopilot do it all - that might explain why they were trying to reengage the Autopilot and selected 238 as a speed.


So you blame it on lack of training. OK.

But the whole starting point of this MCAS eff-up in the first place, is that - according to Boeing - there is no need for difference training between the NG and MAX except a 90-minute iPad session.

So do you hold Boeing responsible for the false and unethical message about there being no need for training, then, or can Boeing once again be exonerated? :boxedin: :spin:
Flown on: A319, 320, 321, 332, 333, 343 | B732, 734, 735, 736, 73G, 738, 743, 744, 772, 77W | CRJ9 | BAe-146 | DHC-6, 7, 8 | F50 | E195 | MD DC-9 41, MD-82, MD-87
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10364
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed May 08, 2019 1:45 pm

So a question in all this portion of blame.
1. Where is the US Congress / US Government, after all the FAA is a Federal Institution, they did not outsource their oversight without permission.
2. Where is EASA in the percentage? EASA are now saying they are conducting their own parallel investigation of the MAX certification and will not unground until complete. Does that mean that they could have prevented the botch design from ever flying in Europe if they had done that in the first place? Who decided to have an honor system?
3. Boeing CEO, did he walk the floor and instruct the engineers, he must have some culpability if we have already decided that he must go, how much must he pay, loose his golden parachute, his pension, medical benefits, what?

The list goes on, but I think we have enough expertise on this site to deal with Boeing, the airlines, the pilots and the shareholders. I was just trying to look at the bigger picture since assigning a percentage of blame now seems to be the focus of the thread.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2790
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed May 08, 2019 1:57 pm

hilram wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Olddog wrote:
So according to your maths the blame should be 99% Boeing, 0.9 % Airlines, 0.1 % pilots or your maths are just an other attempt to exonerate Boeing?


I wish People would stop assuming I find Boeing blameless. My Whole Agenda has been to point out that the training system has been sorely lacking and is not as robust as it should be.

Opinions change as more information becomes available.

If I had to put a number on it today?

Lionair - I would put it something like 60% Boeing/FAA/20%Lionair Maintenance (If they allowed dispatch with Faulty Parts), 18% Lionair Training, 2% Pilots (All they had to do was turn off the system that was giving them problems - which should have been drilled into them by training)

Ethiopian - I would say something like 60% Boeing/FAA, 36% Ethiopian Training System and 4% Pilots. There are reports that the pilots were never even notified of the new procedures and the training the pilots received was obviously not good enough given all the fundamental mistakes they made. The biggest one in my mind is leaving thrust at TOGA - that's as bad as leaving it at idle.

Maybe they were taught never to touch the autothrottles and let the Autopilot do it all - that might explain why they were trying to reengage the Autopilot and selected 238 as a speed.


So you blame it on lack of training. OK.

But the whole starting point of this MCAS eff-up in the first place, is that - according to Boeing - there is no need for difference training between the NG and MAX except a 90-minute iPad session.

So do you hold Boeing responsible for the false and unethical message about there being no need for training, then, or can Boeing once again be exonerated? :boxedin: :spin:



No - if you read my response 60% of the blame goes to Boeing - I am not exonerating them.

Putting your flaps up when you have stick shaker, not knowing how to use the trim wheels properly (this may or may not be true - we won't know until the full cockpit recording is released) and not properly monitoring or controlling your airspeed have nothing to do with NG to MAX difference training. These are basics that should be taught and drilled by airlines and should not be considered feats of piloting skills only attainable by TOP GUN Pilots - these are basic things all Pilots need to know.

As for MAX specific training - Boeing published a valid procedure on MCAS - it was up to the airlines to decide how to inform there pilots of it and what training it laid out for them if they believed reading it was not sufficient (which it should have been).
 
airnorth
Posts: 458
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 7:30 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed May 08, 2019 3:52 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Not until the investigations are complete! :roll:
airnorth wrote:
Virtual737 wrote:
The posts that are starting to irk me the most are those along the lines of "the airlines, the pilots, the sensor manufacturer and Boeing will all end up sharing the blame". While this *might* actually hold some truth, it totally diverts away from the monumental, totally avoidable, highly unforgivable cock-up that Boeing has made.

If you are going to talk about blame, please also give some indication of how much of that blame you apportion to each entity. For example, Boeing 80% and the rest shared among the other links in the chain. If you're in a position to blame something or someone, you're in a position to justify that blame and so then quantify it.

Starting at "making a safe plane safer", through "not wanting to give pilots too much workload" and onto "a chain of events" and "relentless commitment to safety" are too far from "we effed up" for me to have anything other than a feeling of disgust about this whole episode.

Not until the investigations are complete.

Not that much over-used phrase again, please!
It seems to be a standard Boeing defense strategy.
It started with "Don't ground the MAX until all the facts are known"
And has morphed into "Don't blame Boeing until the investigations are complete."

Without doubt it is a very good strategy, relying on the fact that when (many months down the road) the full investigation finally publishes it's findings, the public will have become bored with something that happened so very long ago (like, you know, a whole year... like it's history, man). Consequently the public will have lost interest and the media can quietly report the findings as a small paragraph down on page five, somewhere below an article headed "housewife abducted by aliens for the second time!"

So full marks for continuing to push that strategy. :lol:

Meanwhile, I see no reason at all why you, I, and anybody else here cannot assign blame as a personal opinion.
That is what these forums are all about. An exchange of views.
(and sometimes some of us even learn a thing or two along the way...)

So whilst you might try valiantly to hush up any negative views because it might damage Boeing's reputation.
a) that ship has already sailed
b) we're just avgeeks talking in an avgeek forum.

airnorth wrote:
Since you are assigning most of the blame to Boeing, how did you [Virtual737] come up with 80%?

What an excellent question!
I hope you enjoyed Virtual's answer.
Personally, I felt he was a bit on the high side; I thought it was much closer to 78.35% :lol:

I am not pushing any strategy at all, we can all have opinions, but really, that is just another term used to push falsehoods.
Bottom line is, nobody knows yet exactly what happened and why. Though many people have opined that pilots, manufacturers, regulators, maintenance crews etc., were, or are at fault. Simple fact is we don't know the whole story, but we do know some parts, so for most people, that is enough to blame some and absolve others, depending on their own opinions and agendas.

My number for blame to Boeing is closer to 81.99%, but that is based only on hearsay and opinions, happy to be proven wrong either way.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9683
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Wed May 08, 2019 4:00 pm

The amazing thing actually is that you can draw parallels to the Turkish 737 NG crash, in which a single faulty altimeter in combination with a badly trained crew, led to the crash of a 737NG. In response to this accident the auto throttle control now uses the data of both altimeters.

Now was there a lesson not learned at Boeing, or where their other interests at play that spoke against using the data from both sensors right from the start.

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