Ethiopia crash

[Garys 209]

If the aircraft is approaching a stall you want a heavier feel on the control yoke not lighter. It doesn't push the control column forward but it reduces the amount of hydraulic output pressure from the Feel computer to 800psi if I recall to induce the heavier feel, so no it is not incorrect but its not a MCAS function, its the same on the NG and will do that with flaps out on the max as well.

 

 

Edited April 20, 2019 by Garys

[HighBypass 2,339]

See, way back near the beginning of this thread that was what initially confused me about the feel when an airliner (or perhaps any aeroplane with boosted controls) is close to a stall: Giving a control column a heavier feel as you get to a stall. When I've flown a glider, the loss of elevator effectiveness just before stall gave lower stick forces than when flying normally, let alone those felt on a winch launch.. of course the aerodynamic forces are felt directly by the glider pilot so it's a different game of aviation.

All we can do is wait to see how much money Boeing is going to have to shell out over this entire debacle. One should not be able to put a price on an innocent human life, but a price will be found.

 

[mabe54 17]

This wouldn't be fun to wake up in a first flight of the day.

I hope the manufacturer separates the source of power between MCAS and the Elevator Trim Switches on the Yoke as to not lose both of them when the STAB TRIM CUTOUT SWITCHES are set to CUT OUT for the remainder of the flight as per the AD. There is no reason to lose both to disconnect a mal behaving MCAS and it would still leave Manual Trimming as last resort (3rd).

Notice that the throttles were never pull back during holding the yoke all the way back at anytime in the video.

Kudos to Pilot Mentour. Good post.

Cheers,

 

[threexgreen 3,139]

23 hours ago, Reader said:

is there not an indication to the pilot through the yoke

The indication is the stick shaker which was activated in both accidents because the aircraft 'thought' is was stalling. It was only activated on the Captain's side because the AoA vane that failed was on his side, feeding his instruments. That's also the vane that MCAS gets its data from.

 

23 hours ago, Garys said:

If the aircraft is approaching a stall you want a heavier feel on the control yoke not lighter. It doesn't push the control column forward but it reduces the amount of hydraulic output pressure from the Feel computer to 800psi if I recall to induce the heavier feel, so no it is not incorrect but its not a MCAS function, its the same on the NG and will do that with flaps out on the max as well.

Got a source?

[Garys 209]

The source is the SMYD so it doesn't care about the aircrafts configuration unlike MCAS. Its called the elevator feel shift function.

Edited April 22, 2019 by Garys

[threexgreen 3,139]

From the Aviation Herald:

"On Apr 27th 2019 it became known, that four independent whistleblowers, current and former Boeing employees, had called the FAA hotline for whistleblowers regarding aviation safety concerns on Apr 5th 2019. The concerns reported were wiring damage to the AoA related wiring as result of foreign object damage as well as concerns with the TRIM CUTOUT switches. The FAA believes these reports may open completely new investigative angles into the causes of the two crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia."
 

[n4gix 4,947]

Apparently AoA disease is contagious - or something:

Quote

The FAA on Thursday issued an emergency airworthiness directive (2019-08-51) against the Cirrus SF50 Vision Jet that grounds the entire fleet until specified maintenance is performed on the aircraft’s angle of attack indicators.

https://www.flyingmag.com/faa-grounds-cirrus-vision-jets

[AviatorMan 253]

Boeing's CEO comments on crash at recent shareholders' meeting:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/29/investing/boeing-annual-meeting/index.html

Seems to be saying that the plane was designed properly and was safe, but crew was at fault (they did not "completely follow procedures."). But later in the article it says "Boeing has accepted its role in the crashes."

I am not sure I understand what role in the two crashes Boeing has accepted. Can anyone help me out here?

[KevinAu 441]

1 hour ago, AviatorMan said:

Seems to be saying that the plane was designed properly and was safe, but crew was at fault (they did not "completely follow procedures."). But later in the article it says "Boeing has accepted its role in the crashes."

I am not sure I understand what role in the two crashes Boeing has accepted. Can anyone help me out here?

‘Blame’ as such in an aircraft investigation, is like free cars on oprah. You get a car, you get a car, you get a car, everybody gets a car!

Blame is not mutually exclusive. Just because the pilots get ‘blame’ does not mean the mechanics or the manufacturer or the airline or the regulator or atc are absolved of blame. A crash has a cause, such as impacting the ground and then it has factors, such as software design, pilots not following checklists, and birdstrike. Poor design, pilot error, and a bird violating airspace can all happily coexist together as factors in the same report. Boeing’s role will be whatever the investigators describe as their piece of causal factor in the crash. Most likely the design of the original mcas software. The pilots will get their piece of recognition as well. Likely for not following the bulletin procedure. And the bird that hit the aoa vane will get blamed as well for the runway incursion.

Edited April 30, 2019 by KevinAu

[Jim Young 2,356]

1 hour ago, AviatorMan said:

I am not sure I understand what role in the two crashes Boeing has accepted. Can anyone help me out here?

Must be a better news report on this...  I watched his news conference at the Shareholder's meeting yesterday with deep interest and can see why Board and Shareholder's are not getting rid of him.  Glad the FAA is staying out of any fixes made.  Government should not get involved and let the manufacturer make the necessary repairs and move on.

I agree with Kevin.  Not one entity was completely at fault.  There were a lot of factors that brought this aircraft down. 

[John_Cillis 2,406]

1 hour ago, Jim Young said:

Must be a better news report on this...  I watched his news conference at the Shareholder's meeting yesterday with deep interest and can see why Board and Shareholder's are not getting rid of him.  Glad the FAA is staying out of any fixes made.  Government should not get involved and let the manufacturer make the necessary repairs and move on.

I agree with Kevin.  Not one entity was completely at fault.  There were a lot of factors that brought this aircraft down. 

Good observations Jim.  Boeing will be responsible and protect its shareholders, including those enrolled in 401K's like I once was, until I cashed out.  Many of us do not realize the stock we own within our 401K's, quite a portfolio, spread out to reduce risk depending on how aggressive one is in their 401K choices.  I was quite conservative so even amid the stock market downturns, my 401K gained value.   The only stock I ever owned directly was Exxon Mobil, and I kick myself for not investing more, I got mine for free and chose the dividend reinvestment plan.   My stock went from $23.00 for the one free share I was given when I worked at Wards way back when, then owned by Mobil. 

It ended up getting split into five shares worth more than $600.00 when I finally cashed it in as I neared going out on disability.  Airline accidents are sensitive for stockholders, but "Airline" is the key word, in addition to the aircraft mfr there is always an Airline involved, plus factors beyond the crew such as timing to make the needed decisions.  Sully and the Hudson were a good example of timing and the weight of decisions Sully and his co pilot had to make, as well as those of ATC.   So many factors saved the passengers and crew that day, especially the first responders on the various watercraft in the area.

Another example of an airline crash that could have meant the loss of all aboard was United 232 in Sioux City, in this case aircraft design was clearly the call, but flight crew management saved many lives, because although there was a crash, Captain Haynes and the crew aboard saved lives by getting the aircraft back to the airport, an almost impossible feat, where first responders saved him, and many aboard.

In Memory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232

John

[Bobsk8 12,730]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/05/us/boeing-737-max-disagree-alert/index.html

[threexgreen 3,139]

17 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/05/us/boeing-737-max-disagree-alert/index.html

Maybe I missed something but where does this article contain actual news? I can't see anything I didn't know before. The headline seems like made up drama.

[Wink207 78]

23 minutes ago, threegreen said:

Maybe I missed something but where does this article contain actual news? I can't see anything I didn't know before. The headline seems like made up drama.

Well, CNN is known for their "Fake News".

[AviatorMan 253]

1 hour ago, threegreen said:

Maybe I missed something but where does this article contain actual news? I can't see anything I didn't know before. The headline seems like made up drama.

The fact that Boeing knew there were issues well in advance and kept quiet is in fact news. And the next forum comment suggesting CNN makes up "fake news" has no place in a forum that claims to not allow political comments.

Boeing has been an icon of aviation, and I have been a big admirer of the company for nearly 60 years when as a young boy I flew on one of American Airlines' first Boeing 707s. And my father was one of American's first flight engineers who flew the 707. But the whole history of the 737 Max development, testing,marketing and introduction, not to mention Boeing's muddled responses to the two tragic crashes, seems to show a different company than the one we have been so proud of for all of these years. I hope no one accuses me of "Boeing bashing" in making these observations, but I feel that flight simmers as aviation enthusiasts and admirers of the history makers in aviation should be allowed to comment on what seems to be happening with this company.