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

MAX’s Return Delayed by FAA Reevaluation of 737 Safety Procedures

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

MAX’s Return Delayed by FAA Reevaluation of 737 Safety Procedures

Old 4th Aug 2019, 03:06
  #1741 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 451
31 July 2018 - FAA indicate the NTSB want the serious issues of MCAS not be released, so that is why the FAA AD is vague on MCAS.

So if it were not for the second crash, MCAS would still be a brief mention in the FAA AD.

I say still because the promised fix was due last April, and the final report for Lion Air not released (Still under NTSB investigation - do not release details).

FAA still saying everything on the MAX certification process was correct and our system has evolved to be the best in the world - we have had only the one death in the last decade, again and again!

That record is simply one flight away from being a triple digit number on any given day/hour, for any number of reasons.
Bend alot is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2019, 04:32
  #1742 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Paris
Age: 70
Posts: 273
The fix must be delivered, but the report needs to be kept under wraps - that is one of the mysteries to the layman here. Surely safety would benefit if all stakeholders were able to retrace the accidents *before* the planes are allowed to fly again?

Edmund
edmundronald is online now  
Old 4th Aug 2019, 05:55
  #1743 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 2,960
Flight crew response time to an event is dependent on skills as well as training
Curtain Twitcher some time ago pointed out that crews are used to seeing trim running, so at what point do you say "Whoa, somethings wrong"" and reach for the cut outs? SLF here.

Since the MCAS is there to address shortcomings re handling at low weight and aft CoG, might failure of same not require an emergency checklist advising some do/don't elements. A CoG chart with a caution area shown on the lower right corner where MCAS is a requirement might be informative.
megan is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2019, 07:59
  #1744 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: EDSP
Posts: 187
how much damage can a single person do?

The FAA issued an emergency AD (PDF) requiring operators to add MCAS failure indications to approved flight manuals, but did not, according to Sen. Reed, make it clear enough that further system changes would be required for safe operation. “The implication was that this pilot change would be sufficient to provide airworthiness and there was no real mention of improvements and necessary changes to the MCAS system, leading, I think, most people to conclude that there was no long-term issue with the MCAS,” Sen. Reed said. “That lack of transparency is, I think, not appropriate.” FAA Associate Administrator For Aviation Safety Ali Bahrami replied that the lack of disclosure was necessary due to the ongoing accident investigation and that “from a safety perspective we felt strongly that what we did was adequate …”
https://www.avweb.com/flight-safety/...max-oversight/

BDAttitude is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2019, 08:02
  #1745 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting home
Age: 42
Posts: 2,683
Originally Posted by megan View Post
Curtain Twitcher some time ago pointed out that crews are used to seeing trim running, so at what point do you say "Whoa, somethings wrong"" and reach for the cut outs? SLF here.
Only flown the -4/500 and for only a limited time: .... megan, that is exactly the point.

In a real-life scenario, with crew perplexed and under heavy cognitive load with unreliable airspeed due to (not indicated) AoA fault, the moment pilots say sod all, is this the trim trying to kill us?! is unknown.

Dedicated crew training to enable timely recognition of the phenomena was made not available. Needless to say, that taking classes does not guarantee field performance - hence the current road towards a technical solution.
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2019, 08:56
  #1746 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,904
The pilot cannot be part of a redundant system.

The latest EASA Safety Review* states:
The safety risk portfolio presented in Table 7 links the safety issues to key risk areas. The highest contribution to Aircraft Upset and Runway Excursion are from “Monitoring of Flight Parameters and Automation Modes”, “Handling of Technical Failuresand “Aircraft Braking and Steering”.

fdr, #1740, MAX’s Return Delayed by FAA Reevaluation of 737 Safety Procedures

* https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/def...ublication.pdf Page 50
safetypee is online now  
Old 4th Aug 2019, 09:22
  #1747 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 451
Head to the 34 minute mark.

Bend alot is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2019, 10:02
  #1748 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Tana
Posts: 0
Has Mr.Bahrami slept through the past six months? He still blames the Lion Air pilots. And Burleson's remark "I do believe the fundamental process of how we went about certifying the Max was sound" is both laughable and horrifying. He is either too stupid to realize his mistakes or too corrupt to admit them.

And what upsets me most is that nobody is even trying to mention the fundamental contradiction between two main FAA missions - promote aviation and provide oversight thereof. It's like assigning pest control to PETA. In this case, just like in many other cases before that, those two tasks collided at full speed with devastating results. I just cannot understand why not transfer the certification and airworthiness tasks to NTSB and leave the promotional mission to FAA?
UltraFan is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2019, 10:44
  #1749 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 451
Originally Posted by UltraFan View Post
Has Mr.Bahrami slept through the past six months? He still blames the Lion Air pilots. And Burleson's remark "I do believe the fundamental process of how we went about certifying the Max was sound" is both laughable and horrifying. He is either too stupid to realize his mistakes or too corrupt to admit them.

And what upsets me most is that nobody is even trying to mention the fundamental contradiction between two main FAA missions - promote aviation and provide oversight thereof. It's like assigning pest control to PETA. In this case, just like in many other cases before that, those two tasks collided at full speed with devastating results. I just cannot understand why not transfer the certification and airworthiness tasks to NTSB and leave the promotional mission to FAA?
It is very hard to move forward when stuck in the past & we did "so good" in the past. From the outside the FAA (officials) has some very deep issues and they seem to live in a very different land to the rest of us.

Imagine these FAA officials getting questioned by industry experts, not just some politicians.
Bend alot is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2019, 13:06
  #1750 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: VA
Posts: 210
Originally Posted by megan View Post
Curtain Twitcher some time ago pointed out that crews are used to seeing trim running, so at what point do you say "Whoa, somethings wrong"" and reach for the cut outs? SLF here.
The crews were handed a very challenging malfunction, but it needs to be stated again that one does not trim by sight. A pilot trims by FEEL. If the controls FEEL heavy for the established pitch and power, then the pilot uses the yoke switch to trim off the pressures. The 737 requires a lot of trim inputs during the takeoff and clean up phase so yes the trim wheel is moving around a lot. The first indication that something is wrong would probably be that you are trimming, particularly in one direction, a lot more than you are used to doing. That evaluation depends on knowing what is normal and knowing what is normal depends on having sufficient experience hand-flying through the takeoff and clean up phase. Once you determine something is wrong, the proper response is not to reach for the cutout switches. The proper response is to call for the Runaway Stab Checklist. Selecting the cutouts prematurely will make the problem worse as we saw in the Ethiopian crash. The electric trim system worked just fine and overrode MCAS when it was used. Why it wasn't used properly is an important issue that goes back to how these pilots were trained. It's been reported in various threads that some airlines stopped teaching runaway trim in the sim becase it used to be such a rare event and extra training time = money. It would be interesting to learn when the last time these crews were exposed to runaway trim and/or unreliable airspeed procedures in their sim training, not that we would ever find out since their employers are probably in full CYA mode as well.
Tomaski is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2019, 13:31
  #1751 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,904
Further insight to the limitations of human performance in surprising situations.
737 stall and recovery training after briefing, a situation which had clear indication and alerting of the malfunction, i.e. minimum need for situational assessment:

All airline pilots agreed or strongly agreed that they were surprised by the surprise stall scenario. In that scenario, less than one quarter of the airline pilots strictly followed the proper stall recovery procedure on which they had been briefed.”

Hope that the FAA heed the results of their sponsored research.

https://www.faa.gov/pilots/training/...r_Training.pdf
safetypee is online now  
Old 4th Aug 2019, 13:42
  #1752 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 451
Originally Posted by Tomaski View Post
The crews were handed a very challenging malfunction, but it needs to be stated again that one does not trim by sight. A pilot trims by FEEL. If the controls FEEL heavy for the established pitch and power, then the pilot uses the yoke switch to trim off the pressures. The 737 requires a lot of trim inputs during the takeoff and clean up phase so yes the trim wheel is moving around a lot. The first indication that something is wrong would probably be that you are trimming, particularly in one direction, a lot more than you are used to doing. That evaluation depends on knowing what is normal and knowing what is normal depends on having sufficient experience hand-flying through the takeoff and clean up phase. Once you determine something is wrong, the proper response is not to reach for the cutout switches. The proper response is to call for the Runaway Stab Checklist. Selecting the cutouts prematurely will make the problem worse as we saw in the Ethiopian crash. The electric trim system worked just fine and overrode MCAS when it was used. Why it wasn't used properly is an important issue that goes back to how these pilots were trained. It's been reported in various threads that some airlines stopped teaching runaway trim in the sim becase it used to be such a rare event and extra training time = money. It would be interesting to learn when the last time these crews were exposed to runaway trim and/or unreliable airspeed procedures in their sim training, not that we would ever find out since their employers are probably in full CYA mode as well.
What is the legal requirement I.A.W after the AD was issued?

It said to hit the cut out switches!

But later maybe trim first(if it is a good idea)

So the correct response per the AD is immediately hit the cut out switches.

Recall 3 FAA pilots simulated this & 1 failed, in real life things were not much different.
Bend alot is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2019, 13:44
  #1753 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: VA
Posts: 210
Originally Posted by safetypee View Post
Further insight to the limitations of human performance in surprising situations.
737 stall and recovery training after briefing, a situation which had clear indication and alerting of the malfunction, i.e. minimum need for situational assessment:

All airline pilots agreed or strongly agreed that they were surprised by the surprise stall scenario. In that scenario, less than one quarter of the airline pilots strictly followed the proper stall recovery procedure on which they had been briefed.”

Hope that the FAA heed the results of their sponsored research.

https://www.faa.gov/pilots/training/...r_Training.pdf
Our training department has been jawboning for a couple of years about the need to incorporate "startle" training back into the sim but nothing on the horizon so far. There was a time when much of our sim training consisted of unannounced and unbriefed emergencies so you always had to be ready for anything. Nowadays everything goes by prebriefed scripts. No multiple emergencies and no real surprises. Is it any wonder then that folks are surprised when crews have trouble handling situations that don't follow the script?
Tomaski is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2019, 13:57
  #1754 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: VA
Posts: 210
Originally Posted by Bend alot View Post
What is the legal requirement I.A.W after the AD was issued?

It said to hit the cut out switches!

But later maybe trim first(if it is a good idea)

So the correct response per the AD is immediately hit the cut out switches.

Recall 3 FAA pilots simulated this & 1 failed, in real life things were not much different.
I would suggest you go back and re-read AD 2018-23-51 carefully (you can Goggle it). It does not call for the immediate use of the cutout switches. Of course there have been reports that this AD was not properly transmitted to the Ethiopian pilots, but even so using the yoke trim switches to keep the aircraft in trim is not exactly rocket science either.

As far as the test you refer to, it was a different malfunction than the one presented to the accident crews, particularly as it presented a runaway trim with the A/P engaged so no one was getting direct feedback through the controls. Even though the FAA reports that this malfunction has never been seen in actual operation, it deserves to be fixed because you never know when the stars will line up against you. The current FCC architecture relies very heavily on the pilots detecting a malfuntion, and if the airlines aren't going to properly train for this role then the architecture needs to be fixed.
Tomaski is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2019, 14:02
  #1755 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,246
Originally Posted by UltraFan View Post
And what upsets me most is that nobody is even trying to mention the fundamental contradiction between two main FAA missions - promote aviation and provide oversight thereof. It's like assigning pest control to PETA. In this case, just like in many other cases before that, those two tasks collided at full speed with devastating results. I just cannot understand why not transfer the certification and airworthiness tasks to NTSB and leave the promotional mission to FAA?
Congress deleted the requirement for the FAA to promote aviation sometime in the 1990s.

aterpster is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2019, 14:07
  #1756 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: A place in the sun
Age: 78
Posts: 788
Tomaski,

You've hit the proverbial nail right on the head. I think in all recurrent simulator training routines there should be at least two totally unexpected failures. It is not difficult to have a selection of such failures that the instructor can throw in at random, and to do so totally unexpectedly, so that the pilots are startled. It need not be done in the competency details when the pilots are under check but in the refresher/training type details, and with helpful debriefs afterwards. Think how often an engine is failed shortly after V1 when the pilot is half expecting it. For example, what about failing it half way through the flap retraction? Or on the approach when turning onto the ILS? And how about a TCAS when in the hold? Or some subtle instrument failures at a time of busy workload.

I have never flown the modern highly automated aircraft, but I am sure those who are familiar with them can think up some suitable problems which will suddenly dump the flying in the pilot's lap when he/she is least expecting it.

The main thing is not to use such failures as 'gotchas' but rather as a means of showing how confusing a startle can be.
Bergerie1 is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2019, 14:24
  #1757 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 177
https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/behi...ulture-2080007

Boeing knew about the full danger of the MCAS issues before the crashes according to this story from AFP and knew that there should have been MCAS specific training.
RickNRoll is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2019, 14:46
  #1758 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 912
Back in the day the airline I worked for went through a phase of giving you some multiple in realistic failure on the sim. Tbh whilst crisis management could be assessed. I actually learnt nothing as the failures were so extreme the QRH was of little help. IMHO the sim should be used to teach not demonstrate how smart an aleck the check airman is.
maybe if the dead crews had had more teaching time to confidence these accidents would not have happened. As for or MCAS being kept a secret. As said by some worse than shame on you. (Boeing)
IcePack is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2019, 15:13
  #1759 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: VA
Posts: 210
Originally Posted by IcePack View Post
Back in the day the airline I worked for went through a phase of giving you some multiple in realistic failure on the sim. Tbh whilst crisis management could be assessed. I actually learnt nothing as the failures were so extreme the QRH was of little help. IMHO the sim should be used to teach not demonstrate how smart an aleck the check airman is.
maybe if the dead crews had had more teaching time to confidence these accidents would not have happened. As for or MCAS being kept a secret. As said by some worse than shame on you. (Boeing)
Yep, you can certainly create more problems than you solve just throwing crap at pilots in the sim which is why it needs to be in a thoughtful manner. Poor training is poor training regardless of the philosophy behind it. Good training requires good investment but sadly good investment involves $$$$'s and there is simply too much emphasis nowadays on squeezing the costs out of every corner of the operation whether it is at Boeing or the airlines. I am dismayed at what has become of Boeing but I am also dismayed at what has become of airline training over the years. Too much paint by numbers and not enough of big picture. Hate to be a cynic but it seems that it takes a high body count before someone is willing to make a change.
Tomaski is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2019, 16:04
  #1760 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Welsh Marches
Posts: 60
https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-th...37-max-scandal
Alchad 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.