View Full Version : Channel 9 Under Investigation MAX Promo
Just out of a matter of interest has anybody seen this promo?
I am interested in finding out who the panel of experts are on this program and if any of them are in fact 737 Max qualified.
wheels_down
3rd Apr 2021, 01:16
It’s just a rehashed version of the 60 minutes story from the other year. It will just be fear, fear and more fear. Fear = Clicks and Viewers.
https://youtu.be/QytfYyHmxtc
Ollie Onion
3rd Apr 2021, 01:58
Well I am sorry but Boeing deserves every bit of bad publicity they get around this. Cover ups, profit before people and lack of oversight combined with bad design, bad information and bad training. In this day and age it should not take 360 deaths and two hull loses to correct a problem that everyone in the design team seemed to know about and took a ‘fingers crossed’ approach to it.
TBM-Legend
3rd Apr 2021, 02:39
Well I am sorry but Boeing deserves every bit of bad publicity they get around this. Cover ups, profit before people and lack of oversight combined with bad design, bad information and bad training. In this day and age it should not take 360 deaths and two hull loses to correct a problem that everyone in the design team seemed to know about and took a ‘fingers crossed’ approach to it.
I guess Southwest Airlines have a slightly higher opinion [and knowledge] than you of the 737Max as they've just placed an order over 200 of them...
Capt Fathom
3rd Apr 2021, 02:49
Like most of the later 737’s, the Max is a result of Southwest’s requirements for a 737.
Ollie Onion
3rd Apr 2021, 02:59
Hey TBM, the 737-Max as it is NOW may well be a perfectly acceptable aircraft NOW, I am guessing Southwest would have got quite a discount. It does not excuse rushing a substandard aircraft into service knowing that the exact problem that killed many people existed. I am saying Boeing deserves to be held account for that, any other hull loses and they will be out of business so I am in no doubt they have now put the money into proper development of this model........ well here's hoping anyway.
dr dre
3rd Apr 2021, 03:31
Well on first glance this "Under Investigation" show hosted by Channel Nine's Liz Hayes (of 60 Minutes fame) appears to be of the same ilk, just tabloid sensationalism designed to attract viewers through emotion to watch the progressively unpopular medium of commercial TV.
And it seems from the brief promo on this new show it doesn't look to be too different:
Boeing's deadly aircraft. MONDAY on Under Investigation, inside the biggest cover-up in aviation history. Would you put your family on a 737-MAX?
Like wheels_down said I think it'll mostly be a rehash of the 60 Minutes fearmongering from 2 years ago, with a brief exclaimer at the end saying something like: Boeing have said they have made safety improvements to the MAX, but our panel of "Experts" still believe there are safety problems you should be concerned about.....
And on their panel of experts it looks like self proclaimed expert "Captain" Byron Bailey will be there. He's passionately shouting "If ANYTHING affects the flight controls, pilots MUST know!" (even though Boeing will include MCAS details in manuals now) and probably pontificating expertise (despite never having touched the controls of any model of 737) . Trevor Jensen is there (again having never flown any 737 model). And some guy with a beard whom I'm guessing isn't too qualified on the aircraft either.
The tagline for the episode is "Would you put your family on a 737-MAX?" I dont think there'll be an objective analysis of the incidents and the steps taken to overcome them. I don't think the rectifications completed by Boeing will be explained in a rational manner. There'll be lots of "This is UNSAFE!" and "This could happen again!" thrown about.
And as the promo states, the show will try and capture the audience who've just tuned in for Married At First Sight. Now do you think the typical audience of that show will appreciate thorough, objective and unemotional discussion and aviation technical analysis? No, they want fear, emotion, worry, panic, angry FB comments.
Hey TBM, the 737-Max as it is NOW may well be a perfectly acceptable aircraft NOW, I am guessing Southwest would have got quite a discount. It does not excuse rushing a substandard aircraft into service knowing that the exact problem that killed many people existed. I am saying Boeing deserves to be held account for that, any other hull loses and they will be out of business so I am in no doubt they have now put the money into proper development of this model........ well here's hoping anyway.
I like many have flown and certified for maintenance on large passenger aircraft, L188A ,B727, B767, B767 and all 737 series including the Max.
All these aircraft over the years have had problems, the L118A for instance 3 fatal accidents due whirl mode the aircraft was modified and went to be a very successful airliner and military aircraft with many flying today.
My point is the MAX issue has been resolved,I have personally released 3 aircraft back into service without a defect.
Unqualified people making statements about an aircraft that the have never flown as a pilot or certified as an LAME should keep there opinions to themselves and let aviation professionals look after the MAX.
PoppaJo
3rd Apr 2021, 04:11
CASA should come out after this airs exposing these fools and this so called expert advice they are brainwashing the public with.
Fame chasing morons. Wearing the uniform and all says it all really.
chimbu warrior
3rd Apr 2021, 06:46
One of those experts appears to be the ex-Chairman of Air Nauru.
Ollie Onion
3rd Apr 2021, 09:12
I like many have flown and certified for maintenance on large passenger aircraft, L188A ,B727, B767, B767 and all 737 series including the Max.
All these aircraft over the years have had problems, the L118A for instance 3 fatal accidents due whirl mode the aircraft was modified and went to be a very successful airliner and military aircraft with many flying today.
My point is the MAX issue has been resolved,I have personally released 3 aircraft back into service without a defect.
Unqualified people making statements about an aircraft that the have never flown as a pilot or certified as an LAME should keep there opinions to themselves and let aviation professionals look after the MAX.
like I say, the 737 Max may now be a perfectly good aircraft. The real story hear is the usual tale of various staff members throughout Boing and the FAA who voiced concerns throughout the certification and design process who were ignored and silenced in the interest of commercial expediency. The coverup was complete when Boing elected to not put any technical information in the manuals about this system despite the concerns voiced stating that it could be potentially catastrophic if MCAS malfunctioned and wasn’t dealt with appropriately. Boeing have now done what they should have done originally, for the lives lost Boeing should take responsibility, the Max will more than likely go on to be very successful but it’s name is forever tarnished and the media will always dramatise things. To be honest I won’t be flying on one for a few years, I just don’t trust Boeing and the FAA, there was a lot of commercial pressure to get this aircraft back in the air, it may prove to be a very successful aircraft but I for one will not be putting my family on one for a couple of years. That is the beauty of choice.
cost neutral
3rd Apr 2021, 09:27
HAHAHA TJ, where did they dredge that clown up from ! Apart from once being a pilot,relevance to this particular case. Zero.
Well I am sorry but Boeing deserves every bit of bad publicity they get around this. Cover ups, profit before people and lack of oversight combined with bad design, bad information and bad training. In this day and age it should not take 360 deaths and two hull loses to correct a problem that everyone in the design team seemed to know about and took a ‘fingers crossed’ approach to it.
You mentioning 'Now' and you recognise BOEING have now done what they should have done in the beginning... so when do you think the bad publicity ceases? They have already received 'every bit of bad publicity' there is to receive. It has cost them Billions, lost orders and CEO amongst others. Let's not forget legal proceedings yet to come against some. The MAX has since gone through a rigorous recertification program with the aircraft now cleared to fly.
speedrestriction
3rd Apr 2021, 10:19
To let Boeing and the FAA off the hook for what has happened would mean that valuable lessons will not be learned.
The initial design and certification process were clearly not of sufficient quality. Res ipso facto.
Car RAMROD
3rd Apr 2021, 10:34
HAHAHA TJ, where did they dredge that clown up from ! Apart from once being a pilot,relevance to this particular case. Zero.
I would suspect he wasn’t approached, probably the other way around.
Also, relevence may not enter into the equation for some.
Chronic Snoozer
3rd Apr 2021, 11:27
The die was cast when one CEO tried to turn Boeing from an engineering company into a "business". Buyer beware. The MCAS is not the only issue that has been uncovered.
How Boeing lost its bearings (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/how-boeing-lost-its-bearings/602188/)
speedrestriction
3rd Apr 2021, 13:34
Quite - 737 Max, 787 structure issues, 767 tanker quality control - it all points to a company in crisis.
vickers vanguard
3rd Apr 2021, 16:16
The die was cast when one CEO tried to turn Boeing from an engineering company into a "business". Buyer beware. The MCAS is not the only issue that has been uncovered.
How Boeing lost its bearings (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/how-boeing-lost-its-bearings/602188/)
excellent article...thanks for sharing
Hey TBM, the 737-Max as it is NOW may well be a perfectly acceptable aircraft NOW, I am guessing Southwest would have got quite a discount. It does not excuse rushing a substandard aircraft into service knowing that the exact problem that killed many people existed. I am saying Boeing deserves to be held account for that, any other hull loses and they will be out of business so I am in no doubt they have now put the money into proper development of this model........ well here's hoping anyway.
Or the accountants in charge have their chutes packed and ready by the exits. How the managers who made the deliberate decision to conceal the MCAS are avoiding prison is beyond me.
compressor stall
3rd Apr 2021, 21:02
I think the real story is how a 1970s tech jet keeps getting new layers of mascara to pass off as new technology.
Not an insignificant list of what’s been grandfathered from the standards of 50 years ago.
OnceBitten
3rd Apr 2021, 21:40
I think the real story is how a 1970s tech jet keeps getting new layers of mascara to pass off as new technology.
Not an insignificant list of what’s been grandfathered from the standards of 50 years ago.
Actually it's 60s Tech. Design first started in 1964 and it first flew in 1967.
Or the accountants in charge have their chutes packed and ready by the exits. How the managers who made the deliberate decision to conceal the MCAS are avoiding prison is beyond me.
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/65ed4aa4_3b34_4e49_8727_9c6def0cef2e_b1b1c3db03eca3d6ff98e42 8798ba1acd0f8841b.png
As you can see by the date MCAS information was included in the Engineering training. So it was not a complete cover up.
hoss58
3rd Apr 2021, 23:32
like I say, the 737 Max may now be a perfectly good aircraft. The real story hear is the usual tale of various staff members throughout Boing and the FAA who voiced concerns throughout the certification and design process who were ignored and silenced in the interest of commercial expediency. The coverup was complete when Boing elected to not put any technical information in the manuals about this system despite the concerns voiced stating that it could be potentially catastrophic if MCAS malfunctioned and wasn’t dealt with appropriately. Boeing have now done what they should have done originally, for the lives lost Boeing should take responsibility, the Max will more than likely go on to be very successful but it’s name is forever tarnished and the media will always dramatise things. To be honest I won’t be flying on one for a few years, I just don’t trust Boeing and the FAA, there was a lot of commercial pressure to get this aircraft back in the air, it may prove to be a very successful aircraft but I for one will not be putting my family on one for a couple of years. That is the beauty of choice.
Good morning Ollie.
I, like you couldn't care less what happens to the Boeing managers who made a conscious decision to hide the faults of the MAX aircraft. They can rot in hell as far as i am concerned.
But can I ask you to take a momentary leap of faith and assume the aircraft are now safe to fly.
Airlines are ordering and have ordered this aircraft.
The aviation industry is going through enough of a clusterF##k with airlines around the world trying their hardest to get back on their feet.
The last thing they need is crap stories like this presented by imbeciles scaring passengers away and taking their flying dollars with them.
As I said if the aircraft is not up to snuff then by all means call it out, I have no problem with that. There is no doubt it has had dire shortcomings in the past.
I just want to see as many airlines and their employees back to as near normal, what ever normal is these days, as quickly as possible.
Anyway I think I just heard the Easter bunny at the back door so time for a choccy egg or two.
Fly safe and plan hard.
Happy Easter to all.
Cheers Hoss58
Chronic Snoozer
4th Apr 2021, 01:50
Is it not true that had the pilots followed the STAB TRIM Runaway checklist it would have prevented the loss of control in both accidents?
I see the issue not so much as covering up the MCAS, but a poor failure risk assessment - the single point of failure of the AOA sensor - that's the root cause. A sign of rushed certification and commercial pressure I think.
MelbourneFlyer
4th Apr 2021, 05:05
Wonder if this will feature Australia's greatest aviation expert GT, who is also Australia's biggest Boeing fanboy and shill?
Is it not true that had the pilots followed the STAB TRIM Runaway checklist it would have prevented the loss of control in both accidents?
I see the issue not so much as covering up the MCAS, but a poor failure risk assessment - the single point of failure of the AOA sensor - that's the root cause. A sign of rushed certification and commercial pressure I think.
From what I read in both accident reports had the pilots known about MCAS unfortunately it would have had the same result.
Like many others I have practiced the Runaway Trim scenario in the simulator many times.
I would appear that in both accidents the pilots did carry out the Runaway Trim procedure however reinstated the Stab Cutoff switches when they could not control the aircraft,bearing in mind there where multiple cockpit warnings including the Speed trim and Stall Warning.
The Ethiopian accident report says the aircraft crashed at a speed of 460kts due to the pilots not reducing thrust after takeoff.
I believe that many errors occurred in both accidents, however in my experience the pilots I have flown with in the past would have been able to handle the situation.
Lookleft
5th Apr 2021, 01:00
As a Jetstar cadet once said "In my experience experience doesn't count." Passenger jets have to be designed so that the average airline pilot can fly it not just the ace of the base. If the MAX has been grounded for 2 years then there is something fundamentally wrong with the design.
As a Jetstar cadet once said "In my experience experience doesn't count." Passenger jets have to be designed so that the average airline pilot can fly it not just the ace of the base. If the MAX has been grounded for 2 years then there is something fundamentally wrong with the design.
Tell that to the pilots of AF 447
Chronic Snoozer
5th Apr 2021, 02:05
As a Jetstar cadet once said "In my experience experience doesn't count." :rolleyes:
Situational Awareness is overrated
dr dre
5th Apr 2021, 04:19
From what I read in both accident reports had the pilots known about MCAS unfortunately it would have had the same result.
Like many others I have practiced the Runaway Trim scenario in the simulator many times.
I would appear that in both accidents the pilots did carry out the Runaway Trim procedure however reinstated the Stab Cutoff switches when they could not control the aircraft,bearing in mind there where multiple cockpit warnings including the Speed trim and Stall Warning.
The Ethiopian accident report says the aircraft crashed at a speed of 460kts due to the pilots not reducing thrust after takeoff.
I believe that many errors occurred in both accidents, however in my experience the pilots I have flown with in the past would have been able to handle the situation.
Having a look at ET302, there were several problems exacerbating this beyond a simple sim exercise. The damaged AoA sensors had caused a continuous stick shaker that had activated immediately after take off for the duration of the flight. Multiple warning system activations for related system and GPWS alerts. Easy to mask a spinning trim wheel.
The first time the MCAS activated for 5 seconds the crew then manually trimmed Nose Up again, the second time it happened it was the lower houred FO who suggested using the Stab Trim Cutout switches (all of this happened within 30 seconds). However with all of this going on the Aircraft was still trimmed nose down to the extent they needed significant backforce on the control column to maintain level flight. Boeing's method of using a "rollercoaster" technique to recover from this situation had been deleted from their manuals decades ago. The crew made an error here and allowed the speed to build up and further increase the forces required to maintain level flight, whether this was caused by distraction by other alerts or their struggle to pitch the aircraft up, who knows?
But it got to the point where they felt they had no option but to re-engage the Stab Trim to attempt to maintain flight and then the final MCAS activation occurred.
Could the pilots have done things differently that would have saved them? No doubt, but it's easy to sit back and read the report and think you'd be able to recover easily. It's easy as well in the sim when you know you're about to have that failure and that failure alone, and you know exactly what you need to do. But in real life when it's among a multitude of failures your reaction might be worse. I think that's called being a Monday Morning Quarterback.
Having a look at ET302, there were several problems exacerbating this beyond a simple sim exercise. The damaged AoA sensors had caused a continuous stick shaker that had activated immediately after take off for the duration of the flight. Multiple warning system activations for related system and GPWS alerts. Easy to mask a spinning trim wheel.
The first time the MCAS activated for 5 seconds the crew then manually trimmed Nose Up again, the second time it happened it was the lower houred FO who suggested using the Stab Trim Cutout switches (all of this happened within 30 seconds). However with all of this going on the Aircraft was still trimmed nose down to the extent they needed significant backforce on the control column to maintain level flight. Boeing's method of using a "rollercoaster" technique to recover from this situation had been deleted from their manuals decades ago. The crew made an error here and allowed the speed to build up and further increase the forces required to maintain level flight, whether this was caused by distraction by other alerts or their struggle to pitch the aircraft up, who knows?
But it got to the point where they felt they had no option but to re-engage the Stab Trim to attempt to maintain flight and then the final MCAS activation occurred.
Could the pilots have done things differently that would have saved them? No doubt, but it's easy to sit back and read the report and think you'd be able to recover easily. It's easy as well in the sim when you know you're about to have that failure and that failure alone, and you know exactly what you need to do. But in real life when it's among a multitude of failures your reaction might be worse. I think that's called being a Monday Morning Quarterback.
Have you ever a an Engine Failure on Takeoff, Engine Fire or a Runaway Stabilizer on final,these events can be backed up with ATSB reports.
I don’t make statements unless I can back it up with fact.
In both accidents the pilots failed to fly the aircraft IAW NON NORMAL procedures, they did not work as a crew to try and resolve the issue at hand and got too distracted by the stall warning system.
A runaway stabilzer is a non event if the procedure is carried in full and the aircraft flown correctly.
But I suppose most pilots I flew with where very well trained.
dr dre
5th Apr 2021, 06:06
In both accidents the pilots failed to fly the aircraft IAW NON NORMAL procedures, they did not work as a crew to try and resolve the issue at hand and got too distracted by the stall warning system.
A runaway stabilzer is a non event if the procedure is carried in full and the aircraft flown correctly.
But I suppose most pilots I flew with where very well trained.
Ethiopian isn't some dodgy third world carrier. They've had a fatal crash caused by pilot error this century, but then so have American Airlines, Southwest, Singapore Airlines, Air France, Emirates. Before that you have to go a long way back to find a significant case of pilot error resulting in fatalities. As far as I can see their record isn't littered with regular incidents which you would get from a Lion Air type carrier. From what I gather the Ethiopian Aviation Academy is highly regarded and the airline is staffed by a fairly experienced mix of local and expat Training pilots.
Hard to fly the aircraft in accordance with non normal procedures that would allow you to control the aircraft if those procedures are not in your training manuals. I think the grounding of the type for two years until the necessary rectifications were made is a sign this is primarily a design fault and lack of correct information passed to pilots rather than pilot incompetence.
PoppaJo
5th Apr 2021, 07:27
Let’s hope Boeing and Airbus end the MAX and NEO at this design and be done with it.
Airbus has started playing with the 321 recently which is already at its max capability in my book let alone adding all sorts of bits and pieces to it, to try and push it harder and harder.
Boeing would be better off keeping the MAX fairly short term and get a leg up on Airbus planning the next generation narrowbody. I’ve got a feeling they will get sidetracked again with the 777X. The A321 is great but its pushing the barriers as it is, needs a bigger wing which means a whole new design across all variants. They should be going after that 250 pax narrow body machine before Airbus brings in the market the replacement.
Bend alot
5th Apr 2021, 07:36
Have you ever a an Engine Failure on Takeoff, Engine Fire or a Runaway Stabilizer on final,these events can be backed up with ATSB reports.
I don’t make statements unless I can back it up with fact.
In both accidents the pilots failed to fly the aircraft IAW NON NORMAL procedures, they did not work as a crew to try and resolve the issue at hand and got too distracted by the stall warning system.
A runaway stabilzer is a non event if the procedure is carried in full and the aircraft flown correctly.
But I suppose most pilots I flew with where very well trained.
LOL - so for no reason after the first crash they changed to NON NORMAL procedure!
Because it (continuously) was not normal for a NON NORMAL procedure.
And event #1 by the "Super 3 Crew" snagged it a Speed Trim running in reverse.
Legends in Lunch Boxes.
MickG0105
5th Apr 2021, 08:11
Have you ever a an Engine Failure on Takeoff, Engine Fire or a Runaway Stabilizer on final,these events can be backed up with ATSB reports.
I don’t make statements unless I can back it up with fact.
Can you reference the runaway stab on final report please?
Can you reference the runaway stab on final report please?
VH-RML BOEING 727-277 22 AUGUST 1982 On final into BNE Mayday was called.
Recall items carried out and successful landing.
I think the real story is how a 1970s tech jet keeps getting new layers of mascara to pass off as new technology.
Not an insignificant list of what’s been grandfathered from the standards of 50 years ago.
Why not? It worked for Boeing with the BUFF. Generations of guys have happily dropped bombs on enemies of freedom around the globe in the same airframes their pappies flew.
MickG0105
5th Apr 2021, 08:40
VH-RML BOEING 727-277 22 AUGUST 1982 On final into BNE Mayday was called.
Recall items carried out and successful landing.
Muchas gracias. Would have been a BASI investigation then, I can't seem to find the report.
LOL - so for no reason after the first crash they changed to NON NORMAL procedure!
Because it (continuously) was not normal for a NON NORMAL procedure.
And event #1 by the "Super 3 Crew" snagged it a Speed Trim running in reverse.
Legends in Lunch Boxes.
For the uneducated, MCAS is an add on to Speed Trim.
It seems that we still have people out there who are not MAX rated in any shape or form willing to express an opinion on an aircraft that has been modified, test flown and certified by every Aviation Safety Authority in the world.
My case rests and I will continue to release the 737 Max safely back into Airline operation.
Bend alot
5th Apr 2021, 09:09
For the uneducated, MCAS is an add on to Speed Trim.
The "Super 3 Crew" were educated!
And the fact still remains - there was not a NON NORMAL procedure available - for Speed Trim running in reverse, or any other error that they had they should have followed. A Band Aid modification of the procedure (Runaway Stab) was put together afterwards to fake a solution. Still a nearly 2 year grounding resulted.
The "Super 3 Crew" did not follow ANY documented NON NORMAL procedure - they winged it!
Bend alot
5th Apr 2021, 09:14
It seems that we still have people out there who are not MAX rated in any shape or form willing to express an opinion on an aircraft that has been modified, test flown and certified by every Aviation Safety Authority in the world.
My case rests and I will continue to release the 737 Max safely back into Airline operation.
CAAC? The first to ground it?
PoppaJo
5th Apr 2021, 10:48
CAAC grounding has nothing to do with Boeing and it’s safety problems. Have a think about what’s happening in that region at the moment and draw your own conclusions.
They will ground it for 100 years if they want to.
MickG0105
5th Apr 2021, 11:05
For the uneducated, MCAS is an add on to Speed Trim.
Is it? It serves an entirely different purpose to STS, uses different inputs, uses different logic, bypassed the control column STS override, has different FCC architecture and, happy to be corrected on this last point if I'm wrong, would still operate even with an STS FAIL.
Fliegenmong
5th Apr 2021, 11:16
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1992/aair/aair199202582/
I remember this, but was a number 2 failure?
gordonfvckingramsay
5th Apr 2021, 11:32
People talk about this as if it were a technical issue, which it isn’t. The MAX debacle is an ethical issue with the way big business works, pure and simple.
Boeing, with the aid of the FAA, tried to avoid recertification and retraining costs by making an inherently unstable airframe “stable” using a piece of software fed by a single point of failure input.
Had Boeing and the FAA had an ethical fibre in them, this would not have happened.
boaccomet4
5th Apr 2021, 12:00
Having only flown the 737-800 sim I would like to know what the advantages are of operating the 737Max.
Am also well aware of the cosy arrangement that Boeing have had with the FAA for years. In my opinion the FAA trusted the manufacturer for its expertise for a long time.
Have also experienced runaway trim in a few types and recognition of what was going on and the remedial action was hair raising.
dr dre
5th Apr 2021, 12:13
The program was a waste of time. As most predicted it just re-hashed the already known info about the MAX that has told many times without spending anytime talking about how those problems were rectified. The previous MAX which suffered these problems has been re-designed to the point that concentrating on the aircraft as it once existed is pointless.
Teary stories with the parents of victims, sim rides showing a system that won't react that way anymore, a travel journo on the panel, trying to whip up fear about how the previous crashes occurred, Liz Hayes' emotive language. To be expected from a 60 Minutes spin off.
TJ said he would have no problems flying on the aircraft now, BB said it's probably the safest aircraft in existence today. But they only spent about 20 seconds out of a 60 minute program talking about the rectifications done to the aircraft. In the end they spent more time asking the opinion of two emotional American parents of crash victims, who have no aviation qualifications, on whether or not the aircraft is now safe than two qualified pilots and an engineer on the panel.
All it did was to make the public ignorant and fearful about an aircraft that essentially doesn't exist anymore. Phrases like "the DISASTER Aircraft is coming to Australia". But that's modern commercial media these days I guess.......
ozbiggles
5th Apr 2021, 12:18
Boeing should be held accountable for a long time yet, Doesn’t matter a rats if they have fixed it. If they were your kids you’d feel the same I suspect.
wheels_down
5th Apr 2021, 12:22
They are dealing with advertisers during prime time. All this fear and emotion will bring in the viewers. They have targets to meet.
By all means if the problems continue then dish out as much fear as you want, otherwise let’s take a backseat for the next year and see if they have got the house in order.
dr dre
5th Apr 2021, 12:31
Boeing should be held accountable for a long time yet, Doesn’t matter a rats if they have fixed it. If they were your kids you’d feel the same I suspect.
Of course there should be accountability for what happened in the past. But my beef with that program was they continually kept fearmongering about an aircraft that essentially doesn't exist anymore. An unsuspecting viewer would come away with the impression that those problems haven't been addressed as the program barely spent any time discussing it. They were more interested in pushing the views of two unqualified emotional parents, sad as it is, than qualified engineers and pilots on the program. With all due respect how could an unqualified parent give their analysis of the modification done to the MAX? Of course they will be against it. It would have been good to ask that engineer to at least spend a minute or two going through the redesigned system to allay any fears.
Whoops, that would mean bringing educated rational discussion to a format that exists only to attract emotional and fearful viewers.
And it's already started. Comments on social media after that episode slamming Virgin for buying "that deadly aeroplane", "I'll never fly with them again..."
FWRWATPLX2
5th Apr 2021, 12:42
Please permit me to blow my horn, just a bit. I mean the likes of Byron Bailey spruiks himself as an Aviation Expert, but what is the largest aircraft has he flown as a Captain? I believe his career began in New Zealand as a non-flying crewman.
Though retired, I held ATPL from seven countries. I have flown about 130 different aircraft including single and multi-engine aeroplanes, single and multi-engine seaplanes, single and multi-engine helicopters, a tandem rotor helicopter, two and four engine turboprops and two and four engine jets. I served as a Captain of Boeing 747-400, 747-300, 747-200, 737-800, and 737-700 aircraft. The Boeing 737NG alone, I had flown more than 3,500 hours as a Captain and would rank them as one of my favorite aircraft to fly. I have an Aircraft Mechanic License. Consider I got my start as a lowly Army helicopter pilot. I was trained as a Maintenance Officer and Maintenance Test Pilot. I held Flying Instructor Ratings for aeroplanes and helicopters from two countries. ATPL from two countries for helicopters. Commercial single and multi-engine seaplane.
I know there are Space Shuttle Pilots and A380 Pilots and guys and gals who may have accomplished more, but I would bet I am more of an Aviation Expert than Byron Bailey. Nobody would believe he was a pilot or a Captain, had he not shown up on the program in uniform.
All that said, I cannot understand the beat up of Boeing or the 737 Max.
During the video portion of the 60 Minutes broadcast, with Captain Chris Brady, in the Flight Simulator, you will notice the Stabiliser Trim Wheel is scrolling forward, as a result of the failed MCAS.
The Boeing Quick Reference Handbook (QRH), Chapter 9, page 9.1 "Runaway Stabilizer". That is/was all the Pilots needed to know to deal with the Abnormal situation. Disconnect the Autopilot. It may require both Pilots to hold the Control Column/Yoke. The Stab Trim Cutout Switches should both be immediately moved to CUTOUT (Off) and leave them in CUTOUT, but the Pilot(s) in the accident aircraft switched them back to NORMAL (On).
With the STAB TRIM to CUTOFF, don't experiment by turning it back to NORMAL. If the Trim Wheel still scrolls, with the switches in CUTOFF put your shoe leather against it. That is why it is rubber coated.
Is anyone aware that the Airbus 330 had 338 fatalities and the Airbus 320 had suffered 1,393 fatalities in 17 accidents?
Why isn't anyone going out of their way to shutdown Airbus?
This 60 Minutes broadcast by Liz Hayes was nothing short of sensational tabloid journalism, on the order of trying to analyze the s_ _ t out of the Oprah interview with Harry and Megan.
I am not saying there weren't things that went astray, but every aircraft has suffered problems when they were first released for service. It often takes years for all the wrinkles to be ironed-out in the form of Service Bulletins and Airworthiness Directives, etc. Just think of how many times a QRH has been revised for a particular aircraft.
Boeing builds great aircraft and they haven't paid me to say so. I know it, based on my experience flying them.
gordonfvckingramsay
5th Apr 2021, 18:58
but every aircraft has suffered problems when they were first released for service. It often takes years for all the wrinkles to be ironed-out
This is the first time that an aircraft manufacturer knew about a potentially deadly issue and still said “fvck it, release as is”
Negligent homicide
Ethiopian isn't some dodgy third world carrier. They've had a fatal crash caused by pilot error this century, but then so have American Airlines, Southwest, Singapore Airlines, Air France, Emirates. Before that you have to go a long way back to find a significant case of pilot error resulting in fatalities. As far as I can see their record isn't littered with regular incidents which you would get from a Lion Air type carrier. From what I gather the Ethiopian Aviation Academy is highly regarded and the airline is staffed by a fairly experienced mix of local and expat Training pilots.
.
Name the fatal crash Southwest has had. Caused by pilot error, or any other cause. In any century. I’ll wait.
Muppet.
StudentInDebt
5th Apr 2021, 22:54
Name the fatal crash Southwest has had. Caused by pilot error, or any other cause. In any century. I’ll wait.
Muppet.
http://www.airsafe.com/events/reports/luv-midway-2005-final.pdf
Not a spectacular “crash” but some errors on the part of the pilots caused an overrun. The aircraft hit a car and the impact caused the death of a car passenger.
Is it? It serves an entirely different purpose to STS, uses different inputs, uses different logic, bypassed the control column STS override, has different FCC architecture and, happy to be corrected on this last point if I'm wrong, would still operate even with an STS FAIL.
Wrong on both points Boeing are little smarter than that.
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/399e3abd_1f77_492e_b036_a9833c049356_7f4608025fc52dfcb8ab9a8 bd438b5e2a1c573d8.png
MickG0105
5th Apr 2021, 23:48
Please permit me to blow my horn, just a bit. I mean the likes of Byron Bailey spruiks himself as an Aviation Expert, but what is the largest aircraft has he flown as a Captain? I believe his career began in New Zealand as a non-flying crewman.
...
Nobody would believe he was a pilot or a Captain, had he not shown up on the program in uniform.
...
I'm most assuredly no fan of Byron's but I wouldn't be slagging off on his experience. Yes, he did start out as a Navigator with the RNZAF (on Sunderlands if you're looking to do some carbon dating) but then went on to join the RAAF as a pilot. With the RAAF he flew fighters; Sabres (he walked away from an EFATO at Williamtown that wrote the aircraft off) and Mirages. In civvy street he flew B727s, A300s and B777s as well as a handful of smaller corporate jets for over 26,000 hours flying.
Byron is what the media love, someone who will speak with an air of authority and happily say things that are sensational - MH370, the Captain did it; MS804, it was a bomb; JT610, poorly trained crew (that was within 24 hours of the crash no less), etc. His big problem is that he never checks anything and consequently he is routinely wrong (his work for The Australian newspaper has been the subject of at least two formal retractions which is probably why he no longer writes for them). He has no 73 experience which meant his commentary on JT610 was somewhat misguided; for instance, when the CVR revealed that the FO was referencing the QRH Byron slagged off on that before someone pointed out to him that there's no EICAS on the 737.
He's the embodiment of the media's preference for simple, unequivocal but occasionally wrong over complex, nuanced and correct.
MickG0105
6th Apr 2021, 00:12
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/399e3abd_1f77_492e_b036_a9833c049356_7f4608025fc52dfcb8ab9a8 bd438b5e2a1c573d8.png
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/784x391/images_93__8a91144c0a95ce7f87f700b24563e50adbe4afd2.jpeg
Happy to accept that Boeing designate MCAS as part of the STS but interesting how that graphic seems to have evolved, isn't it?
Boeing are little smarter than that.
A two year grounding and numerous technical and investigative reports probably suggests otherwise.
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/399e3abd_1f77_492e_b036_a9833c049356_7f4608025fc52dfcb8ab9a8 bd438b5e2a1c573d8.png
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/784x391/images_93__8a91144c0a95ce7f87f700b24563e50adbe4afd2.jpeg
Happy to accept that Boeing designate MCAS as part of the STS but interesting how that graphic seems to have evolved, isn't it?
A two year grounding and numerous technical and investigative reports probably suggests otherwise.
I have the WDM for MCAS however its probably too technical for you to understand so lets just stick to the graphics.
Ethiopian isn't some dodgy third world carrier. They've had a fatal crash caused by pilot error this century, but then so have American Airlines, Southwest, Singapore Airlines, Air France, Emirates. Before that you have to go a long way back to find a significant case of pilot error resulting in fatalities. As far as I can see their record isn't littered with regular incidents which you would get from a Lion Air type carrier. From what I gather the Ethiopian Aviation Academy is highly regarded and the airline is staffed by a fairly experienced mix of local and expat Training pilots.
Hard to fly the aircraft in accordance with non normal procedures that would allow you to control the aircraft if those procedures are not in your training manuals. I think the grounding of the type for two years until the necessary rectifications were made is a sign this is primarily a design fault and lack of correct information passed to pilots rather than pilot incompetence.
So what have got to say about the ET incidents in the last couple of days?
MickG0105
6th Apr 2021, 02:07
I have the WDM for MCAS however its probably too technical for you to understand so lets just stick to the graphics.
I've seen the wiring diagrams for MCAS courtesy of Peter Lemme along with the explanations as to how it is manifestly different from STS but thanks for offer.
dr dre
6th Apr 2021, 03:40
So what have got to say about the ET incidents in the last couple of days?
Here’s a comment (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/639702-ethiopian-two-row.html#post11023042) on R&N about the incident. Looks like there was confusion about the naming of the airport, the new airport had just been renamed to the old airport’s name before the incident. The crews safely landed at the airport they were told to land at by Dispatch. Because there was more than one incident on the same day then that says to me it was a dispatcher fault rather than pilot stupidity.
Posters on that thread who’ve operated with ET crews also have good comments about the Ethiopian pilots they’ve worked with, one saying they put many “US and Euro crews to shame”.
And again, if they’ve genuinely mis-identified the landing airport they join the ranks of Boeing’s Dreamlifter pilots, the USAF, Delta Airlines, Northwest Airlines and lo and behold Southwest who’ve made the same mistake recently too.
JustinHeywood
6th Apr 2021, 03:50
He [Byron B] is the embodiment of the media's preference for simple, unequivocal but occasionally wrong over complex, nuanced and correct.
It’s not the media’s ‘preference’, it’s the human preference for a concise, easily digested narrative. If they covered every facet of every story, no-one would watch it.
Anyway, Byron gets paid to pontificate, whereas we pprune posters do it for nothing, so who’s the bigger fool?
Pinky the pilot
6th Apr 2021, 11:00
Anyway, Byron gets paid to pontificate, whereas we PPRuNe posters do it for nothing, so who’s the bigger fool?
Interesting observation, Justin. However, permit me to ask another hypothetical;
Who would you rather hear commenting upon Aviation Incidents; Byron...or GT?:E:hmm:
StudentInDebt
6th Apr 2021, 13:58
Here’s a comment (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/639702-ethiopian-two-row.html#post11023042) on R&N about the incident. Looks like there was confusion about the naming of the airport, the new airport had just been renamed to the old airport’s name before the incident. The crews safely landed at the airport they were told to land at by Dispatch. Because there was more than one incident on the same day then that says to me it was a dispatcher fault rather than pilot stupidity.
And again, if they’ve genuinely mis-identified the landing airport they join the ranks of Boeing’s Dreamlifter pilots, the USAF, Delta Airlines, Northwest Airlines and lo and behold Southwest who’ve made the same mistake recently too.Agree it can happen to the best trained crews and in this case they might have been led up the garden path by their ops. But slightly concerned by the report the 2nd plane taxied back to the runway and blasted off to the open Ndola though....
knackered IV
6th Apr 2021, 14:26
The Boeing Quick Reference Handbook (QRH), Chapter 9, page 9.1 "Runaway Stabilizer". That is/was all the Pilots needed to know to deal with the Abnormal situation. Disconnect the Autopilot. It may require both Pilots to hold the Control Column/Yoke. The Stab Trim Cutout Switches should both be immediately moved to CUTOUT (Off) and leave them in CUTOUT, but the Pilot(s) in the accident aircraft switched them back to NORMAL (On).
With the STAB TRIM to CUTOFF, don't experiment by turning it back to NORMAL.
And therein lies the whole problem. If you had read the complete accident report, it was found that the procedure using the cutoff switches was found to be ineffective because of the aerodynamic loads put on the stab in the out of trim condition, which meant that a manual re-trimming of the aircraft was physically impossible. The only way to re-trim was to to relax the pressure on the controls and then madly try manually re-trimming. This would be a daunting proposition with the nose pointing at the ground.
In the original design of this system, before MCAS, this may have been feasible with early intervention, but with the additional and repeated input of MCAS it would quickly become impractical. This is why the Stab Trim switches were put back to Normal, to try and recover some trim control, not knowing of course that the MCAS was still adding nose down trim.
So the crux of the problem was that the pilots were applying an outdated response to a problem that they didn't, and couldn't understand.
ScepticalOptomist
6th Apr 2021, 20:18
And therein lies the whole problem. If you had read the complete accident report, it was found that the procedure using the cutoff switches was found to be ineffective because of the aerodynamic loads put on the stab in the out of trim condition, which meant that a manual re-trimming of the aircraft was physically impossible. The only way to re-trim was to to relax the pressure on the controls and then madly try manually re-trimming. This would be a daunting proposition with the nose pointing at the ground.
In the original design of this system, before MCAS, this may have been feasible with early intervention, but with the additional and repeated input of MCAS it would quickly become impractical. This is why the Stab Trim switches were put back to Normal, to try and recover some trim control, not knowing of course that the MCAS was still adding nose down trim.
So the crux of the problem was that the pilots were applying an outdated response to a problem that they didn't, and couldn't understand.
The way I read it was because they didn’t act soon enough, the “outdated method” became untenable.
If the pilots had followed QRH when the issue became apparent the aerodynamic loads would have been manageable.
Once left to develop, the problem became overwhelming.
The way I read it was because they didn’t act soon enough, the “outdated method” became untenable.
If the pilots had followed QRH when the issue became apparent the aerodynamic loads would have been manageable.
Once left to develop, the problem became overwhelming.
That is correct, in the case of the ET accident Thrust was not reduced after takeoff and the aircraft managed to increase speed to 460kts before it contacted the ground.
The stall warning system had activated and possibly distracted both pilots.
I don’t mean to be blunt but after years of flying, both accidents could have been avoided in my humble opinion and pilot error was a major contributing factor in both accidents.
MickG0105
7th Apr 2021, 00:03
It’s not the media’s ‘preference’, it’s the human preference for a concise, easily digested narrative. If they covered every facet of every story, no-one would watch it.
Justin, you can argue the ins and outs of human preference till the cows come home but there's plenty of evidence that there's no innate or strong overall preference for concise over detailed. Humans are story telling animals and since we started writing stuff down there have been as many popular long and complicated stories as there have been short and succinct ones; the Odyssey, Shakespeare, Dickens and God forbid the likes of Harry Potter and Lost all bear witness to that.
You can argue chicken and the egg, producer/consumer again till the cows come home but the 6 second 'grab', the 2-3 minute news 'story' and the 22 minute episode are all most assuredly products of the media's preferences.
As to who's the greater fool, good question.
FWRWATPLX2
7th Apr 2021, 01:50
And therein lies the whole problem. If you had read the complete accident report, it was found that the procedure using the cutoff switches was found to be ineffective because of the aerodynamic loads put on the stab in the out of trim condition, which meant that a manual re-trimming of the aircraft was physically impossible. The only way to re-trim was to to relax the pressure on the controls and then madly try manually re-trimming. This would be a daunting proposition with the nose pointing at the ground.
In the original design of this system, before MCAS, this may have been feasible with early intervention, but with the additional and repeated input of MCAS it would quickly become impractical. This is why the Stab Trim switches were put back to Normal, to try and recover some trim control, not knowing of course that the MCAS was still adding nose down trim.
So the crux of the problem was that the pilots were applying an outdated response to a problem that they didn't, and couldn't understand.
Put the sole of your size 10½ on the rubberized STAB TRIM wheel.
If the STAB TRIM is running away one direction or the other, what do you do? Sit there with your thumb up and locked and say, "Gee, will ya look at that!" Or, run the only QRH checklist that offers the slightest possible solution.
Pilot Error! That was all it was.
I won't debate this further.
SRM & ScepticalOptimist: You are spot on.
Lastly, for all those quick to bash Boeing, as in Gordonfvckingramay above, who wrote, "This is the first time that an aircraft manufacturer knew about a potentially deadly issue and still said “fvck it, release as is”" Complete rubbish! I will repeat for emphasis, Complete rubbish!
Would you be at all aware that airlines send their golden-haired boys, often senior Check Airmen, Chief Pilots, senior First Officers to Boeing to take delivery of a new aeroplane? Those who make that trip plan a little shopping before they go, but they tend to be top Pilots with an airline. They will go through every Aircraft Logbook page, every Boeing Airplane Flight Manual, systems, FMCs, thorough preflight inspection with Boeings best at hand to answer any questions, may even go to the Simulator, then they go for a at least one Test Flight with Boeing Test Pilots to put the aircraft through its paces. No stone gets unturned. All that and more, before the aircraft is accepted for delivery by the airline's designated acceptance crew, then they will fly that aircraft to their home country.
Do yas thinks the MCAS might have been an issue then or show some odd or unexpected behavior, then?
So, may I offer a wee bit of advice, after 36 years flying? Please give Pilot reports, in flight. Please write up even suspected defects or faults. Try to meet the Crew taking the aircraft from you and word up the Captain, "this is what I discovered". I have had crew experience a lightning strike and just walk away from the aeroplane -and, much worse.
Try to look after one another.
When you are required to do CBT on aircraft systems, try to stay awake and pay attention and try to understand the systems and how they inter-relate.
My first airline job, my first Ground School, a crusty ol' former Navy Flight Engineer was trying to explain to the class how some electronic component worked. I raised my hand and told him that he was not correct. Of course, the immediate reaction was to make the new guy look like an idiot. I was an Army-trained Maintenance Officer and Maintenance Test Pilot + I had an Aircraft Mechanic License. I insisted. He replied that he would check, during break and get back to me. Of course, I was correct. The point is there is a whole lot of misinformation out there, based on a whole lot of misunderstanding or poor training in the first instance. Do not be afraid to ask if you do not know or if you do, don't be afraid to challenge conventional wisdom.
Once upon a time, I was a First Officer flying a Boeing 747-200 across the Pacific, when I barely caught a glimpse of a flashing GS-2 light on the Master Caution Panel. I asked the Captain and FE immediately, "Did you see that?" No they hadn't. It happened again along with a clacking sound beneath my seat. For whatever reason, I was reaching for my Oxygen Mask, when the Cabin suddenly depressurized. As a First Officer, you cannot be asleep over there in the Right Hand Seat. Speak up. The second moral of that story is inter-related systems. A Ground Proximity Switch failed, making the Boeing 747-200 think it was on the ground . . . all that systems stuff is inter-related. Study. Study more. Study until it makes sense and you have a lightbulb moment.
I definitely was not the best pilot out there, especially flying jet aircraft. After all, I started my career as an Army helicopter Pilot. I did not have the normal evolution in an airline to command. My first command of any transport-category jet was the Boeing 747-400. I wish I had flown fighters or transports in the Air Force, then DC-9s or 737s or 727s, before going onto the jumbo, but it was not my fate. I went straight from steam-power to a glass cockpit -as a Captain. You CAN do that in a Boeing.
Boeing designs beautiful, reliable, solid, pilot-friendly airplanes.
Lastly, once upon a time, before my airline career, I worked for a Defense Industrial giant who also built some very famous aircraft. Very early in my employment I was required to attend classes on corporate ethics and accountability and reporting any breaches. Boeing purchased many parts of my former employer and took on many of their employees.
I have absolute confidence in Boeing and the Federal Aviation Adminstration. I am a true believer.
The two Boeing 737 Max crashes were due to Pilot Error and only Pilot Error . . . I do not care what the Hudson hero opines. I preferred to fly over or under flocks of birds, rather than through them. A flock of geese is not 1000 feet deep (only 16 feet) and the Fan Diameter is roughly 5 feet. If you are paying attention, proactively scanning the horizon, using a proper scanning technique and not fixated on a bug on the windscreen or instrument panel, or sightseeing, then a slight push-over or pull back and you can miss a flock of birds. I am am full of it right? Check this out and tell me what the depth of a flock of geese is. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1021.2297&rep=rep1&type=pdf
JustinHeywood
7th Apr 2021, 01:51
Justin, you can argue the ins and outs of human preference till the cows come home but there's plenty of evidence that there's no innate or strong overall preference for concise over detailed. Humans are story telling animals and since we started writing stuff down there have been as many popular long and complicated stories as there have been short and succinct ones; the Odyssey, Shakespeare, Dickens and God forbid the likes of Harry Potter and Lost all bear witness to that.
You can argue chicken and the egg, producer/consumer again till the cows come home but the 6 second 'grab', the 2-3 minute news 'story' and the 22 minute episode are all most assuredly products of the media's preferences.
As to who's the greater fool, good question.
Fair enough, perhaps I should have said that the preference of MANY humans is for concise, easily digested narratives.
60 minutes and other tabloid TV is not my preferred source for accurate news either, but there's no denying its popularity.
Of course, tabloid TV is no place to discuss a complex issue such as the perceived failures in the MAX, but their job is to sell eyeballs to advertisers. Nothing has to be exactly and comprehensively true, just 'true enough'.
As to Byron Bailey, there's no denying he has some credibility in the public's eyed as an experienced pilot. Most importantly he is willing to be outspoken in public. Whether you agree with him or want to smash the screen when he is on, it does make for good TV, and sadly, that's what it's all about.
Bend alot
7th Apr 2021, 06:08
That is correct, in the case of the ET accident Thrust was not reduced after takeoff and the aircraft managed to increase speed to 460kts before it contacted the ground.
The stall warning system had activated and possibly distracted both pilots.
I don’t mean to be blunt but after years of flying, both accidents could have been avoided in my humble opinion and pilot error was a major contributing factor in both accidents.
I do mean to be blunt - you have an opinion, as do others.
That may be startling, for a person of your experience. You have heard Captain Sully's opinion on this matter I assume.
Don't get me wrong both accidents could have been avoided, in fact I am yet to find an accident that could not have been avoided - more so with 20-20.
surely not
7th Apr 2021, 08:36
As a strictly non pilot, passenger only, I have no interest in flying on aircraft that due to their idiosyncrasy's have to be flown by hot shot, thousands of hours experience pilots. I thought aircraft design had evolved to make the process of flight safer and less dangerous? What I find really odious about Boeing is the inference that the Max is fine in the hands of 'real' pilots. If the aircraft is unsafe unless flown by hot shot pilots, then Boeing should be more careful who it sells the design to. Perhaps including ALL the relevant information in the training manuals might help as well.
The FAA and their lazy trust in the information Boeing was providing them with to achieve certification is equally abhorrent.
It is to be hoped that Boeing have done enough now to remedy the shortcomings of the Max design, just as the 787 finally seems to be delivering as a reasonable and safe aircraft, time will tell.
What? So you all watched this sensationalistic channel 9 sixty seconds beat up?
ha ha more fool you.
Ollie Onion
7th Apr 2021, 09:14
FWR, you are a fool, pilot error and only pilot error? Why was the aircraft grounded then and massive amounts of money spent on a fix? Seems over the top for something so clearly as the result of pilot error.
FWR, you are a fool, pilot error and only pilot error? Why was the aircraft grounded then and massive amounts of money spent on a fix? Seems over the top for something so clearly as the result of pilot error.
Ok Ollie Onion lets put this in another prospective, if a crew where flying a simulator session and given a stall warning followed by a runaway stabiliser and the crew failed to control the aircraft within acceptable limits would they pass or fail.
if you Ollie Onion where a Sim Instructor or Check Airman / Check Captain would you to happy to release the crew for line operations.
I await your answer and please keep it civil.
BEACH KING
7th Apr 2021, 12:39
Put the sole of your size 10½ on the rubberized STAB TRIM wheel.
If the STAB TRIM is running away one direction or the other, what do you do? Sit there with your thumb up and locked and say, "Gee, will ya look at that!" Or, run the only QRH checklist that offers the slightest possible solution.
Pilot Error! That was all it was.
I won't debate this further.
SRM & ScepticalOptimist: You are spot on.
Lastly, for all those quick to bash Boeing, as in Gordonfvckingramay above, who wrote, "This is the first time that an aircraft manufacturer knew about a potentially deadly issue and still said “fvck it, release as is”" Complete rubbish! I will repeat for emphasis, Complete rubbish!
Would you be at all aware that airlines send their golden-haired boys, often senior Check Airmen, Chief Pilots, senior First Officers to Boeing to take delivery of a new aeroplane? Those who make that trip plan a little shopping before they go, but they tend to be top Pilots with an airline. They will go through every Aircraft Logbook page, every Boeing Airplane Flight Manual, systems, FMCs, thorough preflight inspection with Boeings best at hand to answer any questions, may even go to the Simulator, then they go for a at least one Test Flight with Boeing Test Pilots to put the aircraft through its paces. No stone gets unturned. All that and more, before the aircraft is accepted for delivery by the airline's designated acceptance crew, then they will fly that aircraft to their home country.
Do yas thinks the MCAS might have been an issue then or show some odd or unexpected behavior, then?
So, may I offer a wee bit of advice, after 36 years flying? Please give Pilot reports, in flight. Please write up even suspected defects or faults. Try to meet the Crew taking the aircraft from you and word up the Captain, "this is what I discovered". I have had crew experience a lightning strike and just walk away from the aeroplane -and, much worse.
Try to look after one another.
When you are required to do CBT on aircraft systems, try to stay awake and pay attention and try to understand the systems and how they inter-relate.
My first airline job, my first Ground School, a crusty ol' former Navy Flight Engineer was trying to explain to the class how some electronic component worked. I raised my hand and told him that he was not correct. Of course, the immediate reaction was to make the new guy look like an idiot. I was an Army-trained Maintenance Officer and Maintenance Test Pilot + I had an Aircraft Mechanic License. I insisted. He replied that he would check, during break and get back to me. Of course, I was correct. The point is there is a whole lot of misinformation out there, based on a whole lot of misunderstanding or poor training in the first instance. Do not be afraid to ask if you do not know or if you do, don't be afraid to challenge conventional wisdom.
Once upon a time, I was a First Officer flying a Boeing 747-200 across the Pacific, when I barely caught a glimpse of a flashing GS-2 light on the Master Caution Panel. I asked the Captain and FE immediately, "Did you see that?" No they hadn't. It happened again along with a clacking sound beneath my seat. For whatever reason, I was reaching for my Oxygen Mask, when the Cabin suddenly depressurized. As a First Officer, you cannot be asleep over there in the Right Hand Seat. Speak up. The second moral of that story is inter-related systems. A Ground Proximity Switch failed, making the Boeing 747-200 think it was on the ground . . . all that systems stuff is inter-related. Study. Study more. Study until it makes sense and you have a lightbulb moment.
I definitely was not the best pilot out there, especially flying jet aircraft. After all, I started my career as an Army helicopter Pilot. I did not have the normal evolution in an airline to command. My first command of any transport-category jet was the Boeing 747-400. I wish I had flown fighters or transports in the Air Force, then DC-9s or 737s or 727s, before going onto the jumbo, but it was not my fate. I went straight from steam-power to a glass cockpit -as a Captain. You CAN do that in a Boeing.
Boeing designs beautiful, reliable, solid, pilot-friendly airplanes.
Lastly, once upon a time, before my airline career, I worked for a Defense Industrial giant who also built some very famous aircraft. Very early in my employment I was required to attend classes on corporate ethics and accountability and reporting any breaches. Boeing purchased many parts of my former employer and took on many of their employees.
I have absolute confidence in Boeing and the Federal Aviation Adminstration. I am a true believer.
The two Boeing 737 Max crashes were due to Pilot Error and only Pilot Error . . . I do not care what the Hudson hero opines. I preferred to fly over or under flocks of birds, rather than through them. A flock of geese is not 1000 feet deep. If you are paying attention, proactively scanning the horizon, using a proper scanning technique and not fixated on a bug on the windscreen, or sightseeing, then a slight push-over or pull back and you can miss a flock of birds. I am am full of it right? Check this out and tell me what the depth of a flock of geese is. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1021.2297&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Ahh... yes.
We will never know what would happen if you were the captain on those doomed flights. You are certain of a different outcome...
However... the truth is, you and we will never know the result if faced with the same set of circumstances and information (if you have indeed flown an actual non simulator Max 8)
Feel free to promote your legendary status to those you consider beneath you. Those poor buggers saved a good many more lives by exposing **the absolute confidence in Boeing** than the scorn you heap upon them
Coming from purely a software design team perspective. Software in this type of application is intended to prevent a limitation being exceeded, not recover from one once it has occurred. I can't imagine anyone from the design team would be all that keen to put their name to the MCAS system, given it's very purpose is flawed.
Further, If the manufacturer/regulator allows a system that overrides pilot authority, then we are in the zone where there's no need for a pilot at all.
Lead Balloon
8th Apr 2021, 00:06
Any pilot who publicly criticises and condemns another pilot, about matters aviation, is many things. "Professional" is not one of them.
Any pilot who publicly attributes an aviation accident or incident to another pilot's error, alone, is many things. "Wise" is not one them.
Lookleft
8th Apr 2021, 00:11
Put the sole of your size 10½ on the rubberized STAB TRIM wheel.
Given the location of the STAB TRIM wheel on a 737 a pilot would have to have had a previous career as a contortionist in Circe De Soliel to be able to keep their hands on the controls and stamp their size 101/2 on the trim wheel! If that is the solution then it is no wonder it took 2 years to get the problem fixed.
Lambswool
8th Apr 2021, 00:59
a pilot would have to have had a previous career as a contortionist in Circe De Soliel to be able to keep their hands on the controls and stamp their size 101/2 on the trim wheel!.
It is not that difficult.
But if it is. Maybe it is time to ease up on the in-flight catering.
Given the location of the STAB TRIM wheel on a 737 a pilot would have to have had a previous career as a contortionist in Circe De Soliel to be able to keep their hands on the controls and stamp their size 101/2 on the trim wheel! If that is the solution then it is no wonder it took 2 years to get the problem fixed.
You can stop the TRIM WHEELS on the MAX by using the palm of you hand I’ve tried it on numerous occasions during flight control functionals, its not difficult or rocket science.
Given the location of the STAB TRIM wheel on a 737 a pilot would have to have had a previous career as a contortionist in Circe De Soliel to be able to keep their hands on the controls and stamp their size 101/2 on the trim wheel! If that is the solution then it is no wonder it took 2 years to get the problem fixed.
You can stop the TRIM WHEELS on the MAX by using the palm of you hand I’ve tried it on numerous occasions during flight control functionals, its not difficult or rocket science.
Lookleft
8th Apr 2021, 03:51
The suggestion was it could be done with the feet, the trim wheel is in the same position as it has always been, I call bollocks on the STAB TRIM runaway foot method. Please upload a photo of your average 180cm 92kg airline pilot with their feet on a stab trim wheel while it is turning in speed trim mode.
FWRWATPLX2
8th Apr 2021, 03:58
Any pilot who publicly criticises and condemns another pilot, about matters aviation, is many things. "Professional" is not one of them.
Any pilot who publicly attributes an aviation accident or incident to another pilot's error, alone, is many things. "Wise" is not one them.
So, one fine day, flying GA, after lunch with the boys, a fellow Pilot from a competing Charter company dashed out to his aeroplane, rushed the preflight, tookoff, next thing I heard was a faltering engine, then a thud with a lot of dust. In his rush to preflight and takeoff, he forgot to check the fuel selector.
Is it therefore unwise and unprofessional to call out such stupidity and warn others or just use weasel words and tiptoe around the "real" issue, the Pilot's Error?
What are current statistics for Pilot Error, something on the order of 50% for airline accidents involve Human Error and at least 80% for all Aviation accidents? Face up to it. Being a professional means you face up to that fact, know you are not perfect and work your ass off to mitigate the risk factors and human error.
Or, don't. I don't care. Just hope I am not your passenger. I have enjoyed my career for 36 years, no accidents, no incidents, no violations, in the 47 countries I have operated and seven ATPLs.
FWRWATPLX2
8th Apr 2021, 04:04
You can stop the TRIM WHEELS on the MAX by using the palm of you hand I’ve tried it on numerous occasions during flight control functionals, its not difficult or rocket science.
You do realize the duties on the flight deck of a two-person aircraft are divided into "Flying Pilot" or "Pilot Flying" and "Non-Flying Pilot" or "Pilot Monitoring" . . . So, the PF does not have to be a magician or a a contortionist, merely a very good manager of his resources available to him/her.
Yes, you can use your hand, and I have, but I was MERELY stating that putting your size 101/2 on the rubberized trim wheel is more effective. Unless you are wearing high heels when you are flying.
FWRWATPLX2
8th Apr 2021, 04:08
Given the location of the STAB TRIM wheel on a 737 a pilot would have to have had a previous career as a contortionist in Circe De Soliel to be able to keep their hands on the controls and stamp their size 101/2 on the trim wheel! If that is the solution then it is no wonder it took 2 years to get the problem fixed.
You do realize the duties on the flight deck of a two-person aircraft are divided into "Flying Pilot" or "Pilot Flying" and "Non-Flying Pilot" or "Pilot Monitoring" . . . So, the PF does not have to be a magician or a a contortionist, merely a very good manager of his resources available to him/her.
Yes, you can use your hand, and I have, but I was MERELY stating that putting your size 101/2 on the rubberized trim wheel is more effective. Unless you are wearing high heels when you are flying.
Lookleft
8th Apr 2021, 04:53
PM is subject to the same ergonomic and physiological limitations as any other person on the flight deck. I also know that the PM is required to remain in the control seat during normal and non-normal operations. If you are required to stamp your feet on the stab trim you have to be:
a) out of the control seat and
b) flying in an aircraft that should never have been certified if that is what is required to maintain control
Clearly every regulatory agency should have contacted you first before grounding the aircraft and require Boeing to spend the last two year fixing, (according to you), a sound design that only hit the headlines because of incompetence.
dr dre
8th Apr 2021, 08:13
Here’s a good video showing the forces required for control after a runaway Stab Trim and the difficulty of maintaining flight, even with two pilots exerting maximum effort to keep the aircraft level. Note the almost inability of the FO to trim nose up at 13:27. Also explained is the “roller coaster” technique which Boeing has removed from their manuals.
Boeing 737 Unable to Trim!! Cockpit video (Full flight sim)
Lead Balloon
8th Apr 2021, 10:33
So, one fine day, flying GA, after lunch with the boys, a fellow Pilot from a competing Charter company dashed out to his aeroplane, rushed the preflight, tookoff, next thing I heard was a faltering engine, then a thud with a lot of dust. In his rush to preflight and takeoff, he forgot to check the fuel selector.
Is it therefore unwise and unprofessional to call out such stupidity and warn others or just use weasel words and tiptoe around the "real" issue, the Pilot's Error?
What are current statistics for Pilot Error, something on the order of 50% for airline accidents involve Human Error and at least 80% for all Aviation accidents? Face up to it. Being a professional means you face up to that fact, know you are not perfect and work your ass off to mitigate the risk factors and human error.
Or, don't. I don't care. Just hope I am not your passenger. I have enjoyed my career for 36 years, no accidents, no incidents, no violations, in the 47 countries I have operated and seven ATPLs.Did you immediately go public and condemn your "fellow Pilot from a competing Charter company" for being the cause of the accident? If yes, you are neither professional nor wise.
The "current statistics" are contributed to by unprofessional fools who think they are God's gift to aviation and throw their colleagues under the bus or watch them being run over.
You'll understand what I'm talking about, when one of the many mistakes you make turn out tails rather than heads.
Chronic Snoozer
8th Apr 2021, 12:51
Did you immediately go public and condemn your "fellow Pilot from a competing Charter company" for being the cause of the accident? If yes, you are neither professional nor wise.
The "current statistics" are contributed to by unprofessional fools who think they are God's gift to aviation and throw their colleagues under the bus or watch them being run over.
You'll understand what I'm talking about, when one of the many mistakes you make turn out tails rather than heads.
I see where you are coming from LB however, in my experience, an increasing number of accident reports are replete with all manner of contributory and non-contributory factors which blur the landscape on what is, fundamentally, human error. Are all mitigating factors mitigating just because the investigator says so, or is this all just becoming a lawyers playground?
Ollie Onion
8th Apr 2021, 20:58
So, one fine day, flying GA, after lunch with the boys, a fellow Pilot from a competing Charter company dashed out to his aeroplane, rushed the preflight, tookoff, next thing I heard was a faltering engine, then a thud with a lot of dust. In his rush to preflight and takeoff, he forgot to check the fuel selector.
Is it therefore unwise and unprofessional to call out such stupidity and warn others or just use weasel words and tiptoe around the "real" issue, the Pilot's Error?
What are current statistics for Pilot Error, something on the order of 50% for airline accidents involve Human Error and at least 80% for all Aviation accidents? Face up to it. Being a professional means you face up to that fact, know you are not perfect and work your ass off to mitigate the risk factors and human error.
Or, don't. I don't care. Just hope I am not your passenger. I have enjoyed my career for 36 years, no accidents, no incidents, no violations, in the 47 countries I have operated and seven ATPLs.
The real question here is ‘how many accidents do we have to have due to fuel selection errors before we admit a systemic design problem that needs to be addressed’.
After 5 years of writing accident and incident reports as a lead investigator I have never seen or produced a report that has Pilot error as the SOLE cause of an accident.
An aircraft should never be released to service with a known problem that can cascade very quickly to a loss of control. As a Check Captain I have seen a lot of mishandling in the Sim that often leads to repeats due to being out of prescribed limits, it never leads to crash or loss of control i.e it may be messy but all in all modern airliners are very forgiving. To say that a design flaw that leads to total loss of control when slightly mishandled is an accident purely from pilot error ignores ALL of the systemic failures that put those pilots in that position.
Lookleft
8th Apr 2021, 22:10
Good point well made Ollie.
Chronic Snoozer
8th Apr 2021, 22:42
After 5 years of writing accident and incident reports as a lead investigator I have never seen or produced a report that has Pilot error as the SOLE cause of an accident.
Really? Never seen a 'gear up landing' or 'CFIT' accident report? How about this one - Airbus (https://www.caapakistan.com.pk/Upload/SIBReports/AAIB-431.pdf)? Or this Gear up (https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2018/aair/ao-2018-080/) one?
Now you can argue 'contributory factors' all you want but aren't we always saying the buck stops with the PIC?
Lookleft
8th Apr 2021, 23:29
The PIC is the final defense but what Ollie is saying is that there can be a series of contributing factors. The airline, the manufacturer and the regulator all want the pilot to be last line of defense because they don't want to take responsibility for the design, operation or regulation that put the crew in the position where an accident resulted. No one is saying that the PIC is never responsible but let me reinforce the point that Ollie made, they are not the SOLE cause. As this discussion is about the MAX you can not find a better example of how the manufacturer and the regulator put the crew into a situation outside what they would normally expect for line operations. To simply say that the crew should have just applied an existing procedure and it would have been fine is deliberately ignoring the fact that the MAX has been grounded while Boeing and the FAA address a problem that should have never been put into production.
gordonfvckingramsay
8th Apr 2021, 23:58
The PIC is the final defense but what Ollie is saying is that there can be a series of contributing factors. The airline, the manufacturer and the regulator all want the pilot to be last line of defense because they don't want to take responsibility for the design, operation or regulation that put the crew in the position where an accident resulted. No one is saying that the PIC is never responsible but let me reinforce the point that Ollie made, they are not the SOLE cause. As this discussion is about the MAX you can not find a better example of how the manufacturer and the regulator put the crew into a situation outside what they would normally expect for line operations. To simply say that the crew should have just applied an existing procedure and it would have been fine is deliberately ignoring the fact that the MAX has been grounded while Boeing and the FAA address a problem that should not have never have been put into production.
This says it all.
Lead Balloon
9th Apr 2021, 00:19
I see where you are coming from LB however, in my experience, an increasing number of accident reports are replete with all manner of contributory and non-contributory factors which blur the landscape on what is, fundamentally, human error. Are all mitigating factors mitigating just because the investigator says so, or is this all just becoming a lawyers playground?Accident reports that are merely a blanc mange of waffle are a related but different problem.
If a professional, independent, expert investigatory body, tasked with ascertaining the cause/s of an accident/incident (let's not get into that quagmire) and informed by more than one side of a story, comes to the conclusion that the cause is pilot error alone, so be it. That's its job.
Circumstances of death and damage always were, and always will be, a lawyers' playground.
PS: What OO and LL said.
Chronic Snoozer
9th Apr 2021, 00:32
The PIC is the final defense but what Ollie is saying is that there can be a series of contributing factors. The airline, the manufacturer and the regulator all want the pilot to be last line of defense because they don't want to take responsibility for the design, operation or regulation that put the crew in the position where an accident resulted. No one is saying that the PIC is never responsible but let me reinforce the point that Ollie made, they are not the SOLE cause. As this discussion is about the MAX you can not find a better example of how the manufacturer and the regulator put the crew into a situation outside what they would normally expect for line operations. To simply say that the crew should have just applied an existing procedure and it would have been fine is deliberately ignoring the fact that the MAX has been grounded while Boeing and the FAA address a problem that should have never been put into production.
I am testing the veracity of the assertion that one hasnever seen or produced a report that has Pilot error as the SOLE cause of an accident The existence of contributory factors (not causes) may or may not mitigate human error. I was not providing specific commentary on the Boeing MCAS case.
Ollie Onion
9th Apr 2021, 00:33
Really? Never seen a 'gear up landing' or 'CFIT' accident report? How about this one - Airbus (https://www.caapakistan.com.pk/Upload/SIBReports/AAIB-431.pdf)? Or this Gear up (https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2018/aair/ao-2018-080/) one?
Now you can argue 'contributory factors' all you want but aren't we always saying the buck stops with the PIC?
I think you will find in both of those reports there were contributing factors highlighted in training, currency, crm and sop compliance. I have never said pilots can’t be responsible for an accident, what I am saying is a pilot will never be SOLELY responsible. Even the German who flew the plane into a mountain shouldn’t have been there as he was known to have suicidal thoughts and ironically the fortified cockpit door introduced to enhance safety was also a contributing factor. There is not a better example of systemic design and certification failures leading to an accident than the MAX issues. To blame it SOLELY at feet of the pilots is to excuse gross negligence on the part of Boeing and the FAA.
hoss58
9th Apr 2021, 01:08
Of course there should be accountability for what happened in the past. But my beef with that program was they continually kept fearmongering about an aircraft that essentially doesn't exist anymore. An unsuspecting viewer would come away with the impression that those problems haven't been addressed as the program barely spent any time discussing it. They were more interested in pushing the views of two unqualified emotional parents, sad as it is, than qualified engineers and pilots on the program. With all due respect how could an unqualified parent give their analysis of the modification done to the MAX? Of course they will be against it. It would have been good to ask that engineer to at least spend a minute or two going through the redesigned system to allay any fears.
Whoops, that would mean bringing educated rational discussion to a format that exists only to attract emotional and fearful viewers.
And it's already started. Comments on social media after that episode slamming Virgin for buying "that deadly aeroplane", "I'll never fly with them again..."
Thanks Dr Dre. The last line of your post is exactly the point I was trying to make in my post #23.
Cheers Hoss58
This says it all.
Unfortunately the crew never got to carry out an existing Non Normal procedure.
The following morning on 29 October 2019, the aircraft was operated from Jakarta with intended destination of Depati Amir Airport, Pangkal Pinang. According to the DFDR and the CVR, the flight had same problems as previous flight from Denpasar to Jakarta.
The flight crew started the IAS DISAGREE Non-Normal Checklist (NNC), but did not identify the runaway stabilizer. The multiple alerts, repetitive MCAS activations, and distractions related to numerous ATC communications contributed to the flight crew difficulties to control the aircraft.
Lookleft
9th Apr 2021, 02:39
The following morning on 29 October 2019, the aircraft was operated from Jakarta with intended destination of Depati Amir Airport, Pangkal Pinang. According to the DFDR and the CVR, the flight had same problems as previous flight from Denpasar to Jakarta.
The flight crew started the IAS DISAGREE Non-Normal Checklist (NNC), but did not identify the runaway stabilizer. The multiple alerts, repetitive MCAS activations, and distractions related to numerous ATC communications contributed to the flight crew difficulties to control the aircraft.
So you have changed your mind then from this :
I don’t mean to be blunt but after years of flying, both accidents could have been avoided in my humble opinion and pilot error was a major contributing factor in both accidents.
Because what you have just posted makes the point that Ollie was making. engineering should have sorted the problem out if it was recurring, repetitive MCAS activations, distractions from ATC. All of which by your own statement contributed to the flight crew difficulties to control the aircraft.[
So not pilot error but a systemic error starting with the incompetent manufacturer to produce a safe aircraft.
Chronic Snoozer
9th Apr 2021, 02:40
I think you will find in both of those reports there were contributing factors highlighted in training, currency, crm and sop compliance. I have never said pilots can’t be responsible for an accident, what I am saying is a pilot will never be SOLELY responsible. Even the German who flew the plane into a mountain shouldn’t have been there as he was known to have suicidal thoughts and ironically the fortified cockpit door introduced to enhance safety was also a contributing factor. There is not a better example of systemic design and certification failures leading to an accident than the MAX issues. To blame it SOLELY at feet of the pilots is to excuse gross negligence on the part of Boeing and the FAA.
I think you'll find I've alluded to contributing factors already. The PIC might solely be the cause of an accident. 737 that crashed in Chuuk Lagoon (https://www.aic.gov.pg/investigation/373)
Maybe I've misunderstood your intent because you've changed your wording slightly from "sole cause" to "solely responsible". The inclusion of contributing factors is used to identify others who may bear some responsibility. Again, I have not offered commentary on the Boeing MCAS case.
Even the German who flew the plane into a mountain shouldn’t have been there as he was known to have suicidal thoughts and ironically the fortified cockpit door introduced to enhance safety was also a contributing factor.
The cause was the pilot intentionally flying the aircraft into the ground. The cockpit door is not a cause. The fact the pilot was having suicidal thoughts was 'known' only to himself and his psychiatrist.
Lookleft
9th Apr 2021, 03:50
The cockpit door is not a cause.
I will start by saying that I know this is a thread drift but here we go. The cockpit door was absolutely the cause of that accident as it was with the Helios 737 and possibly MH370. If the PIC had been able to reenter the flight deck then the Germanwings accident would not have happened. The hardened cockpit door was a political response to a security issue that EL Al had found a solution for in the 70's. In Australia the Office of Transport Security mandated that HCD were installed on aircraft of less than 50 seats. They asked CASA for advise and they just said not our problem. The end result is that a pilot has to leave the control seat to unlock the door. The focus is still on the mental health of pilots instead of an engineering solution to allowing the pilots access to a toilet without being locked out of the flight deck.
It seems strange that some are still defending Boeing and 737 MAX when Boeing and its lawyers have admitted criminal culpability and paid an (initial) fine of nearly $3 billion.
If you have not already done so, read Deferred Prosecution Agreement at https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1351336/download and particularly Statement of Facts at Attachment A.
Inter alia Boeing admits at para. 46
“46. Because of Boeing’s intentional withholding of information from the FAA AEG (Aircraft Evaluation Group), the final version of the 737 MAX FSB (Standardization Board) Report lacked information about MCAS, and relevant portions of this 737 MAX FSB Report were materially false, inaccurate, and incomplete. In turn, airplane manuals and pilot-training materials for U.S.-based airlines lacked information about MCAS, and relevant portions of these manuals and materials were similarly materially false, inaccurate, and incomplete as a result.”
There’s much more along similar lines. All of which Boeing admits and agrees; for purposes of future criminal and civil litigation.
So you have changed your mind then from this :
Because what you have just posted makes the point that Ollie was making. engineering should have sorted the problem out if it was recurring, repetitive MCAS activations, distractions from ATC. All of which by your own statement
So not pilot error but a systemic error starting with the incompetent manufacturer to produce a safe aircraft.
No opinion still stands, the crew did not Recognise a Runaway Stabiliser.
If you where running a simulator session and the operating crew where given a Stall Warning followed by a Runaway Stabiliser, the crew then failed to recognise the Runaway Stabiliser would you fail them?
Lookleft
9th Apr 2021, 07:31
But it wasnt a runaway stabiliser, It was a system that Boeing had not identified to operators and minimised its impact on operations to the regulator. If a sim session included multiple alerts, the check captain playing the part of an intrusive ATC and involved a system that the crew were not aware of then no, the crew would not be failed, as the session would involve a scenario above and beyond what a line crew would reasonably be expected to cope with.
In case you skipped this post have a read then explain what part of manfacturer negligence and moral bankruptcy you don't understand:
It seems strange that some are still defending Boeing and 737 MAX when Boeing and its lawyers have admitted criminal culpability and paid an (initial) fine of nearly $3 billion.
If you have not already done so, read Deferred Prosecution Agreement at https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-re...51336/download and particularly Statement of Facts at Attachment A.
Inter alia Boeing admits at para. 46
“46. Because of Boeing’s intentional withholding of information from the FAA AEG (Aircraft Evaluation Group), the final version of the 737 MAX FSB (Standardization Board) Report lacked information about MCAS, and relevant portions of this 737 MAX FSB Report were materially false, inaccurate, and incomplete. In turn, airplane manuals and pilot-training materials for U.S.-based airlines lacked information about MCAS, and relevant portions of these manuals and materials were similarly materially false, inaccurate, and incomplete as a result.”
There’s much more along similar lines. All of which Boeing admits and agrees; for purposes of future criminal and civil litigation.
Robot Jones
9th Apr 2021, 07:43
Another “sensational” piece of “journalism”.
[QUOTE=Lookleft;11024883]But it wasnt a runaway stabiliser, It was a system that Boeing had not identified to operators and minimised its impact on operations to the regulator. If a sim session included multiple alerts, the check captain playing the part of an intrusive ATC and involved a system that the crew were not aware of then no, the crew would not be failed, as the session would involve a scenario above and beyond what a line crew would reasonably be expected to cope with.
In case you skipped this post have a read then explain what part of manfacturer negligence and moral bankruptcy you don't understand:[/QUOTE
Do you think if the crew in the Lion Air accident had known about MCAS it would have made a difference to the outcome. I very much doubt it.
The F/O couldn’t find the Unreliable Airspeed Non Normal in the QRH, mean while the aircraft has the stabiliser trim wheel spinning and the aircraft getting out of trim and the crew never noticed it, come on.
Unfortunately in this was accident going somewhere to happen.
I have said my piece I’m off to put another 737Max back into operation.
Lookleft
9th Apr 2021, 10:04
Well I guess you answered the question by omission. You just don't understand manufacturer negligence and moral bankruptcy.
Bend alot
9th Apr 2021, 11:38
No opinion still stands, the crew did not Recognise a Runaway Stabiliser.
If you where running a simulator session and the operating crew where given a Stall Warning followed by a Runaway Stabiliser, the crew then failed to recognise the Runaway Stabiliser would you fail them?
It was not a Runaway Stabilizer - it was functioning exactly as it was designed to function.
Exactly as MCAS was designed to function = Exactly! nothing other than it was designed to do nothing else.
So why interfere with the STS when it is doing exactly as it was designed.
Again - IT WAS NOT a RUNAWAY TRIM in any way shape or form it was a perfect response to MCAS 100%.
I hope all pilots do not override every auto system on all occasions as the auto systems are far safer (normally) than a pilot - but they do need to work 100% as designed to be safe.
Chris2303
10th Apr 2021, 03:11
I have said my piece I’m off to put another 737Max back into operation.
Best of luck
Chronic Snoozer
10th Apr 2021, 03:57
The cockpit door was absolutely the cause of that accident as it was with the Helios 737 and possibly MH370.
A contributing factor is not a cause. I’m not sure what the reference to Helios and ‘possibly’ MH370 has to do with anything.
If the PIC had been able to reenter the flight deck then the Germanwings accident would not have happened.
It may have influenced the outcome but how is difficult to say. The pilot would still have tried to fly the aircraft into the ground regardless. Hence it is a factor not the root cause. Interestingly, there was no recommendation to change flight deck doors out of the investigation.
It was not a Runaway Stabilizer - it was functioning exactly as it was designed to function.
It was not designed to function (as in activate) with a faulty or loss of AoA input in mind. That was the latent fault in the architecture. Given the pilots lacked the knowledge to determine why the stabiliser trim was running, for all intents and purposes I can see how it may have appeared to have been a runaway stabiliser.
ozaub
It seems strange that some are still defending Boeing and 737 MAX when Boeing and its lawyers have admitted criminal culpability and paid an (initial) fine of nearly $3 billion.
I’m certainly not defending Boeing one way or the other. Seems like a fairly colossal own goal on their part. I understand however, that some of the commercial pressure to launch the MAX came directly from the airlines themselves who wanted a product that required minimal re-training for its pilots. The same methodology championed for accident investigation also applies to the certification process.
down3gr33ns
10th Apr 2021, 14:05
just finished watching a replay of this sensational rubbish. great pity one of the "aviation experts" couldn't avoid being hypocritical when he said something like "if people in the know are saying things are wrong, then management should listen". around the 28 minute mark, comments were made by a former executive chairman who wouldn't listen to advice from the floor before he got the sack from a small pacific airline.
vilas
13th Apr 2021, 13:45
Boeing has agreed to pay 2.5 billion USD to avoid criminal charges. I think it says it all.
Speed Trim System (STS) trimming forward for a few seconds during cleanup = normal
STS trimming forward for 5 seconds = you have my attention!
STS trimming down for 10 seconds during climb = WTF, this isn’t normal do something NOW.
(hold the controls, manual flight and re-trim)
STS trimming down 10 seconds for a second time = RUNAWAY STABILIZER no if’s or but’s.....
(STAB TRIM CUTOUT switches should have been an instinctive ‘go to’, stay in manual flight and land)
Standards and Training at these two airlines should be under the spotlight!
Lookleft
13th Apr 2021, 23:52
So Boeing was let down badly by 2 crap airlines and the grounding was a gross overreaction to a simple problem? Is that what you are saying?
pistonpuffer
14th Apr 2021, 00:39
If you have a new aircraft with untried features don't unleash it on 2nd world flight crews.
dr dre
14th Apr 2021, 02:30
STS trimming down 10 seconds for a second time = RUNAWAY STABILIZER no if’s or but’s.....
(STAB TRIM CUTOUT switches should have been an instinctive ‘go to’, stay in manual flight and land)
Standards and Training at these two airlines should be under the spotlight!
Thats what the ET302 crew actually did. The one thing they didn’t do was dis-engage the A/T and allow the speed to build up but whether that was due to distraction from multiple warnings sounding or the struggle to pitch the nose up I’m not sure.
The other thing a lot of people are discounting is the stickshaker that activated for the entire time they were airborne. Whilst it’s easy to look back now and say “they should’ve ignored it because it was obviously erroneous” they couldn’t really detect that at the time. Multiple problems evolving and it becomes a matter of investigation and prioritisation. Their thought may have been to use the Stab Trim Cutout switches to stop the random Stab movement, but increase speed in case the stickshaker warning was legitimate, and a speed increase might resolve it? We’ll never know for sure. It was a terrible situation they were put into and I’m not sure all Western pilots would’ve coped better in an identical scenario.
Lookleft
14th Apr 2021, 02:48
If you have a new aircraft with untried features don't unleash it on 2nd world flight crews.
Don't unleash it on any aircrews. Is Air France a second world airline?
http://www.airsafe.com/events/reports/luv-midway-2005-final.pdf
Not a spectacular “crash” but some errors on the part of the pilots caused an overrun. The aircraft hit a car and the impact caused the death of a car passenger.
True. You have me on a technicality. Not quite the same as plunging a plane load of passengers from 35K feet. But still, there was a single fatality, and metal was bent.
Dr. Dres penchant for middle management generalizations and cadet scheme love distracted me :p Ethiopian may not be a third world airline. But it sits closer than is comfortable.
What fascinates me is this; Some posters expound on the relative ease with which they would have handled the MCAS failure. Boeing attempted to prove just that. They brought MAX operator pilots into the Sim and gave them multiple attempts to solve the problem. It went badly. Consistently, even with forewarning of what was about to occur. No startle factor. And, they didn’t bring in pilots who were fresh out of a cadet sausage factory.
BEACH KING
15th Apr 2021, 23:49
True. You have me on a technicality. Not quite the same as plunging a plane load of passengers from 35K feet. But still, there was a single fatality, and metal was bent.
Dr. Dres penchant for middle management generalizations and cadet scheme love distracted me :p Ethiopian may not be a third world airline. But it sits closer than is comfortable.
What fascinates me is this; Some posters expound on the relative ease with which they would have handled the MCAS failure. Boeing attempted to prove just that. They brought MAX operator pilots into the Sim and gave them multiple attempts to solve the problem. It went badly. Consistently, even with forewarning of what was about to occur. No startle factor. And, they didn’t bring in pilots who were fresh out of a cadet sausage factory.
SRM (and our fictitious Sky God windup man FWRWATPLX2) seen largely unfazed.