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!

CAAC? The first to ground it?

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.

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.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...aair199202582/

I remember this, but was a number 2 failure?

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.

What is the advantage of the Max
 

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.

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.......

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.

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.

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..."

Under Investigation - Boeing 737 Max - Liz Hayes
 

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.

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

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/report...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.

Wrong on both points Boeing are little smarter than that.
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....e2a1c573d8.png

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.

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....e2a1c573d8.png

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....adbe4afd2.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.

So what have got to say about the ET incidents in the last couple of days?

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.

Here’s a comment 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.

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?

Interesting observation, Justin. However, permit me to ask another hypothetical;

Who would you rather hear commenting upon Aviation Incidents; Byron...or GT?:E:hmm:

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....

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.

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.

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.

And, therein lies the problem
 

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/viewdo...=rep1&type=pdf

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.