Welcome!

Welcome to our community forums, full of great people, ideas and excitement. Please register if you would like to take part.

Register

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2nd Boeing 737-8 crash

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by RiderHard View Post

    I prefer listening to the facts over sloppy journalism.

    No plane and systems are perfect, and the first one was the fault of a mix of rushed/incompetent mechanical work by an airline with a history of that and untrained pilots.
    The second crash will also come down to a variety of issues with the MCAS playing a minor role. Wait for the NTSB report.
    Journalists are doing their job, reporting the facts.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by RiderHard View Post

      I prefer listening to the facts over sloppy journalism.

      No plane and systems are perfect, and the first one was the fault of a mix of rushed/incompetent mechanical work by an airline with a history of that and untrained pilots.
      The second crash will also come down to a variety of issues with the MCAS playing a minor role. Wait for the NTSB report.
      I’m not sure you do. You appear to have a very entrenched position even in the face of mounting facts.

      https://calgaryherald.com/news/heres...9-5b027760ae73

      Ever since the Lion Air crash, 737 MAX 8 pilots have been expressing outrage that Boeing did not properly inform them of MCAS, particularly the possibility that the program could wrench control of an aircraft from human hands.

      “We had NO idea that this MCAS even existed,” one anonymous American Airlines pilot posted to an online forum. “I’ve been flying the MAX-8 a couple times per month for almost a year now, and I’m sitting here thinking, what the hell else don’t I know about this thing?”

      An aircraft incident reporting database maintained by NASA is filled with multiple reports from MAX 8 pilots of the aircraft aggressively pitching forward soon after takeoff.

      One pilot wrote of having to take special caution during takeoff to remove the “MCAS threat.” Nevertheless, that pilot still suffered an “undesired brief nose down situation.”

      In another, a pilot called the MAX 8’s flight manual “almost criminally insufficient” and complained that Boeing had left pilots in the dark about the extent of the MAX 8’s automation.

      “The fact that this airplane requires such jury rigging to fly is a red flag,” read the report.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by kcountry View Post

        I’m not sure you do. You appear to have a very entrenched position even in the face of mounting facts.

        https://calgaryherald.com/news/heres...9-5b027760ae73


        So that is an opinion article that is linking to other opinion articles and sourcing them as facts. Following the link that says "multiple reports from MAX 8 pilots" has the following evidence after a wall of bull**** (from an author who was a former presidential speechwriter).

        Complaint 1 - Note that this was entered AFTER the first crash, hence the wording "possible MCAS threat" - NOTE you word "possible" was missing from your quote. This pilot mentions that AutoPilot was engaged. MCAS does not engage when AutoPilot is engaged, so the opinion piece has its first piece of concrete evidenced ruled False.

        Complaint 2 - Also after Lion Air, Also had an issue with AutoPilot - Not with MCAS. Ruled Not fitting the narrative.

        Complaint 3 - First line "Also November 2018. This is not about the automatic controls"

        Complaint 4 - This one does not sound like an airline pilot, and is more just questioning things regarding the first crash.

        Compaint 5 - This is regarding Auto Throttle, not MCAS - Not related

        Complaint 6 - "B737 MAX First Officer reported feeling unprepared for first flight in the MAX, citing inadequate training." This is an issue with that pilots airline and training. Probably the most likely suspect in both crashes.

        Complaint 7 - Oh there were only 6?

        He also states: "There are hundreds upon hundreds of these 737-related ASRS reports, amounting to more than 600,000 words total when I exported them to a text file."

        So out of the thousands of reports (some related to bathroom functionality) he found 7 that he could text search to find the word MCAS. None however seem to be related to the actual functionality of the MCAS system.


        So you provide an opinion piece backed up with a quote posted on an online forum by "an anonymous airline captain". Meanwhile actual 737Max pilots are going on record saying there is no problem with the plane and they feel comfortable flying it.

        So yes, I do prefer facts over mass hysteria.

        Comment


        • https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/piece-of...dive-1.1229423

          A screw-like device found in the wreckage of the Boeing Co. 737 Max that crashed last Sunday in Ethiopia indicates the plane was configured to dive, a piece of evidence that helped convince U.S. regulators to ground the model, a person familiar with the investigation said late Thursday night.

          Federal Aviation Administration chief Daniel Elwell on Wednesday cited unspecified evidence found at the crash scene as part of the justification for the agency to reverse course and temporarily halt flights of Boeing’s largest selling aircraft. Up until then, American regulators had held off as nation after nation had grounded the plane, Boeing’s best-selling jet model.

          The piece of evidence was a so-called jackscrew, used to set the trim that raises and lowers the plane’s nose, according to the person, who requested anonymity to discuss the inquiry.

          A preliminary review of the device and how it was configured at the time of the crash indicated that it was set to push down the nose, according to the person, who wasn’t authorized to speak publicly about the investigation.

          The jackscrew, combined with a newly obtained satellite flight track of the plane, convinced the FAA that there were similarities to the Oct. 29 crash of the same Max model off the coast of Indonesia. In the earlier accident, a safety feature on the Boeing aircraft was repeatedly trying to put the plane into a dive as a result of a malfunction.

          All 157 people aboard Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 died early Sunday shortly after the plane took off. The pilot reported an unspecified problem and was trying to return to the airport. The plane crashed near Addis Ababa, Ethiopia’s capital. The plane’s crash-proof recorders have been sent to France to be analyzed.

          The discovery of the jackscrew was earlier reported by NBC News.

          Separately, the New York Times reported that doomed Ethiopian Airlines plane was in trouble almost immediately after takeoff as it lurched up and down by hundreds of feet at a time. The captain of the Boeing Co. 737 Max 8 asked in a panicky voice to turn back only three minutes into the flight as the plane accelerated to abnormal speeds, the newspaper reported, citing a person who reviewed the jet’s air traffic communications.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by danno View Post

            Daughter and husband just did the Vancouver - Kona run on a Max8 last night, we did the same a few weeks ago. Nice new plane. Will be going home on the same in a few weeks. Not concerned. We are probably in greater danger of being killed by an earthquake/tsunami right now. I think I will have another mai tai now.
            This post didn't age too well.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by C.M.Burns View Post

              This post didn't age too well.
              I would get on one tomorrow without any concern.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by danno View Post

                I would get on one tomorrow without any concern.
                I wouldn't. Politics or not, grounding them was the right call. Too many minor variables that can too easily be tweaked to create way too big of a problem.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by C.M.Burns View Post

                  I wouldn't. Politics or not, grounding them was the right call. Too many minor variables that can too easily be tweaked to create way too big of a problem.
                  Sure, I'll concede the point.


                  But what a clusterfack. Daughter and husband going home on Friday on a United flight to Denver, then AC to Calgary > Regina. (24 hour trip vs the 10 hrs booked originally, plus the money they spent on upgrade to Plus not being honoured). AC is really struggling to get their own planes in place to pick up the lost capacity.

                  Comment


                  • Just listened to a great interview in 770 in Calgary with a 737 pilot who explained the issue well. The MCAS system has 2 main issues: 1) the system is not redundant. It relies on only one sensor to decide to kick in and lower the nose. If that initial sensor goes, there can be big trouble. 2) the other huge issue he brought up is that Boeing didn’t even tell pilots the MCAS system was in place at all when the plane launched. It wasn’t until after the Lyon air incident that pilots became aware of it. The training on the changes and upgrades was sorely lacking.

                    Comment


                    • Pretty damning article in regards to oversight and timing on this whole issue related to both Boeing and the FAA.

                      https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...ion-air-crash/

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Scotty c View Post
                        Pretty damning article in regards to oversight and timing on this whole issue related to both Boeing and the FAA.

                        https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...ion-air-crash/
                        I just finished reading the article and was going to post a link. Very good description of the issue - as understood by Seattletimes at this time - it does contain information that conflicts with information I had heard about MCAS earlier. I'm sure the exact way MCAS functions will be completely flushed out in the coming weeks.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Kokanee View Post
                          Just listened to a great interview in 770 in Calgary with a 737 pilot who explained the issue well. The MCAS system has 2 main issues: 1) the system is not redundant. It relies on only one sensor to decide to kick in and lower the nose. If that initial sensor goes, there can be big trouble. 2) the other huge issue he brought up is that Boeing didn’t even tell pilots the MCAS system was in place at all when the plane launched. It wasn’t until after the Lyon air incident that pilots became aware of it. The training on the changes and upgrades was sorely lacking.
                          There is a lot of nonsense in what he said if you are interpreting it correctly.

                          MCAS is an entire new control system, due to the stability issues caused by the larger engines that require an advanced level of skill to fly. MCAS reduces the skill level required to fly the plane.
                          MCAS is not what causes the plane to nose down - it is triggering auto-trim which is NOT a new system. Procedures and checklists for runaway auto-trim existed before the 737 Max was even a concept.

                          1) The system does not rely on one sensor, there are two sensors, one for pilot, one for co-pilot. However two sensors doesn't provide the same redundancy as three sensors.
                          2)The checklist for runaway auto-trim existed even before a 737Max was on a draftsheet anywhere. It's a standard 737 procedure, no new training would be needed for the problem that happened on the first flight, MCAS or not.
                          Last edited by RiderHard; 03-17-2019, 05:12 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by RiderHard View Post

                            There is a lot of nonsense in what he said if you are interpreting it correctly.

                            MCAS is an entire new control system, due to the stability issues caused by the larger engines that require an advanced level of skill to fly. MCAS reduces the skill level required to fly the plane.
                            MCAS is not what causes the plane to nose down - it is triggering auto-trim which is NOT a new system. Procedures and checklists for runaway auto-trim existed before the 737 Max was even a concept.

                            1) The system does not rely on one sensor, there are two sensors, one for pilot, one for co-pilot. However two sensors doesn't provide the same redundancy as three sensors.
                            2)The checklist for runaway auto-trim existed even before a 737Max was on a draftsheet anywhere. It's a standard 737 procedure, no new training would be needed for the problem that happened on the first flight, MCAS or not.
                            I really think you’re going to have to back off the continual defense of the system. It’s becoming clearer every day there was a major ball dropped both in the system implementation as well as the training provided. MCAS was an entirely new system. The pilots were not advised it even existed originally. Yes auto trim was in place before, but it could be easily overridden. MCAS isn’t, as it automatically resets when overridden, and then compensates even further, continually compounding the problem. I encourage you to read up a bit more on the new changes, as an aeronautics fan you would enjoy it.
                            Also it has been confirmed the MCAS system only took the input from one angle of attack sensor. It was deemed not necessary to have the second sensor input.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by danno View Post

                              Sure, I'll concede the point.


                              But what a clusterfack. Daughter and husband going home on Friday on a United flight to Denver, then AC to Calgary > Regina. (24 hour trip vs the 10 hrs booked originally, plus the money they spent on upgrade to Plus not being honoured). AC is really struggling to get their own planes in place to pick up the lost capacity.
                              Not honouring the Plus upgrade (or refunding the money) is a pretty seriously greasy move by Air Canada. I can understand losing the lottery, so to speak, in getting a Plus seat on the reassigned plane. But they really should get their money back.

                              Fee bad for your daughter, it’s going to be a mess for air travellers for a while.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Kokanee View Post
                                Just listened to a great interview in 770 in Calgary with a 737 pilot who explained the issue well. The MCAS system has 2 main issues: 1) the system is not redundant. It relies on only one sensor to decide to kick in and lower the nose. If that initial sensor goes, there can be big trouble. 2) the other huge issue he brought up is that Boeing didn’t even tell pilots the MCAS system was in place at all when the plane launched. It wasn’t until after the Lyon air incident that pilots became aware of it. The training on the changes and upgrades was sorely lacking.
                                This whole thing is baffling to me. The aviation industry has a well earned sterling reputation for amazing safety and performance, precisely by having (mostly) eliminated fusterclucks like this. Software guys falling back on the lame old “the software worked as intended” line is something I haven’t heard in forever when it comes to aircraft. And apparently the patch for the software - which is now supposedly going to be delivered in a matter of days - was bogged down for the past several MONTHS.

                                Comment

                                Announcement

                                Collapse
                                No announcement yet.

                                Announcement

                                Collapse
                                No announcement yet.
                                Working...
                                X