Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Ethiopian airliner down in Africa

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Ethiopian airliner down in Africa

Old 15th Mar 2019, 05:19
  #1421 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 74
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by Capt Kremin View Post
One options suggested by the FR data is that there was no flap set for takeoff.

The data shows a 63 second ground roll followed by a rotation at 207 knots. At this point the MCAS may have simply been doing its job.

Hard to believe this would happen, but it's happened before.
well here is a comparison plot just found in seattle times




Attached Files
CONSO is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2019, 05:26
  #1422 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 74
Posts: 1
and some more data

https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/20...37-max/584791/


https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/overview/database.html

CONSO is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2019, 05:39
  #1423 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Did the aircraft even make it to FMC thrust reduction altitude? Capt Kremin's scenario of a flapless takeoff, MCAS activation at liftoff and takeoff thrust for almost the entire duration of the flight could provide a plausible explanation for the continuous increase in speed during the sequence from the known data.
CurtainTwitcher is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2019, 05:43
  #1424 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,178
I have no quibble about the MCAS being involved somehow; but while we know why Lion Air had its activation of the MCAS, we don't know why ETH 302 did. This may be a reason. The aircraft took over 3 minutes to get above 500' AGL This points to very early activation of the MCAS, which needs the flaps to be up to work.
Capt Kremin is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2019, 05:43
  #1425 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 57
Apologies if already posted.

AndyJS is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2019, 06:09
  #1426 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Asia
Age: 58
Posts: 129
Originally Posted by CONSO View Post
well here is a comparison plot just found in seattle times
Just one thing to note in that comparison graphic is that the altitude axis scale for the Ethiopian flight is 2,000 feet, but the altitude axis scale for the Lion Air axis is 5,000 feet.
bud leon is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2019, 07:28
  #1427 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 924
If the MCAS is triggered by one sensor, than simply adding another won't be enough. There needs to be three just like having a standby A/H as a tie breaker.

Surely any mandated modification will require more than a simple software update.

Concorde was grounded for a lengthy period after a design flaw led to a disaster. Extensive modifications were required to the wing tanks before the aircraft was deemed safe. Any solution proposed by Boeing will need to be very conclusive in restoring safety for it to be accepted and it won't be quick or cheap.
krismiler is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2019, 07:32
  #1428 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Under the Galaxy
Posts: 12
Originally Posted by krismiler View Post
Any solution proposed by Boeing will need to be very conclusive in restoring safety for it to be accepted and it won't be quick or cheap.
And this time EASA may well not rely on the FAA for lifting ban or even worse re-certification if required...
N600JJ is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2019, 07:37
  #1429 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,063
Originally Posted by GarageYears View Post
Either it’s a different sensor, new with the MAX
Discussed in the Lion Air thread. It's the same part number on the NG and Max. I'd have been surprised if it wasn't.

Originally Posted by CONSO View Post
And BA knows how to make a comparison for example 787
In fact Boeing knows how to make a comparison on the Max (and NG) too - if you pay the extra $$$ when you buy your 737, Boeing will add a few more lines of code to your Air Data System software that enables the "AOA DISAGREE" warning functionality. Both SWA and AAL have that on their aircraft.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 15th Mar 2019, 07:52
  #1430 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 6,487
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
In fact Boeing knows how to make a comparison on the Max (and NG) too - if you pay the extra $$$ when you buy your 737, Boeing will add a few more lines of code to your Air Data System software that enables the "AOA DISAGREE" warning functionality. Both SWA and AAL have that on their aircraft.
If that is the case then there is likely only one version of the code (eases management of it), but a flag set Yes or No if the fee has been paid or not.

If so, and the right code to avoid the issue was actually installed in the aircraft but deliberately switched off, lawyers for the pax, especially those from the second accident, will have a field day.

WHBM is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2019, 07:58
  #1431 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,063
Originally Posted by WHBM View Post
If that is the case then there is likely only one version of the code (eases management of it), but a flag set Yes or No if the fee has been paid or not.

If so, and the right code to avoid the issue was actually installed in the aircraft but deliberately switched off, lawyers for the pax, especially those from the second accident, will have a field day.
Yes, that's what I meant. In the old days, we would call that a compiler directive. The same would apply to the bit of code (also a $$$ option) that adds the AoA indicator to the PFD.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 15th Mar 2019, 08:02
  #1432 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,063
Originally Posted by CONSO View Post
well here is a comparison plot just found in seattle times
It's probably worth pointing out that the altitude anomaly shown at 08:40:51 on the ET plot is spurious.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 15th Mar 2019, 08:03
  #1433 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: S.E.Asia
Posts: 1,807
This from Reuters. (It appears the lawyers want the claims heard outside the USA)

The crash of Boeing Co's 737 MAX 8 passenger jet in Ethiopia raises the chances that families of the 157 victims, even non-U.S. residents, will be able to sue in U.S. courts, where payouts are larger than in other countries, some legal experts said.

Sunday's crash occurred five months after the same model of the plane went down in Indonesia, an accident that prompted a string of U.S. lawsuits against Boeing by families of the 189 victims.

The company, which has its corporate headquarters in Chicago, has often convinced U.S. judges to dismiss air crash cases in favor of litigation in the country where the evidence and witnesses are, usually where the crash occurred.

That allows the company to avoid U.S. juries, which can award hefty punitive damages to accident victims for wrongful death, emotional suffering and economic hardships of surviving family.

Boeing may have a tougher time with that strategy after the Ethiopian crash, some legal experts said.

This is partly because eight U.S. citizens died and because plaintiffs could argue that liability hinges on system design and safety decisions made by Boeing executives since the Lion Air crash in Indonesia.

"Now with two crashes with a brand-new aircraft, what Boeing did in the intervening five months is more relevant, and that all happened in the United States," said Daniel Rose, a lawyer with Kreindler & Kreindler, a firm that represents air crash victims and their relatives.
Plaintiffs will also claim Boeing failed to exercise reasonable care in designing planes or failed to inform flight crews about how the planes operate, Wolk said.

Rose, the lawyer for passengers, said two accidents so close together will put the focus of any lawsuits on the Ethiopian crash on how Boeing tried to address problems with its MCAS system after the Lion Air crash.

"Were there other efforts by Boeing to essentially minimize the problem or hide the scope of the problem?" Rose asked. If lawyers can show Boeing management acted recklessly, it could clear the way for substantial punitive damages, he said.

Some lawyers who have worked on the other side of such cases are less sure about Boeing's potential liability.

Kenneth Quinn, a lawyer who represents airlines and manufacturers, said he thought Boeing had a good chance of getting both sets of U.S. cases dismissed on forum grounds.

He said the trend in U.S. courts was in Boeing's favor.

"Increasingly, attempts to litigate foreign crashes involving foreign airlines on foreign soil are being dismissed," he said.

In November, a federal judge in Washington, D.C. dismissed a case against Boeing and other defendants stemming from the disappearance of a Malaysian Airlines flight in 2014 because the presumed crash had a stronger connection to Malaysia than the United States.

In 2011, a federal judge in Los Angeles dismissed 116 wrongful death and product liability cases against Boeing over the 2008 crash of a Spanair jet on a domestic flight in Spain, where the judge determined the cases should be heard.

If the company has to defend U.S. cases, it would likely argue that claims against it are preempted because the FAA had approved the plane's design, said Justin Green, a plaintiffs lawyer.











https://mobile.reuters.com/article/a...mpression=true
Mike Flynn is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2019, 08:34
  #1434 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Age: 63
Posts: 126
Originally Posted by Capt Kremin View Post
One options suggested by the FR data is that there was no flap set for takeoff.

The data shows a 63 second ground roll followed by a rotation at 207 knots. At this point the MCAS may have simply been doing its job.

Hard to believe this would happen, but it's happened before.
Interesting and of course would throw a spanner in -

Would any 737 MAX pilot ever entertain a flap-less takeoff from Addis with a 2300m Elev? -
This was a normal early morning departure (Temp was 16c) - busy pax load (149) for a 2 hour leg to NBO
Not sure if at or near MTOW (any cargo>?)
VR at 207 kts?
puzzled....
rog747 is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2019, 08:56
  #1435 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: ESSL
Age: 75
Posts: 58
One thing is clear amongst all the scuttlebutt, the 737 MAX is a new type not an ng with a few tweaks and a slightly different cockpit layout.
Buying a new aircraft type is a big undertaking for any airline and expensive getting their existing pilots certified on the type while still operational on the existing 737 fleet. This makes it more difficult for Boeing to sign up customers for big orders so they tricked customers into buying the MAX by certifying the aircraft as a variant so that current ng type rating applied with only new cockpit familiarity checks.
FlightCosting is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2019, 09:03
  #1436 (permalink)  
THUNDERTAILED
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: L200
Posts: 318
I'm wondering why the engines seem to have been at high thrust in both accidents, this one and the Lion Air.

I'd imagine it to be a bit difficult to get to 383 knots at impact from 1000 feet agl, starting at 230kts say clean, at idle, because I imagine one of the first things one would do when the nose tipped over is reduce to idle.
AfricanSkies is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2019, 09:08
  #1437 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Haifa
Age: 65
Posts: 18
Good call Hunbet - looks like you were right !


Originally Posted by hunbet View Post
“Evidence we found on the ground made it even more likely that the flight path was very close to Lion Air’s,”

I suspect they located the stab trim jackscrew and could tell it's position.

Also :“The FAA is ordering the temporary grounding of Boeing 737 MAX aircraft operated by U.S. airlines or in U.S. territory. The agency made this decision as a result of the data gathering process and new evidence collected at the site and analyzed today. This evidence, together with newly refined satellite data available to FAA this morning, led to this decision," the FAA said.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-15/piece-found-in-crash-wreckage-said-to-show-jet-was-set-to-dive

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

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

The piece of evidence was a so-called jackscrew, used to set the trim that raises and lowers the plane’s nose, according to the person, who requested anonymity to discuss the inquiry.
sabbasolo is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2019, 09:36
  #1438 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 368
737 MAX Software Enhancement Boeing’s Public Statement

The Boeing Company is deeply saddened by the loss of Lion Air Flight 610, which has have weighed heavily on the entire Boeing team, and we extend our heartfelt condolences and sympathies to the families and loved ones of those onboard.
Safety is a core value for everyone at Boeing and the safety of our airplanes, our customers’ passengers and their crews is always our top priority. The 737 MAX is a safe airplane that was designed, built and supported by our skilled employees who approach their work with the utmost integrity.

For the past several months and in the aftermath of Lion Air Flight 610, Boeing has been developing a flight control software enhancement for the 737 MAX, designed to make an already safe aircraft even safer. This includes updates to the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) flight control law, pilot displays, operation manuals and crew training. The enhanced flight control law incorporates angle of attack (AOA) inputs, limits stabilizer trim commands in response to an erroneous angle of attack reading, and provides a limit to the stabilizer command in order to retain elevator authority.

Boeing has been working closely with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on development, planning and certification of the software enhancement, and it will be deployed across the 737 MAX fleet in the coming weeks. The update also incorporates feedback received from our customers.

The FAA says it anticipates mandating this software enhancement with an Airworthiness Directive (AD) no later than April. We have worked with the FAA in development of this software enhancement.

It is important to note that the FAA is not mandating any further action at this time, and the required actions in AD2018-23.5 continue to be appropriate.

A pitch augmentation control law (MCAS) was implemented on the 737 MAX to improve aircraft handling characteristics and decrease pitch-up tendency at elevated angles of attack. It was put through flight testing as part of the certification process prior to the airplane entering service. MCAS does not control the airplane in normal flight; it improves the behavior of the airplane in a non-normal part of the operating envelope.

Boeing’s 737 MAX Flight Crew Operations Manual (FCOM) already outlines an existing procedure to safely handle the unlikely event of erroneous data coming from an angle of attack (AOA) sensor. The pilot will always be able to override the flight control law using electric trim or manual trim. In addition, it can be controlled through the use of the existing runaway stabilizer procedure as reinforced in the Operations Manual Bulletin (OMB) issued on Nov. 6, 2018.

Additionally, we would like to express our deepest condolences to those who lost loved ones on Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302. A Boeing technical team is at the crash site to provide technical assistance under the direction of the Ethiopia Accident Investigation Bureau and U.S. National Transportation Safety Board. It is still early in the investigation, as we seek to understand the cause of the accident.

Last edited by Cloudee; 15th Mar 2019 at 10:04.
Cloudee is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2019, 09:37
  #1439 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: EGKH
Posts: 87
MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) is implemented on the 737 MAX to enhance pitch characteristics with flaps UP and at elevated angles of attack. The MCAS function commands nose down stabilizer to enhance pitch characteristics during steep turns with elevated load factors and during flaps up flight at airspeeds approaching stall.
(my emphasis) I'm reading this to mean that the intention is to "assist"(TM) during steep turns and not that a steep turn is a condition of MCAS operation.

That said, if the ATC is correct, there were issues including unusual speed/acceleration for most of the flight which would possibly have been with autopilot engaged when MCAS isn't active. The pilot requests turnback and then disappears off radar.

So, accepting it contradicts Occam's Razor and needs another cheesy hole, perhaps something else non-MCAS-related was seriously wrong, but then on turning back, MCAS nose down trim becomes the final nail in the coffin as evidenced by trim jack screw position on ground.
Kolossi is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2019, 09:55
  #1440 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,679
Originally Posted by FlightCosting View Post
One thing is clear amongst all the scuttlebutt, the 737 MAX is a new type not an ng with a few tweaks and a slightly different cockpit layout.
Buying a new aircraft type is a big undertaking for any airline and expensive getting their existing pilots certified on the type while still operational on the existing 737 fleet. This makes it more difficult for Boeing to sign up customers for big orders so they tricked customers into buying the MAX by certifying the aircraft as a variant so that current ng type rating applied with only new cockpit familiarity checks.
Precisely.
As year after year business schools pump out MBA graduates the only thing they conceive is cost and lowering it.
Labour unit cost is the single most controllable cost an airline has.

Manufacturers heard the drum beat a long time ago.
Regulators heard it too.

In the never ending battle of short term expense versus long term safety, the latter finishes a long way behind.

Consumers hear it too.

Our hubris as a species is incredible. We convince ourselves time and again absence of evidence is evidence of absence until again the 'unforeseen' appears again just to be re-learned as it was since long forgotten.
The normalisation of deviance.
Rated De is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.