Ethiopia crash

[KevinAu 441]

59 minutes ago, threegreen said:

While your theory certainly makes sense any may perhaps even play a huge role in this accident, there is still nothing known about whether this one was caused by a runaway trim too, whatever that may have been caused by. While the MCAS is rightfully under intense scrutiny and subject to improvement, the incidents reported about sudden automatic nose down inputs with the autopilot on suggests there is more than just the MCAS causing problems. FDR data, we're waiting for you...

Of course. Ethiopean could have been something else entirely. However with regard to those repprts, I was only able to count one incident, albeit with two reports (ca & fo), of the aircraft nosing down after ap engagement from all those reports released the other day.

Edited March 14, 2019 by KevinAu

[HighBypass 2,339]

19 hours ago, KevinAu said:

........ it was developed to correct a flight deficiency of max aircraft.

My emphasis. Surely the ethos behind designing new airframes, or in this case "improving" an existing design (737), should not introduce deficiencies? A deficiency is definitely not an improvement IMO. If an airframe cannot comply with current environmental requirements then one should not fudge bigger, more efficient, less polluting engines on to it. Especially when the engines cannot be located in the same position as what was originally designed, thus upsetting weight and balance so that a software "fix" has to be introduced to mitigate the aforesaid engine fudging.(MCAS). No, one should retire the airframe and design a new one fully capable of integrating massive, clean fuel-efficient powerplants.

An aircraft, especially a civilian transport should be built right so that it flies right... leave the unflyable-without-a-computer-relaxed-stability craft for air superiority.

[DrumsArt 270]

31 minutes ago, HighBypass said:

My emphasis. Surely the ethos behind designing new airframes, or in this case "improving" an existing design (737), should not introduce deficiencies? A deficiency is definitely not an improvement IMO. If an airframe cannot comply with current environmental requirements then one should not fudge bigger, more efficient, less polluting engines on to it. Especially when the engines cannot be located in the same position as what was originally designed, thus upsetting weight and balance so that a software "fix" has to be introduced to mitigate the aforesaid engine fudging.(MCAS). No, one should retire the airframe and design a new one fully capable of integrating massive, clean fuel-efficient powerplants.

An aircraft, especially a civilian transport should be built right so that it flies right... leave the unflyable-without-a-computer-relaxed-stability craft for air superiority.

This is exactly what I think. She should be designed to fly in theory without the help of computer corrections and after, only after add all kinds of protection. Just my opinion.

Edited March 14, 2019 by DrumsArt

[188AHC 2,138]

Obviously some are forgetting the failures Airbus had when they brought out their famous FBW systems in the A320 series including a crash because of a computer at its' debut.

Sometimes things happen with extremely complex machines. We don't want it to but it does.  Men are fallible and probably will always be.

But the overwhelming data so far suggests poor training of the crew but until all the data is in what we might think is moot at this point.

Southwest has been flying the Max * for a good deal of time without mishap.  I believe this speaks volumes about their maintenance and training.

 

[HighBypass 2,339]

True & wise words Rick, and I for one have not forgotten Airbus' FBW issues, but the A320's airframe was designed from inception with high bypass ratio turbofans in mind whereas the 737 airframe was not meant for those type of engines. I suppose the added cost of giving the baby Boeing a "lift kit" in off-roader parlance  (taller landing gear) to maintain engine position would have been prohibitive at the very least.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

6 hours ago, HighBypass said:

True & wise words Rick, and I for one have not forgotten Airbus' FBW issues, but the A320's airframe was designed from inception with high bypass ratio turbofans in mind whereas the 737 airframe was not meant for those type of engines. I suppose the added cost of giving the baby Boeing a "lift kit" in off-roader parlance  (taller landing gear) to maintain engine position would have been prohibitive at the very least.

I always used to laugh to myself seeing the design of the 737-300's engine cowling, which was not circular but flattened on the bottom given the low stance of the landing gear that you mention.  But the 737 has been a hard worker and of single aisle aircraft, the longest flight I ever was on was on a 737-700, SWA, from Baltimore, my fav DC hub airport, to Phoenix.  We were warned of heavy headwinds, of a six hour flight, and that the aircraft was almost 100 pct. full.  So we were told to take a seat and not be shy about it, we would be three across.  So as I walked the gauntlet, as I liked to call it, I spied pretty young ladies but I was married, so no go there.  Elderly couples, too talkative, I like to rock out on flights.  Who to sit by?  Saw a young dark male wearing a hoodie, the stereotype we put in our heads of a gangbanger.  Whether he was or was not, I felt everyone else would sum him up that way and sit next to him last.  To his astonishment I asked him if I could sit by the window where I love to sit and he winked and said dryly "OK", and I just slid past his legs.  So when I sat down, I pulled up my jacket and took on his appearance, kind of like that sleeping teacher whose name I cannot remember in a Harry Potter movie who saved Harry and his seatmates from dementors....

The two of us had no one between us, the only "first class seats" for the seven hours, including the gate hold, that we were onboard that hop from BWI to Phoenix.  People grumbled at us during the flight, what made us so special?

Simply that we accepted our understood inside joke about the way people judge us based on not knowing us, but appearance.  Remember this if you ever fly an airline with unassigned seats or remember the opposite if you do not need the rest and want a chatty seatmate.

Planes, Trains and Automobiles, as a biz traveler it is without a doubt the story of my life before I quit being a biz traveler, how a seatmate brought me home to my wife that night, but he went on his way, he just saw I needed his comfort so I could rest from a hard trip.   Whether he was a hooligan or a priest I do not care, for me he was that teacher that saved me from those dementors, IOTW the intrinsic goodness we all hate to admit we were given somehow by our personal points of view.  We feel afraid to admit it because sometimes we just want our peace and do not want to attract others to us, which I fully understand.  That is what I find in flight, flyers, and those who love it in simulated or real form, always a small remembrance of peace and the benevolence we feel when we fly over a world so small, yet so needing of our gaze...

[Peter Webber 339]

11 hours ago, 188AHC said:

Obviously some are forgetting the failures Airbus had when they brought out their famous FBW systems in the A320 series including a crash because of a computer at its' debut.

Sometimes things happen with extremely complex machines. We don't want it to but it does.  Men are fallible and probably will always be.

But the overwhelming data so far suggests poor training of the crew but until all the data is in what we might think is moot at this point.

Southwest has been flying the Max * for a good deal of time without mishap.  I believe this speaks volumes about their maintenance and training.

 

I find this type of post a bit problematic. Why would there be any difference between "African" training and maintenance? Southwest have been flying "without mishap"? Does that mean they have had issues but were able to recover? How can African maintenance be an issue in a 4 month old aircraft? I'm seeing a lot of this African pessimism im Avsim lately and it's normally from people who do not have much insight outside of their own area. Google "Southwest incidents". Uncontained engine failures, etc, etc?? Unheard of in our "African" airline.

Edited March 15, 2019 by Peter Webber

[Paul Golding 92]

Interesting reading here

[Peter Webber 339]

11 minutes ago, Paul Golding said:

Interesting reading here

Great article. But let's blame the African pilots rather...🙄

[norman s 15]

Well after reading all of the posts I have come to one conclusion that apart from our thoughts on the endless speculation as to cause or causes why dont we spare a thought for all of the victims of this crash.

Just sit on our hands and await the outcome of the official reports.Only then can you all sound off!

[Christopher Low 5,353]

Maybe the 737 design has been pushed further than it should have been....

[John_Cillis 2,406]

3 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

Maybe the 737 design has been pushed further than it should have been....

It is not about the 737.  Aircraft crashes happen, and they have become so rare that when they happen, it gives some the opportunity to pedal there wares, but those aircraft crash too and if one does not admit that, then those pedaling those wares are frauds.

The goal is to make Aviation bigger, better, safer and cheaper.  So there are four balls to juggle just right there, regardless of the competition.  The 737 has parts from China and all over the world.  Heck, maybe someone forgot to turn off their cell and it somehow fitzed with the aircraft's electronics.   Or so they say.  The Airbusess have crashed, and eventually a 787 might, or an A350, especially since we are experimenting with new materials within the engines, airframe, even hydraulic lines and electrical lines.  Chinese aircraft have crashed, and God Forbid the old Russian aircraft, hardy as they are, are far from perfect.  And anyone who does not admit this is just an Ostrich burying our heads in their sand.

Flame away

My note to the mods, I started this thread, I feel it has run its course, everyone has opined...

[Paul Golding 92]

2 hours ago, John_Cillis said:

It is not about the 737.  Aircraft crashes happen, and they have become so rare that when they happen, it gives some the opportunity to pedal there wares, but those aircraft crash too and if one does not admit that, then those pedaling those wares are frauds.

The goal is to make Aviation bigger, better, safer and cheaper.  So there are four balls to juggle just right there, regardless of the competition.  The 737 has parts from China and all over the world.  Heck, maybe someone forgot to turn off their cell and it somehow fitzed with the aircraft's electronics.   Or so they say.  The Airbusess have crashed, and eventually a 787 might, or an A350, especially since we are experimenting with new materials within the engines, airframe, even hydraulic lines and electrical lines.  Chinese aircraft have crashed, and God Forbid the old Russian aircraft, hardy as they are, are far from perfect.  And anyone who does not admit this is just an Ostrich burying our heads in their sand.

Flame away

My note to the mods, I started this thread, I feel it has run its course, everyone has opined...

No flaming needed, it's just a chat after all and in the right forum for such, so why the thread should be closed, I.m not sure.

Of course aircraft will crash John, and usually because the common fault is the person(s) up front.

The point here (and it is about the 737) is that aside from 2 MAX's crashing in somewhat similar circumstances in the space of a few months, there have been 376 737 MAX built (and 2 crashed, catastrophically) and 781 787's.

Imagine if after 376 787's had been built, 2 of them had catastrophically nose dived into the ground/ocean...….would that've become a cause for concern?

To me at least, the difference is that one of these is a newly developed, tested and certified aircraft, and the other seems to be yet another incarnation of a 50 year old aircraft that appears to need magic to help it fly.  Worse than that, according to some forums, the magicians haven't actually explained the magic to the pilots so that when the magic stops working, the pilots have no memory items to work from to deal with the problem.

Would the testing and certification have been different if this were a newly designed aircraft?  Would anyone design an aircraft that intentionally left it so low to the ground that the engine placement messed things up to the point of needing software to help fly the plane?

And it's not exclusively a foreign problem either, as a number of incidents have apparently been reported in the US, that thankfully did avoid catastrophe...….wish I could find where I read that.  No doubt investigators will be looking at why the problem for some is recoverable, yet not for others.  Differences in training maybe 

[Bobsk8 12,728]

What I have thought all along, is that Boeing and the FAA were not 100% positive that there is a design flaw in the Max, and they tried to cover it up, afraid that it would affect sales  and the US economy if the US grounded the Max until it was checked out. Boeing even contacted the President regarding this situation, begging him to hold off. When everyone else grounded the plane, The President had to buckle because now the US was looking like they had their head in the sand. 

As far as pilot training, if I am flying an aircraft that is rapidly climbing and descending at 1500 FPM and I can't control it, the plane is an accident waiting to happen. I think that Boeing, and the FAA wound up with egg on their face over this misstep. I also believe that sending the black boxes to the US, was not done because frankly people felt that a cover up of the problem might occur, so the boxes were sent to France. 

[188AHC 2,138]

I see no reason to close the topic.  We all have our opinions and as long they are respectfully discussed between members I think we can continue to voice them.  That's what Hangar Chat is for.