GT says fatal 737 MAX crashes caused by 'incompetent crew.'
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Australia
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was not as simple as just applying the stab trim cutout then winding the trim manually back to neutral or wherever. The fact that MCAS had so much authority (multiples of what they had told the FAA) meant that by the time the pilots realised what was going on and applied the correct procedure, the amount of mis-trim was substantial. This then exposed what was an unappreciated flaw in the B737 stab trim operation: that it can be difficult if not impossible to operate manually if there is significant pressure on it. Relaxing the back pressure with the nose pointing at he ground would take great courage I'm sure. This would have been the case for the Ethiopian crew and explains why they restored the stab trim cut out switches in an effort to get back some control of the stab. Grasping at straws for sure but understandable.
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing 737 Max 8 [B38M] in service in North America [see here]:
American Airlines - 24
United Airlines - 14
Southwest Airlines - 34
Air Canada - 24
Sunwing - 4
Westjet - 13
Total B38M operational in US and Canada: 113
Total B38M operational worldwide: 423
I guess you don't have to be a math genius to figure out that ONLY ABOUT 26% [113/423] of B38M is operational in US and Canada. So, THE AIRLINES FROM THE REST OF THE WORLD STATISTICALLY KNOW THE ERRATIC/ABNORMAL BEHAVIOR OF B38M BETTER THAN ONES IN THE US [plus CANADA].
And, let me show you one "MIND BOGGLING" statistic from THE "FIRST" and "MOST EXPERIENCED" B38M crews in the universe: the Lion Air Group. Yes. It's the first and very fortunate airline to experience Boeing's cut-corner-for-profit-and-to-hell-with-safety mentality.
This is from the FINAL Accident Report of Lion Air PK-LQP:
I think you finally realize that all airlines in the world are unwittingly played the game of "Russian Roulette" created by Boeing and its cohorts, and, unfortunately, the odds are EXPONENTIALLY HIGHER for the owners of 74% of ALL Boeing 737 Max 8 in operation worldwide [excluding the US/Canada] to face some major catastrophes. And, while looking at that number and that big utilization numbers by Lion Air, I won't be that surprised if in reality 80-90% of historical B38M utilization had been performed by airlines outside the US and Canada.
And, you've asked...
For B38M? Sorry retired guy. NO CONTEST. But, if for some reason the FAA would let "the new and improved" B38M to only fly in North America... Well...
Maybe we should throw GT, or any other hero here who wants to blame a crew who can’t defend themselves anymore, into the sim and recreate the conditions those pilots (I’m thinking more ET) experienced, and see if any of these heroes have the physical strength to physically pitch the aircraft up when the stab has trimmed so far nose down.
After having seen some videos where crews in a sim were presented with similar conditions and struggled to maintain control it would be difficult, even for experienced crews with prior knowledge of what was going to happened as opposed to a crew who was presented with a surprise event that didn’t match any of their prior training.
After having seen some videos where crews in a sim were presented with similar conditions and struggled to maintain control it would be difficult, even for experienced crews with prior knowledge of what was going to happened as opposed to a crew who was presented with a surprise event that didn’t match any of their prior training.
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Derry
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Patplan
Thanks a lot for that breakdown of utilization.
yes, if your figures are correct, I was completely wrong and thought that there were more in USA.
So that rendered that part of my piece incorrect. It’s what makes PPRuNe so good. You don’t get away with dbad info for too long. As long as we are not afraid of posting what we believe, take some trouble to ensure it’s not just a rant, and accept that others may disagree I haven’t found a better forum than this one.
Tail between legs, I will now have to spend today rethinking that part of this very complex saga! Thanks to you.
R Guy
Thanks a lot for that breakdown of utilization.
yes, if your figures are correct, I was completely wrong and thought that there were more in USA.
So that rendered that part of my piece incorrect. It’s what makes PPRuNe so good. You don’t get away with dbad info for too long. As long as we are not afraid of posting what we believe, take some trouble to ensure it’s not just a rant, and accept that others may disagree I haven’t found a better forum than this one.
Tail between legs, I will now have to spend today rethinking that part of this very complex saga! Thanks to you.
R Guy
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Derry
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In fact, the sample rate for the MAX is very small in the US.
You seem to be under the impression that most of the MAX fleet is in the US. It's not. Out of 387 MAXs delivered only 76 are registered in the US, 69 of those shared between American, United and Southwest. There are more MAXs in China than the US. The overwhelming majority of the MAXs delivered are flown outside of the US.
You seem to be under the impression that most of the MAX fleet is in the US. It's not. Out of 387 MAXs delivered only 76 are registered in the US, 69 of those shared between American, United and Southwest. There are more MAXs in China than the US. The overwhelming majority of the MAXs delivered are flown outside of the US.
got that completely wrong so thanks a lot for putting me right.
This forum is for speaking up, yes, but also for learning, listening and humility to admit when someone else has it right....!
Humbly
R Guy
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Derry
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Related to the current debate about the accident rate for the. MAX by region, over the last ten years this slide seems to paint some sort of picture. I know the sample rate is low these days so one crash among few can skew the stats. For example a really poor startup somewhere with maybe 30 planes might be fatality free after 5 years and would look really good, while incubating a very poor future. A really good airline with 40 years fatality free and with a generally excellent safety focus and organisation with good training can be unlucky. I am not picking out this next airline as necessarily fitting those criteria but they are close and it illustrates the point. ---- BA 777 LHR at LHR for example nearly killed more people than any crash in history - if the engines had failed over London 5 minutes earlier. We all need a bit of luck as well as first class pilots, training, engineering and corporate/regulatory safety culture.
The left two columns are region. The right two are the airlines.
Excluding small accidents. No Military or Freighters. No Hot Air Baloons. Just scheduled passenger planes with major accidents
Ignore the yellow highlight. Not relevant.
R Guy
The left two columns are region. The right two are the airlines.
Excluding small accidents. No Military or Freighters. No Hot Air Baloons. Just scheduled passenger planes with major accidents
Ignore the yellow highlight. Not relevant.
R Guy
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Relaxing the back pressure with the nose pointing at the ground would take great courage I'm sure. This would have been the case for the Ethiopian crew and explains why they restored the stab trim cut out switches in an effort to get back some control of the stab. Grasping at straws for sure but understandable.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 46
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But I'm a bit unsure what you meant? If Lion Air has a bad reputation, then yes... But taking every single pilot from the company, and putting into the same bucket, is not fair. And I'm sure Lion Air is/has been working hard on the issues... but you can never blame them for something they had no idea in their wildest dreams would be comming their way.
Though I agree pilots could use more "on hands" time, I'm not sure that is even doable in modern aircraft, they're very much automated, and that goes even for Boeing.... Airbus has just taken the step fully, and re-done how you control an aircraft completely.... which works fine (until you pull that fuse).
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Derry
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's a lot of aircraft...
But I'm a bit unsure what you meant? If Lion Air has a bad reputation, then yes... But taking every single pilot from the company, and putting into the same bucket, is not fair. And I'm sure Lion Air is/has been working hard on the issues... but you can never blame them for something they had no idea in their wildest dreams would be comming their way.
Though I agree pilots could use more "on hands" time, I'm not sure that is even doable in modern aircraft, they're very much automated, and that goes even for Boeing.... Airbus has just taken the step fully, and re-done how you control an aircraft completely.... which works fine (until you pull that fuse).
But I'm a bit unsure what you meant? If Lion Air has a bad reputation, then yes... But taking every single pilot from the company, and putting into the same bucket, is not fair. And I'm sure Lion Air is/has been working hard on the issues... but you can never blame them for something they had no idea in their wildest dreams would be comming their way.
Though I agree pilots could use more "on hands" time, I'm not sure that is even doable in modern aircraft, they're very much automated, and that goes even for Boeing.... Airbus has just taken the step fully, and re-done how you control an aircraft completely.... which works fine (until you pull that fuse).
No I wasn’t referring to Lionair. Just about how stats can be misleading. New airlines can seem great but you can’t tell from a small fleet over a short time. Older airlines with great decades of safe flying can become complacent. Things change. Then even luck can come into it as per BA 777 LHR on the grass. 40 odd years of great safety. Great skill in the circumstances. But ten miles earlier it could have been very different over central London.
Another stat that gets missed is how many total or near hull losses were there. With no fatalities. That is a massive warning sign. I can think of a few right now.
Your second point is of course now at the epicenter of the automation argument. Do we train to still retain basic stick and rudder “in case”, or do we say the automatics can handle most things better than humans? And is there an in between where the automatics do most of it with a bit of pilot intervention (takeoff and windy landings at the moment). But does this give our pilot enough practice when it’s needed?
good subject this.
I am in stick an rudder camp but my name gives that away!R Guy
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Derry
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
R Guy
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Perth, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Age: 70
Posts: 870
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Salute to your gracious and mature acceptance of the correction. That's not all that common in this forum.
Maintenance may indeed be a causal factor in that case, however would lay odds that no existing Boeing or Airbus will take kindly to turning off the AHRS/INS/ADIRU/ADIRS in flight in unstable conditions... Now if they had an ipad, iphone, android phone, then there are $0.99 apps that will give better info than you get from your stby AI, integrated or not.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Sicily
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It takes two hands to clap. Boeing were decidedly dodgy with their minimalist excuse for training. Likewise the operators of the two crashed MAXs were, shall we politely say, not known for their high standards of required minimum crew competence.
In my mind, the blame lies squarely with airline management across the world - they demand new generation aircraft that can be operated by cheap, minimally trained, dumbed down pilots. And that can be maintained by equally clueless and cheap engineers. Boeing (and Airbus) are merely meeting this demand. The travelling public may want low cost, but they don’t realize the price they’re really paying.
In my mind, the blame lies squarely with airline management across the world - they demand new generation aircraft that can be operated by cheap, minimally trained, dumbed down pilots. And that can be maintained by equally clueless and cheap engineers. Boeing (and Airbus) are merely meeting this demand. The travelling public may want low cost, but they don’t realize the price they’re really paying.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There has never ever been a Boeing jet that puts Stabilizer trim commands in remotely. This is the crux of the deal, in a Boeing you fly it and don’t expect any computer inputs. Airbus fine that’s a given, but not in a Boeing. This is a big deal and especially as it uses one sensor a disaster in the making.
lucille?
Yes, Boeing are meeting this demand - by designing, manufacturing and selling sub standard products that they represented as perfectly safe in the hands of your so called dumbed down pilots and engineers.
Boeing actively discouraged simulator training on the B737 Max! The dumbing down was greatest at Boeing Headquarters in Chicago!
As for Airbus, I wouldn’t compare them to Boeing.
It takes two hands to clap. Boeing were decidedly dodgy with their minimalist excuse for training. Likewise the operators of the two crashed MAXs were, shall we politely say, not known for their high standards of required minimum crew competence.
In my mind, the blame lies squarely with airline management across the world - they demand new generation aircraft that can be operated by cheap, minimally trained, dumbed down pilots. And that can be maintained by equally clueless and cheap engineers. Boeing (and Airbus) are merely meeting this demand. The travelling public may want low cost, but they don’t realize the price they’re really paying.
In my mind, the blame lies squarely with airline management across the world - they demand new generation aircraft that can be operated by cheap, minimally trained, dumbed down pilots. And that can be maintained by equally clueless and cheap engineers. Boeing (and Airbus) are merely meeting this demand. The travelling public may want low cost, but they don’t realize the price they’re really paying.
Yes, Boeing are meeting this demand - by designing, manufacturing and selling sub standard products that they represented as perfectly safe in the hands of your so called dumbed down pilots and engineers.
Boeing actively discouraged simulator training on the B737 Max! The dumbing down was greatest at Boeing Headquarters in Chicago!
As for Airbus, I wouldn’t compare them to Boeing.
As for Airbus, I wouldn’t compare them to Boeing.
