# Boeing 737Max



## Milosh (Mar 13, 2019)

I am surprised no one has started a topic on this a/c. Two fatal crashes in the last 5 months.


----------



## MiTasol (Mar 13, 2019)

In general too well covered in the press.
I note in industry press there are references to two US operators reporting similar problems caused by the autopilot to NASA Feedback. These problems were not the MCAS.
Also much reporting on the CVR and DFDR but no mention of the QAR.


----------



## mikewint (Mar 13, 2019)

It's also a bit early to comment until the "Black Box" evidence is made public. The crashes are tantalizing similar BUT.... IMHO the FAA should ground these aircraft until the cause of crash #2 is in simply in the name of caution.
Computer automation is a wonderful thing until it doesn't work. I can hardly wait until the automated cars become common

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 13, 2019)

Canada has grounded its fleet
Pilot reported flight-control problems before Ethiopian Airlines plane went down | CBC News


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 14, 2019)

The aircraft are now grounded in the US as well. 4 pilots in the US complained about problems with it over the last few months.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 14, 2019)

US pilots reported problems with Boeing 737 MAX

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 14, 2019)

I see the media is having a field day with it (before the facts are in) and oddly enough, the issues with Airbus have all but been forgotten.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 14, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> I see the media is having a field day with it (before the facts are in) and oddly enough, the issues with Airbus have all but been forgotten.



I agree the media is having a field day, but Airbus’s problems don’t change the fact that the 737 Max has a serious issue at the moment. No need to detract from one or the other. When it comes to the safety of the passengers, not everything has to be about one vs. the other.

Especially since initially the airlines were not even aware the system was put in the aircraft. American airlines made a statement that it was originally not even aware it was installed, and its pilots were not trained on it for that reason.


----------



## Torch (Mar 14, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> I see the media is having a field day with it (before the facts are in) and oddly enough, the issues with Airbus have all but been forgotten.


I was going to bring up the Airbus issues but you beat me to it.


----------



## Torch (Mar 14, 2019)

Wasn't going there for tit for tat, just seems newer aircraft have challenges that need to be resolved asap and hopefully with feed back from the pilots and the black boxes, which I hope ends up back in the USA . Stuff like this can hurt the aircraft industry if it turns out Boeing or whom ever skipped a design issue that could have influenced the crashes


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 14, 2019)

Torch said:


> Wasn't going there for tit for tat, just seems newer aircraft have challenges that need to be resolved asap and hopefully with feed back from the pilots and the black boxes, which I hope ends up back in the USA . Stuff like this can hurt the aircraft industry if it turns out Boeing or whom ever skipped a design issue that could have influenced the crashes



Agreed that all new aircraft have problens. The problem is that the pilots and airlines have reported that the RFM is poorly written, and made no mention of the system to begin with. For this reason, none of the airlines (Including American Airlines, who have stated this.) trained their pilots on what to do when the system does not operate properly, as it clearly isn’t. An aircraft should no go into an uncommanded dive for 10 seconds that can not be arrested. How can you train for something that you do not know is there.

Boeing issued a software update to fix the problem after the Lion Air crash. Unfortunately it does not seem to have fixed the problem.

So even with American Airlines pilots stating they havd had problems with the aircraft, and the manuals are poorly written, and contain insufficient information, I think a temporary grounding is a good thing. Let’s take a step back, figure out the problem, so no more passengers have to die because of it.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Mar 14, 2019)

Torch said:


> Wasn't going there for tit for tat, just seems newer aircraft have challenges that need to be resolved asap and hopefully with feed back from the pilots and the black boxes, which I hope ends up back in the USA . Stuff like this can hurt the aircraft industry if it turns out Boeing or whom ever skipped a design issue that could have influenced the crashes



The 'black boxes' have gone to France.


----------



## Torch (Mar 14, 2019)

Milosh said:


> The 'black boxes' have gone to France.


I know ,apparently there is distrust on what the results in the USA would be, plus rumor has it politics are involved as a slap in the face to Boeing from Euro air industries.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 14, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Agreed that all new aircraft have problens. The problem is that the pilots and airlines have reported that the RFM is poorly written, and made no mention of the system to begin with. For this reason, none of the airlines (Including American Airlines, who have stated this.) trained their pilots on what to do when the system does not operate properly, as it clearly isn’t. An aircraft should no go into an uncommanded dive for 10 seconds that can not be arrested. How can you train for something that you do not know is there.
> 
> Boeing issued a software update to fix the problem after the Lion Air crash. Unfortunately it does not seem to have fixed the problem.
> 
> So even with American Airlines pilots stating they havd had problems with the aircraft, and the manuals are poorly written, and contain insufficient information, I think a temporary grounding is a good thing. Let’s take a step back, figure out the problem, so no more passengers have to die because of it.



Initially I thought this was a knee-jerk reaction until all the domestic reports came in on issues with this aircraft, especially the poorly written manuals and systems being installed on the aircraft with no reference material to explain their operation, that's pretty scary stuff!

In another life I briefly worked around 737-800s and thought their publications were excellent and well explained, at least for the systems I worked with.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 14, 2019)

Torch said:


> I know ,apparently there is distrust on what the results in the USA would be, plus rumor has it politics are involved as a slap in the face to Boeing from Euro air industries.



It would not be the first time...

Read up on American Airlines Flight 96, and how the FAA did not issue a Mandatory AD for DC-10 cargo door design flaws, because of a handshake agreement between the FAA and McDonald Douglas. 

It took the crash of Turkish Airlines Flight 981, killing almost 350 people, a year and half later to get changes made to cargo door.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 14, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Initially I thought this was a knee-jerk reaction until all the domestic reports came in on issues with this aircraft, especially the poorly written manuals and systems being installed on the aircraft with no reference material to explain their operation, that's pretty scary stuff!
> 
> In another life I briefly worked around 737-800s and thought their publications were excellent and well explained, at least for the systems I worked with.



Exactly, there is some stuff that needs to get worked out here before another tragedy happens. 

People need to set their national pride, and manufacturer bias aside.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Mar 14, 2019)

There was an interview with a retired FAA official on TV today who stated the C/G needed to be moved forward as when on climb out when the acft reached a certain angle the engine position now moved the C/G aft so the software thought there was a stall. He felt a software patch was in the works.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 14, 2019)

special ed said:


> There was an interview with a retired FAA official on TV today who stated the C/G needed to be moved forward as when on climb out when the acft reached a certain angle the engine position now moved the C/G aft so the software thought there was a stall. He felt a software patch was in the works.



I was talking to a long time 737 tech yesterday and he mentioned something similar as well.


----------



## special ed (Mar 14, 2019)

My cure, I'm not an engineer just a model builder, would be to insert a fuselage section forward of the wing and carry a dozen more passengers. That's how Lockheed made C-141Bs out of A models.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 14, 2019)

From the flight manual to automation, why pilots have complained about Boeing's 737 MAX 8

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Mar 14, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Boeing issued a software update to fix the problem after the Lion Air crash. Unfortunately it does not seem to have fixed the problem.



From what I have seen the Boeing software update has still not been issued - FAA approval was held up due to the government shutdown and FAA could not process all of the NASA Aviation Safety Reporting Database reports immediately for the same reason.

One worrying thing is that the 11 ASRD reports linked at least two US incidents to the autopilot so now Boeing & FAA will have to determine which system actually caused the problems. Hopefully there is one feature common to both systems that can be identified and a permanent fix implemented.

Another factor in this MAY be the operators desire to have a single rating for all 737 models starting with the -300. Maybe the Max series need a separate rating and less software that makes the 900, 8Max and 9Max crews "interchangeable" with the 300. Only time will tell and hopefully the Ethiopian CVR transcript will shed some light on what really happened.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Crimea_River (Mar 14, 2019)

My nephew's 737Max flight from Vancouver to Toronto today was cancelled. He now leaves tomorrow Vancouver--Calgary---Winnipeg---Thunder Bay--Toronto arriving 7am Saturday. Yikes.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 14, 2019)

I think the place a "black box" recorder goes to depends on agreements made long before the crash.


----------



## swampyankee (Mar 14, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It would not be the first time...
> 
> Read up on American Airlines Flight 96, and how the FAA did not issue a Mandatory AD for DC-10 cargo door design flaws, because of a handshake agreement between the FAA and McDonald Douglas.
> 
> It took the crash of Turkish Airlines Flight 981, killing almost 350 people, a year and half later to get changes made to cargo door.



During the 1980s, GE was found to have fudged the birdshot tests on the CF6, after a DC-10 lost all engines on takeoff from LGA, at least one of which didn't meet the "orderly shutdown" criterion. I was working at Lycoming-Stratford, and the more experienced engineers were convinced Lycoming or Pratt would have had their engine's type certificate revoked for similar shenanigans.


----------



## mikewint (Mar 14, 2019)

Al of the above is truly sad but SOP for corporate America. Recall the exploding Ford Pintos, corporate bean-counters weighed the odds of a fatal explosion-fire-death and the death benefits they's have to pay out vs. the cost of a complete fix of the problem and determined it was far cheaper to pay the occasional wrongful death lawsuit.
The 1960-64 Corvairs whose rear tires had to be over-inflated beyond Mfg specs to keep the rear tires from tucking-under producing a sudden deadly over-steer in a hard turn. With two adults on beard the tires were severely overloaded. Chevy knew about the problem but the fix added extra cost to the car. Chevy did offer an unadvertised at-cost option that included upgraded springs and dampers, front anti-roll bars and rear-axle-rebound straps to prevent tuck-under. Think that for one second that Chevy warned buyers of the problem


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 14, 2019)

Good to know about that aircraft safety stuff Mike

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 14, 2019)

I'm wondering, during the certification process how much of the conformity and certification was accomplished by designees. Some of the issues brought up by pilots makes me believe the fox was watching the hen house.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Mar 14, 2019)

The basic 737 airframe is a design dating back to the 1960's. Its hardly a new aircraft. Whats changed are it onboard flight management systems. Some of the press is running stories that airlines have omitted to train their aircrews on these automated flight systems and the procedures needed to override them. 


I don't know how true or reliable those reports are. What concerns me is the reticence of the US to ground the aircraft after two crashes of new aircraft. Whatever or whoever is to blame, people are at risk. Safety should be paramount, and those aircraft should be grounded until the reasons for the crashes are known.


President Trump got this one right, or at least it looks like that to me as an outsider.


----------



## Crimea_River (Mar 14, 2019)

Canada was a hold out too, but relented just before the US after review of the flight profile from satellite data.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 14, 2019)

parsifal said:


> The basic 737 airframe is a design dating back to the 1960's. Its hardly a new aircraft.



Not really, IIRC it only shares about 20% common structure with the original 737. Much of the structure is composite and many of the systems are very different from the "classic" 737 series (-100 to -500) No, its a very different aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Mar 15, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Not really, IIRC it only shares about 20% common structure with the original 737. Much of the structure is composite and many of the systems are very different from the "classic" 737 series (-100 to -500) No, its a very different aircraft.



AND certification procedures have changed significantly over the years. Originally an aircraft could be stretched, wings significantly redesigned and have unlimited power increases with only the directly effected components requiring a fresh structural analysis. For the last 30 years or so changing primary structure, or power, or systems, by more than a relatively small amount requires a total reanalysis and re-certification. This kept the 747-400 out of Europe for several months while Boeing ticked all the JAA boxes back around 1990.

What surprised me was Boeing's hesitation on grounding the 737MAX aircraft. They grounded the 787 much faster for what was at that stage an equally vague root cause and zero fatalities. In my dealings with them over the years Boeing has always been very responsible and helpful.

Airbus on the other hand often refused to admit that a problem even existed. One operator I worked for had almost daily problems on long A310 flights with pitot head icing that required dropping from cruise altitude to warmer air for half an hour or so. A potentially dangerous situation as well as requiring the loading of extra fuel (and less cargo) to ensure the crew could still arrive at the scheduled arrival airport with at least the legal diversion reserves. All faxes to Airbus had the same reply - _no other operator has this problem_. After several years at the operators conference our Engineering Manager threw the question to other operators to find if any others had the problem but were not reporting it. Dozens had the problem and all got the same _no other operator has this problem_ reply from Airbus. Both JAA and FAA had a presence at the conference and things moved very quickly after that. We had new pitot heads soon after and upgraded to 767-300's within a couple of years. Incidentally this is the exact same problem that was later the root cause of the Air France A330 accident in the Atlantic.

ATR were also difficult to deal with and refused to supply FCOM supplements for kits they installed at the factory until I sent them a draft of the official complaint I was preparing for DGAC and FAA over fraudulent factory log book certifications. Those certifications stated the modifications had been completed but the Service Bulletins required the FCOM supplements be inserted before making the logbook certifications. Funny thing happened - the supplements arrived by email overnight and by DHL a couple of days later.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P63H (Mar 15, 2019)

Curious if 'Skyfleet' had any operatives in Africa last Sunday???


----------



## mikewint (Mar 15, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Good to know about that aircraft safety stuff Mike


Geo, examples of Corporate Think. Not a aircraft Guy but have seen enough examples of the way major corporations operate to have a very strong suspicion that Boeing, et al, aren't much different and ruled by the god of the "bottom line" just like the major automakers. Foreign corporations aren't much different as the massive Takata airbag recall clearly demonstrates.



parsifal said:


> people are at risk. Safety should be paramount,


Yea Michael and I should be young, rich, and handsome. P.S. The Check is in the mail!


----------



## Torch (Mar 15, 2019)

There was a real good documentary on the Airbus test pilot that could not pull the nose up of an A320, Airbus accused him of pilot error and his career was destroyed, spent his life clearing his name. Turns out it was a computer glitch. The company did everything to smear his name but at the end he had vindication. Can't find the documentary but this is the video of the crash.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Mar 15, 2019)

I remember that!


----------



## jetcal1 (Mar 15, 2019)

In all the hurry to pick a side of the fence to sit on, one little tidbit was over looked, the Lion aircraft had a AOA system squawk that had not been repaired. Given that and the initial reports of debris and smoke streaming from the Ethiopian aircraft while in-flight, its easy to see why the FAA was reticent to ground the aircraft. 

Now it appears that around the time the grounding was announced that trim components from Ethiopian crash were found in a similar condition to those of the Lion Aircraft. 

I can understand why the waited, but.....two crashes of a new aircraft less than 6 months apart is now unheard of. This isn't the 1950's anymore.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Mar 15, 2019)

Capt. Sullenberger ("Miracle on the Hudson" fame) has now chimed in:

Hero 'Miracle on the Hudson' pilot blasts 'absurd' lack of training in wake of fatal Ethiopian Airlines crash

The First Officer only had 200 hours experience which seems really low to me, but then again I was ready for my first solo flight with only 10 hours of flying.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 15, 2019)

Its not a lack of training in being a pilot, but rather a lack of training of the installed system, and what to do when it is not working properly because the airlines were not aware the system was installed, because the manuals made no real reference of it. So yeah, training does have a bit to do with it.


----------



## mikewint (Mar 15, 2019)

Joe and Chris, I would very much like to hear from both of you about the degree of computer control/automation in aircraft like the 737. I realize that it is a complicated question with no simple answer but IMHO we seem to be headed down the A.I. knows best path. Is that because planes like the Airbus/737/etc. are so complicated that only a very few highly skilled pilots could actually fly them without help and as a result more and more A.I. systems are in place so that the lesser skilled and even minimally skilled can fly them?


----------



## Torch (Mar 15, 2019)

Another good read..https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/magazine/mag-08Plane-t.html,,,,,,Air France flight 447


----------



## swampyankee (Mar 15, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I'm wondering, during the certification process how much of the conformity and certification was accomplished by designees. Some of the issues brought up by pilots makes me believe the fox was watching the hen house.




From my short stint in the civilian aerospace sector, most of the certification process relies on the honesty and compliance of the airframe and engine manufacturers.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 15, 2019)

mikewint said:


> Joe and Chris, I would very much like to hear from both of you about the degree of computer control/automation in aircraft like the 737. I realize that it is a complicated question with no simple answer but IMHO we seem to be headed down the A.I. knows best path. Is that because planes like the Airbus/737/etc. are so complicated that only a very few highly skilled pilots could actually fly them without help and as a result more and more A.I. systems are in place so that the lesser skilled and even minimally skilled can fly them?



The last "complicated" aircraft I worked around was the 737-800. The company I was working for was installing a HUD that provided a visual ILS system that basically burnt trough "the soup." (Marconi later BAE Synthetic Vision). Designers have put systems in place that would simplify processes during specific flight regimes (ex. ILS CAT IIIB, autoland) but in doing so unleashed a whole new environment where pilots are spending more time learning how to operate equipment rather than genuinely flying the aircraft. Just look at the GA world where aside from getting a checkout in a new Cessna or Cirrus, you have to get Garmin G1000 training before you can be considered fully checked out and proficient on the aircraft. I don't believe that you have to be highly skilled to learn how to fly modern aircraft, but have to be "highly patient" to learn this highly complex layers of computers that IMO are overly complex and clumsy for the tasks they are designed to perform. Like anything else, the equipment could be learned but IMO it's evident when dealing with some of these new electronic wonders, one could see they were designed by computer engineers, let only your traditional aircraft engineer who preferably had some flight experience under his or her belt.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 15, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> From my short stint in the civilian aerospace sector, most of the certification process relies on the honesty and compliance of the airframe and engine manufacturers.



That's always the goal but when you had incidents like the DC-10 cargo door tragedy as pointed out earlier, it show the certification process has always had imperfections. In this day and age with the use of more and more certification designees, especially those employed my the manufacturer, well IMO it raises doubt!


----------



## swampyankee (Mar 16, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> That's always the goal but when you had incidents like the DC-10 cargo door tragedy as pointed out earlier, it show the certification process has always had imperfections. In this day and age with the use of more and more certification designees, especially those employed my the manufacturer, well IMO it raises doubt!


GE was found to have never done any bird ingestion tests on the CF6, the engine on the DC-10, instead using the results from the engine on the C-5, which used a completely different fan (two stages vs one on the CF6). This was discovered when a DC-10 taking off at Laguardia lost all three engines on takeoff, with at least one bursting into flame.


----------



## mikewint (Mar 16, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> certification process relies on the honesty and compliance of the airframe and engine manufacturers.


Corporate honesty goes as far as the bottom-line and no further. Cutting corners to maximize profit is a corporate mantra. Bean-counters know that they are going to face lawsuits and have a pretty good idea of what they will have to pay out as a result of those suits so it is a simple matter to weigh the two costs and see which one gives the greatest profit margin. 
Pilots like any other professional come in various grades of competence. Some got A+ in pilot school and some got C-. Tales abound about drunken and hung-over pilots and those diddling stewardess in the cockpit. On the other hand we have computer controlled systems that either fail or have software bugs that cause them to do weird things. Anyone using a Microsoft OS can attest to that fact. Add to that the fact that we expect more and more from an aircraft which adds exponentially to complexity. Again a simple truth: The more complex a system is the more likely it is to fail at some point. So where does the line lie?



FLYBOYJ said:


> I don't believe that you have to be highly skilled to learn how to fly modern aircraft,


Joe thank you for your response. The intent of my question was that: Is it possible to fly one of these big beasts manually without all the A.I. gizmos. Could the average pilot do so flight after flight or are there so many things going on that no human could do it successfully the vast majority of the time.
For example, going back to automobiles, Dad had a Model-T. Only a very few strong men could even start it with the manual crank and more than one of these received a broken arm when the engine started backwards. The 1:1 steering required constant muscle lest a bump tear the wheel out of your hand. A sharp rock could and did blowout the 90psi bicycle tires like a stick of dynamite. You could not relax for an instant going down the road. Consequently there was a very limited market for the T. If you want to increase your sales you have to add complexity so that more people could drive it. So we add electric start, power steering, power brakes, heat and air-conditioning, idiot-lights for those who can't read a simple gauge. In today's world front, rear, side, and even eye sensors for those who can't continually visually check those areas for problems. The most marginal, no-skilled, cretins can hop in today's cars and drive off.
Ok back to aircraft. Are modern aircraft being automated for the same reasons? Are we headed toward a cockpit with two big buttons, one labeled Take Off and the other Land.


----------



## special ed (Mar 16, 2019)

My friends know for years I have said , " I'm glad Microsoft doesn't build airplanes". I see people often drive up to my neighbor's driveway and find out they relied on their GPS unit and never looked at street signs or house numbers. The great masses will need us old guys to read maps for them when the grid is shot down.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 16, 2019)

mikewint said:


> Joe thank you for your response. The intent of my question was that: * Is it possible to fly one of these big beasts manually without all the A.I. gizmos. Could the average pilot do so flight after flight or are there so many things going on that no human could do it successfully the vast majority of the time.*



At the end of the day - YES. They have to be certified so if all the gizmos fail, they can still be flown by hand with a couple of "steam gauges."

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 16, 2019)

I read somewhere there was an experiment on simulators putting a private pilot license holder on the flight deck of a modern airliner. This to find out if the "movie scenario" of a person being talked down by ground control could actually be done. All of them crashed the simulator, it is just a different type of flying.


----------



## special ed (Mar 16, 2019)

Don't forget the mechanic who stole the twin turbo prop.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 16, 2019)

pbehn said:


> I read somewhere there was an experiment on simulators putting a private pilot license holder on the flight deck of a modern airliner. This to find out if the "movie scenario" of a person being talked down by ground control could actually be done. All of them crashed the simulator, it is just a different type of flying.



In 1998 my father in law sent me a 737-500 flight manual. Studied it and then was invited to United's Training center in Denver to fly a full motion simulator. After a briefing and about an hour of ground instruction I was able to start it, taxi, take off, fly, shoot an approach and land it. At that time I had about 300 hours and was just starting my instrument rating training.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 16, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> In 1998 my father in law sent me a 737-500 flight manual. Studied it and then was invited to United's Training center in Denver to fly a full motion simulator. After a briefing and about an hour of ground instruction I was able to start it, taxi, take off, fly, shoot an approach and land it. At that time I had about 300 hours and was just starting my instrument rating training.


A different era, just relating what I read. I am talking about a movie scenario of tha crew being incapacitated and a "pilot" from the passengers being asked to take over and be "talked down" by the control tower.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 16, 2019)

pbehn said:


> A different era, just relating what I read. I am talking about a movie scenario of tha crew being incapacitated and a* "pilot" from the passengers being asked to take over and be "talked down" by the control tower*.



If a GA pilot had some good multi-engine time, I wouldn't rule it out as being impossible


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 16, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I don't believe that you have to be highly skilled to learn how to fly modern aircraft, but have to be "highly patient" to learn this highly complex layers of computers that IMO are overly complex and clumsy for the tasks they are designed to perform.



That's for sure, even doing a one day ATR famil course makes me tired!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 16, 2019)

This link explains some of the issues surrounding the MCAS, which is high on the list of causes of the two crashes.

737 MAX - MCAS

The Max is quite a different beast to earlier 737s; the placing of the new LEAP nacelles forward of the CG is the cause behind the implementation of MCAS; the nacelles produce lift, which causes a nose up attitude owing to being forward of the aircraft's cg, bringing the aircraft close to a stall condition. The MCAS was designed as a stick pusher to lower the nose.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 17, 2019)

pbehn said:


> I read somewhere there was an experiment on simulators putting a private pilot license holder on the flight deck of a modern airliner. This to find out if the "movie scenario" of a person being talked down by ground control could actually be done. All of them crashed the simulator, it is just a different type of flying.



I flew a 737 800 simulator last year, and flew it just fine manually.


----------



## mikewint (Mar 17, 2019)

Joe and Chris, thank you both for your information. I know that aircraft are highly variable in their flyability even to the point of being unflyable without computer assistance like the B-2 which uses a complex quadruplex computer-controlled fly-by-wire flight control system, that automatically manipulates flight surfaces and settings without direct pilot inputs to maintain aircraft stability. Again like all such A.I. systems the complexity means that the failure of some small part dooms the entire system. The 23 Feb 2008 B-2 crash in Guam was later determined to be moisture in the aircraft's Port Transducer Units during air data calibration, which distorted the information being sent to the bomber's air data system. As a result, the flight control computers calculated an inaccurate airspeed, and a negative angle of attack, causing the aircraft to pitch upward 30 degrees during takeoff. The pilots escaped but the airframe loss was $1.4 billion.
A.I. failures vs. Pilot failures a tough call

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Mar 17, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I flew a 737 800 simulator last year, and flew it just fine manually.



The concern is how flyable is the aircraft when something goes wrong. A friend — with about 75 hours in Cessnas — did okay flying an F-106 simulator until he stalled it, had it go into a spin, and recovered 50,000 feet later (the instructor said he did pretty well; 35,000 ft was about about normal for a trained USAF fighter pilot). 

While an early supersonic fighter is not a late-generation airliner, the point is that experience and training can help prevent problems and makes recovering from them more likely to succeed quickly.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 17, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> The concern is how flyable is the aircraft when something goes wrong. A friend — with about 75 hours in Cessnas — did okay flying an F-106 simulator until he stalled it, had it go into a spin, and recovered 50,000 feet later (the instructor said he did pretty well; 35,000 ft was about about normal for a trained USAF fighter pilot).
> 
> While an early supersonic fighter is not a late-generation airliner, the point is that experience and training can help prevent problems and makes recovering from them more likely to succeed quickly.



Agree - at the same time you have a matter of experience and proficiency in certain aircraft that may work in the reciprocal. (Biff chime on on this one any time) Case in point - Many military pilots get their primary training in a GA aircraft (back in the day it was a T-41 or T-34). They transitioned on to a T-37 and or T-38 and then on to their assignment. At that point many would leave the thought of any "bug smasher" behind while they bored holes at mach 2+. Several years down the line, our fighter pilot example may have the opportunity or desire to get back flying a GA aircraft. Believe it or not many former military pilots have gotten themselves in serious trouble overestimating their skills while underestimating the lack of performance a GA aircraft has compared to what they've been flying. 

Case in point, sadly: 

Air Force pilot ignored icing warnings in fatal crash

I've also found many airline pilots who "come back" into flying GA aircraft have a tendency to flare high.

In discussing this situation with my father in law (who as also my flight instructor) he put it this way (I had about 300 hours at the time) - "If I took an F-16 jock who never flew a 172 and put him in that airplane and then put you in an F-16, well you both are gonna die, I'd take even odds on who dies first!"


----------



## gumbyk (Mar 17, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> If a GA pilot had some good multi-engine time, I wouldn't rule it out as being impossible



It would come down to the training philosophy of whoever did his training. For example, the last few type ratings I've done, my instructor has asked me how I think the aircraft will handle, based on what I see (configuration, control surface size, balance, etc). This has changed the way I approach flying a new type - I've come to generally anticipate how an aircraft will handle. 

This is all based on small GA aircraft, but someone who doesn't give this thought, will have a harder time jumping into an aircraft 'cold'.

Not saying that I'd be able to jump into one of these things and successfully land it, but as much as experience counts, attitude counts just as much.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 17, 2019)

gumbyk said:


> It would come down to the training philosophy of whoever did his training. For example, the last few type ratings I've done, my instructor has asked me how I think the aircraft will handle, based on what I see (configuration, control surface size, balance, etc). This has changed the way I approach flying a new type - I've come to generally anticipate how an aircraft will handle.
> 
> This is all based on small GA aircraft, but someone who doesn't give this thought, will have a harder time jumping into an aircraft 'cold'.
> 
> Not saying that I'd be able to jump into one of these things and successfully land it, but as much as experience counts, attitude counts just as much.



Then also consider - "Failure is not an option"!  LOL!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 17, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> At the end of the day - YES. They have to be certified so if all the gizmos fail, they can still be flown by hand with a couple of "steam gauges."


Including Airbus?? Where "the gizmos" are between your Atari stick and your control actuators? Hey Biff, can you bypass "the gizmos" on the throttles in the 'bus? It seems to me that the gizmos are coming to be considered part of the passive control linkage, like bobweights and servo tabs, a mentality that seems to have caused Boeing to feel MCAS was "just part of the flight control linkages", thus not needing any specific explanation or training.
I think any pilot properly trained by a North American or European airline would have connected the MCAS behaviour to essentially a runaway trim condition and responded accordingly.
My friend Kathleen, in her -800 training, was subjected to two runaway trim episodes, both in worst case scenarios involving engine outs, night IMC, turbulence, icing, heavy weight, a single engine ILS to a missed approach and a divert to another field, all with electric trim cutout and hand cranking all the way, and flying on the standby steam gauges, all screens off. One of these included a depressurization and an emergency descent from FL340. Somehow I doubt the Lion and Ethiopian crews were subjected to that kind of rigorous worst case training in their "economy class" program peddled by Boeing to third world countries. If they had, this conversation probably wouldn't be taking place.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 17, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I've also found many airline pilots who "come back" into flying GA aircraft have a tendency to flare high.


My employer in my CFI days had the school's Beech Sundowner wheelbarrowed and pancaked by the new CAP Air Force Liaison Officer, a full bird, who had just come off two consecutive tours as a BUFF command pilot. Insisted he'd flown "these Musketeer types" plenty in the past and didn't need a checkout. After it was pointed out that CAP regs required it, he browbeat a new young instructor into signing him off after one landing. He flew into a relatively short strip at night at too high an approach speed, landed long in wheelbarrow mode, and crowhopped it off the end of the runway into the localizer antennas. Everybody walked away, but it took six months to repair the plane.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Mar 17, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Including Airbus??



Airbus have three flight control computers, the loss of one will allow the aircraft to continue flight with minimal systems degradation. The loss of two will have major degradation, but will still allow a 'return to land' scenario. i.e. no single system failure should result in an uncontrollable aircraft. MCAS seems to be the single point failure in these cases.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 17, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> The concern is how flyable is the aircraft when something goes wrong. A friend — with about 75 hours in Cessnas — did okay flying an F-106 simulator until he stalled it, had it go into a spin, and recovered 50,000 feet later (the instructor said he did pretty well; 35,000 ft was about about normal for a trained USAF fighter pilot).
> 
> While an early supersonic fighter is not a late-generation airliner, the point is that experience and training can help prevent problems and makes recovering from them more likely to succeed quickly.



No disagreement there. I was only saying that it is possible for someone with general aviation to manually fly an airliner as well. I'm not convinced that everyone will walk away from the landing, but it can be flown...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 17, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Including Airbus?? Where "the gizmos" are between your Atari stick and your control actuators? Hey Biff, can you bypass "the gizmos" on the throttles in the 'bus? It seems to me that the gizmos are coming to be considered part of the passive control linkage, like bobweights and servo tabs, a mentality that seems to have caused Boeing to feel MCAS was "just part of the flight control linkages", thus not needing any specific explanation or training.
> I think any pilot properly trained by a North American or European airline would have connected the MCAS behaviour to essentially a runaway trim condition and responded accordingly.
> My friend Kathleen, in her -800 training, was subjected to two runaway trim episodes, both in worst case scenarios involving engine outs, night IMC, turbulence, icing, heavy weight, a single engine ILS to a missed approach and a divert to another field, all with electric trim cutout and hand cranking all the way, and flying on the standby steam gauges, all screens off. One of these included a depressurization and an emergency descent from FL340. Somehow I doubt the Lion and Ethiopian crews were subjected to that kind of rigorous worst case training in their "economy class" program peddled by Boeing to third world countries. If they had, this conversation probably wouldn't be taking place.
> Cheers,
> Wes



I think that if those airlines had been aware of the system being installed on the aircraft this conversation would not be taking place.


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 18, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Then also consider - "Failure is not an option"!



Ahh, the "don't eff up" culture. The engineer's creedo, until, like every single engineer out there, you do. I've seen some of the best and brightest guys out there do some pretty significant damage to aircraft - happens to everyone.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 18, 2019)

The technical aspects and crew training will certainly be interesting. The fact it was left out of the manual is likely going to involve a law suit of some description I'd have thought. 

Found this interesting run down on MCAS from a 737 training captain.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Mar 18, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Ahh, the "don't eff up" culture. The engineer's creedo, until, like every single engineer out there, you do. I've seen some of the best and brightest guys out there do some pretty significant damage to aircraft - happens to everyone.


I'm investigating one now...
Luckily no injuries, but they've got to replace the engine.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 18, 2019)

gumbyk said:


> *I'm investigating one now...*
> Luckily no injuries, but they've got to replace the engine.



You too, eh?


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 18, 2019)

Hooooo yeah, one going on in our hangar as we speak.


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 19, 2019)

Air Canada grounds Boeing Max 8s until at least July 1 | CBC News


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 20, 2019)



Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Mar 20, 2019)

A-Fricken-Men!


----------



## Torch (Mar 21, 2019)

Ethiopian Airlines pilot of doomed flight didn’t take training on 737 MAX simulator: report

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 21, 2019)

Torch said:


> Ethiopian Airlines pilot of doomed flight didn’t take training on 737 MAX simulator: report



Well that certainly did not help anything...


----------



## maxmwill (Mar 21, 2019)

Milosh said:


> I am surprised no one has started a topic on this a/c. Two fatal crashes in the last 5 months.


Y'know, as an A&P, duly licensed by the FAA, what's been going on with the MAX has been striking me as very wrong. With the first incident, there should have been an immediate grounding off all others of that type until an emergency repair has been developed. Happens with every other type, and not because the incidents hit the mass media, such as what happened at Burlington Airport around 1990. Here is the Cliff's Notes version of that incident.

I was walking from the hangar at Burlington, Washington Airport just as 45Delta, a Beech 18 that was owned by Methow Air Service making it's final cargo delivery for pickup by UPS. As I watched him(I used to work for Methow, and knew most of the pilots at that time, and knew them to be good sticks, even on the Beech 18 Westwinds, a mod of the Twin Beech that was considered a ground looping fool, making it a bird not very popular with the pilots), and as he touched down, the left wing dipped, and the engines roared as he panicked and firewalled the throttles, and he rotated back up, and as he gained altitude, the left mlg swung freely, and having worked on Beeches, knew that the retraction strut must have broken loose at on end or fell off(it didn't).

He began an orbit of the air port in order to consult with home base, and as he went overhead, I saw the left main wheel sitting at a strange angle, and as the UPS van had arrived to picvk the freight up, I walked to him and told the driver that the plane jsut had an accident(I pointed at the bird, and he saw the main, too), and that there might not be a pickup that day, so he left.

45 Delta also left, having gone back to Paine Field in Everett, where, after declaring an emergency, and waiting for the runway to be foamed. The boss said no foam, so the Beech just greased on in, the left prop being turned into scrap, an some aluminum scraped off the bottom. And with that. that little emergency was over, she was hauled back to the hangar, landing gear repaired, and she went back to freight hauling.

With this incident, all Beech 18s were immediately grounding pending the completion of the investigation.

No news or any other kind of announcement, other than the EAD the FAA issued.

Had there been a crash................................................

What failed was the bottom connection of the landing gear retraction strut had failed completely. There was no warning, completely unexpected. This was due to the age of the aircraft, and nothing else.

Why has this been happening to Boeing birds lately? I've been hearing of similar incidents(near crashes and other squawks on other Boeing birds)that the birds seem to have been getting a pass?

O, and the pilot of 45Delta? A month later, he came in, flying 45Delta, and I was able to hear his thoughts(commonly referred to "hangar flying"), and the only other thing that had to be done, besides the repairs, was to get the seat cleaned and his pants replaced, because since he was flying at gross, and had a goodly amount of fuel onboard, when that wing dipped, he literally shit, because he realized he might not have had enough time for his life to flash before his eyes.

And the passengers of a 737MAX died.

Boeing is referred to by many of us mechanics as "The Lazy B" I wish they'd work a bit harder.


----------



## maxmwill (Mar 21, 2019)

I don't know if this has any bearing, but I found this article in Raw Story:

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/03/re...crashed-planes/?utm_source=push_notifications
*REVEALED: Boeing charged airlines extra money for key safety upgrades that were missing on crashed planes*

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Mar 21, 2019)

Yikes....legal or not, that's a PR Nightmare.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 21, 2019)

Additionally the FAA was allowing Boeing (and all other manufacturers too), to certify their aircraft themselves. That is a big conflict of interest, and should not be allowed.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Mar 21, 2019)

Wow, that's just idiotic. Did the FAA ever audit them???


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 21, 2019)

vikingBerserker said:


> Wow, that's just idiotic. Did the FAA ever audit them???



Relationship between FAA and Boeing under scrutiny after deadly crash

Flawed analysis, failed oversight: How Boeing, FAA certified the suspect 737 MAX flight control system

Capt. Sullenberger: 737 MAX crashes reveal 'cozy' relationship between Boeing, FAA

And now it is a criminal investigation. This grounding was a good thing. Should have been done last year...

FBI joining criminal investigation into certification of Boeing 737 MAX

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 21, 2019)

Saw Sully's interview on TV and he really let them have it.


----------



## CCL2341 (Mar 21, 2019)

mikewint said:


> It's also a bit early to comment until the "Black Box" evidence is made public. The crashes are tantalizing similar BUT.... IMHO the FAA should ground these aircraft until the cause of crash #2 is in simply in the name of caution.
> Computer automation is a wonderful thing until it doesn't work. I can hardly wait until the automated cars become common


I agree - tantalizingly similar is a good description. The fact that problems unrelated to the MCAS were reported on other a/c confirms the need for not jumping to conclusions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 21, 2019)

CCL2341 said:


> I agree - tantalizingly similar is a good description. The fact that problems unrelated to the MCAS were reported on other a/c confirms the need for not jumping to conclusions



I think it is pretty clear the MCAS was a factor, and there were clear issues in the certification and documentation of the aircraft.


----------



## maxmwill (Mar 21, 2019)

Milosh said:


> I am surprised no one has started a topic on this a/c. Two fatal crashes in the last 5 months.


Why is no one asking the obvious question: This being the 2nd incident, why didn't the FAA immediately ground the world fleet after the 1st? I remember when the landing gear on the left wing of a Twin Beech at Burlington Airport in 1990 had collapsed, but the pilot retained enough wits(what would you d if the plane your flying, collapses on one main when you are just touching down?) to firewall it and circle around the cabbage patch to call the boss. I saw that as it happened. The UPS van that was waiting to pick the freight had to leave, because 45 Delta(the Twin Beech) had to go back to Paine Field. What happened was the retraction strut on the left main broke off on one end.

I used to work for Methow, and I knew the pilot, Shawn, and knew he was a good pilot. He might've left a pile of manure on the seat, but still a good pilot, because at Paine, Crash and Smash asked the owner, Hugh Glassburn, if he wanted foam on the runway, no was the reply, and the Beech greased in, pranging the hell out of the left prop and scraping the wingtip and belly a bit, but no fatalities, no injuries. 

But a very good pilot just doing his job, like Captain Sullenberger.


----------



## swampyankee (Mar 21, 2019)

vikingBerserker said:


> Wow, that's just idiotic. Did the FAA ever audit them???



Once upon a time, it may have. But, we’ve got to get rid of those pesky regulators, don’t we?

The FAA has relied on the honesty of manufacturers for decades, but between globalization, MBAs whose imagination ends with the bottom line, and shoving responsibility for quality control onto vendors, it’s working less well than it once did.


----------



## FSG43 (Mar 21, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It would not be the first time...
> 
> Read up on American Airlines Flight 96, and how the FAA did not issue a Mandatory AD for DC-10 cargo door design flaws, because of a handshake agreement between the FAA and McDonald Douglas.
> 
> It took the crash of Turkish Airlines Flight 981, killing almost 350 people, a year and half later to get changes made to cargo door.



Blood priority fellas. These situations remind me of the old MU-2 A/P related events.

Noted the horizontal jack-screw was mentioned once or twice early on and then seems to have been ignored. It showed a hefty down trim position. Now, what drives that when the pilots are not hand flying? The A/P. What drives the A/P in these new machines? A computer system and. of course, the pilot can influence it a bit, yes. Question is- After the pilots presumably disconnected the A/P, and the trim was still causing them fits, why couldn't it be re-trimmed? Was there a connection between the computer system and A/P that the pilots were unaware of and/or did not know how to disconnect OR did not have the capability to disconnect it so the airplane could be hand-flown? IF any of the foregoing has validity then it's time to look at the folks who, 1. Designed the computer-linked flight control system. and, 2. The FAA who certified the airplane as fit for commercial service. If none of the foregoing is valid, sorry to have chimed in and had you waste time reading this post.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 21, 2019)

maxmwill said:


> Why is no one asking the obvious question: This being the 2nd incident, why didn't the FAA immediately ground the world fleet after the 1st?


 Because there just wan't enough data to substantiate a fleet grounding. Right/ wrong or indifferent, the feds aren't going to ground a fleet of aircraft unless there is an obvious "smoking gun," and at that point they'll issue at least an Airworthiness Directive to address the problem. 

Case in point:

The Rudder Story


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 21, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Because there just wan't enough data to substantiate a fleet grounding. Right/ wrong or indifferent, the feds aren't going to ground a fleet of aircraft unless there is an obvious "smoking gun," and at that point they'll issue at least an Airworthiness Directive to address the problem.
> 
> Case in point:
> 
> The Rudder Story



Joe, I normally would agree with you, but I think in this instance there was enough data to warrant a grounding. Especially with the latest info coming out about the FAA.


----------



## MiTasol (Mar 21, 2019)

gumbyk said:


> Airbus have three flight control computers, the loss of one will allow the aircraft to continue flight with minimal systems degradation. The loss of two will have major degradation, but will still allow a 'return to land' scenario. i.e. no single system failure should result in an uncontrollable aircraft. MCAS seems to be the single point failure in these cases.



But, as Qantas proved several years back, if one of those three boxes has a different software revision the three boxes will fight each other and cause erratic flight tossing pax around, with injuries, and an emergency landing


----------



## gumbyk (Mar 21, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> But, as Qantas proved several years back, if one of those three boxes has a different software revision the three boxes will fight each other and cause erratic flight tossing pax around, with injuries, and an emergency landing


But no smoking hole in the ground.


----------



## MiTasol (Mar 21, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Additionally the FAA was allowing Boeing (and all other manufacturers too), to certify their aircraft themselves. That is a big conflict of interest, and should not be allowed.



This applies to not just Boeing and US manufacturers (or even aviation) but to every form of industry since the late 90s and applies to any company with an aerospace ISO9000 accreditation since 1999, including Airbus and other European aircraft and component manufacturers. 

The Aviation version of the ISO is Aviation Standard AS 9000 and contains some 50% more requirements than the ISO and also requires compliance with certain supplementary documents. 

If you work for an organization where there are no dedicated independent inspectors who physically check each critical stage of your work you are working for a company that has, or is regulated under a quality management system which is derived from AS9000. For maintenance staff and pilots the requirement to have any flight control work inspected by at least one other person (two in many countries) who were not physically involved in the original maintenance is just one small example of where AS9000 is reflected in your work.

See AS 9000 - the Aerospace Quality Management System — Quality Management System for a brief overview.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 21, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> This applies to not just Boeing and US manufacturers (or even aviation) but to every form of industry since the late 90s and applies to any company with an aerospace ISO9000 accreditation since 1999, including Airbus and other European aircraft and component manufacturers.
> 
> The Aviation version of the ISO is Aviation Standard AS 9000 and contains some 50% more requirements than the ISO and also requires compliance with certain supplementary documents.
> 
> ...



Believe me, I know that. I am ISO9100 and AS9000 Lead Auditor Certified. I’ve got the standard on my bookshelf in my office at work.

The problem here is the relationship with the FAA and Boeing. What kind of oversight if any was taking place. After 9/11 congress approved further measures which gave the manufacturers even further leeway.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 21, 2019)

FSG43 said:


> Question is- After the pilots presumably disconnected the A/P, and the trim was still causing them fits, why couldn't it be re-trimmed?


Because the MCAS system has more trim authority than the pilot's yoke mounted trim switches. When MCAS commands nose down, the electric trim operates at high speed in a series of bursts punctuated by pauses. Pilots can countermand that with their rocker switches, but those default to low speed trim, so it's "three steps forward and two steps back", a losing proposition in the long run. The 737 pilots I've talked with (none of them MAX) all said in their experience a trim system that behaved like that would have been identified as "runaway" or "uncontrollable" and immediately cut out, and hand cranked manual trim would become the order of the day.
This is the product of rigorous worst-case scenario training that is the norm in the modern world. Whether that level of training is upheld in the "economy class" training peddled by Boeing to third world airlines is open to question.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 21, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Joe, I normally would agree with you, but I think in this instance there was enough data to warrant a grounding. Especially with the latest info coming out about the FAA.


I don't know Chris - there seemed to be a lot of chatter but nothing solid. It seems that after the second crash a flurry of reports came out about issues encountered about the time of the first one. I haven't had a chance but I'm going to look through SAIBs and SDRs to see if there was anything reported through FAA channels at the time before and after the first crash.


----------



## MiTasol (Mar 22, 2019)

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/22/...s-lion-air-ethiopian-airlines-intl/index.html definitely alarms me.

Self paced self administered training has its place but in critical engineering and aircrew training a live person who can work back to why you made a critical mistake is crucial.

Maybe in this case it was appropriate but, until an audit of that training is completed, I will remain suspicious.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Mar 23, 2019)

special ed said:


> My friends know for years I have said , " I'm glad Microsoft doesn't build airplanes". I see people often drive up to my neighbor's driveway and find out they relied on their GPS unit and never looked at street signs or house numbers. The great masses will need us old guys to read maps for them when the grid is shot down.



I think it was an executive at GM who said something like "if they built cars like they built computers, you'd turn them off by pressing 'Start', they'd need a software upgrade if they restriped the roads, they'd ask for confirmation when you put on the brakes, and they'd shutdown when you turned on the windshield wipers."

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 23, 2019)

This is the only FAA SAIB I could find related to later model 737s with regards to flight control issues. Not to say there weren't any reported between operators and Boeing, this reporting system brings the FAA into the reporting system and is disseminated so other operators could compare issues. This one is interesting.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...42ca92fb5286258009005723f7/$FILE/NM-16-21.pdf

This is where you can find FAA SAIBs by manufacturer:

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSAIB.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet

There are hundreds of SDRs written against later model 737s. I went through a few, like looking for a needle in a haystack.

FAA :: SDR Reporting [Service Difficulty Report Query Page]


----------



## mikewint (Mar 26, 2019)

*A Boeing 737 Max flown by Southwest makes emergency landing at Orlando airport*

A Boeing 737 Max 8 plane — the same model that the Federal Aviation Administration grounded after two recent crashes — made an emergency landing at Orlando International Airport on Tuesday afternoon.

No passengers were on the jet, only two pilots for the plane's owner, Southwest Airlines. The pilots were flying the jet to California for storage when an engine overheated just before 3 p.m., a spokesman for the airline told NBC News. The plane was in the air about 11 minutes, the spokesman said.

The flight was scheduled to fly to Southern California Logistics Airport in Victorville, California, for short-term storage, according to the spokesman.

"The pilots reported a performance issue with one of the engines shortly after takeoff," the spokesman said.

The pilots landed safely at the airport. The plane will be moved to the airline's Orlando maintenance facility for review and will be taken to Victorville once it's safe to do so.


----------



## The Basket (May 6, 2019)

I read stuff about the 737 Max. 
I'm like nah. Journalist nonsense overhyping the pudding. 

Not sure what the game is but really? I'm no expert, but really? If what I read is true then it's very scary.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 6, 2019)

The Basket said:


> I read stuff about the 737 Max.
> I'm like nah. Journalist nonsense overhyping the pudding.
> 
> Not sure what the game is but really? I'm no expert, but really? If what I read is true then it's very scary.



Most of it is probably true. This was a big deal.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 6, 2019)

Tha'ts scary as <BLEEP>!


----------



## The Basket (May 7, 2019)

So if I am reading this right... 
Boeing did an engineering bodge. 
Then a software bodge. 
And then denied everything. 
And blamed everyone else. 
I am not expert in the aviation industry so I don't know if this is how it is.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (May 7, 2019)

The Basket said:


> So if I am reading this right...
> Boeing did an engineering bodge.
> Then a software bodge.
> And then denied everything.
> ...


You got it right. I think there's more to come. Something is rotten in the kingdom of Renton. Quality control issues with the 737-800 series are starting to surface via long-suppressed whistle blowers fired by Boeing for commenting on "the emperor's clothes".

Reactions: Optimistic Optimistic:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 7, 2019)

Things don't look much better from the crash in Moscow, can a 2 year old passenger plane be made unflyable by a lightning strike?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (May 7, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Things don't look much better from the crash in Moscow, can a 2 year old passenger plane be made unflyable by a lightning strike?


Listen, if Boeing, the supposed master of airliner technology can't get it right, what can you expect of a third world mafia kingdom masquerading as a super power?
Airbus comes up smelling like a rose, despite the skeletons in their closets.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 7, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Listen, if Boeing, the supposed master of airliner technology can't get it right, what can you expect of a third world mafia kingdom masquerading as a super power?
> Airbus comes up smelling like a rose, despite the skeletons in their closets.
> Cheers,
> Wes


I just thought it was strange or stupid to say the plane was disabled by a lightning strike, they happen all the time and have since the start of aviation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (May 7, 2019)

pbehn said:


> I just thought it was strange or stupid to say the plane was disabled by a lightning strike, they happen all the time and have since the start of aviation.


I say again, third world country. Deficiencies in design, manufacture, crew training, procedures, and probably maintenance, each seemingly insignificant in themselves, can come together in a chain of events to create an event like this. Despite all our experience, we haven't totally quantified lightning, and there's certain to be rogue circumstances that could overwhelm any bonding or "hardening" system, even something as crucial as FBW.
Judging from the video, the Aeroflot crew were not flying anything like a stabilized approach at a normal angle. From the speed and deck angle, it looked like a no flap or min flap landing with a panicked attempt to drive the plane onto the rapidly diminishing remaining runway at too high a speed. This could have been poor training, inoperative equipment or instruments, inadequate procedures, or just plain panic. There's probably enough blame to spread around quite widely.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (May 7, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> This could have been poor training, inoperative equipment or instruments, inadequate procedures, or just plain panic. There's probably enough blame to spread around quite widely.


Just for grins, let's put ourselves in the cockpit. You're approaching glide slope intercept in heavy precip and turbulence, radar showing a storm cell in your 1 o'clock, flaps are on their way to 20°, when ZAPP!!. Your lights flicker, radar goes out with a flash, and warning and caution lights flash all over the cockpit. Your engine FADECs are zapped, so your standby engine controls can only give you approximate power settings, and slowly, and your flaps are stuck at 12°. Your glide slope needle is alive, so you quickly throw down the gear and reduce power as the needle fluctuates through an on glideslope indication, screaming at your crew for the appropriate checklists, as your MFDs have gone dark. On slope, your Vref is going to be higher because of your reduced flaps, and you quickly go high on the glideslope, so you quickly pull off a gob of power, but your slow standby controls take too long, so now you're high and fast, and you don't notice that the engine power has undershot your target setting and is too low. Now you plummet through the glideslope and "Betty" starts bitching "Glideslope, glideslope, PULL UP", and one of your struck dumb crewmembers wakes up and says "Airspeed!". You're 15 knots below your flap setting Vref, so you cram on some power, but again the response is slow and overshoots the target, and you pop out of the murk high and fast just as your baggage hold fire warning light comes on and the head FA rings the cockpit to warn "Fire in the aft compartment!". The rest we saw in the video.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 7, 2019)

Well, a number of years back an Iranian 747 converted into a cargo aircraft crashed after a lightning strike. IIRC several German F-104's had the same fate.


----------



## fliger747 (May 8, 2019)

I've been hit in flight something like 4 times now, once in my superb (my radio exploded) and 3 times in transports. After inspection the ancient aircraft (not FBW) only had the small entrance-exit holes. 

I think in the Sukhoi 100 SJ incident there may have indeed been an issue related to a lightening strike disabling flight controls.

Landing and crash looks much like someone trying to land via using pitch trim. 

A little info from Sukhoi on the FBW:

Now few words about the hardware. Since the FBW system does not include a mechanical backup, the reliability requirements are very high! For this we have to say "Thank You" to AR MAK, i am talking seriously. Take into account that this plane was designed to fit into a predefined price, so we had to make it cheap and sophisticated, that seems to be impossible. The Russian creative approach in conjunction with German thoroughness is it turned out, are able to create a miracle. I won't go into complete debris, just let you know that taking into account the cost/quality of modern processing units, a complete two level network is deployed on-board, with such a large number of computer nodes that it's not longer possible to talk about a per-channel backup in a traditional way.

In order to "knock out" such a system, it is necessary to destroy more than 70% of computers, which is almost impossible given their heterogeneous hardware and software. At the same time, due to the development of a technology in the microelectronics segment,our system is relatively cheap, and despite the fact that the number of processing units in it is more than in A320, the FBW cost is lower, having a higher reliability.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fliger747 (Jun 3, 2019)

Part 25 regulations 25.203 to be exact on acceptable stall characteristics was the bug bear discovered in flight test that led to MCAS as a workaround. 

The larger LEAP nacelles, positioned marginally more forward, at high AOA began to generate lift. What this did at high AOA was to move the center of lift forward and at a certain point cause a division from the requirements of FAR 25.203. 

(a) It must be possible to produce and to correct roll and yaw by unreversed use of the aileron and rudder controls, up to the time the airplane is stalled. No abnormal nose-up pitching may occur. The longitudinal control force must be positive up to and throughout the stall. In addition, it must be possible to promptly prevent stalling and to recover from a stall by normal use of the controls.

Longitudinal (stick) force must be positive up to and throughout the stall. The movement of the Center of Lift caused a problem with meeting thins requirement. The fudge around was to have the AOA sensor tell the trim motor to trim against the pilots to provide increased stick force. 

We know how that worked out!

Possibly a better system would have been a stick force augmenter (disconnect able). The 747 had an artificial feel system to add stick resistance with speed to give the pilots tactile feedback.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 10, 2019)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/american-airlines-extends-737-max-cancellations-1.5168294


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 10, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> You got it right. I think there's more to come. Something is rotten in the kingdom of Renton. Quality control issues with the 737-800 series are starting to surface via long-suppressed whistle blowers fired by Boeing for commenting on "the emperor's clothes".


Now if they went to Cryptome or WikiLeaks, they'd have gotten the correct attention.


> Listen, if Boeing, the supposed master of airliner technology can't get it right, what can you expect of a third world mafia kingdom masquerading as a super power?


That's a great description of Russia...


> Airbus comes up smelling like a rose, despite the skeletons in their closets.


Which ones, I've lost track?


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 10, 2019)

Zipper730 said:


> Which ones, I've lost track?


A little behind on your skeleton-ology? As of 2016, 1393 people had lost their lives in A320 series accidents. Frequent enough so those accidents are no longer treated to the media splash that has demonized the Max.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Oct 22, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> Self paced self administered training has its place but in critical engineering and aircrew training a live person who can work back to why you made a critical mistake is crucial. Maybe in this case it was appropriate but, until an audit of that training is completed, I will remain suspicious.


Crappy third world training definitely played a part here. The below article suggests that the Indonesian pilots in particular were shoddily trained in fast tracked pilot farms, meaning they had no ability to deal with failed systems of any circumstances out of the ordinary.

What Really Brought Down the Boeing 737 Max?


----------



## Snautzer01 (Oct 23, 2019)

Indonesia publised its report today.


----------

