Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
John_Cillis

Ethiopia crash

Recommended Posts

Talking about it with work colleagues today we reckon the temporary fix boeing will probably implement is to derate the engines to stop the climb pitch and then work on a fix on the MCAS. 


 
 
 
 
v63vq9-5.png  913456

Share this post


Link to post

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. 

  • Upvote 1

Russell Gough

Daytona Beach

FL

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, IUBrian said:

I don’t know - if a President can can ATC for going on strike he can probably ground a plane. He could probably can the head of the FAA if he didn’t ground the Max, and replace him with someone who would, so there may be an argument that an executive order wasn’t the right way to go about it, but it’s a distinction without a difference. 

I say this as someone who tends to be in the Boeing camp, but absent terrorism, even if you can attribute the problem to pilot error, it’s an error that appears, based upon the statistical unlikelihood of two new planes of the exact type crashing within 6 months, to be uniquely attributable to this particular model. It doesn’t mean that it is, and investigation may prove otherwise, but grounding is appropriate, imo.

The President office is given the discretion to act when public safety might be an issue, even if there is doubt it is better for a sitting President to err on the side of caution, as happened during the emergency grounding during 9/11.  It comes to the point of acceptable risk and human lives in the eyes of all of us are not, that is what I feel, except for those with criminal intent which I feel has been proven out of hand not being the issue in these two recent crashes.  Right or wrong the President had guts to make a decision.  It will have minimal impact on US Airlines because out of the 737 fleet the maxes are still a small minority of the hardware we have airborne, especially where the 737 is concerned.  Safety first, Safety last and Safety in the middle.  Wise decision today I feel in the short or long term, and that is coming from a political fawn, not a liberal, just someone who watches government from the bleachers unless called to jury service, which happened to me just once---best experience of being an American, it was my early July 4th gift...  And I did not have to judge, the case settled out of court in the jury's favor, once we were allowed to express our thoughts.

John

Share this post


Link to post

To be honest, the POTUS/FAA, or wherever the directive came from to ground the MAX is a bit of a moot point, the US didn't really have a lot of choice in the matter given that the type has been banned from entering the airspace of a very large number of countries around the world in the past day or so, so it's effectively off the menu for Boeing sales until it gets sorted; a classic example of tombstone technology if ever there was one.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Alan Bradbury

Check out my youtube flight sim videos: Here

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, 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. 

...I read somewhere it's 2 circuit breaker...


Richard Portier

MAXIMUS VI FORMULA|Intel® Core i7-4770K Oc@4.50GHz x8|NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080ti|M16GB DDR3|Windows10 Pro 64|P3Dv5|AFS2|TrackIr5|Saitek ProFlight Yoke + Quadrant + Rudder Pedal|Thrustmaster Warthog A10|

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Chock said:

To be honest, the POTUS/FAA, or wherever the directive came from to ground the MAX is a bit of a moot point, the US didn't really have a lot of choice in the matter given that the type has been banned from entering the airspace of a very large number of countries around the world in the past day or so, so it's effectively off the menu for Boeing sales until it gets sorted; a classic example of tombstone technology if ever there was one.

like i said yesterday a lot of airlines where happy to keep flying them  (tui being one of them with only 6 or so based with you in Manchester Alan) it was only when the UK CAA and then EASA got involved that everyone else joined the band wagon.

This is going to be an absolute nightmare if they cant come up with an AD (airworthiness directive) soon as the IATA summer season starts on 1st April and airlines start having to switch stuff out and changing seat maps/configs on their reservations and GDS systems not to mention rewriting all the rosters for  crews on different aircraft types is every airlines nightmare 2 weeks before the summer season kind of starts. 

Edited by tooting

 
 
 
 
v63vq9-5.png  913456

Share this post


Link to post

Seems there's been a bit of back and forth about who/where the black boxes would be read out.  Last I saw they were going to Paris, but for all I know that could have changed again.   I have no idea if NTSB is the "gold standard".  I imagine many countries think their own agencies fit that description.

 

Something that occurs to me, is how many functions have been layered onto the trim system.  Seems like the system is available, so if I need to design something that affects pitch, just send it to the trimmer.  I know it's not as simple as that, but over time design changes can corrupt the original intent of a system.  The reports of pitch down after AP engagement suggest to me there's more going on here.

 

WRT FAA action, they state there is additional data (maybe data from satellite but unclear exactly what that is) that confirms more similarity to Lion Air.  Meanwhile someone pointed out a reddit rumor (friend of a friend kind of thing) about intermittent AoA sensor outputs and the possibility that the smoothing function wasn't designed to deal with the frequency of the bad output (measured in milli-secs).  Another rumor suggest that the software "fix" that was being developed since November and planned for release to the fleet in April is now "on hold" apparently the ability to test/certify the fix isn't there yet (my guess:  maybe hardware mods are required?)

 

 

Again I hope the DFDR /CVR get analyzed soonest and early info get out in the public domain, so we can confirm or dismiss these speculations.

 

scott s.

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, tooting said:

like i said yesterday a lot of airlines where happy to keep flying them  (tui being one of them with only 6 or so based with you in Manchester Alan) it was only when the UK CAA and then EASA got involved that everyone else joined the band wagon.

This is going to be a nightmare if they cant come up with a AD (airworthiness directive) soon as the IATA summer season starts on 1st April.  

 

It will impact most the airlines that only have the MAX in their fleet or the majority of their fleet which hopefully is just a handful of airlines.  I feel if it is an AW issue Boeing should compensate those airlines, or provide them with an alternative lease if their MAX's are not owned outright.  Seeing an airline go out of business, especially in the smaller markets, impacts people's lives, everyone from the guest to the airline and as you point out, hospitality staff too in their destinations.

John

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Sloppymusic, if you just clicked on the link posted above by les parson, you can actually read the actual ad to the manuals that includes the trim runaway procedure which is to be performed. It answers many of the questions you posed.

The mcas is standard to all max aircraft as it was developed to correct a flight deficiency of max aircraft. And the ad applies to all max aircraft with no qualifiers. So it is most certainly not optional and part of the factory installed flight programming. And as such it is also most certainly not installed in other models since it was developed to correct a deficiency specific to max aircraft.

Boeing’s position was that the mcas was not detailed to the pilots since a malfunction would have manifested as a runaway trim situation. And there is already a runaway trim procedure in the qrh. They are right to an extent.  When a runaway trim occurs, why it is happening is nowhere near as important as stopping the runaway trim. On all these planes, there are flight control functions that make inputs to the trim automatically. Any of which can malfunction and give you an unwanted trim actuation. For any of them, the first and foremost thing to do is to stop the trim immediately. The faster you recognize the runaway trim, the faster you stop it and the less you will have to fight the controls. If these crews had performed the trim runaway procedure properly, they will likely still be alive.

However, for them to design an antistall system, or any system designed to push the nose down, without some kind of redundancy in inputs, automatic cutout, or fault detection, is most definitely wrong, to a large extent. Because a runaway trim situation is one of the more difficult ones to handle, and you really don’t want that to be the first outcome of a system’s malfunction.

Edited by KevinAu
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting comments here.  Was there any information given about the hours (total time) of the pilots?


|Ryan Butterworth|

| i7 4790K@4.4GHz | 32GB RAM | EVGA GTX 1080Ti | ASUS Z97-Pro | 1TB 860 Evo | 500GB 840 Evo Win10 Pro | 1TB Samsung 7200rpm | Seasonic X750W |

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ryanbatcund said:

Interesting comments here.  Was there any information given about the hours (total time) of the pilots?

further up the topic it said 200 hours for the f/o.

if youre from my neck of the woods and have had the delights of 22 year old CTC / Oxford Aviation instagram cadets you'd know what I was on about 


 
 
 
 
v63vq9-5.png  913456

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, ryanbatcund said:

Interesting comments here.  Was there any information given about the hours (total time) of the pilots?

According to wikipedia the pilot of Ethiopian flight 302 was flying with the airline for ten years and had logged a total of 8,231 flight hours. The first officer was a recent graduate with 200 flight hours logged.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_302#cite_note-re20190310-25

Edited by wolke85

Enjoy flying and happy landings.

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, AviatorMan said:

They are spending nearly $15m per year on lobbying the US government. It must be doing something for them.

Sure. And it`s as lawful as Patrick Shanahan who spent 30 years at Boeing being the Acting Secretary of Defense. And/or that former Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley is to be appointed on Boeing's Board at the upcoming shareholder meeting at the end of April. Boeing has been flying politicians to Washington for decades. 

There is no there there. 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, KevinAu said:

If these crews had performed the trim runaway procedure properly, they will likely still be alive.

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...

  • Upvote 1

Prepar3D v5.2 | PMDG 737NGXu/777 | FSLabs A320/A321 | www.united-virtual.com | www.deltava.org | i9 9900K 5 GHz | Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro 32 GB | RTX 3090 24 GB MSI Suprim X | Windows 10 Pro 64 bit | HP Reverb G2 VR HMD

 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
  • Donation Goals

    AVSIM's 2020 Fundraising Goal

    Donate to our annual general fundraising goal. This donation keeps our doors open and providing you service 24 x 7 x 365. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. We reset this goal every new year for the following year's goal.


    53%
    $13,405.00 of $25,000.00 Donate Now
×
×
  • Create New...