Ethiopian Airlines Crash/ B737MAX grounding

kippy

Roger_007 wrote: »

If there is so much technical difficulties with transmitting flight data to a land based database, how come many airlines are offering internet access to passengers. Aer Lingus are offering internet access on all their trans Atlantic flights.............Just wondering?

Totally different use cases.

Manic Moran

So who actually is on the ground doing the investigation anyway? I can’t imagine that the Ethiopian Aviation Authority or criminal investigation bureau are well skilled in crash site survey and debris collection, let alone analysis of Boeing’s product and causes for the crash. Even if it’s their letterhead on the final report, who is, in practice, actually running the show?

Can't there be a backup that autoejects if the flight sensors are out of whack and the plane reaches 50m?

Obviously, sometimes it wouldn't work, or fire incorrectly. But still seems doable.

ED E

Manic Moran wrote: »

So who actually is on the ground doing the investigation anyway? I can’t imagine that the Ethiopian Aviation Authority or criminal investigation bureau are well skilled in crash site survey and debris collection, let alone analysis of Boeing’s product and causes for the crash. Even if it’s their letterhead on the final report, who is, in practice, actually running the show?

Reports were Boeing and the US NTSB were en route within a few hours. Its normal enough to involve the airframes country of manufacture.

kippy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Can't there be a backup that autoejects if the flight sensors are out of whack and the plane reaches 50m?

Obviously, sometimes it wouldn't work, or fire incorrectly. But still seems doable.

The amount of times that a black box is irrecoverable negate the costs involved in developing this or similar for use in all planes.

batman2000

I was following a link from a previous post and this was embedded.To a non pilot it gave a good description of the MCAS system, suspected for the Lion Air disaster. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfQW0upkVus .

Also, Boeing has said it will be issuing a software fix within weeks, but doesn't mention the Ethiopian crash, which is not surprising given they would not have all the data to support the same theory as the Lion Air.
https://www.reuters.com/article/ethiopia-airplane-boeing/boeing-to-upgrade-software-in-737-max-8-fleet-in-weeks-idUSL1N20Z01K

FAA even saying the 737Max is airworthy (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-47533052) though 22 airlines have grounded their 737Max fleet (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/11/world/boeing-737-max-which-airlines.html)

Irish Steve

Mebuntu wrote: »

Great post, Irish Steve. I have a question to ask.


If you were a 737MAX8 pilot I'd have assumed that you would have paid the closest attention to the Lion Air crash especially in relation to the MCAS and the action required if such an event should occur on one of your flights. I'd have thought that on every takeoff since then you would be watching intently for any signs of a repeat and be ready to take the appropriate remedial measures - maybe even to the extent of having your hand poised and ready to hit the cutout switches. (remember that the Lion Air's crew on the previous flight acted swiftly when it happened and saved the day).

So, my question is - is my assumption above correct.

In simple terms. no I am not a Max pilot, but as a result of a lot of work I did some 20 years ago, I became very much involved in areas of crew coordination and flight deck systems management, as well as some very specialised research work on new possible systems, (mostly for airbus), but I also did a lot of work on Boeing aircraft systems, for similar reasons, so had to be very much up to speed on what went on, and why, in both normal and non normal flight operations. What became very clear during that work was that it was essential to make sure that operating crews were fully aware of what was likely to happen in non normal events, and if we didn't provide very clear briefings, the research work results would be invalidated, as the crew didn't know how to respond to the event.

alexonhisown

Quote:
Originally Posted by Safehands View Post
Whatever one thinks of Ryanair, they are a very safety conscious airline. These incidents will give them the heeby jeebies, especially as so many airlines are grounding their 737 Max aircraft. Many people are rightly concerned about flying on these new planes, I suspect that Michael O'Leary will be having high level discussions about the wisdom of introducing these new aircraft at this time. He certainly won't be having photoshoots and advertising campaigns about their introduction.
Difficult for them, and the crews who have to fly them.
My thoughts are with the families of the deceased in Ethiopia.

Grandeeod wrote: »

I thought Ryanair were only receiving the first MAX at the end of April.

Thats correct grandeeod, ryanair are receiving their first max 8 in april

Calina

Roger_007 wrote: »

If there is so much technical difficulties with transmitting flight data to a land based database, how come many airlines are offering internet access to passengers. Aer Lingus are offering internet access on all their trans Atlantic flights.............Just wondering?

Because youtube on a transatlantic flight is non critical data and if it doesnt work properly for any reason it doesn't matter.

One flight which crashes and there was sime network issue and people will be demandings flight recorders.

Car99

How many AOA sensors on a B737 MAX? Will 1 erroneous sensor signal be enough to activate MCAS?

Seems odd if it is designed to accept any 1 sensor approaching stall . I would have thought that all AOA sensors signals are continuously compared to each other to confirm similar AOA. And only when they are in agreement MCAS would be activated. If they are not providing similar AOA signal the flight deck would be alerted. Ideally you would have 3 AOA sensors talking to each other to identify the rogue I would have thought.

RiseToMe

Australia has now grounded the Max

ASOT

The Ozzie's have grounded all Maxs now.

BZ

ASOT wrote: »

The Ozzie's have grounded all Maxs now.

Singapore has also done the same.

SEPT 23 1989

I heard on BBCR4 this morning that pilots were only given an hours training on a laptop to familiarise themselves with the new plane

Is that correct?

plodder

ASOT wrote: »

The Ozzie's have grounded all Maxs now.

That's very significant. Up to now it's been claimed that only developing countries without the same level of training and supervision as the developed world, and countries with a political axe to grind (China), have grounded it.

Washington Post: Here’s why China and foreign carriers have grounded the 737 Max 8 and the U.S. and Europe haven’t

I heard on BBCR4 this morning that pilots were only given an hours training on a laptop to familiarise themselves with the new plane

The idea behind the MCAS system was apparently to make this plane perform the same as (or similar enough to) the previous generation, so pilots wouldn't need retraining. Looking very much like a false economy at this point in time - to say nothing of reputational damage to Boeing.

Nijmegen

We live in an age of disinformation and distrust. If China grounds the aircraft, it's because of the trade war and a dozen op-eds say so and nowadays news reports include the speculation. If Europe grounds it tomorrow, it's because Airbus is their team. Etc. I wonder what the excuse will be for Australia or Singapore. I remember with fondness (or maybe it's rose tinted glasses, because things have got so bad) the days when decisions were made logically, sometime imperfectly, but usually by people acting in good faith.

In any event, there is a strong feeling floating around that the 737 platform has reached and potentially split the edge of the envelope. The rumoured 797 probably can't come quickly enough for Boeing.

Mebuntu

Irish Steve wrote: »

In simple terms. no I am not a Max pilot, but as a result of a lot of work I did some 20 years ago, I became very much involved in areas of crew coordination and flight deck systems management, as well as some very specialised research work on new possible systems, (mostly for airbus), but I also did a lot of work on Boeing aircraft systems, for similar reasons, so had to be very much up to speed on what went on, and why, in both normal and non normal flight operations. What became very clear during that work was that it was essential to make sure that operating crews were fully aware of what was likely to happen in non normal events, and if we didn't provide very clear briefings, the research work results would be invalidated, as the crew didn't know how to respond to the event.

My wording was not the best. I wasn't querying if you personally are a MAX8 pilot. What I was trying to ascertain with my question was - normally, on takeoff, flight crews are prepared for events such as an engine failure but do you think that current MAX8 flight crews would be specifically on high alert for MCAS and ready for immediate action at every takeoff since the Lion Air crash and what it has revealed so far- bearing in mind the likely fatal consequences.

If this crash cause turns out to be the same as Lion Air then it would suggest that the crew either didn't know what to do or were not alert enough to act in time. The alternative is that it was something else that occurred or something else in addition to MCAS.

kippy

Nijmegen wrote: »

We live in an age of disinformation and distrust. If China grounds the aircraft, it's because of the trade war and a dozen op-eds say so and nowadays news reports include the speculation. If Europe grounds it tomorrow, it's because Airbus is their team. Etc. I wonder what the excuse will be for Australia or Singapore. I remember with fondness (or maybe it's rose tinted glasses, because things have got so bad) the days when decisions were made logically, sometime imperfectly, but usually by people acting in good faith.

In any event, there is a strong feeling floating around that the 737 platform has reached and potentially split the edge of the envelope. The rumoured 797 probably can't come quickly enough for Boeing.

In fairness that "age" of disinformation and distrust has gone on for centuries.

Irish Steve

Mebuntu wrote: »

My wording was not the best. I wasn't querying if you personally are a MAX8 pilot. What I was trying to ascertain with my question was - normally, on takeoff, flight crews are prepared for events such as an engine failure but do you think that current MAX8 flight crews would be specifically on high alert for MCAS and ready for immediate action at every takeoff since the Lion Air crash and what it has revealed so far- bearing in mind the likely fatal consequences.

If this crash cause turns out to be the same as Lion Air then it would suggest that the crew either didn't know what to do or were not alert enough to act in time. The alternative is that it was something else that occurred or something else in addition to MCAS.

I guess, that's very much the elephant in the room right now. Yes, in theory, after Lion Air, every Max pilot should have received adequate and in depth briefing notes to make sure that they are completely aware that Boeing have made significant changes to the aircraft's natural aerodynamics in order to make it fly like earlier generations. At the very least, that level of information should have been in the hands of the (guessing based on the numbers) 2000 or so pilots that are flying this variant of 737.

Given that Boeing are saying they will be making changes based on the Lion Air incident, it is unfortunately very possible that some of the pilots currently flying the Max have not been made fully aware of the issues that are under review, and if they didn't know about it, then there is the very real potential for another accident of a similar nature, we're not going to know how similar until the black boxes from the Ethiopian aircraft are analysed in detail.

In some respects, the issues are similar to the Air France 330 loss, the crew on that flight were caught unawares by a set of circumstances that were outside of their experience and training, and as a result, they stalled a basically serviceable aircraft into the sea from a great height, and it is unfortunately very possible that the ET crew were caught out by a situation that was outside of their experience and expectations. They had reported an issue, and stopped the climb at the lowest level they could while maintaining terrain clearance, to facilitate an early return to land, the downside of that being they were then left with very little "wriggle room" if the aircraft became difficult to control because of the instrument errors, even more so if the protection systems designed to help them actually started hindering them because of false information.

I'd like to think I would have been able to recover it, but I've also been faced with (and set for others) similar scenarios in the simulator, with mixed results. As another example. the group i was working with (not rated on the type) were given a scenario in a 747 that required effectively a dead stick landing from 10,000 Ft, and we all managed some sort of landing on or close to the runway. One of the group was also an instructor, and he gave 3 type rated pilots the same scenario a few weeks later, and 2 of the 3 broke the aircraft in the air, because they were unable to fly the aircraft within it's limits without all the aids and guidance that they flew with all the time, because they'd never had to deal with a fundamental failure that meant they couldn't use all the aids to get back on the ground.

Training, experience and the ability to think outside the box are all fundamental to survival in some cases, and (yes I know this is controversial) basic airmanship skills have been replaced and eroded by a slavish dependence on check lists and standard operating procedures. There are times when the check lists can't cover the scenario that's evolving, that's when the only thing that will keep you in the air is airmanship, experience and in depth knowledge of exactly what you can and cannot do with the aircraft, using whatever is still working and available to you.

Modern commercial flying only uses about 20% of the available envelope that the aircraft can actually fly in, and going too close to the edge of the envelope may not be comfortable for the cabin occupants, but if it's the difference between survival or dying, I will choose the pilot that can use the entire envelope every time.

IITYWYBMAD

Can I ask what I know is a somewhat naive question with regards to 'stalling' in general?

As an example, if I was driving a manual car down an endless straight road at 30km per hour in 6th gear, the car would try to stall, as the speed versus the gear I'm in does not equate to normal driving and puts the engine and gearbox under strain. My solution, in this situation, is to drop the car into 2nd or 3rd gear, and continue driving the car, until I figure out what the issue was.

Now, translate that to an aircraft. Should the instruments be telling me that the aircraft is about to stall, are there not some 'default' settings I can put the plane into that ensure that the aircraft will not stall, while I figure out what is going on? Be this flap setting x and engine power at y. I realise that I'm trying to simplify what is a very complex task, and ignoring other factors like altitude, but surely there exists a 'default' position in situations like the Lion Air and (possibly) this situation, where the pilots can agree on a setting, turn off MCAS and take some time to figure what is most likely going on?

Raging_Ninja

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

Can I ask what I know is a somewhat naive question with regards to 'stalling' in general?

As an example, if I was driving a manual car down an endless straight road at 30km per hour in 6th gear, the car would try to stall, as the speed versus the gear I'm in does not equate to normal driving and puts the engine and gearbox under strain. My solution, in this situation, is to drop the car into 2nd or 3rd gear, and continue driving the car, until I figure out what the issue was.

Now, translate that to an aircraft. Should the instruments be telling me that the aircraft is about to stall, are there not some 'default' settings I can put the plane into that ensure that the aircraft will not stall, while I figure out what is going on? Be this flap setting x and engine power at y. I realise that I'm trying to simplify what is a very complex task, and ignoring other factors like altitude, but surely there exists a 'default' position in situations like the Lion Air and (possibly) this situation, where the pilots can agree on a setting, turn off MCAS and take some time to figure what is most likely going on?

A stall in aerodynamic terms means that the wings are not generating lift and so the plane will start descending whether you want it to or not. Usually this is because the nose of the aircraft is at too high an angle.

The engines could be working perfectly but the pitch of the aircraft is such that there isn't enough air moving underneath the wings to stop it from falling out of the sky.

Given an infinite amount of time anyone ought to be able to figure out what is going wrong and come up with a corrective action. The problem is that when it happens on an aircraft you have a very finite amount of time before you turn into a crater.

The issue with his flight is that the aircraft right now does not appear to have been in a stall - the speculation is that, similar to what appears to have happened in the Lion Air crash 5 months ago, the device that is meant to prevent a stall (MCAS) activated when it shouldn't have.

IITYWYBMAD

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

A stall in aerodynamic terms means that the wings are not generating lift and so the plane will start descending whether you want it to or not. Usually this is because the nose of the aircraft is at too high an angle.

The engines could be working perfectly but the pitch of the aircraft is such that there isn't enough air moving underneath the wings to stop it from falling out of the sky.

Given an infinite amount of time anyone ought to be able to figure out what is going wrong and come up with a corrective action.

The problem is that when it happens on an aircraft you have a very finite amount of time before you turn into a crater.

The issue with his flight is that the aircraft right now does not appear to have been in a stall - the speculation is that, similar to what appears to have happened in the Lion Air crash 5 months ago, the device that is meant to prevent a stall (MCAS) activated when it shouldn't have.

Hence my question. My understanding is that there have been many situations where the plane/pilot believed the aircraft was about to go into a stall (I'm not talking about a situation where a plane is in stall) but conflicting information made that decision open to question. So, (for example) where an automated system was adding nose down/up trim to an aircraft believing that the AOA was incorrect, is there a non-automated setting the pilot can put the aircraft into, that gives them time to think?

CelticRambler

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

Now, translate that to an aircraft. Should the instruments be telling me that the aircraft is about to stall, are there not some 'default' settings I can put the plane into that ensure that the aircraft will not stall, while I figure out what is going on?

As raging_ninja says, an aerodynamic stall happens when there is not enough air passing fast enough over the wing to generate lift. Without lift, the aircraft falls out of the sky. The "default" setting is for the aircraft to fall out of the sky! The default correction is for the pilot to (try to) put the aircraft into a (steep) dive so that it falls nose-first, thus creating airflow over the wings, generating lift and getting things back to normal.

The problems arise when either
(a) the pilot can't tell whether they're "nose up" or "nose down" because the instruments are giving misleading information - or the instruments are giving accurate information that doesn't match information coming from other sources [remember that at altitude and in bad weather/nighttime pilots have few or no points of reference]; and
(b) the aircraft is so close to the ground that there simply isn't room to dive several thousand feet to get the necessary airflow over the wings.

errlloyd

My OH is flying NYC to Dublin tonight on a 737 Max. I think she's vaguely aware there is some controversy surrounding the plane. My gut feeling is threefold.

1. You can't read much into cancellations, they have as much to do with politics and marketing ("as safety above all costs")
2. If the Pilots were worried they would refuse to fly
3. Right now the pilots are probably as aware and as prepared for an issue as ever.

But I do worry about Norwegian. As an Airline they are struggling financially and probably can't afford to ground the planes. Anything you flight experts would casually say to someone flying on one tonight?

Doylers

errlloyd wrote: »

My OH is flying NYC to Dublin tonight on a 737 Max. I think she's vaguely aware there is some controversy surrounding the plane. My gut feeling is threefold.

1. You can't read much into cancellations, they have as much to do with politics and marketing ("as safety above all costs")
2. If the Pilots were worried they would refuse to fly
3. Right now the pilots are probably as aware and as prepared for an issue as ever.

But I do worry about Norwegian. As an Airline they are struggling financially and probably can't afford to ground the planes. Anything you flight experts would casually say to someone flying on one tonight?

I'm of the same feeling too, booked to fly their max the start if April on a new route. Cant imagine they are in a position to throw money at training and would rather be on a 330.

Duff

Flying Ryanair to Budapest in two weeks and my o/h is now paranoid beyond belief. Am I correct in thinking they haven't taken delivery of their MAX8 yet?

Sunrise_Sunset

I'm a nervous flyer as it is. This is not great for my flight anxiety at all. I'm booked with Ryanair Dublin to Amsterdam in a few weeks.

Doctor Jimbob

errlloyd wrote: »

My OH is flying NYC to Dublin tonight on a 737 Max. I think she's vaguely aware there is some controversy surrounding the plane. My gut feeling is threefold.

1. You can't read much into cancellations, they have as much to do with politics and marketing ("as safety above all costs")
2. If the Pilots were worried they would refuse to fly
3. Right now the pilots are probably as aware and as prepared for an issue as ever.

But I do worry about Norwegian. As an Airline they are struggling financially and probably can't afford to ground the planes. Anything you flight experts would casually say to someone flying on one tonight?

I'm not a flight expert, but it's worth remembering that there have been countless journeys completed on 737 MAX without incident. I personally flew on one twice last summer with Norwegian. The chances of anything happening are still incredibly small.

Nijmegen

Ryanair are not yet flying the MAX. As for Norwegian, look, the chances of an accident are still very small. I'd personally not book onto one now until we know more but I still think that the chances of a further accident even if these two had the same cause, is minimal; if it was the same cause, pilots will be more aware of what to do about it; and there's a chance it's just bad luck.

mac_daddy

Doylers wrote: »

I'm of the same feeling too, booked to fly their max the start if April on a new route. Cant imagine they are in a position to throw money at training and would rather be on a 330.

My wife and I are due to fly to Providence this Friday with Norwegian. Currently in the process of booking new flights (at our own expense ). Not worth the risk with having two young kids left at home when you consider 2 out 350 operating planes have crashed. I suspect that Norwegian have not grounded their fleet as they know they would go to the wall if they did.