Ethiopian Airlines Crash; Another 737 Max

there is a "team" of test pilots...depends who is saying what. Some are Boeing pilots....some are FAA.

Bottom line.....the Boeing pilots were surprised with what was given to them....and "settled" with what was there.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
.depends who is saying what.
Click to expand...
Just to clarify: the pitch rate discussions noted above were by Boeing test pilots during some of the initial Max test flights at Moses Lake by Boeing.

But there is a definite "fence line" with the overall Max discussions: the "it was the aircraft side" vs "it was the crew side." And same with the Atlas accident. Two different accidents but same discussion: are the aircraft flying the pilots or are the pilots flying the aircraft? And where does that take the next generation of aircraft? Dumb down the aircraft or make the pilots smarter? It's impossible to make the perfect aircraft or pilot, so which way should the industry go?
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
From what I see....more automation....and less pilot.
Click to expand...

"Welcome to the inaugural flight of Nomad airlines, offering the world's only non-stop service in fully automated, pilotless jet aircraft. Please sit back and enjoy your flight, secure in the knowledge that nothing can go wrong . . . go wrong . . . go wrong . . . "
 
It's being reported on several sites that Ethiopian Airlines had not incorporated the Boeing Operations Bulletin (which was part of the Nov 2018 EAD) into their Flight Operations Manual. This would imply that the updated stabilizer trim emergency procedures were not available to the 302 crew and possibly indicate that EA did not officially inform their MAX crews of the MCAS issues. So it's possible the 302 crew may have acted using personal information on the issue rather than any hardcopy emergency procedures. If this is accurate, I think EA has a lot more to answer for than Boeing does at this point.
 
Bell206 said:
Dumb down the aircraft or make the pilots smarter?
Click to expand...
The pilots have to be familiar with what they're flying. Automation is a good thing, just look at Airbus and how remarkably safe they've proven to be, despite being fully FBW

Yes, bugs happen, but computers are far less likely to show up to work drunk, fatigued, stressed with life, etc. In the off chance that the computer has a glitch, or acts awry, however, this is where we must still have a trained and competent pilot who can intervene

Funny, I was watching Amazon's new show The Tick (sort of a superhero spoof) and one of the digital ships had a bit of an emotional episode
 
Tantalum said:
This just in: the guy was praying instead of flying the plane

That's criminal
Click to expand...
Since you posted your opinion publicly, I suppose you’d be willing to debate this?
I’ll be monitoring PMs for your response.
 
Cooter said:
Since you posted your opinion publicly, I suppose you’d be willing to debate this?
Click to expand...
sure! Preferably over a cold drink though and not somewhere that would violate our rules of conduct

in actuality, what people choose to believe in and pray to is his or her own right. And if a passenger decides to start praying, then more power to them, maybe if there is some force out there it will give the pilot the strength to save lives

what I have a hard time with, is the notion that the person whose sole responsibility is the safe outcome of the flight, would get to a position where they've effectively given up and have resorted to praying. I guess it's not the praying that bothers me, per se, but that this is what it has come to, feeling utterly powerless

There is a subtle distinction there, it's not so much that they had a faith or belief, I take zero issue with that at all, it's that they were put in a position where they had to give up and put all their hopes in this faith or belief

what's criminal to me is to completely give up when you have people depending on you for their life. If I'm ever bleeding out on the surgery table, I would hope the doctor works until I flatline as opposed to stopping at some point putting the tools down and giving up

But I digress, offense to those with faith was not intended
 
Tantalum said:
sure! Preferably over a cold drink though and not somewhere that would violate our rules of conduct

in actuality, what people choose to believe in and pray to is his or her own right. And if a passenger decides to start praying, then more power to them, maybe if there is some force out there it will give the pilot the strength to save lives

what I have a hard time with, is the notion that the person whose sole responsibility is the safe outcome of the flight, would get to a position where they've effectively given up and have resorted to praying. I guess it's not the praying that bothers me, per se, but that this is what it has come to, feeling utterly powerless

There is a subtle distinction there, it's not so much that they had a faith or belief, I take zero issue with that at all, it's that they were put in a position where they had to give up and put all their hopes in this faith or belief

what's criminal to me is to completely give up when you have people depending on you for their life. If I'm ever bleeding out on the surgery table, I would hope the doctor works until I flatline as opposed to stopping at some point putting the tools down and giving up

But I digress, offense to those with faith was not intended
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but I think you’ve assumed the part about giving up. You seem to think that prayer and reality are incompatible, that one necessarily excludes the other. That’s not the case. And even if he did give up, it may have been appropriate based on the circumstances. There is a point when even the ER docs make the call.

Lastly, spaghetti monster has context. Its purpose is to offend.
 
Cooter said:
Lastly, spaghetti monster has context. Its purpose is to offend
Click to expand...
I'll own that. Pardon

TCABM said:
Judging without experience is a difficult thing
Click to expand...
True, but as humans we all make judgments, it's part of life and survival. For the better or worse we are always judging each other, whether subconsciously or not. Our best frame of reference as to what we would do in a given set of events is ourselves. Oh well
 
I know for a fact that humans can pray AND fly at the same time. I've done it myself. I've asked the Great One to damn this action and that action as I've bounded down the runway. Exclaimed to the Creator how I'd never do that again now that It's actions saved me. Asked the Mighty Cloud demons to stop launching bolts of zillion volts at me. Even hollered, "Oh God am I awesome!" in a feeble attempt to thank the Big Guy for that sweetass landing. YMMV, but I'm a believer that microsecond prayers help, I'm alive to prove it.

Now, back to the reality of ADSB and the assumed tinfoil hat requirements...
 
Hank S said:
"Welcome to the inaugural flight of Nomad airlines, offering the world's only non-stop service in fully automated, pilotless jet aircraft. Please sit back and enjoy your flight, secure in the knowledge that nothing can go wrong . . . go wrong . . . go wrong . . . "
Click to expand...

“I’m sorry Dave, I can’t do that.”

Cheers
 
TCABM said:
The psychology of death is a strange beast. Judging without experience is a difficult thing.
Click to expand...

I know people who have died, but they cannot share the experience with anyone. I have not died yet, so how can I get experience before I do die?
 
I wonder if the relationship of the contributions of the pilots and Boeing to this will end up being adjudicated in court in a bunch of wrongful death lawsuits?
 
Hank S said:
I have not died yet, so how can I get experience before I do die?
Click to expand...
I don't want to speak for the poster, but I interpreted this to mean exactly that, that we don't know which is why passing judgment is such a strange beast
 
Hank S said:
I know people who have died, but they cannot share the experience with anyone. I have not died yet, so how can I get experience before I do die?
Click to expand...

Kind of proving the point. Making value decisions on the actions of others when you’ve never had that experience is, well, the definition of judgment.

Continuing on the psychology of death, most of the work deals with the grieving process, but there is interesting material relevant to traumatic death events.

Here’s a few off the top of my mind:

Psychology today on Terror Management Theory
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/terror-management-theory

Decent NatGeo article describing the gray zone of death
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...-death-brain-dead-body-consciousness-science/

Don Piper has an interesting read.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0800759494/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_awdo_mr8TCb52HX6P1

Last words of CVR transcripts can shed some light on the words of others in their final moments.
http://planecrashinfo.com/lastwords.htm
 
TCABM said:
Last words of CVR transcripts can shed some light on the words of others in their final moments.
Click to expand...
Recently discovered this site.. it is interesting to see human behavior at the prospect of immediate death

This is genuinely heart breaking "Amy, I love you." damn!
 
This thread's getting morbid! :eek2:
 
giphy.gif
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
I wonder if the relationship of the contributions of the pilots and Boeing to this will end up being adjudicated in court in a bunch of wrongful death lawsuits?
Click to expand...
Not if emotion is involved. And attorneys always use emotion when presenting the facts!
 
From "737 Driver" today at PPRuNe (last paragraph emphasis mine):

I think what some of us are trying to say is that if you are in tune with your aircraft, it become apparent very quickly what kind of situation you are dealing with. Initial rotation is approximately 10 degrees. No matter what alarms are going off, if the aircraft rises into the air as it normally does then it is almost certain that you are not approaching a stall. Maintain takeoff power setting, continue rotation to 15 degrees and get some space between you and the ground. At some point later, according to preference, execute the Airspeed Unreliable procedures.

On the other hand, if the aircraft acts mushy and hovers in ground effect, then respect the stick shaker. Gingerly apply full power, carefully manage the pitch, accelerate and climb.

If a pilot puts the aircraft into the proper rotation attitude and can't tell the difference between these two situations within seconds, then, quite frankly, they are not qualified to be in that seat.

Let me stress, however, the crew's actions in either of the MAX accidents are not necessarily because they were "bad" pilots. I do not have any personal experience with the training and operational cultures at either Ethiopian or Lion Air. If these crews were simply responding according to their training, then the scrutiny should be placed there.

I strongly suspect that there is a mismatch between the proficiency standard implicit in the aircraft design and the actual training and experience level in the field. Sadly, I think Boeing, the airlines and the certificate authorities are all aware of this mismatch, but fail to either 1) insist the aircraft design be sufficiently fault tolerant, or 2) emphasize the need for better training and deeper experience.

 
^^^

I made a comment, somewhere, about aircraft control systems having to be designed to the lowest common denominator. That LCD seems to be the pilots - either their personal ability or their training. With the expansion of airlines and discount airlines around the world, that LCD may be dropping below the designed minimums. I expect we'll start seeing more accidents.
 
Piperonca said:
Boeing, the airlines and the certificate authorities are all aware of this mismatch,
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, Boeing has zero say so in the "better training and deeper experience" side of things. I think if Boeing could, provided all manufacturers required the same, they would require training and experience levels way beyond the current levels. But only the airlines via the CAA has that authority as seen by the 361 hr SIC in the EA flight.

As to the "fault tolerant" side, I believe every manufacturer would design such an aircraft, but who would buy it at that price?

Bottonline, it's all about the money...from all sides for different reasons.
 
Even Airbus has not ruled out the MAX:
TOULOUSE, France (Reuters) - Airbus sales chief Christian Scherer said it is selling longer-range versions of its A321, while signaling a shift away from chasing market share at any cost and predicting Boeing will emerge quickly from the grounding of its rival 737 MAX.
 
I would have no fears flying on a Southwest 737 Max. Happy to do so the moment they’re returned to service.
 
Last edited:
I still see these pilots dealing with two things: (1) unusual attitude and (2) stabilizer trim runaway. Both of these are in the checklist and most of it is "memory items". AP disconnect, power back, speed-brakes, tri8m cutout switches, grab and hold trim wheel. From what is published, these pilots did not do all of that.
 
And now another chapter in the story. From several sites:
On Apr 27th 2019 it became known, that four independent whistleblowers, current and former Boeing employees, had called the FAA hotline for whistleblowers regarding aviation safety concerns on Apr 5th 2019. The concerns reported were wiring damage to the AoA related wiring as result of foreign object damage as well as concerns with the TRIM CUTOUT switches. The FAA believes these reports may open completely new investigative angles into the causes of the two crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia.
 
Well, it was a few days ago, but Boeing finally came out with what I have been saying for a while. Both crashed 737 MAX crews failed to follow procedures. If I don't follow memory items in a 61.58 check, they will fail my hiney. And these guys get checked every 6 months.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top