Ethiopia crash

[sloppysmusic 220]

I find it depressing that absolutely every product no matter how sublime or perfected has to be altered as time goes by. This is done regardless of said existing quality and is called 'progress' just so the next version can be called NEW, IMPROVED or MAX. The 737 NG series IMO has got to be the perfect pilots plane. Despite looking 'ancient' compared to 777, 787 and even 747 models these days, every system is clearly accessible from hardware panels and FMC. Need to quickly divert to landing strip not in FMC database ? Turn that knob to set new landing altitude. Need to switch from LNAV approach to ILS? You already tuned in the NAV radio earlier manually so it's already on the ND. 

Perfection itself is a moving target. Once we have reliability, safety and performance nailed down we have to now alter the engines for better fuel consumption for example. 

I fear this episode has permanently wrecked the 737's fantastic reputation of being the safe workhorse of the industry, as well as even worse, indirectly shortened multiple lives. Put simply I believe if all those passengers had been flying in 737-800 they would still be alive. THAT is the only fact that matters. 

[John_Cillis 2,406]

27 minutes ago, Paul Golding said:

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 

That is precisely I am not a big fan of automation in the cockpit, it is good to augment the workload, i.e. radio calls, navigation, etc but there seems to be something changed in the MAX vs. the rest of the 737 fleet, especially when you look at the round the clock 700/800/900 flights SWA flies all over the US.  What that is, I do not know, but Boeing suspects something specific to the MAX, otherwise they would have grounded the whole fleet.  Differences in training might be part of it, I guess it would depend on whether the 2 airlines were previous gen 737 airlines before flying the MAX.  If they were I'd say they would be just as skilled as any seasoned '37 pilot.

John

[fghdgdfdfgfgf 111]

1 hour ago, John_Cillis said:

....but there seems to be something changed in the MAX vs. the rest of the 737 fleet, especially when you look at the round the clock 700/800/900 flights SWA flies all over the US.  What that is, I do not know, .....

John

You're kidding us, right?  When you find the time you may want to read the thread, that you started. The difference of the Max vs the NG have been clearly articulated.

The reason for the MCAS is because the new engines (placement) make the craft inherently unstable due to the engine placement that makes the craft want to pitch up making trim duties a crapshoot, especially right after the flaps are up.

Edited March 15, 2019 by FunknNasty

[lownslo 592]

One former airline captain's perspective of the week since the Ethiopian Airlines crash: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/should-faa-have-grounded-737-max-sooner-former-airline-captain-n983396

Clearly, Mr. Cox is far more level-headed and logical than some folks.

Greg

[John_Cillis 2,406]

56 minutes ago, FunknNasty said:

You're kidding us, right?  When you find the time you may want to read the thread, that you started. The difference of the Max vs the NG have been clearly articulated.

The reason for the MCAS is because the new engines (placement) make the craft inherently unstable due to the engine placement that makes the craft want to pitch up making trim duties a crapshoot, especially right after the flaps are up.

I started a thread about a tragedy, not about my expertise in the 737 or yours.  I am glad the pundits here can show off their technical prowess and their positions in the aviation industry.  I helped develop flight crew scheduling software, I was not a motorhead, my bad....

John

[DrumsArt 270]

1 hour ago, lownslo said:

One former airline captain's perspective of the week since the Ethiopian Airlines crash: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/should-faa-have-grounded-737-max-sooner-former-airline-captain-n983396

Clearly, Mr. Cox is far more level-headed and logical than some folks.

Greg

For me, clearly, Mr.Cox did not convince me with the arguments and comparisons (car accidents) it puts forward.

Btw, 3 articles below there is also a very interesting one:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-pilots-complained-about-boeing-737-max-8-months-n982651

 

 

Edited March 15, 2019 by DrumsArt

[threexgreen 3,139]

1 hour ago, DrumsArt said:

Btw, 3 articles below there is also a very interesting one:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-pilots-complained-about-boeing-737-max-8-months-n982651

In case anyone is interested, you can find the actual reports on the ASRS here:

https://titan-server.arc.nasa.gov/ASRSPublicQueryWizard/QueryWizard_Display.aspx?server=ASRSO

(Use Ctrl+F to search for MAX.)

Edited March 15, 2019 by threegreen

[charlie130 196]

On 3/14/2019 at 12:03 AM, sloppysmusic said:

https://www.aviation24.be/manufacturers/boeing/boeing-737-max-automatic-stall-prevention-system-mcas-not-in-flight-crew-operations-manual-fcom/

I'd like to discount all the conspiracy theories for a moment and get back to aircraft unintended behavior vs intended behavior depending on the pilots' training and available documentation. 

What do we know for sure regarding similarities between the 2 flights? 

Was the autopilot on or off? 

Same with auto throttle, as the 2 often work in sync in the Boeings.

Did the pilots involved have access to the latest fcoms and info on updates to the software? 

Is the MCAS fully detailed in the manual? I have yet to find info online someone must be releasing it soon surely? 

IF the plane was being flown manually AND auto throttle as off, does the MAX have a system in place that interprets pilot input and make ALTERNATIVE decisions depending on logic? 

Is it possible to direct elevators up via yoke whilst the plane commands down elevator in MANUAL mode? 

Can you turn MCAS on or off via the CDU or hardware switch or even circuit breaker, easily and reversibly? 

Is MCAS standard in all planes so buyers do not decide if they wish it installed? 

Are any other Boeing planes equipped with MCAS when assembled new or retrofitted with the system during maintenance or service? 

If the above is true then there it is not manual mode at all IMO. 

Would welcome as many facts as possible which are NOT dependent on results of inquiries about the plane, current system logic and available documentation. 

These are all the questions I asked myself! Especially the question of turning off MCAS manually? If it's not an option to turn it off, then I can imagine why the poor chap trying to fly the plane had a panicky radio voice when asking for a return.

I thought that if the engine reposition is producing a pitch up moment, in take off thrust or climb thrust that will be more evident. Unless you can lower the pitch, you may be loosing airspeed. If the MCAS gets a low airspeed indication, perhaps it will initiate a pitch down command? If MCAS has taken over pitch control from the pilot, we can only imagine, in our nightmares, what comes next? If you come out of Take off power or Climb Thrust in a slow speed, with the automatics in command of your pitch.......? Or go from Climb Thrust back to Take Off thrust if you see your speed low and either the automatics or your stick input can't correct it?

Just my two penneth. Let's hope the black boxes get a thorough and revealing analysis.

Regards.

[Christopher Low 5,352]

The excessive airspeed suggests to me that the nose was pitched over whilst the engines were still providing climb power.

[sloppysmusic 220]

I always thought the adage was a well designed plane would fly stably in pitch and roll when trimmed. As in a plane loves to fly?

Doesnt surprise me in the modern age that pure arrogance is responsible for messing up perfection with a new adage : we can make any design change we want we will just write some code to make an unstable aircraft stable and place it in between the pilot and the aircraft so the pilots don't even notice its there.

If I'm mistaken please correct me. I really hope I'm mistaken.... 

Talking about arrogance vs human safety in the modern age:

Self driving cars (programmed to avoid humans) 

Drones everywhere (built in incursion protection my ***). 

[Bobsk8 12,677]

17 minutes ago, sloppysmusic said:

I always thought the adage was a well designed plane would fly stably in pitch and roll when trimmed. As in a plane loves to fly?

Doesnt surprise me in the modern age that pure arrogance is responsible for messing up perfection with a new adage : we can make any design change we want we will just write some code to make an unstable aircraft stable and place it in between the pilot and the aircraft so the pilots don't even notice its there.

If I'm mistaken please correct me. I really hope I'm mistaken.... 

Talking about arrogance vs human safety in the modern age:

Self driving cars (programmed to avoid humans) 

Drones everywhere (built in incursion protection my ***). 

Airbus has been doing that for many years, and no real issues with their aircraft. 

[HighBypass 2,339]

 

22 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

Airbus has been doing that for many years...

Designing their aircraft to be inherently unstable? I'm confused.. 

[Bob Scott 7,719]

52 minutes ago, HighBypass said:

Designing their aircraft to be inherently unstable? I'm confused.. 

Yes...a FBW aircraft is uncontrollable without its flight control computers anyway (there is no mechanical linkage between the pilot and the flight control surfaces), so aerodynamic instability that's corrected by the flight control computers isn't any more dangerous than a perfectly aerodynamically stable, but uncontrollable aircraft you'd have if the computers in an aerodynamically stable FBW aircraft were to fail.  Remember that "stable" only means that the aircraft, without input, naturally oscillates convergently towards a state of equilibrium, and unstable means that, without input it tends to oscillate divergently away from equilibrium.  The FBW flight control system is providing inputs that create what you could consider "artificial" stability.

In the last 24 hours a number of somewhat credible reports have surfaced, stating that the stabilizer jackscrew was recovered in Ethiopia and found to be in the full nose-down position.  Again, that begs the question of why the crew didn't shut off the stab trim and trim manually with the trim wheels...had they done so, the jack screw would not have been at its nose-down limit.  Also, one has to ask why the acft was allowed to keep accelerating (and thus progressively exacerbating the out-of-trim control forces) through the entire mishap, suggesting either task saturation on the part of the crew or a grossly incorrect analysis of the problem.

Last, a number of folks here have suggested that Ethiopian is an African airline with western standards.  I beg to differ...find me a western airline crewing its passenger jets with 200 hour neophyte pilots and then we can talk.  I had the opportunity to tour the Ethiopian Air Force's training facility near Addis Ababa some years ago, and I was impressed by what they were able to do with the limited resources they had...but those limitations were pretty severe, and their training was by no means anywhere close to western standards.  "Africa," of course, can't be treated as a monolithic entity any more than you can "Asia"...what's found in South Africa or Morocco will be far different than in Liberia or the Central African Republic, just as standards in Singapore will be far above those in Myanmar.  There are lots of reasons for that, mostly economic, plus the effects of corruption and political instability.  At the end of the day, across the continent there are countries that don't regulate/enforce enough adherence to accepted international flying and maintenance standards to call it bad, and others that would fit right in with the FAA or CAA, and many somewhere in-between.  So it's unfair to paint all of Africa with one brush...but that said, flight standards in some parts of Africa are every bit as bad as the stereotypes suggest.

Regards

[sloppysmusic 220]

1 hour ago, Bobsk8 said:

Airbus has been doing that for many years, and no real issues with their aircraft. 

There is a HUGE difference in what Airbus has been 'doing' from Boeing, and the similarities are not anything to boast about. The Airbus was designed from the ground up (ironically there's a modern annoying phrase) to fly in the way it does. They use integrated system logic to enhance an inherently stable plane by using logic to interpret much of the pilot thrust/pitch/roll commands with the idea of preventing pilot error.

The Boeings  (as in "if its not then I'm not") already had a stable workhorse. It has taken over 50 years for Airbus has to perfect that logic (which had considerable problems early on with pilot re-education also leading to tragic consequences ). Boeing, for no other reason than trying to grab a bigger piece of the pie (after the 2010 Airbus A320neo was introduced with improved burn and efficiency), in 2011 decided to introduce the redesigned 737. In less than 5 years it was up for sale!

Just ponder that for a moment. 2010 Airbus introduce a new plane. In 2011 Boeing decide to redesign the most reliable plane in history (possibly). Less than 5 years later millions are trusting their lives in it. Hundreds are already dead.

Edited March 16, 2019 by sloppysmusic
Typos as usual

[KevinAu 441]

1 hour ago, sloppysmusic said:

I always thought the adage was a well designed plane would fly stably in pitch and roll when trimmed. As in a plane loves to fly?

Doesnt surprise me in the modern age that pure arrogance is responsible for messing up perfection with a new adage : we can make any design change we want we will just write some code to make an unstable aircraft stable and place it in between the pilot and the aircraft so the pilots don't even notice its there.

If I'm mistaken please correct me. I really hope I'm mistaken.... 

Talking about arrogance vs human safety in the modern age:

Self driving cars (programmed to avoid humans) 

Drones everywhere (built in incursion protection my ***). 

The max has no less stability in pitch and roll when trimmed as the 737-200. The mcas, as I explained already, is meant to correct a greater nose up moment when increasing thrust during a stall recovery. All underwing slung engined aircraft demonstrate this characteristic to varous degrees. The greater thrust and location of the max’s engines enhanced this characteristic to the degree that boeing decided a software response was required.