Airlinercafe Home Page

Stop being a lurker - join our community and get involved. Sign up and start a conversation!
 

      Author Message

      aro757


      Administrators

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 1893
      Location: San Ramon, CA
      Occupation: Software Engineer
      Age:

      Post #71933, posted on 03-10-2019 GMT-5 hours    
      Sadly, it looks like the Boeing 737 Max anti-stall system has caused another crash. An Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737 Max8 crashed shortly after takeoff killing all 157 onboard. Early data shows the plane doing abrupt climbs and descents, meaning that the pilots were fighting to maintain control of the airplane: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogaisky/2019/03/10/ethiopian-airlines-crash-puts-spotlight-again-on-boeing-737-max

      I know I'm speculating, but all signs sure point to the anti-stall system. Way too many similarities to the Lion Air crash.

      RIP everyone.

      Regards,

      ahmed

      Author Message

      Jennings


      Contributors

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 4106
      Location: The great desert southwest, USA
      Occupation: Nurse Anesthiologist
      Age: 117

      Post #71934, posted on 03-10-2019 GMT-5 hours    
      We absolutely cannot know anything like what caused this crash at this point, and speculation is utterly useless.

      Author Message

      Metropolitan2


      Members

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 651
      Location: Sunny Vestfold
      Occupation: Ret´d. airl. employee
      Age: 67

      Post #71936, posted on 03-10-2019 GMT-5 hours    
      Quote
      aro757 :
      Sadly, it looks like the Boeing 737 Max anti-stall system has caused another crash. An Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737 Max8 crashed shortly after takeoff killing all 157 onboard. Early data shows the plane doing abrupt climbs and descents, meaning that the pilots were fighting to maintain control of the airplane: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogaisky/2019/03/10/ethiopian-airlines-crash-puts-spotlight-again-on-boeing-737-max

      I know I'm speculating, but all signs sure point to the anti-stall system. Way too many similarities to the Lion Air crash.

      RIP everyone.


      =======

      I completely agree, Ahmed!!
      RIP anybody on board this fatal crash, poor souls😪
      - Harry B.

      Author Message

      NX28388


      Upper Deck Member

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 536
      Location:
      Occupation: Professional overthinker
      Age:

      Post #71939, posted on 03-10-2019 GMT-5 hours    
      I agree that it's way too early to speculate on just what the cause is. I know there's an innate urge we all have to figure out what the problem is and get it solved yesterday (especially given the concern about this happening in a new subtype that's in wide use), but 20+ years of reading accident reports has taught me time and again the value of the investigation process.

      To be blunt, only a handful of people on this board have the inside knowledge to make an educated guess - and at this point, all it would be is an educated guess. All that the rest of us can do is contribute armchair investigation from a far remove. Let's please let the professionals do their jobs.

      Jodie Peeler

      In 1924 Wien was Alaska's first airline. In 1980 it still is.

      Author Message

      aro757


      Administrators

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 1893
      Location: San Ramon, CA
      Occupation: Software Engineer
      Age:

      Post #71941, posted on 03-10-2019 GMT-5 hours    
      Of course it's all speculation. That's exactly what I said in my post above, but 2 accidents about 4 months apart with very similar scenarios is too hard to ignore. I think the FAA should ground all 737MAXs until the cause has been determined and a fix rolled out, before another ~200 people lose their lives.

      Regards,

      ahmed

      Author Message

      gebbw


      Members

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 611
      Location: Auckland
      Occupation:
      Age:

      Post #71943, posted on 03-11-2019 GMT-5 hours    
      Very tragic, condolences to all the families. And quite troubling that another max 8 is involved in such short time. I have read a report that CAAC (China) ordered Chinese airlines to suspend operations of the type.

      George
      Auckland
      New Zealand

      Author Message

      the PRIDEbird


      Members

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 930
      Location: south of FRA close to RWY 18
      Occupation: window seat or aisle seat?
      Age: 52

      Post #71944, posted on 03-11-2019 GMT-5 hours    
      5 Germans were on board as well... 😢 😢 😢 😢 😢

      Author Message

      gege320


      Members

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 416
      Location: Villeneuve Loubet
      Occupation: retired airline pilot
      Age: 66

      Post #71950, posted on 03-11-2019 GMT-5 hours    
      Quote
      gebbw :
      Very tragic, condolences to all the families. And quite troubling that another max 8 is involved in such short time. I have read a report that CAAC (China) ordered Chinese airlines to suspend operations of the type.



      https://www.facebook.com/1580734692199543/posts/2379156432357361/

      Gerard

      Author Message

      BruinPrideBand


      Members

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 545
      Location: SGF
      Occupation: International Aviation Law
      Age:

      Post #71962, posted on 03-12-2019 GMT-5 hours    
      Rest in Peace to all those on board and my thoughts are with their family and friends and the investigators working diligently to determine the cause of the crash.

      At this point I believe that most nations with the Max have grounded them and many have banned them from their airspace as is their right under the Chicago Convention.

      Also the general public and politicians (at least here in the U.S.) letting their opinions known.

      Chris

      "Sorry Goose... But it's time to buzz the Tower."

      Author Message

      the PRIDEbird


      Members

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 930
      Location: south of FRA close to RWY 18
      Occupation: window seat or aisle seat?
      Age: 52

      Post #71965, posted on 03-12-2019 GMT-5 hours    
      Quote
      Jennings :
      We absolutely cannot know anything like what caused this crash at this point, and speculation is utterly useless.



      Anyway Germany has blocked its airspace for the Max 8 today.
      TUI has had planned to operate the Max 8 from Germany originally in the beginning of April.

      Author Message

      sky303


      Members

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 181
      Location: Georgia
      Occupation: Airline Management
      Age: 53

      Post #71974, posted on 03-13-2019 GMT-5 hours    
      Well, it finally happened in the USA

      FAA Statement

      Rob
      KATL
      Captain, you'll be in charge of this flight
      when I unhook the towbar!

      Author Message

      Jennings


      Contributors

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 4106
      Location: The great desert southwest, USA
      Occupation: Nurse Anesthiologist
      Age: 117

      Post #71979, posted on 03-13-2019 GMT-5 hours    
      This entire thing is much more a public relations failure than a safety of flight issue. I don’t believe there is anything fundamentally wrong with the 737 MAX. To be sure, Boeing seems to have fallen down on providing adequate information in the manuals and training programs, but it’s also a FACT that Lion Air, and to some extent Ethiopian are exceedingly unsafe airlines (look at their crash records). Garuda is the only Indonesia airline that is permitted to fly into EU airspace because they are so unsafe.

      Author Message

      BruinPrideBand


      Members

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 545
      Location: SGF
      Occupation: International Aviation Law
      Age:

      Post #71981, posted on 03-13-2019 GMT-5 hours    
      Quote
      Jennings :
      This entire thing is much more a public relations failure than a safety of flight issue. I don’t believe there is anything fundamentally wrong with the 737 MAX. To be sure, Boeing seems to have fallen down on providing adequate information in the manuals and training programs, but it’s also a FACT that Lion Air, and to some extent Ethiopian are exceedingly unsafe airlines (look at their crash records). Garuda is the only Indonesia airline that is permitted to fly into EU airspace because they are so unsafe.



      I could go on and on and on about all this. Now I'm reading that Boeing is an evil empire and the FAA doesn't care about safety and only about keeping Boeing happy. All said by individuals who have no idea what they are talking about.

      Chris

      "Sorry Goose... But it's time to buzz the Tower."

      Author Message

      TWA Brat


      Members

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 54
      Location: Well off the beaten path
      Occupation: Retired
      Age:

      Post #71982, posted on 03-13-2019 GMT-5 hours    
      Why is it that a thorough system safety analysis occurs only after an accident or series of accidents. This reminds me of the Lauda Air 767 inflight reverser actuation disaster. A subsequent in-depth analysis of the reverser systems uncovered some flaws in the redundancy of the design and corrections were made. I can think of other examples.
      It seems to me that any system that takes away the control of the airplane from the flight crew should have had intense scrutiny from experts from engineering, flight crew ops, manufacturing, etc. Did Boeing convene a safety board before the MCAS design was finalized? Or was the system simply a rushed band-aid to satisfy the Certification agencies?
      I suspect we will know the answer soon.

      Author Message

      gege320


      Members

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 416
      Location: Villeneuve Loubet
      Occupation: retired airline pilot
      Age: 66

      Post #72000, posted on 03-15-2019 GMT-5 hours    
      More:

      https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-fi-boeing-max-design-20190315-story.html?fbclid=IwAR3sWzUa5U0RRqNYqxrYj92o9nhfiHM9MVYWswxtDHGiMqGi-F4WfIX_UCQ

      Author Message

      the PRIDEbird


      Members

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 930
      Location: south of FRA close to RWY 18
      Occupation: window seat or aisle seat?
      Age: 52

      Post #72002, posted on 03-15-2019 GMT-5 hours    
      Quote
      TWA Brat :
      Why is it that a thorough system safety analysis occurs only after an accident or series of accidents. This reminds me of the Lauda Air 767 inflight reverser actuation disaster. A subsequent in-depth analysis of the reverser systems uncovered some flaws in the redundancy of the design and corrections were made. I can think of other examples.
      It seems to me that any system that takes away the control of the airplane from the flight crew should have had intense scrutiny from experts from engineering, flight crew ops, manufacturing, etc. Did Boeing convene a safety board before the MCAS design was finalized? Or was the system simply a rushed band-aid to satisfy the Certification agencies?
      I suspect we will know the answer soon.



      Maybe because no one thinks about or anticipates such problems before.
      As long as a no problem occurred is everything well or seems to be well.
      A product can only be revised and improved if something is wrong.
      In case of the Lauda Air disaster hundreds of 767 flew thousands of hours over the years and nothing happened. Who should suspect something can get wrong?
      Probably all test at Boeing's facility were without any negative results before. No reason to be concerned.

      The same thing with the DC-10 in the 70ies and the problem with the bulk cargo hatch locking system. There were no problems before. Until 2 accidents, one with American Airlines and the other one Turkish Airlines crash near Paris. And later the cracks in the engine attachment. No incidents until the Chicago crash. The result: All DC-10s were grounded worldwide. And the DC-10 was a great plane! But the medias called the DC-10 as unsafe per sé.

      Author Message

      radioguy


      Upper Deck Member

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 563
      Location: Montreal
      Occupation: Misplaced
      Age:

      Post #72003, posted on 03-15-2019 GMT-5 hours    
      Quote
      Jennings :
      This entire thing is much more a public relations failure than a safety of flight issue. I don’t believe there is anything fundamentally wrong with the 737 MAX. To be sure, Boeing seems to have fallen down on providing adequate information in the manuals and training programs, but it’s also a FACT that Lion Air, and to some extent Ethiopian are exceedingly unsafe airlines (look at their crash records). Garuda is the only Indonesia airline that is permitted to fly into EU airspace because they are so unsafe.



      ET lost 2 737 classics. A 732 in 1988 (airframe was less than a year old), and a 734 in 2015 while
      operating for Asky. Not sure what the crewing arrangement was. Those, and the 762 lost to a water
      landing caused by hijack in 1996 are the only hull losses suffered by the airline prior to the MAX crash.
      So tell me..how are they exceedingly unsafe?

      Alan Aronoff
      CYUL

      Author Message

      Ken Miller


      Members

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 855
      Location: Campbell, CA
      Occupation: Govt. Employee
      Age: 126

      Post #72010, posted on 03-16-2019 GMT-5 hours    
      I realize I'm going off topic but want to address Pridebirds DC10 comments. The Turkish cargo door crash wasn't completely out of the blue. There had been a prior American Airlines? incident where the door blew out and plane depressurized in flight. In Chicago American devised their own procedures (conflicting with manufacturer recommendations?) that led to the engine loss. In Sioux City the uncontained failure of #2 engine led to loss of all 3? hydraulic systems. Unacceptable/bad design and certification that should not have been allowed.
      In the case of the DC10 the problems leading to crashes had or should have been foreseen.

      Ken

      Author Message

      Jennings


      Contributors

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 4106
      Location: The great desert southwest, USA
      Occupation: Nurse Anesthiologist
      Age: 117

      Post #72011, posted on 03-16-2019 GMT-5 hours    
      Greg Feith (former NTSB investigator and fellow Embry-Riddle graduate) posted this on his Facebook feed:

      "There are many timelines that have been circulating as to when the “issue(s)” with the Ethiopian airplane began. Some timelines indicate the issue occurred shortly after takeoff. If this is the case, and the airplane was still configured for takeoff (flaps/slats) deployed and the pilot was hand flying, the MCAS would not have been active. If the pilot engaged the autopilot shortly after takeoff, the MCAS would not have been active.

      The airplane must be flown manually and the flaps must be retracted for the system to be active. Thus, it will be important to determine the configuration change schedule that the crew executed during the climb out to see if the MCAS was active, and whether or not it was responsible for the initiating events."

      Author Message

      russmb


      Members

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 4
      Location: Sunny Arizona
      Occupation: Chief Cook & Bottle Washer
      Age:

      Post #72015, posted on 03-16-2019 GMT-5 hours    
      Alan Said:

      ET lost 2 737 classics. A 732 in 1988 (airframe was less than a year old), and a 734 in 2015 while
      operating for Asky. Not sure what the crewing arrangement was. Those, and the 762 lost to a water
      landing caused by hijack in 1996 are the only hull losses suffered by the airline prior to the MAX crash.
      So tell me..how are they exceedingly unsafe?

      Don't forget the Ethiopian 737-800 that crashed very shortly after take-off (sound familiar?) from Beirut, into the eastern Med. If I remember correctly, one of the issues identified as a major contributing factor was extreme crew fatigue, poor cockpit communications (aka CRM, or Crew Resource Management).

      Author Message

      radioguy


      Upper Deck Member

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 563
      Location: Montreal
      Occupation: Misplaced
      Age:

      Post #72016, posted on 03-16-2019 GMT-5 hours    
      So true. I had overlooked that one.

      Alan Aronoff
      CYUL

      Author Message

      RAA188


      Upper Deck Member

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 382
      Location: The Sovereign State of Alaska
      Occupation: Mangler of kits, creator of exhibits, enabler of comms.
      Age: 52

      Post #72028, posted on 03-18-2019 GMT-5 hours    
      It's been quite validly asked here, and in innumerable fora elsewhere through not just years but decades and even across centuries: "Why did *this* have to happen, before..."

      The answer is simple. In a word: Hubris. In modern terms, "Tombstone Engineering."

      In the ancient times that were the 1980s of my engineering & design youth, we were taught--through direct and sometimes grossly and all too often quite grisly detail--to NEVER EQUATE RELIABILITY WITH SAFETY. Just because a system has worked every day for fifty years without an injury doesn't mean it will continue to do so tomorrow. This axiom has held true for millenia.

      FULL STOP.

      I'll spare everyone the minutiae of the topic, but in light of the MAX in particular, consider this: A defect in a single component of a prior version of the 737 killed a couple hundred people, destroyed two airframes, and scared (and jeopardized) the bejeezus out of many more.

      Nevermind that the types had flown tens of millions of hours, yada yada...Such things "just couldn't happen." And yet, despite Boeing and Parker Hannifin's objectons, they did just that.

      People died. Works of engineering art were destroyed. All over the failure of a single part that stopped moving a few *hundred thousanths* of an inch--in micron territory--in a failure mode that "just couldn't happen."

      As students we had hardware and software failure modes beaten into us through scenarios that were "impossible." People augered into the ground aboard airliners. People were quite literally fried to death by radiation beams meant to save lives. Rockets for peace and war exploded seemingly at random. Power and chemical plants rendered swaths of the Earth uninhabitable for millenia. Miracle drugs killed more lives than they were meant to save. On and on.

      I've no doubt the answers to these tragedies will be found, nor that they will be "fixed" by some means. Even our beloved Comet was an example of learning by trial and error--and ultimately triumph.

      Life is uncertain. No one gets out unscathed. But never lose sight of this: With each innovation comes risk, acceptance, and understanding. We rest on the shoulders of giants; whatever sacrifices they may have made, their burdens we will continue to bear, in some form or fashion.

      The MAX is not a failure--no moreso than the Fokker Tri-Motor, A320, the Comet, or any other airliner. It is a stepping stone. So many more will follow.

      We can armchair captain (or engineer...) all we want, but ultimately the truth is elegant in its simplicity: That we as humans try to envision--and master--our world in the simplest terms possible, and all too often inadvertently render it incomprehensibly complex. Therein lies both our failing, and our greatest opportunity to excel at all we choose to accomplish.

      A sobering thought as I prepare to board an E175 to KPDX in the morning.

      With utmost respect to those who have paid the price for our inadequate efforts, and Godspeed to all those whose lives are enriched by that price already paid.

      FWIW

      Rob in AK

      Just get me back to Alaska. I'll find home from there.

      Author Message

      RAA188


      Upper Deck Member

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 382
      Location: The Sovereign State of Alaska
      Occupation: Mangler of kits, creator of exhibits, enabler of comms.
      Age: 52

      Post #72032, posted on 03-19-2019 GMT-5 hours    
      Quote
      the PRIDEbird :
      Quote
      TWA Brat :
      Why is it that a thorough system safety analysis occurs only after an accident or series of accidents. [...]



      Maybe because no one thinks about or anticipates such problems before.


      Or because they simply can't.

      Knowing folks who labored for years on the MAX, I can say that the anslyses performed were excruciatingly thorough.

      Trouble is, as I posted above, in trying to make life *appear* as simple as possible, it was made excessively complex--and there's the rub.

      Google a professor named Charles Perrow and his most famous example of a system failure mode called a "normal accident" and you'll start to see where this is all headed...

      Rob in AK

      Just get me back to Alaska. I'll find home from there.

      Author Message

      BruinPrideBand


      Members

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 545
      Location: SGF
      Occupation: International Aviation Law
      Age:

      Post #72033, posted on 03-19-2019 GMT-5 hours    
      I'm not an engineer... But I encounter accident investigation enough to know that it is impossible to consider every eventuality during design and flight testing. The Comet windows, the DC-10 cargo door, the 787 batteries. The a330 had a series of nose-down upset moments. And those are just a few notable ones. That is why organizations such as the NTSB exists, to determine why something has happened and to hopefully prevent it from happening again.

      Chris

      "Sorry Goose... But it's time to buzz the Tower."

      Author Message

      NX28388


      Upper Deck Member

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 536
      Location:
      Occupation: Professional overthinker
      Age:

      Post #72034, posted on 03-19-2019 GMT-5 hours    
      As I have watched the 737 MAX story play out, I have heard uncanny echoes of the DC-10 fiasco in the 1970s: a basically good aircraft, hindered by some things that should have been caught or prevented but weren't, up against intense competition from other manufacturers' offerings, some questions about oversight by regulating authorities, and high-profile fatal accidents that capture the public imagination and prompt uncertainty among the traveling public (and whose causes required extensive detective work), and the prospect that no matter how safely the aircraft performs 99.999% of the rest of the time, people will forever think of it as That Airplane, forever linked with the DC-10 and Electra and other good aircraft that got bit by the unexpected. (By the way, as much as we regard the Boeing 727 and Douglas DC-6 as synonymous with reliable and safe, anybody recall that the 727 had some serious teething problems and the DC-6 had a nasty habit early on of catching on fire?)

      What we do now with technology and automation is truly amazing. But we take it for granted, all while asking it to do more and more for us, and we forget that the more complicated you make a system and the more you ask technology to do for you, the more possibilities you open for something going wrong, or taking you by surprise because you've become so reliant on that complicated technology working. And when it fails, we're surprised because we take it for granted. To me, the wonder is it doesn't fail more often.

      Jodie Peeler

      In 1924 Wien was Alaska's first airline. In 1980 it still is.

      Author Message

      BruinPrideBand


      Members

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 545
      Location: SGF
      Occupation: International Aviation Law
      Age:

      Post #72037, posted on 03-20-2019 GMT-5 hours    
      (This comment is in NO way directed toward anyone on this site).

      One thing is for sure. I had no idea there were so many aviation experts around until this crash. People not associated with the investigation--already know what happened, who was to blame, and what to do about it. /sarcasm

      The board over on airliners.net has devolved into pure drivel and ignorant conjecture. Blaming Boeing. Blaming the FAA. Blaming POTUS Trump. Blaming Ethiopia for not following Annex 13. I read one comment about how Boeing should be indicted for depraved heart murder for not grounding the MAX.

      I guess the days of allowing the investigators to do their work and then to recommend changes are over.

      Chris

      "Sorry Goose... But it's time to buzz the Tower."

      Author Message

      aro757


      Administrators

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 1893
      Location: San Ramon, CA
      Occupation: Software Engineer
      Age:

      Post #72038, posted on 03-20-2019 GMT-5 hours    
      Way too many similarities for people not to speculate and put 2 and 2 together. It's called logic!

      Regards,

      ahmed

      Author Message

      Jennings


      Contributors

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 4106
      Location: The great desert southwest, USA
      Occupation: Nurse Anesthiologist
      Age: 117

      Post #72039, posted on 03-20-2019 GMT-5 hours    
      I've already heard someone saying "It has to be pilot suicide" - really? Because the pilot died?

      Author Message

      jabrokaw2


      Upper Deck Member

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 14
      Location: Brunswick, Maine
      Occupation: Retired computer programmer
      Age:

      Post #72040, posted on 03-20-2019 GMT-5 hours    
      THis has no direct bearing on the investigation but certainly is of interest.

      Author Message

      Jennings


      Contributors

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 4106
      Location: The great desert southwest, USA
      Occupation: Nurse Anesthiologist
      Age: 117

      Post #72056, posted on 03-23-2019 GMT-5 hours    
      Greg Feith is a fellow Embry-Riddle alumnus, and a former NTSB accident investigator. He knows what he's talking about, unlike about 99.9% of journalists and virtually 110% of other "experts" who continue even as of this morning to pontificate on things they know NOTHING about. I feel sure that Boeing will come out of this with some significant culpability in these two crashes, but the airlines themselves know what they're buying (or not buying in this case), yet no one is up in arms about their decision to save a few thousand dollars per airplane on this "optional" cockpit indicator. Competent airlines that have robust pilot training programs (Southwest, United, American) have flown tens of thousands of flights with the 737 MAX 8 with not a single problem. Their pilots understand their aircraft because those airlines have robust training programs and those pilots are taught to first and foremost, fly the airplane. It is pretty well known that in both of the crashes, the pilots fought what the airplane was doing over and over and over, eventually losing out and crashing. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly, but expecting a different outcome. If your aircraft is doing something you have to fight against, you don't keep fighting it 10 or 20 or 30 times. You recognize the anomaly, you try to correct it, and if it continues, you simply disable the offending system (in this case, the MCAS, which is very easy to disable). You don't just keep fighting against the aircraft until you crash. That displays a serious lack of basic airmanship skills. I will never forget my first instructor pilot screaming at me: "I don't care what else is happening. I don't care if the engine has quit, or if a f**king wing has fallen off. Before you do ANYTHING else, FLY THE F**KING AIRPLANE!" It's clear to me that the Lion Air and Ethiopian pilots did not follow that basic airmanship maxim.
      At the very least, Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg needs to resign. Between the fiasco surrounding the KC-46A tanker program and the grossly mishandled 737 MAX situation, he is obviously not in control of his company.
      But rather than continuing to pontificate on things they know nothing about, and spreading misinformation and downright lies about this situation, "journalists" need to educate themselves.

      Posted on Greg's Facebook page yesterday:

      Greg Feith
      11 hrs ago

      FYI - for those of you who have read my posts the last couple of days and think I am defending Boeing and the FAA - I’m not! What I am defending is a proven process and by posting my comments, I have tried to provide insight into a very complex and lengthy process that has evolved over the years. It isn’t flawless, but it has been successful. The certification process for the 737MAX began over 5 years ago. And like any aircraft, whether it is a Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, after the airplane is certified and entered into service, line operations tend to bring out issues that certification test flights may not. Airbus experienced this with the crash of an A320 Airbus flown by training captain when it was first coming into service.

      There has been a lot of media attention the last 24 hours about”safety devices” that Boeing offered as an “option.” Rather than try to explain that philosophy, Norwegian Airlines wrote this statement to Reuters;

      “OSLO (Reuters) - Norwegian Air’s fleet of 18 Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft is not equipped with a cockpit light warning of discrepancies between angle of attack sensors, the company said on Friday.

      “We have chosen not to fit this particular optional extra to our Boeing 737 MAX aircraft, which is a decision other airlines have also made, since it is not a safety critical feature nor is it a requirement by any aviation authority, regardless of what some may falsely allege,”

      This is the kind of information that tells the backstory to the sensational headlines. Unfortunately not enough time is given to telling the whole story or developing responses like the one from Norwegian.

      As the investigations begin to take shape in examining Boeing and the FAA, I’m sure there will a be alot of headline information that leaks out. Just remember there is always a backstory.

      I think one of the primary issues that should be explored is the portion of 14CFR Part 25 that provides guidance and a regulatory standards for single-point failures in an aircraft system, and the criteria for redundancy in a critical aircraft system. Several accidents investigated by the NTSB in the recent past (USAir Flight 427 and TWA Flight 800) explored the single-point failure issue. I was part of the NTSB team that investigated an ATR 72 that crashed in Roselawn Indiana in 1994. There were issues regarding a single-point failure in the one of the flight controls.

      In 2006, the NTSB published a comprehensive study regarding the aircraft certification process - it is worth reading because it provides an insight into the complexities of aircraft certification.

      I appreciate the discussion by my FB followers - I think the opinions that have been expressed give rise to a variety of voices who have the expertise to further educate all of us.

      Author Message

      RAA188


      Upper Deck Member

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 382
      Location: The Sovereign State of Alaska
      Occupation: Mangler of kits, creator of exhibits, enabler of comms.
      Age: 52

      Post #72072, posted on 03-24-2019 GMT-5 hours    
      Alas, in today's world we have reverted to the Napoleonic Code: All are guilty until proven innocent. If only humans were a tad more rational...

      I can neither defend nor pillory the MAX or its designers; moreso its operators. I simply wasn't there.

      What (and who) I *do* know is the facts and people involved in the design and operation of the machine.

      Like all machines, the MAX is a human construct. It is bound by both the laws of physics, and the rules of human behavior. The former may be absolute; the latter are open to broad interpretation.

      I share the frustration of those who armchair analyze the facts. They have the luxury of not having been bought a hole.

      And yet, as a student and practitioner of such things, I know how human interests, emotions, and desires play into our collective endeavors.

      I won't repeat my previous posts. They're up-thread to read. I'll say this:

      Ultimately the truth will come out. Tests will be run, processes & procedures analyzed & changed, & life will go on: With, we all hope, lessons learned.

      These are tragic incidents. Could they have been predicted, let alone prevented? Perhaps. But they *did* happen, and so we learn & move forward. And if they couldn't, still it is incumbent upon us to accept, learn, & adapt.

      That's called progress.

      So long as humanity reaches out to test its limits, these things will happen. The ultimate answer to this moment's great insult is what we do with what we learn.

      "Fix the problem, not the blame" the apocryphal Jspanese axiom says. In so many cases this is the only sane course of action.

      All the rest is fluff--talking points of those who know nothing, but speculate about everything.

      It'll all wash out. In the meantime, you'll find me in the air, moving from place to place inside machines designed by the best of the best, flown by the most competent men & women I encounter.

      I think that's my cue to tap out.

      Rob in AK

      Just get me back to Alaska. I'll find home from there.

      Author Message

      russmb


      Members

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 4
      Location: Sunny Arizona
      Occupation: Chief Cook & Bottle Washer
      Age:

      Post #72083, posted on 03-25-2019 GMT-5 hours    
      Is it just me who wonders why the MCAS system relies on only ONE A-O-A vane? Pretty much everything else on an airplane is at least duplicated, and often triplicated to ensure if one system doesn't work, there are backups that are working. There are two A-O-A vanes on the airplanes, surely the software can compare what they say (that's maybe 10 lines of code), and if one says all is ok while the other says "high A-O-A" the code could then check a few other things? Like, oh, altitude, and whether the airspeed is decreasing? Then decide that (a) the airplane is low and (b) not about to stall and (c) maybe we aren't in danger of imminent stall and we are not high enough to aggressively push the nose down? Just wondering....

      Also, a small point of fact.... the A-O-A vane DOES NOT indicate whether an airplane is in level flight. That's usually the job of the "Rate of Climb" indicator, which usually runs off the static air ports? The A-O-A indicator measures the relative angle between the fuselage center line and the relative airflow. Most drawings published around this accident show the airflow as horizontal. This would be correct if the airplane is flying straight and level. Then relative airflow is indeed horizontal. However if it is climbing, the A-O-A vane would show deflected away from true horizontal. Similarly (though opposite) if descending. And, since when do airliners fly with their fuselages perfectly horizontal?? Sit in an aisle seat at the rear of a jet and it's pretty obvious it is flying nose high. The A-O-A indicator sure as heck isn't tracking parallel to the fuselage !

      It does seem pretty silly to me that a warning light that says the A-O-A vanes are in disagreement should be an "option" on the aircraft ! In the past significant $$$$ have been spent on safety systems and enhancements to prevent ONE additional accident. I am guessing (hoping?) there will be some retrofitting taking place before the MAXs re-enter service.

      Author Message

      gege320


      Members

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 416
      Location: Villeneuve Loubet
      Occupation: retired airline pilot
      Age: 66

      Post #72123, posted on 04-03-2019 GMT-5 hours    
      https://www.wsj.com/articles/ethiopian-airlines-pilots-initially-followed-boeings-required-emergency-steps-to-disable-737-max-system-11554263276

      Author Message

      Jennings


      Contributors

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 4106
      Location: The great desert southwest, USA
      Occupation: Nurse Anesthiologist
      Age: 117

      Post #72124, posted on 04-03-2019 GMT-5 hours    
      Everybody (including the WSJ) needs to stop with this silliness until the accident investigations are finished. None of what’s in that article is either verified or makes any sense.

      Author Message

      airlinerart1


      Members

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 24
      Location:
      Occupation: Aviation illustrator and designer
      Age:

      Post #72125, posted on 04-05-2019 GMT-5 hours    
      Kind of says it all!

      Boeing’s CEO has apologised for the deaths and vowed to get to the bottom of what caused the incidents

      “We at Boeing are sorry for the lives lost in the recent 737 MAX accidents. I cannot remember a more heart-wrenching time in my career with this great company.” chief executive Dennis Muilenburg wrote. He also released a video.

      He said the release of the preliminary report in Ethiopia showed it was apparent that in both the crash in Africa, and Indonesia, the maneuvering characteristics augmentation system, known as MCAS, activated in response to erroneous angle of attack information.

      “The history of our industry shows most accidents are caused by a chain of events. This again is the case here, and we know we can break one of those chain links in these two accidents,” he wrote.

      “As pilots have told us, erroneous activation of the MCAS function can add to what is already a high workload environment. It’s our responsibility to eliminate this risk. We own it and we know how to do it.”

      Asked about the report of a new software problem, Boeing said: “We’re making progress on the software update that will prevent future accidents. Boeing has worked diligently, advancing and testing the software, in close collaboration with global regulators and customers as well as a non advocate review board. As part of this process, we have identified an aspect of the software, unrelated to MCAS, that will also be addressed as part of this software update. We are taking steps to thoroughly address this relatively minor issue and already have the solution in work to do that.”

      Author Message

      airlinerart1


      Members

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 24
      Location:
      Occupation: Aviation illustrator and designer
      Age:

      Post #72126, posted on 04-05-2019 GMT-5 hours    
      I wonder if Airbus neos have a similar kind of problem to solve with their new engines or maybe it's not an issue with their planes or they have solved it (we hope) without any problems?

      Any thoughts?

      Author Message

      gege320


      Members

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 416
      Location: Villeneuve Loubet
      Occupation: retired airline pilot
      Age: 66

      Post #72127, posted on 04-05-2019 GMT-5 hours    
      I think Airbus hasn't the same problem because they don't have to displace the engines, the A320 being high enough .

      https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/how-the-boeing-737-max-disaster-looks-to-a-software-developer#disqus_thread