Ethiopian Airlines Crash; Another 737 Max

Kenny Phillips said:
So the MAX is grounded, but not really grounded: https://news.yahoo.com/southwest-737-max-makes-emergency-211314603.html
Click to expand...
Did you see the comments? The drive by media got the job done, quite well, before the official findings are out. Mission accomplished.
upload_2019-3-27_9-50-28.png

Sluggo63 said:
That's the only people in the media with an agenda? You don't think that Boeing, SWA and American Airlines PR machine is cranking full blast to get articles out there in the media saying how safe the plane is, the solution was just a simple procedure that every pilot is trained on, every pilot we put in the simulator was able to land safely? You think media agenda only goes one way? You're smarter than that.
Click to expand...
It could be the algorithms on my Google News feed but all I've seen is doom and gloom about automation and Boeing. Ask any average person if they feel comfortable getting on a Boeing and they'll say "oh isn't that the Max thing that the computer crashed? No I'd rather not fly it" - just the comments on any of the article show people on a flaming hysterics
-I am sure the PR machines there are in full crank, but, since they don't actually know the hard causes yet they also have to be careful from a CYA perspective what they put out there. The general media gets away with putting inaccurate, speculative, and bias'd stories out there free of retribution.. companies and private entities aren't awarded that same freedom

Sluggo63 said:
If I was Boeing, I would have at least:
  • Disclosed that the actual amount of stabiziler travel available to the MCAS was 2.5 degrees per activation instead of the submitted .6 degrees.
  • I would have correctly classified this system as a critical safety system and required at least two sensor inputs to avoid erroneous activation instead of one sole input.
  • I would have included MCAS system information in the Pilot's Systems Manuals.
  • I would have allowed the stabilizer trim brake system to stop trim movement opposite to pilot elevator input.
But, more to my point. (Emphasis below all mine.)
Click to expand...
Thanks. It was a genuine question, and I received a genuine answer!

LongRoadBob said:
And/or make sure there is at least one Boeing executive, and FAA person on board each flight
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure Boeing execs have flown their products, including the Max 8. Funny to think that a world may exist where Boeing execs would not fly their own product. Reminds me of the Microsoft presentation I saw once (given by Microsoft) and the presenter was using a Macbook Pro. On a serious note, I read somewhere that the original Boeing 747 PW engines were having stall issues.. PW kept saying it was a non issue, so Boeing took the PW folks up and put the plane in a high AoA environment and I think they ended up flaming out something like 3 of the 4 engines to give the PW guys a proper fright. The issues were fixed after this. **I can't find the source, but I swear I saw this story recounted by the test pilots in either a Science, or Smithsonian, or History channel thing on the 747
 
Bill Jennings said:
QF72 happened years earlier on an A330, where one of the data processing units started sending out bad AoA data, and the flight protections kicked in, causing two big uncommanded nose downs in flight, many pax injured, some severely. Those guys were dealt a schidt sandwich as well, and did a great job getting it on the ground.
Click to expand...

Asking any Airbus pilots here, the crew received an indication there was an ADIRU 1 fault, and it disconnected the autopilot. The video posted above says the crew engaged autopilot 2, but doesn't state the defective ADIRU was taken offline.

Did that happen automatically, or was ADIRU 1 still providing information to the autopilot? If so, was the crew remiss in not isolating it?

Would the resultant pitch excursions have been prevented if ADIRU 1 had been disabled?

I originally thought the altitude losses of 750 and 400 feet were insignificant until discovering further along the defect issued an immediate 10° nose down command. No wonder there were serious injuries and dislodged cabin ceiling and interior panels.

As an aside, I loosen but never unfasten my seatbelt when the aircraft is at cruise altitude. It's cheap insurance.
 
Last edited:
LongRoadBob said:
Fair enough. But still in these cases it is about 4 particular pilots who we don't know their abilities, what kind of pilots they were.
Click to expand...

You don’t know that about any airline crew, unless you know them personally.
 
LongRoadBob said:
They had a third man. A jump seat, deadheading pilot. I read they too were struggling, but having the extra pair of eyes, hands, and not fighting all the things mentioned by sluggo, he could take a breath and see it.

Oh, and also...what kind of logic is that? If one or two or even more crews, on a GOOD day, manage to not crash we're all good?
You can probably throw a hundred people off a ten story building and I bet one or even two would survive. That doesn't mean its a good idea to hop off a ten story building.
Click to expand...
knowledge is key.....not that the situation wasn't a handful....but the jump seat guy knew what to do and instructed them. Runaway Stab/trim is a common training item....that should be ingrained from training, not a check list item. I bet even Sluggo knows that....


Most guys know, blind folded, where the stab trim switch/breaker is located....
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
knowledge is key.....not that the situation wasn't a handful....but the jump seat guy knew what to do and instructed them. Runaway Stab/trim is a common training item....that should be ingrained from training, not a check list item. I bet even Sluggo knows that....


Most guys know, blind folded, where the stab trim switch/breaker is located....
Click to expand...

Except that runaway stab trim presents differently than An MCAS event, according to my understanding of @Sluggo63 towards the end of post 389 or so.
 
TCABM said:
Except that runaway stab trim presents differently than An MCAS event, according to my understanding of @Sluggo63 towards the end of post 389 or so.
Click to expand...
...and if that makes these crashes reasonable, I guess it’s time to take pilots out of the cockpit. If airplanes need to be designed so that the least-qualified pilots have specific guidance on how to deal with each individual emergency, we’re better off without them.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't grabbing the trim wheel immediately stop it? I figured the turn ratio on the wheel would allow a pilot so override the motor. That sucker spins like crazy when activated, so there must be some pretty good mechanical advantage in favor of the pilots...
 
SCCutler said:
Read a detailed narrative of what all transpired on the Qantas Airways A380 that had the uncontained explosion of the number two engine. I am very glad that the cockpit of that airplane was occupied by pilots, and not mere systems operators.
Click to expand...

Another excellent example of a fantastic piece of flying.

MauleSkinner said:
And I'd bet the ratings themselves had little to do with the outcome, they merely show that the pilots are actively engaged in aviation, not just "punching the clock ".
Click to expand...

Exactly! A seaplane rating doesn't help you whatsoever in handling an explosive decompression and loss of part of your upper fuselage on an airliner in the flight levels. It does mean that you're someone who studies your craft to a greater level than you have to to do the job.

LongRoadBob said:
I’m totally with you up until you started “betting” in the last sentence.

I see a number of posts that have the start point that only the USA produces first rate pilots.
I don’t know squat about the reality. It may be based in reality, I don’t know. On the other hand, I have a problem with the assumption that “third world” countries produce inferior pilots.
Click to expand...

It's not "The USA produces first rate pilots."

It's "Extra ratings indicate someone who loves what they do and has likely learned and thought a great deal more about their craft than someone who just checked the boxes they needed to to get where they are." And it just so happens that the USA has a system that is most conducive to allow people to pursue those experiences. How many Ethiopian seaplane pilots do you think there are, for example?

But it still bothers me that the “disagreement annunciator” was optional.
Click to expand...

Likewise.

Ryanb said:
Interesting, I think you bring up a good point with that. As a believer, there was certainly more than just their flying skills at work in each one of those accidents. There was a higher power above that was at work without a doubt. Truly a miracle!
Click to expand...

You know, you can believe whatever you want - But that statement really cheapens all of the effort put in by those pilots to become true aviators and artists of flight. Cactus 1549 had no fatalities because there were two exceptionally well-prepared aviators in the cockpit. It is said that luck is the intersection of preparation and opportunity, and Sully and Skiles were unquestionably prepared.

If there's any "higher power" involved there, it was that the right guys were in the cockpit that day. But why did that higher power put those geese there? And why did that higher power decide not to put the right people in the front of Ethiopian or Lion Air?

Checkout_my_Six said:
all good....except, the crew before the Lion Air accident got it. They were able to disable the failure mode and mitigate.....What happened to the Lion Air crew who crashed? vs. the one who survived?
Click to expand...

They had a third pilot in the cockpit. That makes a huge difference.
 
MauleSkinner said:
...and if that makes these crashes reasonable
Click to expand...

I’ve not said one thing about the crash(es) being reasonable.

I will say I believe it’s too simplistic say “what you’ve got is stab trim runaway, these guys are idiots”.
 
SCCutler said:
I am very glad that the cockpit of that airplane was occupied by pilots
Click to expand...
..and not just any pilots, but real skilled pilots who stayed calm and could handle a serious situation. I'm quite sure there is no checklist procedure for what to do when turbine blades go through the wing, some real proper aviation skills were at play there!! that's why we still need a pilot in the cockpit, and not just a system's master or rote checklist reader

SkyDog58 said:
And the continuing references to it as a miracle does a disservice to those two pilots and their skills. The only higher power involved was those skills.
Click to expand...
YES. YES. YES. and more YES! When things go right the credit goes to the engineers, pilots, etc., who work to get you home safely. When things go south we learn from those mistakes whether it be poor design, poor training, etc.

Ryanb said:
As a believer, there was certainly more than just their flying skills at work in each one of those accidents.
Click to expand...
That really discredits the good pilotage evidenced and makes it seem like these were unique miracles that no other pilots could have survived and events we can't learn from. Their survival was the product of good judgment, sound experience, good training, and years of training and regulatory guidelines that have evolved over the last century of flight. Granted, if I have a guardian angel this is likely his/her reaction throughout most of my life #agnostic #cirruslife #redhandle
upload_2019-3-27_12-42-35.png
 
TCABM said:
“what you’ve got is stab trim runaway, these guys are idiots”
Click to expand...
It is certainly more nuanced than that. But, this also didn't have to end up in a fatality. And maybe that depends on how we define design flaws, etc. and what the human's role is

I don't think the pilots were idiots, I think they were poorly trained and as a result of that less than adequate training could not handle an emergency that didn't have associated with it a very clear checklist. Makes you wonder how they would react to other potentially catastrophic unscripted events. Ethiopian's safety record is relatively okay, but just looking through Lion Air's accidents you do have to wonder how solid these crews are.. and that's a critique of the system, not the individual.
 
Ryanb said:
Interesting, I think you bring up a good point with that. As a believer, there was certainly more than just their flying skills at work in each one of those accidents. There was a higher power above that was at work without a doubt. Truly a miracle!
Click to expand...

So I guess in the case of accidents where everyone or at least a large number were killed that the higher power was on break or just didn’t like those pilots and passengers as much.

Interesting concept.
 
Tantalum said:
Did you see the comments? The drive by media got the job done, quite well, before the official findings are out. Mission accomplished.
Click to expand...

No one ever said that either the average person or the media has a clue about events such as this. Heck, many on here don’t. It does make for some funny reading though.
 
Tantalum said:
It is certainly more nuanced than that. ...

I think they were poorly trained and as a result of that less than adequate training could not handle an emergency that didn't have associated with it a very clear checklist.
Click to expand...

And that’s reasonable to believe, too an extent. Without knowing the details about either company’s training program, I’m not personally ready to indict the pilots, primarily due to the NTSB and Airbus’ assumption re: US1549.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ntsb-sully-could-have-made-it-back-to-laguardia/

Boeing’s already done the same act with their expo over the last few weeks.
 
SkyDog58 said:
No one ever said that either the average person or the media has a clue about events such as this. Heck, many on here don’t. It does make for some funny reading though.
Click to expand...
images
 
TCABM said:
I’ve not said one thing about the crash(es) being reasonable.

I will say I believe it’s too simplistic say “what you’ve got is stab trim runaway, these guys are idiots”.
Click to expand...
...And im not saying it's simple and these guys are idiots.

But I AM saying that, if MCAS failed in the manner that most people seem to believe, it should be very survivable for a competent flight crew. If we're requiring that airplane's be designed such that a competent flight crew isn't required, there's no use having a flight crew at all.
 
MauleSkinner said:
...And im not saying it's simple and these guys are idiots.

But I AM saying that, if MCAS failed in the manner that most people seem to believe, it should be very survivable for a competent flight crew. If we're requiring that airplane's be designed such that a competent flight crew isn't required, there's no use having a flight crew at all.
Click to expand...

I don’t disagree with that. I’m trying not to assume how it failed as there’s apparently at least two different airframe integration configurations and I don’t know who’s got what.

I’ve also never said anything about taking the pilot out of the equation. In general, I will err to less or simpler automation in favor of pilots being a pilot and not a systems manager.

I am a believer the human factors/Swiss cheese theory though, and automation, especially poorly documented/communicated/implemented/trained to can surely F* there quicker than being at the drive thru.
 
Sluggo63 said:
That's the only people in the media with an agenda? You don't think that Boeing, SWA and American Airlines PR machine is cranking full blast to get articles out there in the media saying how safe the plane is, the solution was just a simple procedure that every pilot is trained on, every pilot we put in the simulator was able to land safely? You think media agenda only goes one way? You're smarter than that.
Click to expand...

The agenda of media is to sell advertising (except in the case of NPR). If it bleeds, it leads. Welcome to the free market!

I'm sure those PR machines are cranked up, but they're shouting to an empty room. I haven't seen a single media report about how safe the 737 Max is with a well-trained crew. What I have seen is "OMG ANOTHER 737 MAX HAD AN EMERGENCY LANDING" when it was *engine* trouble, which has nothing to do with the airframe nor the issues that we think may have cause the crashes.

So, the media absolutely are going to make this look as bad as possible. They may not have had a pre-existing bias against Boeing, but they sure do now, because it gets them clicks and helps them sell ads. Period.

Checkout_my_Six said:
Well...maybe we should go back to three required crew?
Click to expand...

Maybe we should make airplanes that don't need a third person in the cockpit just to catch systems errors, and maybe we should make sure that the first two crew members are well trained.

Tantalum said:
..and not just any pilots, but real skilled pilots who stayed calm and could handle a serious situation. I'm quite sure there is no checklist procedure for what to do when turbine blades go through the wing, some real proper aviation skills were at play there!! that's why we still need a pilot in the cockpit, and not just a system's master or rote checklist reader
Click to expand...

Absolutely. It sure does help to be a "systems master" though, and the pilots on QF32 can qualify there as well. When turbine blades go flying, you may have multiple system failures (in fact, you PROBABLY will have multiple system failures), and you need to know how those failures will affect the ability of the airplane to fly for the rest of the flight. In the particular example of QF32, they lost one of the two hydraulic systems, they lost the ability to transfer fuel from the fuselage tank, and they were unable to use reverse thrust (outboard engines on the 380 don't have reverse, and it was an inboard that failed). All of that together meant they were going to have to land fast and past the aft CG limit.

Had the pilots not understood the implications of those failures earlier in the flight, they likely would have crashed on approach or landing regardless of how good their stick and rudder skills were.
 
Are there any foreign, European or Asian, equivalents to POA? I'm curious to see their thread on this.
 
Matthew said:
Are there any foreign, European or Asian, equivalents to POA? I'm curious to see their thread on this.
Click to expand...
was going to post this same thing:
Bell206 said:
Not equivalent to POA but...
Click to expand...

I used to read PPRUNE a lot but it was so heavily Europe centric that I stopped. Some funny stuff on there from time to time though. Worth a peruse

flyingcheesehead said:
I'm sure those PR machines are cranked up, but they're shouting to an empty room. I haven't seen a single media report about how safe the 737 Max is with a well-trained crew.
Click to expand...
and their efforts are working. I posted somewhere up thread but at Costco last Thursday the group in front of me was talking about "Boeings" and the lady, I s*** you not, said they cancelled their SW flight and rebooked on JBU to stay off of Boeing jets

The media is crying joke. Don't forget that we are particular sensitive to their aviation inanity because we know a thing or two about car insurance (I mean aviation).. however they run amok with the same (or more) vigor when it comes to political, security, international relations, etc.

flyingcheesehead said:
Absolutely. It sure does help to be a "systems master" though, and the pilots on QF32 can qualify there as well. When turbine blades go flying, you may have multiple system failures (in fact, you PROBABLY will have multiple system failures), and you need to know how those failures will affect the ability of the airplane to fly for the rest of the flight. In the particular example of QF32, they lost one of the two hydraulic systems, they lost the ability to transfer fuel from the fuselage tank, and they were unable to use reverse thrust (outboard engines on the 380 don't have reverse, and it was an inboard that failed). All of that together meant they were going to have to land fast and past the aft CG limit.

Had the pilots not understood the implications of those failures earlier in the flight, they likely would have crashed on approach or landing regardless of how good their stick and rudder skills were.
Click to expand...
very well put sir
 
From a different forum, but I think this sums it up quite well:

ec0b14e2e7a8514f45a080c94bee88ca.jpg
 
Pilawt said:
Look at the bright side ... with public opinion like that, there may be some great discounts on ticket prices when the Max returns to service! :)
Click to expand...
99.9999% of the passengers have no clue if they are getting in an Airbus or a Boeing, much less what model.
 
I just saw a report on the upcoming software update from Boeing. Included in the changes are the following:

1. Two AoA sensors will be used to determine whether MCAS activates.

2. If the two AoA sensors disagree on whether MCAS needs to be activated, the pilots will be notified.

3. The pilots will be able to override MCAS through control inputs, so if a pilot pulls up when MCAS is directing the nose down, MCAS will surrender control.

This was a TV news report, so I'm not assuming that this is necessarily complete and accurate in every detail.
 
SkyDog58 said:
That video only illustrates that the pilot who made it doesn’t understand the problem either as the trim was moving nose up, not down in the video.
Click to expand...
Well, that isn’t exactly the point. It was just a demonstration of how to stop a runaway trim. It’s kind of a parody because you can use your hand to stop it.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
99.9999% of the passengers have no clue if they are getting in an Airbus or a Boeing, much less what model.
Click to expand...

I think you need to tell the story of the lady who was interviewed in Iowa or whatever it was, after getting off your (single-engine) plane early in your career.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I think you need to tell the story of the lady who was interviewed in Iowa or whatever it was, after getting off your (single-engine) plane early in your career.
Click to expand...
ROTFLMAO I had forgotten about that.

In the interests of full disclosure, I was not the pilot of this particular flight but I was witness to the event.

Back in my early airline days, I worked for a company that flew Twin Otters, Cessna 402's, Cessna 207's, and occasionally a 172. We flew from Manhattan Kansas to Kansas City. One day, the 207 pulled up to the gate in Manhattan and a lady got off the airplane. She was met by her party in the passenger lounge and was asked how she liked flying on a single engine airplane. She got this horrified look on her face and then said that if she had known it was a single engine plane she would have never gotten on it.

Bottom line to this is that most passengers have no idea what kind of airplane they are traveling on, and for the most part don't care as long as it gets them there safely. The MAX's are going through some teething pains right now, but so have many other airplane types. Boeing will get it figured out and the MAX will be a great airplane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top