User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13178
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sat Oct 05, 2019 11:10 pm

AirlineCritic wrote:
Revelation, you are taking individual conditions (e.g., stick shaker) and concluding that pilots needed to run specific actions based on them. But you ignore the broader situation in the cockpit of having many other individual conditions/alarms going on, so the first task isn't necessarily to do something but to analyze what's going on. If I lit all the warnings lights on in your cockpit but only one of them is right, will you pick the right action?

But, I've said enough. Creating unnecessary confusion for pilots is not good design. I'll leave it at that.


Reading the SeattleTimes article, it tells FAA allowed some emergency signal requirements, interactions , "startle", were lifted specially for the MAX.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... ew-alerts/

If the FAA people advising,deciding on this were (mostly) delegated Boeing employees, questions will be asked. And it won't be on the MCAS software fix.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 977
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sat Oct 05, 2019 11:14 pm

PixelFlight wrote:
kayik wrote:
not missed


keesje wrote:
Yes. I see this artcle was re posted twice over the last 2 days and ignored, overwritten, drowned in various related topics under the generalized "Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019" header.

Image
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-pushed-faa-to-arelax-737-max-certification-requirements-for-crew-alerts/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=article_inset_1.1

If it is only half truth, a can of worms was just openend & many are in denial / be quiet hopefully it goes away mode. Including me.. luckely it's the last post of the page, many will miss it again..

Not great for the PAX seeking safest flights on that aircraft, at least at this state of improvement...
Next time a 737-8/9 MAX will experience an incident involving the alert system, all the medias will immediately remember this and make there big titles with it.

I have always believed the 737 has a severely flawed and poorly set up crew alerting system, even for a piece of 1960s engineering. All you have to do is look at the other aircraft designed in the similar era; for example, the DC-9 has a central caution/warning panel that can easily be checked rather than having to scan the entire overhead panel and the useless little “6 pack” caution indicator panel on the glare shield. The aural warnings on that plane are also concise unlike the 737’s ambiguous sound effects for a lack of better descriptor, which are used for more than one purpose in some cases. The Dash-8, yet another old (yet a little newer) example of a better set up caution/warning system.

Realistically too many steps are involved in figuring out what master caution you are getting or what the aural warning is telling you (unless it’s GWPS or a TCAS RA). I always allude to a video that was taken on one of the first flights of Southwest’s MAX where they could not operate the flight with that plane because they had a maintenance light illuminate and I quote the captain: “there’s a number of reasons why that light can illuminate” which is not something we should ever be saying about any machinery built these days. Heck it is easier to troubleshoot a 90s Honda if you knew what you were doing!
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 2004
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sat Oct 05, 2019 11:28 pm

PixelFlight wrote:
kayik wrote:
not missed


keesje wrote:
Yes. I see this artcle was re posted twice over the last 2 days and ignored, overwritten, drowned in various related topics under the generalized "Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019" header.

Image
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-pushed-faa-to-arelax-737-max-certification-requirements-for-crew-alerts/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=article_inset_1.1

If it is only half truth, a can of worms was just openend & many are in denial / be quiet hopefully it goes away mode. Including me.. luckely it's the last post of the page, many will miss it again..

Not great for the PAX seeking safest flights on that aircraft, at least at this state of improvement...
Next time a 737-8/9 MAX will experience an incident involving the alert system, all the medias will immediately remember this and make there big titles with it.


Next time some Boeing functionary parrots "safety is our No1 priority" I want a journalist to come back with this article. I'm coming to the conclusion that EASA will have a lot of difficulty allowing the MAX back into service without many major changes.
BV
 
AABusDrvr
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 6:48 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Oct 06, 2019 3:18 am

767333ER wrote:
I have always believed the 737 has a severely flawed and poorly set up crew alerting system, even for a piece of 1960s engineering. All you have to do is look at the other aircraft designed in the similar era; for example, the DC-9 has a central caution/warning panel that can easily be checked rather than having to scan the entire overhead panel and the useless little “6 pack” caution indicator panel on the glare shield. The aural warnings on that plane are also concise unlike the 737’s ambiguous sound effects for a lack of better descriptor, which are used for more than one purpose in some cases. The Dash-8, yet another old (yet a little newer) example of a better set up caution/warning system.

Realistically too many steps are involved in figuring out what master caution you are getting or what the aural warning is telling you (unless it’s GWPS or a TCAS RA). I always allude to a video that was taken on one of the first flights of Southwest’s MAX where they could not operate the flight with that plane because they had a maintenance light illuminate and I quote the captain: “there’s a number of reasons why that light can illuminate” which is not something we should ever be saying about any machinery built these days. Heck it is easier to troubleshoot a 90s Honda if you knew what you were doing!



While the 737 caution/warning system is showing it's age, it was state of the art when the airplane was designed. It's not modern or flashy, but it still does what it needs to do. The master caution light is right in your normal field of view to get your attention, any associated illuminated light on a "six pack" tells you the affected system, and where to look. The only aural warning that uses the same sound for different things is the takeoff config warning/cabin altitude warning horn. On the ground, it's a config warning, airborne, cain altitude. Not really confusing at all.

The MAINT light is a really poor example for trying to make your point. It illuminates only on the ground, and means exactly what it says. There is a non dispatchable fault in one of several systems. The only pilot action required is to have maintenance come and troubleshoot. They have access to various diagnostics and tests via the FMC, that the crews don't use, to figure out what's causing the light. It replaces the PSEU light on the NG.
 
chiad
Posts: 1211
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 4:24 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Oct 06, 2019 5:06 am

According To Southwest Pilots Boeing 737 MAX May Not Fly Until March.
https://simpleflying.com/southwest-737-max-march/
 
Virtual737
Posts: 619
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Oct 06, 2019 6:42 am

Have there been any resignations / firings at senior management or above levels directly related to the MAX situation? This could be at Boeing / FAA or anywhere else for that matter.
 
oOfredOo
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2016 9:07 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Oct 06, 2019 7:06 am

Revelation wrote:

In the incident covered by the "60 Minutes Australia" piece (I forget if it was JT or ET,7 I can dig up my post), I showed it was two minutes from take off till MCAS kicked in. One would hope the "immediate" reaction to stick shaker would be to do the above, no?



Yes, nothing in the first minute of the CVR transcript of ET302 hints at execution of the approach to stall NNM.
Question is: Would it have mattered? Because after “Check airspeed” and “return to desired flightpath” had been completed, the pilots would have done a crosscheck and concluded that airspeed was unreliable.
By that time this NNM is either considered complete or not applicable, so feel free to go flaps up. They would have gained a few 1000 feet, and a decent pilot would have requested a return to the airport, but then MCAS would have kicked in anyway.

I think it’s a stretch to interpret the NNM as “keep configuration as long as stick shaker goes off.”

BTW: the warning “excessive pitch trim may aggravate the condition or may result in loss of control at high structural loads.” should have better read “uncommanded excessive runaway trim by MCAS” in hindsight for this NNM to be useful.
 
oschkosch
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:41 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Oct 06, 2019 7:18 am

chiad wrote:
According To Southwest Pilots Boeing 737 MAX May Not Fly Until March.
https://simpleflying.com/southwest-737-max-march/



I wonder if any airline has already applied for and received compensation for the grounding from Boeing? Might be better to do so sooner than later!! Otherwise it may be too late!

There are reports that some airlines (pilots unions and airlines directly) have requested compensation, but was it actually paid yet?

https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/10/artic ... pensation/

Southwest CEO Gary Kelly stated last month the airline would share any reimbursement from Boeing with its pilots and other workers. Ferguson said the American pilots are “looking for the same thing” after overall flying hours have decreased as a result of MAX cancellation, the report said.


https://thepointsguy.co.uk/news/boeing- ... t-737-max/

Boeing and Icelandair have reached an agreement regarding the airline’s grounded Boeing 737 MAX planes. Boeing has agreed to pay the airline an undisclosed amount to help cover expenses the airline is incurring while the plane is grounded worldwide.

Icelandair’s statement says the current grounding has cost the airline around $140 million (~£112 million) so far. The agreement reached with Boeing will cover a “fraction” of that, according to the airline’s statement:

“As previously announced, the suspension of Icelandair’s Boeing 737-MAX aircraft has had negative financial effects on the Company…The Company has also previously announced that it has started discussions with Boeing regarding compensation for all the financial loss resulting from the suspension.

Icelandair has reached an interim agreement with Boeing regarding compensation which covers a fraction of the Company’s total loss due to the suspension of the Boeing 737-MAX aircraft…Icelandair Group will continue its discussions with Boeing regarding compensation due to the financial effects of the Boeing 737-MAX suspension.”
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 628
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Oct 06, 2019 8:11 am

Revelation wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
There is no stall recovery NNC or stick shaker NNC that I can find anywhere.

Not an actual NNC, but part of the QRH that lists the NNCs, Pg 345 of "737 Flight Crew Operations Manual", September 27, 2012:

Non-Normal Maneuvers
Approach to Stall or Stall Recovery
...
Immediately do the following at the first indication of stall (buffet or stick shaker).
...
Disconnect autopilot and autothrottle.
...
Do not change gear or flap configuration, except
• During liftoff, if flaps are up, call for flaps 1
.
Ref: http://jira.icesoft.org/secure/attachme ... %2027k.pdf

XRAYretired wrote:
In similar situation with NG (one of the four) they did not have the MCAS trap and were able to work through the problems.

In the incident covered by the "60 Minutes Australia" piece (I forget if it was JT or ET, I can dig up my post), I showed it was two minutes from take off till MCAS kicked in. One would hope the "immediate" reaction to stick shaker would be to do the above, no?

XRAYretired wrote:
NTSB have recommended that Boeing/FAA review other instances where immediate pilot action is expected in similar multiple alert/warning situations to assure that there are no other hazardous/catastrophic effects that may be fallen into.

Yes, as I wrote above, I agree with the NTSB recommendation.

Single side stick shaker is identifiable as erroneous.

On completion of recovery, you conveniently do not copy from the same QRH NNM:
• Complete the recovery:
• Check airspeed and adjust thrust as needed.
• Establish pitch attitude.
• Return to the desired flight path.
• Re-engage the autopilot and autothrottle if desired.

Of course would have been completed prior to MCAS activation later, yes?.

Ray
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 887
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Oct 06, 2019 8:32 am

oschkosch wrote:
Revelation wrote:
jmry888 wrote:
Revelation
The difference is what this man designed and took ownership of had the lives of people depending on it. You can look at all the articles you want but he has publicly said " that's my design i designed it " . At the end of the day he knew it wasn't up to the job , and went on his merry way until 2018 then he started blaming Boeing.

In other words you cannot find any articles where the man said what you claim he said.

It was not "his design" as you claim, it was something he "worked on" according to the cited articles.

jmry888 wrote:
I have no idea where you get conflict from. But several of my retired pilot friends have said they are done with this site. In their opinion you only entertain posts that bash Boeing . I am finding that i am starting to agree with them.

Funny, given that others suggest I'm a Boeing fan boy all the time.

Have you or your pilot friends ever considered that your system of values/ethics/judgements is not necessarily the same as every other human being on Earth?

Have you or your pilot friends ever considered that Boeing deserves a good bash for the poor MCAS 1.0 design, for not detecting its problems till after one airplane crashed, and for knowing that there was a problem to be addressed yet still opposing the grounding after the second crash?


Maybe his pilot friends are of the imaginary friends type?

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk


That's what I thought ;-)
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1649
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Oct 06, 2019 8:36 am

I also wonder if the stall recovery procedure is really what should have been applied. The pilots possibly correctly identified the stall warnings and stick shaker as faulty, no? Either that, or they were still confused by everything that was going on. To be clear, the aircraft was never stalling. Its problems related to man-vs-computer fight over the controls, speed, and terrain. The problem was that the pilots probably deciphered some of the status of the aircraft (like that it was not in stall) but not all of it (like that there was no other issue than the sensor and bad MCAS design). Or that by the time they figured everything out, it was too late because of the applied trim, difficulties in using the manual & electric trims, and high speed.

(Sad, so sad... lot of people died because of this. For the sake of their lost lives, lets at least get the proper and full fix to the issues that led to this.)
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13178
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Oct 06, 2019 10:17 am

I wonder what the optimistic expectations that MAX will have it's TC back in a few weeks and operations will restore before the end of the year are based on.

The 737 grandfathered emergency warning systems and certification requirements might not as good as might be expected from a new type i troduced in 2017.

Simplicity, commonality and pilots being in full control at some point starts to bite flight safety.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
ACATROYAL
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:25 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Oct 06, 2019 1:01 pm

Well I want to thank all of you for doing the impossible...
QT. 1 =130 PAGES
QT. 2 = 76 PAGES
QT. 3 = 88 PAGES
QT. 4 = 8 pages so far and counting...
Total so far = 302. I just got a free steak lunch from a colleague who swore that this topic wouldn't of reached that plateau (300 total pages)... well it did! Again thank you all
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3817
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Oct 06, 2019 2:23 pm

Revelation wrote:
AirlineCritic wrote:
Again, for the pilots-did-it crowd:

The accident did not result from the lack of a single failure of someone forgetting to do something, be it about maintenance action, "turning off MCAS", or controlling the speed of the airplane.



IMO, controlling speed of the aircraft falls into the "airmanship" / "situational awareness" bucket.

Not controlling airspeed made a bad situation worse.


Airspeed profile was not unusual for stick shaker stall warning condition, right upto first MCAS activation.

Airspeed only got out of control *AFTER* MCAS came alive. Airspeed getting out of control thus was just another result of:
a) clusterf..k cockpit Christmas tree warnings/alerts;
b) MCAS-runaway
c) and eventually overloaded pilots not understand what the hell was going on.

Late edit:
And for the poor pilot standards worlwide gang, I'll add:
d) pilots not sufficiently comfortable in manual flight ops as evidenced by engaging autopilot (which ironacally kills MCAS-runaway), and expecting A/T to keep airspeed within checks.
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3817
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Oct 06, 2019 2:43 pm

Revelation wrote:
AirlineCritic wrote:
Revelation, you are taking individual conditions (e.g., stick shaker) and concluding that pilots needed to run specific actions based on them. But you ignore the broader situation in the cockpit of having many other individual conditions/alarms going on, so the first task isn't necessarily to do something but to analyze what's going on. If I lit all the warnings lights on in your cockpit but only one of them is right, will you pick the right action?

Thing is, stick shaker still can happen early in flight on a NG, and neither Boeing or FAA are saying the grounding has anything to do with the amount of alarms/conditions/lights a stick shaker triggers, they are saying MCAS activation on top of stick shaker class alarms/conditions/lights does, yet we do expect NG pilots to react to stick shaker with Stall Recovery NNC, which would have avoided MCAS activation if they had.


I'm not sure, but I think that recent publications would suggest that the authorities (FAA, EASA TC?) might have some issues with alarms/warnings/alerts not being able to be reset (like stall warning and stickshaker). I think that could be added ot AirlineCritic's further excellent post.

We read in the interim reports that while crews may have identified the stall warning/stickaher as false, yet they kept on going off for the remaininder of the flight (including the infamolus LNI043 upto destination!). How would that work in the NG? I can't believe that the NG never had a AoA going rogue leading to (false) stall warnings?
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13178
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Oct 06, 2019 2:48 pm

Relaxing the rules
Boeing’s argument in the document, which has not been previously reported, rested most basically on the long service history of the 737. At the time the MAX’s exception was granted, that included more than 300 million hours in the air, almost all accumulated on routinely safe flights.

However, Boeing’s analysis also had to deal with the fact that the 737’s record in the previous 10 years included three fatal crashes where crew alerting was a contributing factor: the 2005 Helios Airways crash in Greece that killed 121 people; the 2009 Turkish Airlines crash in Holland with nine fatalities; and the 2008 Aeroflot-Nord crash in Russia, in which 88 died.

Boeing convinced the FAA that it had dealt with the three distinct issues in each of those crashes.

The submission from Boeing then cited an estimate of the cost of full compliance at more than $10 billion.

This staggering sum included not only the direct cost to Boeing of redesigning the airplane systems but also the expense of additional pilot training that new systems would require – costs that would have been borne by Boeing’s airline customers and would have made the MAX a much less attractive airplane to buy.

In April 2014, the FAA accepted Boeing’s argument that for the MAX, the safety benefit of full compliance with the crew-alerting regulations was “not commensurate with the costs necessary to comply"


https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/ ... ication-r/

I now understand where EASA additional Certification requirement resulting from "Too high crew workload and risk of crew confusion in some failure cases" come from.
Last edited by keesje on Sun Oct 06, 2019 3:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3817
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Oct 06, 2019 2:53 pm

Revelation wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
There is no stall recovery NNC or stick shaker NNC that I can find anywhere.

Not an actual NNC, but part of the QRH that lists the NNCs, Pg 345 of "737 Flight Crew Operations Manual", September 27, 2012:

Non-Normal Maneuvers
Approach to Stall or Stall Recovery
...
Immediately do the following at the first indication of stall (buffet or stick shaker).
...
Disconnect autopilot and autothrottle.
...
Do not change gear or flap configuration, except
• During liftoff, if flaps are up, call for flaps 1
.
Ref: http://jira.icesoft.org/secure/attachme ... %2027k.pdf

XRAYretired wrote:
In similar situation with NG (one of the four) they did not have the MCAS trap and were able to work through the problems.

In the incident covered by the "60 Minutes Australia" piece (I forget if it was JT or ET, I can dig up my post), I showed it was two minutes from take off till MCAS kicked in. One would hope the "immediate" reaction to stick shaker would be to do the above, no?


And that QRH ends with:
Non-Normal Maneuvers - Approach to Stall or Stall Recovery

. . .
Complete the recovery:
• Check airspeed and adjust thrust as needed.
• Establish pitch attitude.
• Return to the desired flight path.
• Re-engage the autopilot and autothrottle if desired.


One could consider that following establishent of the stall warning as erranous, to conclude the "Approach to Stall or Stall Recovery Procdure", that autopilot and autotrhottle can be re-engaged. Or would you consider that to bein conflict with the procedure as mentioned?
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1687
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Oct 06, 2019 3:31 pm

marvindroid wrote:
Muilenburg Economic club of New York, 02.oct 2019.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh0KK1dv2-Q&t=2248s

36:07 - Talks about software fix.

He says they added triple redundancy to MCAS.

1. Data from two vanes.
2. MCAS can only operate omce per flight
3. Reduced control power of MCAS.

How can he claim that this is adding triple redundancy to MCAS? 2. and 3. are just software tweeks, not redundancies in the system?

Probably some more details to dissect from the interview, but I'll leave that to someone else.


Obvious question, if it can only operate once per flight and has reduced control for the fix, why was it different originally? Why did they not decide on reduced control from the start and only one operation per flight? That seems to me to open a new can of worms that it was designed to keep closed.


Virtual737 wrote:
Have there been any resignations / firings at senior management or above levels directly related to the MAX situation? This could be at Boeing / FAA or anywhere else for that matter.


Because the pilots could have saved it? :sarcastic: As long as that narrative is pushed then there needs to be less scrutiny at the top of either organizations.
 
User avatar
PixelFlight
Posts: 649
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:09 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Oct 06, 2019 4:06 pm

enzo011 wrote:
marvindroid wrote:
Muilenburg Economic club of New York, 02.oct 2019.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh0KK1dv2-Q&t=2248s

36:07 - Talks about software fix.

He says they added triple redundancy to MCAS.

1. Data from two vanes.
2. MCAS can only operate omce per flight
3. Reduced control power of MCAS.

How can he claim that this is adding triple redundancy to MCAS? 2. and 3. are just software tweeks, not redundancies in the system?

Probably some more details to dissect from the interview, but I'll leave that to someone else.


Obvious question, if it can only operate once per flight and has reduced control for the fix, why was it different originally? Why did they not decide on reduced control from the start and only one operation per flight? That seems to me to open a new can of worms that it was designed to keep closed.

I believe the "per flight" was a confusion.
MCAS will be limited to operate only for one cycle per high AoA event, rather than multiple. According to previous sources.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21404
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Oct 06, 2019 4:35 pm

XRAYretired wrote:
Single side stick shaker is identifiable as erroneous.

On completion of recovery, you conveniently do not copy from the same QRH NNM:
• Complete the recovery:
• Check airspeed and adjust thrust as needed.
• Establish pitch attitude.
• Return to the desired flight path.
• Re-engage the autopilot and autothrottle if desired.

Of course would have been completed prior to MCAS activation later, yes?.

PW100 wrote:
One could consider that following establishent of the stall warning as erranous, to conclude the "Approach to Stall or Stall Recovery Procdure", that autopilot and autotrhottle can be re-engaged. Or would you consider that to bein conflict with the procedure as mentioned?

If your conclusion is that the stall warning is erroneous after performing Stall Recovery NNM, you would not re-engage a/p or a/t due to either
    (a) Unreliable Airspeed NNC (pg 118)
    (b) Good airmanship: Why engage a/p or a/t if you now believe the systems are not working correctly?

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1421471&p=21372535&hilit=shaker#p21372513 gave us:

The order of NNC should have been:
    - Stall Recovery (perhaps performed as speed was increased to 250 KIAS but Flaps retracted with an active stick shaker)
    - Unreliable Airspeed (not performed as pitch was not increased to 10 deg and power was not reduced to 80% N1)
    - Runaway Stabilizer (performed but incorrectly as the airplane was out of trim when the Stab Trim Cutout switches were thrown)
Last edited by Revelation on Sun Oct 06, 2019 4:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.
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
767333ER
Posts: 977
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Oct 06, 2019 4:36 pm

AABusDrvr wrote:
767333ER wrote:
I have always believed the 737 has a severely flawed and poorly set up crew alerting system, even for a piece of 1960s engineering. All you have to do is look at the other aircraft designed in the similar era; for example, the DC-9 has a central caution/warning panel that can easily be checked rather than having to scan the entire overhead panel and the useless little “6 pack” caution indicator panel on the glare shield. The aural warnings on that plane are also concise unlike the 737’s ambiguous sound effects for a lack of better descriptor, which are used for more than one purpose in some cases. The Dash-8, yet another old (yet a little newer) example of a better set up caution/warning system.

Realistically too many steps are involved in figuring out what master caution you are getting or what the aural warning is telling you (unless it’s GWPS or a TCAS RA). I always allude to a video that was taken on one of the first flights of Southwest’s MAX where they could not operate the flight with that plane because they had a maintenance light illuminate and I quote the captain: “there’s a number of reasons why that light can illuminate” which is not something we should ever be saying about any machinery built these days. Heck it is easier to troubleshoot a 90s Honda if you knew what you were doing!



While the 737 caution/warning system is showing it's age, it was state of the art when the airplane was designed. It's not modern or flashy, but it still does what it needs to do. The master caution light is right in your normal field of view to get your attention, any associated illuminated light on a "six pack" tells you the affected system, and where to look. The only aural warning that uses the same sound for different things is the takeoff config warning/cabin altitude warning horn. On the ground, it's a config warning, airborne, cain altitude. Not really confusing at all.

The MAINT light is a really poor example for trying to make your point. It illuminates only on the ground, and means exactly what it says. There is a non dispatchable fault in one of several systems. The only pilot action required is to have maintenance come and troubleshoot. They have access to various diagnostics and tests via the FMC, that the crews don't use, to figure out what's causing the light. It replaces the PSEU light on the NG.

You lost me at claiming the caution system on the 737 was state-of-the-art in its day as I already proved that compared to what Douglas was offering at the time it wasn’t. The DC-9 had a central caution/warning panel with a glare shield light telling you you have a master caution or master warning, not to different to how EICAS works these days. They also had specific verbal aural warnings, nowadays that’s not the best choice but it’s better than the ambiguous “fart, fart, fart” takeoff AND cabin altitude warning. In a system that relies so heavily on nonspecific cues, any sort of warning should never double as two different things. The only time this is acceptable is to have a generic master caution or master warning chime on an EICAS setup. The method to identify a master caution demonstrates one of the problems, there’s the extra unneeded step of checking the 6 pack as they call it to know where to look on the convoluted overhead and it’s worse that the left and right 6 pack aren’t the same. The point of a CAS is to be as concise possible, yet this system is not concise as possible as it adds extra pointless steps which are more places where someone can go wrong. It does work and it has worked, but you cannot logically argue without fallacy that this was the best available technology when the 737 was new because again the DC-9 among others proves it was not, and if it was not the best why weren’t they required to put the best, new planes sure are required to do so now.

The MAINT is not concerning in this particular case, but it just more supporting evidence that shows how much of a mess the 737’s design philosophy is. MAINT light so now we are stuck unable to troubleshoot anything until maintenance comes, fine, but when they do come they don’t have a much easier time figuring it out. There’s a reason mechanics at an airline like Air Canada that have been working on A320s, 777s, and 787s for a good chunk of their career haven’t liked the 737 since it’s such a step backward in trouble shooting and doing maintenance.

The 737 has been safe this long because the crews operating it have been relatively safe, not because it has safety features. This philosophy was acceptable in the past, but with better available technology now, it should no longer be acceptable. Of course ideally crews should be even safer than they are now, but there should not ever be a plane that relies human factors like this as much as the 737 does anymore because if it even causes one more crash those people died because someone decided that the bottom line is more important than engineering a relatively dummy proof design.
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21404
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Oct 06, 2019 5:01 pm

767333ER wrote:
The 737 has been safe this long because the crews operating it have been relatively safe, not because it has safety features. This philosophy was acceptable in the past, but with better available technology now, it should no longer be acceptable. Of course ideally crews should be even safer than they are now, but there should not ever be a plane that relies human factors like this as much as the 737 does anymore because if it even causes one more crash those people died because someone decided that the bottom line is more important than engineering a relatively dummy proof design.

It will be interesting to see if this point of view holds sway.

Thing is, stick shaker still can happen early in flight on a NG, and neither Boeing or FAA (but perhaps not NTSB) are saying the grounding has anything to do with the amount of alarms/conditions/lights a stick shaker itself triggers, they are saying MCAS activation on top of stick shaker class alarms/conditions/lights does, yet we still expect NG pilots to react to stick shaker correctly.

Given NG and MAX have similar "human factors" with regards to alerting, if we damn one of them we damn both, and I'm not sure the regulators are ready to go that far. It's certainly reasonable to suggest that they should, if it is being shown that pilots cannot work their way through the checklists.
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
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8508
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Oct 06, 2019 5:25 pm

Revelation wrote:
767333ER wrote:
The 737 has been safe this long because the crews operating it have been relatively safe, not because it has safety features. This philosophy was acceptable in the past, but with better available technology now, it should no longer be acceptable. Of course ideally crews should be even safer than they are now, but there should not ever be a plane that relies human factors like this as much as the 737 does anymore because if it even causes one more crash those people died because someone decided that the bottom line is more important than engineering a relatively dummy proof design.

It will be interesting to see if this point of view holds sway.

Thing is, stick shaker still can happen early in flight on a NG, and neither Boeing or FAA (but perhaps not NTSB) are saying the grounding has anything to do with the amount of alarms/conditions/lights a stick shaker itself triggers, they are saying MCAS activation on top of stick shaker class alarms/conditions/lights does, yet we still expect NG pilots to react to stick shaker correctly.

Given NG and MAX have similar "human factors" with regards to alerting, if we damn one of them we damn both, and I'm not sure the regulators are ready to go that far. It's certainly reasonable to suggest that they should, if it is being shown that pilots cannot work their way through the checklists.


It is not a got reason to keep a bad alerting system just because it has been used for a long time. It is completely uninteresting if a change now will damn the NG. All other Boeing frames use the EICAS, does that damn the NG too?
It is time to make the change.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9046
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Oct 06, 2019 5:33 pm

enzo011 wrote:
Obvious question, if it can only operate once per flight and has reduced control for the fix, why was it different originally? Why did they not decide on reduced control from the start and only one operation per flight? That seems to me to open a new can of worms that it was designed to keep closed.

My take would be that what the non-fatal Lion Air crew did would no longer be allowed, if an a/c has an MCAS incident and it has to be disabled, the procedure will be to divert to the nearest runway, we can't believe that the only change will be to the 737 memory items?
 
oschkosch
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:41 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Oct 06, 2019 5:56 pm

oschkosch wrote:
chiad wrote:
According To Southwest Pilots Boeing 737 MAX May Not Fly Until March.
https://simpleflying.com/southwest-737-max-march/



I wonder if any airline has already applied for and received compensation for the grounding from Boeing? Might be better to do so sooner than later!! Otherwise it may be too late!

There are reports that some airlines (pilots unions and airlines directly) have requested compensation, but was it actually paid yet?

https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/10/artic ... pensation/

Southwest CEO Gary Kelly stated last month the airline would share any reimbursement from Boeing with its pilots and other workers. Ferguson said the American pilots are “looking for the same thing” after overall flying hours have decreased as a result of MAX cancellation, the report said.


https://thepointsguy.co.uk/news/boeing- ... t-737-max/

Boeing and Icelandair have reached an agreement regarding the airline’s grounded Boeing 737 MAX planes. Boeing has agreed to pay the airline an undisclosed amount to help cover expenses the airline is incurring while the plane is grounded worldwide.

Icelandair’s statement says the current grounding has cost the airline around $140 million (~£112 million) so far. The agreement reached with Boeing will cover a “fraction” of that, according to the airline’s statement:

“As previously announced, the suspension of Icelandair’s Boeing 737-MAX aircraft has had negative financial effects on the Company…The Company has also previously announced that it has started discussions with Boeing regarding compensation for all the financial loss resulting from the suspension.

Icelandair has reached an interim agreement with Boeing regarding compensation which covers a fraction of the Company’s total loss due to the suspension of the Boeing 737-MAX aircraft…Icelandair Group will continue its discussions with Boeing regarding compensation due to the financial effects of the Boeing 737-MAX suspension.”
Does anyone have some insight into this? Has Boeing already paid out millions or billions to airlines?

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk
 
hivue
Posts: 1941
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Oct 06, 2019 9:27 pm

767333ER wrote:
The 737 has been safe this long because the crews operating it have been relatively safe, not because it has safety features. This philosophy was acceptable in the past, but with better available technology now, it should no longer be acceptable.


In his excellent book Flying Concorde, first published in 1981, former British Airways Flight Manager (Technical) Brian Calvert, who was responsible for accepting the airplane for the airline and for route proving, observes --

"I had learned early on in the development business that the fifteen years or so of an airliner's life reveal failings in design which tend not to show up on shorter assessments. In particular, any poor human engineering of instruments or systems which encourage people to make mistakes would somehow seek the mistakes out."

When describing difficulties with the manufacturer regarding suitability of the autopilot cruise phase he writes --

"Their view seemed to be that the excursions caused by sudden temperature changes could be handled quite easily by well traind pilots, and in a sense this was true. We were not sure, however, that this would always be the case, over many years, long after the glamour and excitement of the early flights had worn off."
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3817
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Oct 06, 2019 9:30 pm

Revelation wrote:
If your conclusion is that the stall warning is erroneous after performing Stall Recovery NNM, you would not re-engage a/p or a/t due to either
    (a) Unreliable Airspeed NNC (pg 118)
    (b) Good airmanship: Why engage a/p or a/t if you now believe the systems are not working correctly?

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1421471&p=21372535&hilit=shaker#p21372513 gave us:

The order of NNC should have been:
    - Stall Recovery (perhaps performed as speed was increased to 250 KIAS but Flaps retracted with an active stick shaker)
    - Unreliable Airspeed (not performed as pitch was not increased to 10 deg and power was not reduced to 80% N1)
    - Runaway Stabilizer (performed but incorrectly as the airplane was out of trim when the Stab Trim Cutout switches were thrown)


I have wondered about the unreliable airspeed, I guess the final report and CVR transcript will provide more insight into crew performance.

I fail to understand why you continue to hammer the "Flaps retracted with an active stick shaker", when it has been established that it was erroneous.

With respect to the runaway Stabilizer: we had hundreds of pages of discussion whether it was appropriate or not (i.e. continuous vs intermittent).
Also, you make it sound that it was crew failure to get the airplane in trim prior to hitting the switches. I had made a point that I believe that the crew were out of options (for reasons we don’t fully understand yet) to get the plane within trim, and that they had no choice but accepting the out of trim situation when hitting the switches. I'm not yet ready to see that as crew failure. I wonder why you are ready to blame the crew for this without knowing all the fact, as you seem like a fact based person to me.
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
AABusDrvr
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 6:48 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Sun Oct 06, 2019 10:17 pm

767333ER wrote:
AABusDrvr wrote:
767333ER wrote:
I have always believed the 737 has a severely flawed and poorly set up crew alerting system, even for a piece of 1960s engineering. All you have to do is look at the other aircraft designed in the similar era; for example, the DC-9 has a central caution/warning panel that can easily be checked rather than having to scan the entire overhead panel and the useless little “6 pack” caution indicator panel on the glare shield. The aural warnings on that plane are also concise unlike the 737’s ambiguous sound effects for a lack of better descriptor, which are used for more than one purpose in some cases. The Dash-8, yet another old (yet a little newer) example of a better set up caution/warning system.

Realistically too many steps are involved in figuring out what master caution you are getting or what the aural warning is telling you (unless it’s GWPS or a TCAS RA). I always allude to a video that was taken on one of the first flights of Southwest’s MAX where they could not operate the flight with that plane because they had a maintenance light illuminate and I quote the captain: “there’s a number of reasons why that light can illuminate” which is not something we should ever be saying about any machinery built these days. Heck it is easier to troubleshoot a 90s Honda if you knew what you were doing!



While the 737 caution/warning system is showing it's age, it was state of the art when the airplane was designed. It's not modern or flashy, but it still does what it needs to do. The master caution light is right in your normal field of view to get your attention, any associated illuminated light on a "six pack" tells you the affected system, and where to look. The only aural warning that uses the same sound for different things is the takeoff config warning/cabin altitude warning horn. On the ground, it's a config warning, airborne, cain altitude. Not really confusing at all.

The MAINT light is a really poor example for trying to make your point. It illuminates only on the ground, and means exactly what it says. There is a non dispatchable fault in one of several systems. The only pilot action required is to have maintenance come and troubleshoot. They have access to various diagnostics and tests via the FMC, that the crews don't use, to figure out what's causing the light. It replaces the PSEU light on the NG.

You lost me at claiming the caution system on the 737 was state-of-the-art in its day as I already proved that compared to what Douglas was offering at the time it wasn’t. The DC-9 had a central caution/warning panel with a glare shield light telling you you have a master caution or master warning, not to different to how EICAS works these days. They also had specific verbal aural warnings, nowadays that’s not the best choice but it’s better than the ambiguous “fart, fart, fart” takeoff AND cabin altitude warning. In a system that relies so heavily on nonspecific cues, any sort of warning should never double as two different things. The only time this is acceptable is to have a generic master caution or master warning chime on an EICAS setup. The method to identify a master caution demonstrates one of the problems, there’s the extra unneeded step of checking the 6 pack as they call it to know where to look on the convoluted overhead and it’s worse that the left and right 6 pack aren’t the same. The point of a CAS is to be as concise possible, yet this system is not concise as possible as it adds extra pointless steps which are more places where someone can go wrong. It does work and it has worked, but you cannot logically argue without fallacy that this was the best available technology when the 737 was new because again the DC-9 among others proves it was not, and if it was not the best why weren’t they required to put the best, new planes sure are required to do so now.

The MAINT is not concerning in this particular case, but it just more supporting evidence that shows how much of a mess the 737’s design philosophy is. MAINT light so now we are stuck unable to troubleshoot anything until maintenance comes, fine, but when they do come they don’t have a much easier time figuring it out. There’s a reason mechanics at an airline like Air Canada that have been working on A320s, 777s, and 787s for a good chunk of their career haven’t liked the 737 since it’s such a step backward in trouble shooting and doing maintenance.

The 737 has been safe this long because the crews operating it have been relatively safe, not because it has safety features. This philosophy was acceptable in the past, but with better available technology now, it should no longer be acceptable. Of course ideally crews should be even safer than they are now, but there should not ever be a plane that relies human factors like this as much as the 737 does anymore because if it even causes one more crash those people died because someone decided that the bottom line is more important than engineering a relatively dummy proof design.


I flew the DC-9 for just shy of 4,000 hours, so I’m pretty well versed in the differences in the designs. In real life, neither one is better, or worse than the other. They both accomplish what they are designed to do.

I’ve also spent many thousands of hours flying airplanes with EICAS and about 1,000 in the Airbus 320 series. I don’t feel at all like I’m being short changed any information I need to safely fly the airplane, or deal with system failures, with the 737 system.
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 628
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:30 am

Revelation wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
Single side stick shaker is identifiable as erroneous.

On completion of recovery, you conveniently do not copy from the same QRH NNM:
• Complete the recovery:
• Check airspeed and adjust thrust as needed.
• Establish pitch attitude.
• Return to the desired flight path.
• Re-engage the autopilot and autothrottle if desired.

Of course would have been completed prior to MCAS activation later, yes?.

PW100 wrote:
One could consider that following establishent of the stall warning as erranous, to conclude the "Approach to Stall or Stall Recovery Procdure", that autopilot and autotrhottle can be re-engaged. Or would you consider that to bein conflict with the procedure as mentioned?

If your conclusion is that the stall warning is erroneous after performing Stall Recovery NNM, you would not re-engage a/p or a/t due to either
    (a) Unreliable Airspeed NNC (pg 118)
    (b) Good airmanship: Why engage a/p or a/t if you now believe the systems are not working correctly?

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1421471&p=21372535&hilit=shaker#p21372513 gave us:

The order of NNC should have been:
    - Stall Recovery (perhaps performed as speed was increased to 250 KIAS but Flaps retracted with an active stick shaker)
    - Unreliable Airspeed (not performed as pitch was not increased to 10 deg and power was not reduced to 80% N1)
    - Runaway Stabilizer (performed but incorrectly as the airplane was out of trim when the Stab Trim Cutout switches were thrown)


Back in the real world, the four reported situations of single side stick shaker, all maintained climb and maintained or increased thrust. Additionally three of them attempted to engage A/P.

Perhaps consider the remainder of the NNC of the QRH you reference

7 Refer to the Flight With Unreliable Airspeed table in the Performance Inflight chapter and set the pitch attitude and thrust setting for the current airplane configuration and phase of flight.
8 When in trim and stabilized, cross check the captain, first officer and standby airspeed indicators. An airspeed indication that differs by more than 20 knots or 0.03 Mach from the airspeed shown in the table should be considered unreliable.
9 Choose one:
Reliable airspeed indication can be determined:
Use the most reliable airspeed source for the remainder of the flight.
Go to step 10
Reliable airspeed indication can not be determined:
Go to step 12
10 Flight director switch (reliable side) . . . . . . . .ON
11 Autopilot (reliable side) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Engage
12 Set pitch attitude and thrust from the Flight With Unreliable Airspeed table in the Performance Inflight chapter for the airplane configuration and phase of flight, as needed.


(Performance section)
General General - Flight With Unreliable Airspeed Flight With Unreliable Airspeed/ Turbulent Air Penetration Altitude and/or vertical speed indications may also be unreliable.
Climb (280/.76) Flaps Up, Set Max Climb Thrust

Since we don't have either the JT or ET QRH to hand, perhaps consider a QRH from another operator:

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.  

Performance Inflight - QRH Chapter PI-QRH General Section 10
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

Not as straight forward as some would like us to believe, is it? Stop trying to blame the pilots who were overwhelmed.

Ray
 
uta999
Posts: 741
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:10 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:53 am

Revelation wrote:
767333ER wrote:
The 737 has been safe this long because the crews operating it have been relatively safe, not because it has safety features. This philosophy was acceptable in the past, but with better available technology now, it should no longer be acceptable. Of course ideally crews should be even safer than they are now, but there should not ever be a plane that relies human factors like this as much as the 737 does anymore because if it even causes one more crash those people died because someone decided that the bottom line is more important than engineering a relatively dummy proof design.

It will be interesting to see if this point of view holds sway.

Thing is, stick shaker still can happen early in flight on a NG, and neither Boeing or FAA (but perhaps not NTSB) are saying the grounding has anything to do with the amount of alarms/conditions/lights a stick shaker itself triggers, they are saying MCAS activation on top of stick shaker class alarms/conditions/lights does, yet we still expect NG pilots to react to stick shaker correctly.

Given NG and MAX have similar "human factors" with regards to alerting, if we damn one of them we damn both, and I'm not sure the regulators are ready to go that far. It's certainly reasonable to suggest that they should, if it is being shown that pilots cannot work their way through the checklists.


The regulators all know that even though the NG might light up like a Christmas tree when *hit happens, it does not roller-coaster into the ground like the MAX did twice. The NG predictably does what it is supposed to. The MAX, not so much.
Your computer just got better
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1752
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:55 am

Revelation wrote:
So startle factor is not unique to Boeing or MAX, thus not going to be a factor in the MAX un-grounding, no more than it will lead to an A320 grounding because its pilots get startled when both engines ingest birds and stop delivering thrust.

Sully (and other US pilots, who experienced MCAS in sim) absolutely meant the startle factor of the MAX and nothing else.

Revelation wrote:
(1) Stick shaker -> (2) Stall Recovery NNC -> (3) Don't retract flaps -> (4) No MCAS 1.0 activation.

Yes, (4) was not known till after the Lion Air EAD was written, but the first three were, and still are the recommended action for stick shaker on all those thousands of NGs flying around today, no?

You are making a beginners mistake. There was no "stick shaker". It was stick shaker only on one side. That only shows, that something somewhere is wrong. It does certainly not mean without doubt, that they were approaching a stall. It would be the dumbest thing to stubbornly apply the stall recovery procedure in that case. From the power setting, the pitch and the speed indications they had, it was clear that thinking about stall recovery was not due.

Isn't it funny, that those who want to throw the pilots under the bus don't even get the things right, that those pilots did get right (that no stall was imminent)?

And isn't it funny that the pilots get accused for not handling correctly a too slowly flying plane (stall imminent) and a too fast flying plane nearly in the same post by the same crowd?

No, this only shows the conflicting failures indications the pilots got on the MAX. And how arrogant and bigheaded those are, who claim that surviving these emergencies would have been easy.

On these flights the MAX has been a death trap, not recoverable by otherwise sufficiently proficient crews. The stats, that I did on page 2 of this thread clearly show this (the MAX has a 33 higher crash rate than the norm, making the contribution of the aircraft 260 times higher than we should expect nowadays!!).
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
asdf
Posts: 437
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:03 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:10 am

XRAYretired wrote:
(Performance section)
General General - Flight With Unreliable Airspeed Flight With Unreliable Airspeed/ Turbulent Air Penetration Altitude and/or vertical speed indications may also be unreliable.
Climb (280/.76) Flaps Up, Set Max Climb Thrust
.................
Stop trying to blame the pilots who were overwhelmed.


Climb (280/.76) Flaps Up, Set Max Climb Thrust


the preceding posting should be pinned
it was posted in similar form twice before (even with the original pages from the checklist).

The ET pilots have completely followed the checklists,
Nevertheless there are hundreds of pages of posthum bashing through the MAX fanboys

shame on you
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12496
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:39 am

zeke wrote:
MSPNWA wrote:
And they have the crashes to prove the high standards, right?

Can you name a US carrier that has been around as long as ET (around 75 years) that has not had a crash ?

I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2324
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:26 am

I think there is one thing that is becoming clear from all of this.

The FAA should hand over all responsibility for regulation to the NTSB.

It cannot be that the organisation responsible for promotion of aviation is also the overseer of regulations for aviation. A clear conflict of interest.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9046
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:43 am

Amiga500 wrote:
The FAA should hand over all responsibility for regulation to the NTSB.

It cannot be that the organisation responsible for promotion of aviation is also the overseer of regulations for aviation. A clear conflict of interest.

The reason why folks have so much faith and confidence in the NTSB is because it is not responsible for anything other that investigating accidents and making recommendations.
If they were responsible for investigations and regulations what exactly would be different? We would have an organization that has the authority to implement decisions that have great financial impact on industry, somehow you think that industry will just sit there and say OK? Lobbyist are working on the congress who make the laws and having them influence how the FAA operates, do we really think they will not focus on the NTSB?

The structure between the FAA and NTSB has survived good and bad people along with political decisions, I would leave the NTSB alone.
The FAA, how about making them subservient to some other Federal Body rather than being the huge financial hole that it is?
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2324
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Oct 07, 2019 11:09 am

par13del wrote:
If they were responsible for investigations and regulations what exactly would be different? We would have an organization that has the authority to implement decisions that have great financial impact on industry, somehow you think that industry will just sit there and say OK? Lobbyist are working on the congress who make the laws and having them influence how the FAA operates, do we really think they will not focus on the NTSB?


NTSB solely responsible for safety. So they don't have folks in their ear about how this will cost X, Y and Z which will stunt their growth.

NTSB says not safe, fix it - here are the regulations.

If the OEMs want to lobby, the easy way out for NTSB is to threaten a public release of information. [Taking Boeing as an example, but it could be others]

"Boeing, the company who state safety is their number 1 priority and the company that brought you the 737MAX, have been in constant contact with us over the past several months, seeking to get exemptions or ill-conceived amendments to safety regulations that protect you, the American public. We do not agree to these exemptions or amendments, however we are coming under pressure from Congress(wo)man X/Y/Z to yield. The unredacted transcripts of conversations are available on our website at www.ntsb.gov/lobbyingdisclosure/ (or wherever)"


How do you think Boeing's share price would react to that? How do you think Congress(wo)man X/Y/Z's next election would fare?
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9046
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Oct 07, 2019 12:37 pm

The NTSB has determined that the trim wheels on the 737NG / MAX are too small and difficult to use, they should fix it now since it is unsafe and all NG's / MAX should be grounded immediately until it repaired.

Let's think about that for a second.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17476
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Oct 07, 2019 1:09 pm

par13del wrote:
The NTSB has determined that the trim wheels on the 737NG / MAX are too small and difficult to use, they should fix it now since it is unsafe and all NG's / MAX should be grounded immediately until it repaired.

Let's think about that for a second.


If the NTSB did have that level of authority from years ago, then maybe neither the too-small trim wheel nor the whole MAX fiasco would ever have happened in the first place? Maybe grandfathering wouldn't be a thing either.

Let's think about that for a second.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
bgm
Posts: 2173
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:37 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Oct 07, 2019 1:15 pm

scbriml wrote:
par13del wrote:
The NTSB has determined that the trim wheels on the 737NG / MAX are too small and difficult to use, they should fix it now since it is unsafe and all NG's / MAX should be grounded immediately until it repaired.

Let's think about that for a second.


If the NTSB did have that level of authority from years ago, then maybe neither the too-small trim wheel nor the whole MAX fiasco would ever have happened in the first place? Maybe grandfathering wouldn't be a thing either.

Let's think about that for a second.


If Boeing hadn't cut corners in a rush to get this plane out, 346 people would still be alive.

Let's think about that for a second.
████ ███ █ ███████ ██ █ █████ ██ ████ [redacted]
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9046
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Oct 07, 2019 1:22 pm

scbriml wrote:
par13del wrote:
The NTSB has determined that the trim wheels on the 737NG / MAX are too small and difficult to use, they should fix it now since it is unsafe and all NG's / MAX should be grounded immediately until it repaired.

Let's think about that for a second.


If the NTSB did have that level of authority from years ago, then maybe neither the too-small trim wheel nor the whole MAX fiasco would ever have happened in the first place? Maybe grandfathering wouldn't be a thing either.

Let's think about that for a second.

So thinking about it, what would have made the difference, why would the NTSB have been immune from the influence of the law makers who created the NTSB?
Prior to the last 10 or so years, the FAA has been held in high esteem in how it has overseen the production of a/c in the USA, let's wonder why.

Bottom line is that the Congress of the USA created the FAA the NTSB and has facilitated the influence that lobbyist have had on the bodies, the NTSB is only immune because they have no authority to implement their safety recommendations, as in all things, follow the money.
Last edited by par13del on Mon Oct 07, 2019 1:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
asdf
Posts: 437
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:03 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Oct 07, 2019 1:25 pm

the US do not need an NTSB to take over the FAA's tasks (and there fore have to check and controll itself what is premium BS), but the US need an independent regulator, as in the other states of the world too.

The costs for this authority has - as well as in the other states of this world - to take over those these caused. These are the manufacturers who wants to certify the aircrafts.

At present, it is the case that the American aircraft industry receives a hidden subsidy because the US state indirectly assumes the costs of the certification.

And because the US wanted to save money, there were several hundred deaths ....

This all is not a question of NTSB or FAA, but a question of control, grant, influence, lobbying, support and networking
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8725
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Oct 07, 2019 1:38 pm

asdf wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
(Performance section)
General General - Flight With Unreliable Airspeed Flight With Unreliable Airspeed/ Turbulent Air Penetration Altitude and/or vertical speed indications may also be unreliable.
Climb (280/.76) Flaps Up, Set Max Climb Thrust
.................
Stop trying to blame the pilots who were overwhelmed.


Climb (280/.76) Flaps Up, Set Max Climb Thrust


the preceding posting should be pinned
it was posted in similar form twice before (even with the original pages from the checklist).

The ET pilots have completely followed the checklists,
Nevertheless there are hundreds of pages of posthum bashing through the MAX fanboys

shame on you


The problem is they tried to fly pitch and power, but controlling pitch became a problem thanks to MCAS inputs.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Oct 07, 2019 3:19 pm

What if they put a 10 year time limit on grandfathering? All 737 must be parked in 10 years?
If the grandfathered features are somewhat risky, maybe they should think about winding down and ending production of the 737. It might be unrealistic to ground all 737 today, but 10 years is a good heads up.
 
asdf
Posts: 437
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:03 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Oct 07, 2019 3:30 pm

seahawk wrote:
The problem is they tried to fly pitch and power, but controlling pitch became a problem thanks to MCAS inputs.


If they simply failed because of the MCAS inputs, hat would be the (relatively) "good" news
Because you can fix most of these problems with a MCAS 2.0

The bad news would be if the main cause of failing was the problematic MAX flight characteristics, which left them with only a very narrow band of attitude to safe that bird, but the crew had to leave this very narrow band because MCAS kept firing in between.
You cant fix this with software or with electronic hardware.
Because next time its not MCAS disturbing the safe flight process, but its the weather, or a otherwise MX-problem, maybe a go-around ...
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9046
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Oct 07, 2019 3:34 pm

DenverTed wrote:
What if they put a 10 year time limit on grandfathering? All 737 must be parked in 10 years?
If the grandfathered features are somewhat risky, maybe they should think about winding down and ending production of the 737. It might be unrealistic to ground all 737 today, but 10 years is a good heads up.

Is this before or after we allow the owners of 737's who have the pickle fork issue to sue because they will not get the full use of their 737's?

When we review the current Boeing line up of a/c, where do we have grandfathering issues, just the 737 or is it also in the 767, 777X, 787?
If we are going to limit grandfathering to 10 years, do we want it across the board for all OEM's or just Boeing and more specifically the 737?
 
asdf
Posts: 437
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:03 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Oct 07, 2019 3:45 pm

DenverTed wrote:
What if they put a 10 year time limit on grandfathering? All 737 must be parked in 10 years?
If the grandfathered features are somewhat risky, maybe they should think about winding down and ending production of the 737. It might be unrealistic to ground all 737 today, but 10 years is a good heads up.


grandfathering itself does not seem so bad
on the first thought one may think "oh dear, this is 60 years old technologie i fly on"
but actually it seem to be safe, because if you look at the statistics, the 737 plays nearly in the same league as other pretty modern planes

Abuse of the grandfathering happens in technical areas where one calls on the previous safe function of a unit, but at the same time completely changes this area. Or a completely new technology is linked with an existing one. There are no empirical values ​​that guarantee the safe function, therefore such links should not be able to grandfather.
 
User avatar
aerolimani
Posts: 1208
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:46 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Oct 07, 2019 7:08 pm

There used to be a thread about grandfathering too, but it’s locked now.

To be fair, one has to look at pretty every major manufacturer when it come to grandfathering.

One could fairly easily argue that putting a time limit on grandfathering is using a sledgehammer to kill a fly. And then, others would say that 346 dead means it’s more like a fly that’s carrying cholera, salmonella, tuberculosis, and typhoid fever, plus a few nasty bacterial strains, and thus deserves a sledgehammer.

Apart from the MAX disaster, I think grandfathering has generally proven itself to be a positive for the flying public. In many cases, it’s possible to argue that subsequent generations have become safer than the original models they descend from.

Perhaps some kind of combination of the number of generations permitted, and the number of years since original certification, might work. I won’t begin to guess at a number. One interesting aspect would be the degree of predictability it would bring to the competitive market. You would know when the competition must come up with a new clean sheet. The only surprise would be if they started one earlier than expected. It’s hard to imagine, though, a scenario where this didn’t cause flying to become more expensive.
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 628
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Oct 07, 2019 7:46 pm

aerolimani wrote:
There used to be a thread about grandfathering too, but it’s locked now.

To be fair, one has to look at pretty every major manufacturer when it come to grandfathering.

One could fairly easily argue that putting a time limit on grandfathering is using a sledgehammer to kill a fly. And then, others would say that 346 dead means it’s more like a fly that’s carrying cholera, salmonella, tuberculosis, and typhoid fever, plus a few nasty bacterial strains, and thus deserves a sledgehammer.

Apart from the MAX disaster, I think grandfathering has generally proven itself to be a positive for the flying public. In many cases, it’s possible to argue that subsequent generations have become safer than the original models they descend from.

Perhaps some kind of combination of the number of generations permitted, and the number of years since original certification, might work. I won’t begin to guess at a number. One interesting aspect would be the degree of predictability it would bring to the competitive market. You would know when the competition must come up with a new clean sheet. The only surprise would be if they started one earlier than expected. It’s hard to imagine, though, a scenario where this didn’t cause flying to become more expensive.

Do the right thing for the right reason and everything is fine with grandfathering.

Do the wrong thing for the wrong reasons people can die, but this is not the fault of grandfathering but of the people responsible.

Max would seem to have gone down the second path and it is hoped those responsible will be held to account if it can be properly shown to be so. As a minimum, checks and balances must be re-enforced to assure no one can do so again.

Ray
 
User avatar
flyingphil
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 2:56 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:39 pm

“Southwest pilots sue Boeing over alleged lost wages from 737 MAX grounding”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... SKBN1WM290

Feeding time for the lawyers ?
 
kayik
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q4 2019

Mon Oct 07, 2019 11:03 pm

What if they manage to get a verdict from that court in line with the following?:

“abandoned sound design and engineering practices, withheld safety critical information from regulators and deliberately misled its customers, pilots and the public about the true scope of design changes to the 737 MAX.”

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