Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Ethiopian Airlines Crash/ B737MAX grounding

Options
1272830323374

Comments

  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 6,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Irish Steve


    cnocbui wrote: »
    Please tell me the trim tab isn't actuated by a long threaded shaft attached to a motor with a 'nut' on the shaft attached to the tab?

    Cutting power would just lock something like that it in the wrong position. You would need something like an explosive bolt to decouple such a mechanism in an emergency.

    No, it's not at all like that, there are 2 wheels, about 12" diameter, either side of the centre console, and there is a fold out handle in each wheel to enable manual winding.
    They are then linked via cables to a winding system, the problem being that it requires a massive number of turns of the wheel to make a significant change to the trim of the aircraft, the motors move the wheels at a very high revolution rate compared to what can be done winding them by hand, and if the aircraft is significantly out of trim, the control column loads are significant, which can require both hands of the flying pilot to be on the yoke to apply sufficient force to overcome the out of trim load, leaving the non flying pilot to operate the handle and wind as quickly as possible.

    example

    It's a very short video, but this gives an idea of how fast the wheel moves if the motor is in control. Now imagine that the motor has been running for several seconds, and you now have to manually undo what it's done, while at the same time, performing check list work to try and analyse and resolve the problem that's threatening to crash the aircraft.

    Not easy, or quick, or the sort of thing that the non flying pilot is prepared for, and to make it worse, the flying pilot is probably more than fully committed to just trying to keep the control yoke in about the right place to maintain stable flight, and constantly trying to overcome the out of trim forces.

    Shore, if it was easy, everybody would be doin it.😁



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,561 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/04/ethiopian-air-pilots-turned-off-737-max-anti-stall-system-then-it-turned-on-again/
    Data from the ill-fated aircraft’s flight recorder revealed that the anti-stall feature of the aircraft’s MCAS was triggered at least three times—and at least one time after the pilots followed the correct steps to shut it down.

    Both Reuters and The Wall Street Journal report that the air crew followed procedures laid out by Boeing following the crash of a Lion Air 737 MAX in October, according to officials briefed on the initial findings of the investigation. But the pilots failed to regain control of the system, and the MCAS was reactivated again—triggering yet another automated correction of the aircraft’s stabilizers that would have pushed the nose of the plane down.

    It is not clear at this point whether the pilots purposely reactivated the MCAS’ stabilizer control or if the software reactivated on its own after shutdown. While a Wall Street Journal source said that it appeared the pilots turned the system back on in hopes of regaining control over the stabilizers, Reuters reports that the software may have reactivated without human intervention, and further investigations of that possibility are ongoing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 215 ✭✭Coil Kilcrea


    No, it's not at all like that, there are 2 wheels, about 12" diameter, either side of the centre console, and there is a fold out handle in each wheel to enable manual winding.
    They are then linked via cables to a winding system, the problem being that it requires a massive number of turns of the wheel to make a significant change to the trim of the aircraft, the motors move the wheels at a very high revolution rate compared to what can be done winding them by hand, and if the aircraft is significantly out of trim, the control column loads are significant, which can require both hands of the flying pilot to be on the yoke to apply sufficient force to overcome the out of trim load, leaving the non flying pilot to operate the handle and wind as quickly as possible.

    example

    It's a very short video, but this gives an idea of how fast the wheel moves if the motor is in control. Now imagine that the motor has been running for several seconds, and you now have to manually undo what it's done, while at the same time, performing check list work to try and analyse and resolve the problem that's threatening to crash the aircraft.

    Not easy, or quick, or the sort of thing that the non flying pilot is prepared for, and to make it worse, the flying pilot is probably more than fully committed to just trying to keep the control yoke in about the right place to maintain stable flight, and constantly trying to overcome the out of trim forces.

    Thanks Irish Steve for a great post. I can only imagine how difficult it must be for the pilots to manage this process whilst in the critical take off and climb phase of the Ethiopian flight. My long held admiration of pilots continues.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,956 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    No, it's not at all like that, there are 2 wheels, about 12" diameter, either side of the centre console, and there is a fold out handle in each wheel to enable manual winding.
    They are then linked via cables to a winding system, the problem being that it requires a massive number of turns of the wheel to make a significant change to the trim of the aircraft, the motors move the wheels at a very high revolution rate compared to what can be done winding them by hand, and if the aircraft is significantly out of trim, the control column loads are significant, which can require both hands of the flying pilot to be on the yoke to apply sufficient force to overcome the out of trim load, leaving the non flying pilot to operate the handle and wind as quickly as possible.

    example

    It's a very short video, but this gives an idea of how fast the wheel moves if the motor is in control. Now imagine that the motor has been running for several seconds, and you now have to manually undo what it's done, while at the same time, performing check list work to try and analyse and resolve the problem that's threatening to crash the aircraft.

    Not easy, or quick, or the sort of thing that the non flying pilot is prepared for, and to make it worse, the flying pilot is probably more than fully committed to just trying to keep the control yoke in about the right place to maintain stable flight, and constantly trying to overcome the out of trim forces.

    Thanks, I was watching the other video and it confirmed my fears. I'm gobsmacked, actually. That is a fail dangerous system, not fail safe. So the MCAS system keeps incrementing the trim by 4 times the stated design amount, with multiple cumulative iterations, doing so with the benefit of high speed electric motors, so when a pilot offs the stab trim switches, the pilot/s are left to manually unwind that large trim deflection by operating the screw - via the trim wheel handle - through many, many rotations?

    Surely that process is far too slow if you are nose down with not much altitude?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,717 ✭✭✭Raging_Ninja


    No, this is very much NOT a regular or even irregular occurrence, and is being regarded as a serious incident. The aircraft is currently grounded and being inspected, they will be looking very closely at a number of data recorder captures to see what went on, and why, as this is very much not an expected or routine event.

    Thanks for the correction, will update my post.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,593 ✭✭✭Wheeliebin30




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,717 ✭✭✭Raging_Ninja



    Well, something had to break the AoA sensor in order for MCAS to activate and crash the plane.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,593 ✭✭✭Wheeliebin30


    Well, something had to break the AoA sensor in order for MCAS to activate and crash the plane.

    Yeah true I was under the impression it was just a faulty sensor.


  • Registered Users Posts: 537 ✭✭✭Stimpyone


    Well, something had to break the AoA sensor in order for MCAS to activate and crash the plane.

    buzz.ie quotes ABC news as the source. ABC news quotes two unnamed aviation sources familiar with the investigation.

    Tin foil hat time, but I'm guessing an incident beyond Boeings control causing the crash would be advantageous in any future investigations, law suits or sales.

    I'd hold my powder just yet.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭ZiabR


    News just breaking.

    Pilots "repeatedly" followed procedures recommended by Boeing before last month's crash of an Ethiopian Airlines flight, according to the first official report into the disaster.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47812225

    The problem as I see it though is that the pilots didn't have the correct training to deal with MCAS.

    Expect more information to follow later today.

    More news: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47812225

    Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737 pilots 'could not stop nosedive'

    This is a carbon copy of the Lion Air flight. Plane nosedived numerous times before eventually crashing.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,641 ✭✭✭zilog_jones


    ZiabR wrote: »
    The problem as I see it though is that the pilots didn't have the correct training to deal with MCAS.

    I wouldn't say that at all. Going by what I've read here, they did follow the correct procedure of overriding the stab trim, but this means having to manually wind back the stabilisers with these big wheels - the physical effort required to do this, while also controlling the yoke (which requires significant force in this situation), when you only have 40 seconds, sounds pretty much impossible to do with two people.

    As we've heard there was an MCAS incident that was resolved on a Lion Air flight before the crash - but there were three people in the cockpit at the time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 34,365 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Stimpyone wrote: »
    Tin foil hat time, but I'm guessing an incident beyond Boeings control causing the crash would be advantageous in any future investigations, law suits or sales.

    Sensors fail. A single failed sensor should not threaten to bring down an aircraft.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Registered Users Posts: 537 ✭✭✭Stimpyone


    Sensors fail. A single failed sensor should not threaten to bring down an aircraft.

    Agreed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,146 ✭✭✭funkey_monkey


    Sensors fail. A single failed sensor should not threaten to bring down an aircraft.

    Yes, there should not be a single point of failure. The safety analysis should have uncovered this.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 455 ✭✭jasper100


    Stimpyone wrote: »
    Agreed.



    = manufacturer at fault. Which contradicts your earlier "guess" that it leaves manufacturer off the hook to some degree.

    It won't


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,635 ✭✭✭Tenzor07




  • Registered Users Posts: 13,725 ✭✭✭✭josip


    Tenzor07 wrote: »


    Do they have parachutes on board test flights? (Genuine question)


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,197 ✭✭✭Man Vs ManUre


    josip wrote: »
    Do they have parachutes on board test flights? (Genuine question)

    Don’t think there would be an exit point on these large commercial planes that would be safe to jump from without being hit by engines, other plane part. You can probably only jump from the rear cargo bottom opening on those type of planes.
    Also no eject option like with fighter planes.
    These test pilots for Boeing and Airbus are probably ex fighter pilots and the elite. Still must be a very dangerous job to do. They fly the planes in ways that would terrify a passenger if it happened.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,721 ✭✭✭elmolesto


    josip wrote: »
    Do they have parachutes on board test flights? (Genuine question)

    Airbus pilots carry them for the flutter test.

    https://youtu.be/s3-g9B6Fgjs


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,195 ✭✭✭TomSweeney


    If this finishes Boeing off what does that mean for the future of flying?
    Airbus will cash in on it I'd imagine


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,788 ✭✭✭Panrich


    Sky reporting that the pilots followed Boeing process to deal with the MCAS error and that they eventually turned off MCAS but that it turned itself back on. This is from the report by the Ethiopian authorities.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭billy few mates


    josip wrote: »
    Do they have parachutes on board test flights? (Genuine question)

    I've heard of a Boeing 737 test flight with Boeing test pilots where they wore parachutes and had some sort of a special device fitted to the door to blow it open in case of emergency...


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭billy few mates


    No, it's not at all like that, there are 2 wheels, about 12" diameter, either side of the centre console, and there is a fold out handle in each wheel to enable manual winding.
    They are then linked via cables to a winding system, the problem being that it requires a massive number of turns of the wheel to make a significant change to the trim of the aircraft, the motors move the wheels at a very high revolution rate compared to what can be done winding them by hand, and if the aircraft is significantly out of trim, the control column loads are significant, which can require both hands of the flying pilot to be on the yoke to apply sufficient force to overcome the out of trim load, leaving the non flying pilot to operate the handle and wind as quickly as possible.

    example

    It's a very short video, but this gives an idea of how fast the wheel moves if the motor is in control. Now imagine that the motor has been running for several seconds, and you now have to manually undo what it's done, while at the same time, performing check list work to try and analyse and resolve the problem that's threatening to crash the aircraft.

    Not easy, or quick, or the sort of thing that the non flying pilot is prepared for, and to make it worse, the flying pilot is probably more than fully committed to just trying to keep the control yoke in about the right place to maintain stable flight, and constantly trying to overcome the out of trim forces.

    That's not an entirely accurate representation of the automatic trim system.
    There are two servo motors installed on the base of the screwjack, the main electric trim servo motor is larger than the autopilot trim servo motor.
    What you're seeing is the main electric trim motor trimming the stab (via the pickle switches). The auto pilot trim servo motor doesn't trim as fast as that and doesn't trim through the same range. I can't remember the exact figures but the autopilot trim servo can trim it X number of degrees nose down and y number of degrees nose up but the main electric trim motor can trim it a few degrees further in either direction and the manual trim wheels can trim it even further in each direction, it's all controlled by limit switches.
    Next time you're on a 737 (on the ground) trim it forward or aft to the stops and then see how much further you can wind it on manually.
    Then try engaging the autopilot on the ground, push the control column forward and watch how much slower the autopilot trim servo trims the stab.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,036 ✭✭✭Jeff2


    I posted a picture of the trim from the inside that was a screenshot from a video I posted and it's been deleted.

    If I did wrong I didn't know but I'v a pm that I can't access for some reason, maybe mods can delete sent pms.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 6,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Irish Steve


    That's not an entirely accurate representation of the automatic trim system.

    Understood, the main reason for posting was to try and make it clear for the non pilots that the wheel is a large item, and moves relatively quickly over a long range of travel, with the emphasis being on that if the motors are no longer available to drive the trim, and the crew are forced to revert to manual winding using the handles, that's a relatively slow process, made more difficult if the aircraft is badly out of trim, as significant out of trim loads on the yoke are likely to require a lot of manual effort to manage them. Fully understand that normally, the automatic trim moves more slowly.

    I don't have experience of the differences that came about as a result of the MCAS changes with the MAX, but it would seem from as yet unsubstantiated comments that the MCAS is not a user friendly system.

    I also don't have any details of how quickly it applies the change of pitch to the system in comparison to the older and more widely known trim systems.

    What is clear is that there are some very worrying unanswered questions that have to be answered before the MAX can be put back into commercial operation, and a quick fix will not be acceptable to many regulators, or potential passengers.

    Shore, if it was easy, everybody would be doin it.😁



  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 6,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Irish Steve


    Jeff2 wrote: »
    I posted a picture of the trim from the inside that was a screenshot from a video I posted and it's been deleted.

    If I did wrong I didn't know but I'v a pm that I can't access for some reason, maybe mods can delete sent pms.

    It was deleted because the link was incorrect, and went to an error page on the external site. By all means try it again, but please check after posting that it is working correctly.

    Shore, if it was easy, everybody would be doin it.😁



  • Registered Users Posts: 215 ✭✭Coil Kilcrea


    TomSweeney wrote: »
    Airbus will cash in on it I'd imagine

    For sure, but Boeing will batten down the hatches, take the inevitable battering and get back to business. Too big to fail springs to mind.

    I do think that the revenue acceleration that followed the Max order book will take a hammering and that the 797 plans are probably being dusted off.


  • Registered Users Posts: 34,365 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Airbus's order book for the 320 family is full for years, so they won't directly benefit. Secondhand/lease prices will go up, but that was happening anyway due to industry growth (and a recession will quickly reverse that)

    Boeing have a huge order book for the MAX too, and I doubt they'll see more than a small number of cancellations. Costs of changing your fleet from one to the other are huge, running a mixed fleet is inefficient and operationally inflexible

    It'll probably boil down to Airbus being able to play a bit more hardball on negotiations for future orders, Boeing having to sweeten deals a bit more.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 22,584 CMod ✭✭✭✭Steve


    Sorry if already posted, the preliminary report makes for some interesting reading.

    http://www.ecaa.gov.et/documents/20435/0/Preliminary+Report+B737-800MAX+%2C%28ET-AVJ%29.pdf/4c65422d-5e4f-4689-9c58-d7af1ee17f3e

    Notable imo are the stabilizer trim adjustments and whether they were manual or from the AND after it was disabled.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,622 ✭✭✭Turbulent Bill


    Airbus's order book for the 320 family is full for years, so they won't directly benefit. Secondhand/lease prices will go up, but that was happening anyway due to industry growth (and a recession will quickly reverse that)

    Boeing have a huge order book for the MAX too, and I doubt they'll see more than a small number of cancellations. Costs of changing your fleet from one to the other are huge, running a mixed fleet is inefficient and operationally inflexible

    It'll probably boil down to Airbus being able to play a bit more hardball on negotiations for future orders, Boeing having to sweeten deals a bit more.

    Agreed, Boeing and Airbus form a duopoly and it's in both of their interests to keep this going. Airbus took a financial hit on the A380, same for Boeing on the MAX, but overall I wouldn't see either being seriously damaged long term.


Advertisement