Ethiopia crash

[sloppysmusic 223]

12 minutes ago, John_Cillis said:

For the acronym challenged like me, what does MCAS stand for?

Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System

......I'm sure that clears it all up for you!

[John_Cillis 2,406]

7 minutes ago, sloppysmusic said:

Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System

......I'm sure that clears it all up for you!

I would fail my upcoming FAA exam if that were on my test, lol!  Sounds like Space Shuttle speak to me!

[John_Cillis 2,406]

4 hours ago, KevinAu said:

The ntsb is only interested in certain events. https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=6aafa2a0cc84b5f460b02cd98493c837&mc=true&node=pt49.7.830&rgn=div5

It does not sound like the incident you experienced met the criteria for ntsb notification. In fact, they specifically state that they are not interested in dents or small punctures to the aircraft skin.

Even though a pax was on board during the incident?  Maybe because I was not seriously hurt and walked away along with the remaining flight crew who were cleaning the aircraft for the cancelled outbound flight back to Denver...

[John_Cillis 2,406]

1 hour ago, n4gix said:

John, Boeing still uses a huge and heavy "trim wheel" for mechanical leverage in case the electric trim fails for any reason.

The correct procedure in the event of runaway trim control is for someone to put their hand on the wheel, then have the other pilot immediately flip up the guarded cover, and flip the electric trim override switches OFF.

The pilot flying can then use the old-fashioned "armstrong" method to put the plane back in trim.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=boeing+trim+wheel&&view=detail&mid=B5FC4E981D0FAB9327BDB5FC4E981D0FAB9327BD&&FORM=VRDGAR

I once, and only once, served as an "armstrong" starter for a friend's Luscombe 8A in PA.  He rehearsed with me the night before, but I was nervous as I could be knowing the haircut I'd get if I moved the wrong way.  The Luscombe started on my first pull which was more of a half pull and purred like a kitten, amazing to me and I felt such a sense of pride for starting such a classic aircraft.  I backed away from the prop like I was taught, and moved to the left seat since I was pilot in command on that flight, brief as it was.  We saw embedded lightning in the distance and put back down on our private, grass strip he co owned.  Rain started to fall just as we touched down, a storm came thru, so we went out to eat breakfast and debrief on the flight we enjoyed so much.  That was the only taildragger I ever flew and it handled, despite reports to the contrary on Luscombes, like a dream, the most perfectly harmonized aircraft I have ever flown, aside from the fabric Kitfox tri gear.  Been ten years now since I have flown, I am getting antsy to fly again but my recent getting run over may prevent that, as I cannot flex my left ankle well at all to handle the rudder...

[rmeier 473]

Interesting report on AP tonight...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/pilots-have-reported-issues-in-us-with-new-boeing-jet/ar-BBUGJmB?ocid=spartandhp

[KevinAu 441]

1 hour ago, John_Cillis said:

Even though a pax was on board during the incident?  Maybe because I was not seriously hurt and walked away along with the remaining flight crew who were cleaning the aircraft for the cancelled outbound flight back to Denver...

Your injury did not meet the criteria for serious injury, as defined by ntsb830, necessary for a reporting requirement.

[Holdit 551]

19 hours ago, zmak said:

 300 dead in 6 months! 

I heard this morning that there are about 500 737-MAX aircraft in service. Let's assume each does three flights a day. That's 1500 flights per day. Now times this by 180 days and we get 270,000 flights in a six month period, of which two have crashed. That's .0007 crashes per flight, meaning that statistically you would need to take over 1800 flights in a 737 MAX in order to be involved in a crash. It also means that during that time there were 269,998 737 MAX flights where nothing bad happened.

As for the 300 dead in six months, on average the fatality rate for road crashes in the U.S. over same period in the region of 16,000, over 50 times higher.

Not trying to minimise the tragedy, or the notion that one might think...thoughts...if scheduled to fly on a MAX, that's only natural. but it's better to ease up on the hysteria pedal a bit, and leave that to those who know sweet F.A. about aviation yet insist on talking about it a lot, like simmers, oops I mean the press. 

 

 

 

[Bobsk8 12,677]

32 minutes ago, Holdit said:

I heard this morning that there are about 500 737-MAX aircraft in service. Let's assume each does three flights a day. That's 1500 flights per day. Now times this by 180 days and we get 270,000 flights in a six month period, of which two have crashed. That's .0007 crashes per flight, meaning that statistically you would need to take over 1800 flights in a 737 MAX in order to be involved in a crash. It also means that during that time there were 269,998 737 MAX flights where nothing bad happened.

As for the 300 dead in six months, on average the fatality rate for road crashes in the U.S. over same period in the region of 16,000, over 50 times higher.

Not trying to minimise the tragedy, or the notion that one might think...thoughts...if scheduled to fly on a MAX, that's only natural. but it's better to ease up on the hysteria pedal a bit, and leave that to those who know sweet F.A. about aviation yet insist on talking about it a lot, like simmers, oops I mean the press. 

 

 

 

As long as it isn't someone in your family or you personally  that is involved in a crash, I guess some think that the risk is "acceptable". That is the rational that the FAA has used in many instances where they compared possible fatalities against the cost of implementing fixes.

[Reader 2,021]

52 minutes ago, Holdit said:

Not trying to minimise the tragedy, or the notion that one might think...thoughts...if scheduled to fly on a MAX, that's only natural. but it's better to ease up on the hysteria pedal a bit, and leave that to those who know sweet F.A. about aviation yet insist on talking about it a lot, like simmers, oops I mean the press. 

 

No knowledge of aviation is required to understand that what caused these two dreadful incidents really is not as relevant now as is not knowing what caused them.

Until the causes are determined it does seem sensible to minimise the risk by not using the aircraft that could possibly be the common denominator.

There are those that think that one preventable death is one too many.

It seems that those who continue to use the aircraft do not agree and instead choose to balance greed against human life.

Nothing new there then.

Edited March 13, 2019 by nolonger

[fghdgdfdfgfgf 111]

2 hours ago, Holdit said:

I heard this morning that there are about 500 737-MAX aircraft in service. Let's assume each does three flights a day. That's 1500 flights per day. Now times this by 180 days and we get 270,000 flights in a six month period, of which two have crashed. That's .0007 crashes per flight, meaning that statistically you would need to take over 1800 flights in a 737 MAX in order to be involved in a crash. It also means that during that time there were 269,998 737 MAX flights where nothing bad happened.

As for the 300 dead in six months, on average the fatality rate for road crashes in the U.S. over same period in the region of 16,000, over 50 times higher.

Not trying to minimise the tragedy, or the notion that one might think...thoughts...if scheduled to fly on a MAX, that's only natural. but it's better to ease up on the hysteria pedal a bit, and leave that to those who know sweet F.A. about aviation yet insist on talking about it a lot, like simmers, oops I mean the press. 

 

 

 

Well. as someone who lives under the flight path of where these POS's fly, and at the point where the flaps are up and the MCAS kicks in, I'm a feeling a little uneasy when I go to bed at night. Furthermore, I'm not feeling to good about Southwest Airlines right now.  Maybe Boeing should've called that plane A-LIL-OverMax.

Edited March 13, 2019 by FunknNasty

[Bob Scott 7,719]

1 hour ago, nolonger said:

 

Until the causes are determined it does seem sensible to minimise the risk by not using the aircraft that could possibly be the common denominator.

There are those that think that one preventable death is one too many.

It seems that those who continue to use the aircraft do not agree and instead choose to balance greed against human life.

Nothing new there then.

By this standard, we'd be grounding entire fleets every time an accident of unknown cause occurred.  US flight standards, certification, and mishap investigation processes work extremely well--they have produced a stellar safety record with the lowest number of accidents per passenger mile in history.  All this lamentation that it's all about greed and risking people for profit ignores that record in favor of a patently false narrative that tells a certain segment of the population only what they want to hear.

I was just reading that the FO on Ethiopian 307 had 200 hours of flying time...not 200 hours in type, but 200 hours TOTAL flying time.  Good grief, that captain was essentially flying solo.

 

[fluffyflops 1,857]

On 3/13/2019 at 8:01 AM, nolonger said:

 

It seems that those who continue to use the aircraft do not agree and instead choose to balance greed against human life.

Nothing new there then.

It's not as linear as that. Airlines are run and owed by  AMBs, shareholders, and Investment and Department Stakeholders. 

They look at the potential risk and commercial impact of having incidents, the longer you operate and the more flights you operate the more chance you have of having an incident, that's basic Murphys law. 

On a slight tangent, at every major airline the first thing you do when you have an incident is keep operating,  otherwise you stop making money and your brand image dies. The second thing you do is investigate your incident.  The leading risk management company Keynon will always advise you to keep operating. 

Micheal Oleary once was caught saying that 'Ryanair could potentially make a come back from one hull loss, but not two'. He's absolutely right, and that's about the basics of it.  Malaysian airlines is an example of that having 2,  as is Germanwings of having one. 

You also forget the 2 incidents have happened in 2 countries where the crew training is probably not the best in the world to be fair. But we shall see what the investigation says.  In a weeks time the world will of forgotten and will be back to the kardashains, and love island anyways 

[Bobsk8 12,677]

So my question at this point , since the black boxes have been recovered days ago, is who is holding up reading the data from these black boxes which should most likely very quickly point to the probable cause of the accident. I suspect that maybe the parties involved are afraid if they send these boxes to the wrong people  to be read, that they are afraid of a cover up. So they are holding on to them trying to decide what to do. I can think of no other reason why these boxes have not been mined of their data already/. especially when another crash is a possibility. 

 

Anyone disagrees, let's hear your explanation of the foot dragging that is going on. 

[188AHC 2,138]

One of the recorders was damaged.  It is also very rare that the info on them is released in less than a week.  It has to be analyzed and verified. I don't think it will be made public for several weeks if not more. 

[fluffyflops 1,857]

There is nooo way anyone at either the Ethiopian dgaa (or whatever its called) or Ethiopian airlines is going to let that treasure chest available to lawyers of the passengers families to potentially bankrupt the airline. 

I've mentioned before on here that various African authorities regularly AFTN my airline to tell us we can't operate a flight as we have overdue nav fees to pay or an expired overflight block DCN permit. (when we dont) and can we western union 50k USD to rectify the issue as soon as possible. 

its just a way to try and con money out of us, happens every time each country gets a new head of DGAA or whatever each country calls its regulary body, and all the African countries try it on. 

Each time we ignore it and send the aircraft, its not as if they can shoot us down at fl370 at mach. 84 over the DRC, they don't have an air force or any AA

The point I'm making here is Africa as a whole is corrupt as hell so don't expect them to pay ball here whatsoever. 

If you think all that 466 million a year that blighty gives  to Ethiopian farmers actually goes to the farmers, you are wrong, very wrong. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-33505312

It never ceases to amaze me how Ethiopian, Djibouti, Iraqi and Kenya Airways have a better fleet than my airline, but most of their country id starving, but that's another story. 

Edited March 13, 2019 by tooting