Ethiopia crash

[IUBrian 151]

15 minutes ago, Jim Young said:

Investigation has not even been completed and you come up with a conclusion like this?  Comments like this without the facts does not make sense.  If you saw my post above about a similar incident with Airbus, you should also be losing respect for them too (maybe you already have).

I think he expresses a sentiment shared by a lot of people, such as myself, who are actually Boeing fans. In fact, I think those of us in Boeing’s corner are the ones most upset with Boeing. We don’t expect them to be as good as Airbus, we expect them to be the best. With the caveat that we don’t know the results of an investigation, but it doesn’t matter. Assume, for the sake of argument that Boeing is completely exonerated - pure pilot error. There has still been enough that’s been brought to our attention that shows us that Boeing isn’t trying to be the best, it’s trying to sell planes, even if it’s not the best. 

It reminds me of another story. Henry Kissinger was a notorious task manager. Story is one of his deputy secretaries was to prepare a report. He does, gives it to him. A couple of hours later Kissinger calls him in and says, “is this the best you can do?” The Deputy knows he kind of mailed it in, so says no, and Kissinger gives him another week. Same thing happens. Deputy thinks “well I cut some corners,” and Kissinger gives him 48 hours. Same thing happens. Deputy is furious. He explains everything he’s done, all of the research...”YES! This is the best I can do!” Kissinger says “Good, I’ll read it now.”

That’s the thing. We fans of Boeing don’t want good enough to pass certification. We want the best. No investigation is going to change the fact that we know they aren’t giving it. 

 

[irishsooner 9]

My question would be why is a warning light costing $80,000 per aircraft? Guessing  indicator light that warns pilots of a sensor malfunction that could cause its anti-stall system to activate unnecessarily is being added. Figuring not just light but software to go with it.

[Bobsk8 12,680]

59 minutes ago, Jim Young said:

Investigation has not even been completed and you come up with a conclusion like this?  Comments like this without the facts does not make sense.  If you saw my post above about a similar incident with Airbus, you should also be losing respect for them too (maybe you already have).

Been flying for almost 40 years. Have good friends that are airline pilots and one that is an FAA examiner and has been for almost 20 years. I will come up with any conclusion I feel like. There is a reason that now the FAA and Boeing are both being investigated by Washington. https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/17/politics/transportation-department-faa-boeing-investigation/index.html

Edited March 22, 2019 by Bobsk8

[IUBrian 151]

33 minutes ago, Jim Young said:

You may not think this is an issue between Boeing/Airbus but reading many comments in this topic say otherwise.  We just have to keep the topic on track.  The fact that Lion Air and Ethiopia Airlines did not buy AOA safety features for the aircraft says a lot.

The fact that Boeing is charging for that feature as an extra says something about Boeing. Even if it’s buried in the price of the aircraft, charging extra for features designed to help prevent pilots not crash the plane seems...a poor choice. Especially with a system that literally drove the plane into the ground. That knife cuts both ways

[Bobsk8 12,680]

45 minutes ago, Jim Young said:

You may not think this is an issue between Boeing/Airbus but reading many comments in this topic say otherwise.  We just have to keep the topic on track.  The fact that Lion Air and Ethiopia Airlines did not buy AOA safety features for the aircraft says a lot.

The Fact that Boeing made a safety feature optional that resulted in 300 dead people because of it's cost, says alot about Boeing and their business model. What's the next "option", engine fire extinguishers? If Boeing felt that this was an important safety feature, it should have been standard equipment. Of course now, after two crashes, and Boeing looking pretty bad, it is. 

Edited March 22, 2019 by Bobsk8

[Jim Young 2,356]

12 minutes ago, IUBrian said:

That’s the thing. We fans of Boeing don’t want good enough to pass certification. We want the best. No investigation is going to change the fact that we know they aren’t giving it. 

In that case, there's no way Boeing will survive the investigation and countries that have ordered the Max8 and Max9 will immediately cancel any orders so that the countries can instead order similar aircraft from Airbus.  No reason to waste time when we already know Boeing is guilty (or should be even if the investigation exonerates them).  Let Airbus take the billion dollar contracts instead.  Even if this happens, heard the US pilots have no issues with this aircraft so suspect airlines in the USA will continue to buy this aircraft and fly it.

26 minutes ago, irishsooner said:

why is a warning light costing $80,000 per aircraft?

I agree, especially when it is considered a safety feature.

[Jim Young 2,356]

6 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

Boeing made a safety feature optional

I agree with your premise but I read the FAA made it optional too.  Boeing, like Airbus, was just trying to save their customers some money.  I do not think both aircraft crashed because it was missing two optional features that saved them money.  The countries and airlines involved also had the option to buy the optional safety features.

[Bobsk8 12,680]

1 minute ago, Jim Young said:

I agree with your premise but I read the FAA made it optional too.  Boeing, like Airbus, was just trying to save their customers some money.  I do not think both aircraft crashed because it was missing two optional features that saved them money.  The countries and airlines involved also had the option to buy the optional safety features.

The FAA let Boeing certify their own product. The Fox guarding the hen house. 

[threexgreen 3,139]

22 hours ago, DellyPilot said:

And yes the Boeing MAX design is fatally flawed.

Can you clarify this statement? I see a lot of comments like this one (mostly elsewhere). It isn't the design of the aircraft itself which is flawed. What's full of flaws here is the MCAS. Suppose the whole scope of an erroneous MCAS kick-in as we've had to witness had been analysed as such during testing and certification and the upcoming software fix had been implemented from the start. No accidents would have occurred (supposing the Ethiopian one was caused by the MCAS, too). No one right now would be talking about an 'unstable', 'out-of-balance' or, or you say, 'fatally flawed' aircraft, but merely about different flight characteristics in an extreme flight situation (stall, or close to a stall) that have a new software to help with this. While Boeing have made clear mistakes by not telling about MCAS and thus not providing adequate training for the pilots (apart from a far from adequate software design), this whole situation around the MAX is often subject to exaggeration. If the aircraft itself was flawed it wouldn't be Boeing's fastest selling jet in history with more than 5000 orders.

[AviatorMan 253]

This published today in the Guardian:

Indonesian airline Garuda cancels order for 49 Boeing 737 Max jets

Company blames loss of passenger trust after Ethiopian Airlines and Lion Air disasters involving the aircraft

 

[goates 576]

1 hour ago, Bobsk8 said:

The FAA let Boeing certify their own product. The Fox guarding the hen house. 

And because of this, both Canada and Europe will be doing their own review of the updates, rather than rely on the FAA. This case has the potential to seriously erode people's trust in the entire certification process between Boeing and the FAA, which is not good for anyone.

[DellyPilot 109]

1 hour ago, threegreen said:

And yes the Boeing MAX design is fatally flawed.

Can you clarify this statement? .... 
While Boeing have made clear mistakes by not telling about MCAS and thus not providing adequate training for the pilots (apart from a far from adequate software design), this whole situation around the MAX is often subject to exaggeration. If the aircraft itself was flawed it wouldn't be Boeing's fastest selling jet in history with more than 5000 orders.

Ok well at the risk of enraging Jim Young who is on "Team Boeing" I will try to list the design flaws as I see them, please take a peek at my previous post on the misleading warnings the MAX gives when an AoA vane is INOP. The Lion 601 report is illuminating especially the useless checklists the pilots went through before they got to the right one (with help from a 3rd pilot in jump seat).

Design flaw 1 - Misleading warnings + 80K extra to get the right warning
AoA failure = constant stick shaker on one side (which is uncancellable) and NEW to the 737 MAX you get 3 misleading messages IAS DISAGREE / ALT DISAGREE / FEEL DIFF PRESS. These warnings do not appear on previous 737 models.  Not sure why AoA failure now causes this message but it resulted in the crew (correctly) following spurious checklists such as UNRELIABLE AIRSPEED. Agree this is partly training but its also a design flaw to present misleading messages and not present MCAS ACTIVE and AoA DISAGREE with a clear new checklist including STAB TRIM to CUTOUT.  The Lion 610 crew were reading a useless checklist as they hit the water https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/20/lion-air-pilots-were-looking-at-handbook-when-plane-crashed

Design flaw 2 - MCAS works off only 1 AoA vane and is active even when 2 AoA inputs disagree
As a crucial certification required system its amazing that it doesnt perform any validation of input data between AoA sensors or indeed a plethora of other inputs that could help it determine which vane is working, N2,IAS,TAS,GPS SPEED, GPS ALT, ALT, RADIO ALT could all be used to switch to the correct input. There should also be 3 AoA vanes.

Design flaw 3 - Applying 2.5 degrees pitch forward every 10 seconds
In a high workload situation with klaxons, warnings flashing, stick shaker going MCAS can silently move the trim wheel forward 2.5 degrees as it reads from a dead AoA vane. Ok so Captain trims the plane as MCAS is activating the first time, it cancels. Both crew haven't realised MCAS is triggering, how would they, didn't know it existed and there is no warning.. becayse SRS moves the trim wheel during pilot control column input pilot is used to hearing the wheel whir so again he has zero way to know this failure is happening. All he is seeing is IAS DISAGREE / ALT DISAGREE / FEEL DIFF PRESS + STICK SHAKER. He is now running the through the QRH Checlist for Unreliable airspeed and boom 2.5 more degrees gets dialed in with the FO now complaining he cannot keep the nose up.. captain applies more power, thinking we might be stalling (heavy nose), the Stabiliser now has even more effect as the speed increases, then the final 2.5 degrees gets dialed in and its game over. It would take a good 10 seconds to even unwind the stabiliser if you realised at that point!  

 

Jim and others who are saying wait for the report and airbus are just as dangerous, sorry guys but what in the...? If you can't see this is a design flaw then what is?

In an Airbus (booo) for all its faults the computer can directly control the elevators not just the stabiliser so this scenario could be avoided because the pilot moving the elevator back would simply cancel the MCAS automation. This is partly why patching a 50 year old design with a complex automation system AND then not training crew about it is in my view is criminal. There will be court cases.

But even with the current implementation its crazy not to have input validation/correlation checks for such a key system, how the FAA agreed to no ECAM Messages is incredible.. there should be audible warnings too MCAS ACTIVE! MCAS TRIM!

Boeing's job is to think all this stuff through and design for failure and ensure crew are aware. They failed horribly. 

Finally to address your last point.. orders were made long before the design flaws were realised.

Edited March 22, 2019 by DellyPilot

[IUBrian 151]

2 hours ago, Jim Young said:

In that case, there's no way Boeing will survive the investigation and countries that have ordered the Max8 and Max9 will immediately cancel any orders so that the countries can instead order similar aircraft from Airbus.  No reason to waste time when we already know Boeing is guilty (or should be even if the investigation exonerates them).  Let Airbus take the billion dollar contracts instead.  Even if this happens, heard the US pilots have no issues with this aircraft so suspect airlines in the USA will continue to buy this aircraft and fly it.

I agree, especially when it is considered a safety feature.

I posted several pages ago what I think Boeing needs to do from a business perspective, I won’t rewrite it. I don’t know you but I have no doubt you’re not only extremely intelligent but highly successful at your job. And I am sure when you make a mistake (we all do) you own it and make sure it won’t happen again. Where people lose trust is when someone screws up and they pretend everyone else is too dumb to know you made a mistake. Boeing can screw up in the short term ONLY because there is no one else currently who can fulfill existing needs. That’s not a long term strategy for success. 

I want Boeing to succeed. Pretending they don’t have issues doesn’t facilitate that goal. 

Edited March 23, 2019 by IUBrian

[John_Cillis 2,406]

2 hours ago, IUBrian said:

I posted several pages ago what I think Boeing needs to do from a business perspective, I won’t rewrite it. I don’t know you but I have no doubt you’re not only extremely intelligent but highly successful at your job. And I am sure when you make a mistake (we all do) you own it and make sure it won’t happen again. Where people lose trust is when someone screws up and they pretend everyone else is too dumb to know you made a mistake. Boeing can screw up in the short term ONLY because there is no one else currently who can fulfill existing needs. That’s not a long term strategy for success. 

I want Boeing to succeed. Pretending they don’t have issues doesn’t facilitate that goal. 

Agreed,

I have learned a lot in this thread, especially how new aerodynamic design can cause issues.  One would think the nacelle challenge would have come out in wind tunnel tests, it probably did, hence the MCAS.  I still do not understand why only two crashes, but given the Max fleet's small size, that is a pretty big percentage and I do not like those odds.  We know the problem can and will be fixed, but will public confidence be restored?  I say yes because few, except for aviation enthusiasts, check out equipment before they fly or book a flight.  I check out equipment and seating charts so I can select the best view when I fly, except for future ocean crossings because I learned an aisle is better since I have lost a tad of mobility since I was hit and run over three weeks ago. 

Flying has its risks but now feeling unsafe on the ground, having been hit in my car, in one bus brake failure going down a long grade in California almost five decades ago, and hit on foot, I still prefer my flying odds only having been in three risky incidents, a blown engine on startup with a flash, bang and cabin filling of kerosene fumes, getting hit by a ground vehicle, and nearly running out of fuel in a Beech going into Pellston Michigan after three missed approaches when west and central Michigan suddenly fogged in on a night with high humidity and embedded thunderstorms.  Good odds given the nearly one thousand airline flights and countless GA flights I have been on.

[IUBrian 151]

I haven’t had much of substance to add to this topic but there are a couple of points I would be remiss if I didn’t make. One, immediately after the crash, as I think i mentioned near the beginning, I told my daughter I’ll hop over to Avsim and pretty quickly get a pretty fair assessment of what likely went wrong because there are a lot of really really smart people there. And I have not been disappointed - as a non-pilot the wealth of knowledge, even from differing opinions, has been incredible. 

The second point is that in this day and age it seems unfortunately rare that people can disagree without the disagreement devolving into personal attacks. I think it’s a credit to this forum generally and the moderators that we can express opinions and even strongly disagree without the conversation disintegrating into personal attacks. I feel with everyone, regardless of where we fall on this topic, if we met in person we’d all quaff a few beers together.