PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Rumours & News (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news-13/)
-   -   MAX’s Return Delayed by FAA Reevaluation of 737 Safety Procedures (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/621879-max-s-return-delayed-faa-reevaluation-737-safety-procedures.html)

Icarus2001 29th May 2019 09:55


In fact, ALL people divide safe and unsafe as black and white.
How ridiculous.

Is flying in an aircraft "safe"?

Is driving a car "safe"?

These are not absolutes.

cessnapete 29th May 2019 12:01

Fly Aiprt
 

Originally Posted by Fly Aiprt (Post 10481456)
One must remember that the 737 was a "certified" aircraft, and so was supposed to be trimmable at any speed within the flight envelope.
So there is nothing wrong with leaving full thrust with a stickshaker alarm at takeoff.

Duly warned and briefed pilots experienced great difficulties in the sim when confronted with the same scenario.
Even though nothing was at stakes, they say they had their hands full with dealing with the recovery and fighting tunnel vision.

What with a real unexpected alarm in a real aiplane with no previous briefing ?
And remember, the "certified" 737 was supposed to be hand trimmable at the time.

Only now do we know Boeing "autocertified" their airplanes, and there are suspicions of trim difficulties on the MAX as well as the NG.

“Nothing wrong with leaving full power on”. Why would a competent crew ever do that? With speed whistling through 250/300 kts you are obviously not stalling. ( easily confirmed by GS readout). Reduce power, pitch and power ( covered in your Type Rating) if ASI indications unreliable. Partial flap as required, no automatics due erroneous Stick Shaker, and manually fly a return circuit to land.

Zeffy 29th May 2019 12:11

https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-...ys-11559117714


Boeing 737 MAX Could Stay Grounded for at Least Two Months, Trade Group Says
IATA boss says the impact of the global suspension of MAX flights on airlines has been significant

By Robert Wall and Na-young Kim
May 29, 2019 4:15 a.m. ET
The boss of the airline industry’s largest trade group Wednesday said the Boeing BA -0.01% 737 MAX fleet could remain grounded for another two months or more in the wake of two crashes.

IATA Director General Alexandre de Juniac said the timing on the MAX’s return to service was up to regulators, but airlines were bracing for 10 to 12 more weeks of delay before the plane can resume commercial service.

The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration last week hosted foreign regulators to discuss the process of clearing the MAX to commercial service after the grounding that followed the March 10 crash of one of the planes in Ethiopia. It was the second MAX crash in less than five months.

“We have to maintain an alignment between those authorities. Hopefully an alignment in terms of schedule,” Mr. de Juniac told reporters.

Boeing has been working on a fix to the flight-control flaw implicated in both crashes, but hasn’t submitted the formal submission to the FAA as it responds to questions from regulators.

He said the impact of the grounding on airlines was significant, though IATA doesn’t yet have a figure for the financial hit from canceled flights, higher costs and lower sales. If the plane remains grounded for another three months, it would hit airlines for the bulk of their summer flying, the busiest travel period for most MAX operators.

Mr. de Juniac said it was unfortunate that the FAA meeting last week didn’t spell out a timeline for the MAX’s return to flight. IATA on the same day held a meeting of 23 airlines that have the MAX in their fleet or on order. Boeing and the FAA provided information to the carriers at the event. Mr. de Juniac said carriers are hopeful that regulators will “find a reasonable time frame” to safely return the MAX to the sky.

Mr. de Juniac said a meeting between airlines, Boeing and regulators is likely to be held in five to seven weeks to prepare for a smooth MAX return to service. “We need to restore confidence in our industry,” he said, both related to the MAX and the certification process for planes more widely.

IATA members are gathering for their annual meeting, which starts Sunday, against a backdrop of global trade tensions and uncertainty over Britain’s exit from the European Union, which have dented demand for air travel.

Air freight demand in April fell 4.7% compared with a year earlier, continuing a slump in demand that began in January, IATA said.

The Trump administration this summer plans to impose higher tariffs on numerous goods made in China, denting freight demand. The airline industry is only one of several to feel the sting. Danish shipping giant A.P. Moeller-Maersk AS last week reported a first-quarter loss and warned that rising trade tensions between the U.S. and China could cut container growth by up to a third this year.

Write to Robert Wall at [email protected]

fdr 29th May 2019 12:45


Originally Posted by Fly Aiprt (Post 10481456)
One must remember that the 737 was a "certified" aircraft, and so was supposed to be trimmable at any speed within the flight envelope.

unfortunately, that is not quite correct. There is an assumption that the crews can cope with an out of trim case at all times, e.g., there is always sufficient authority of the elevator to cope with an out of trim stabiliser, but reality is that is not what the rules actually require. The protection of the certification standard gives a partial coverage for out of trim conditions, of a 3 second error only in the trim at all speeds within the normal envelope effectively. That is sorely tested by the MCAS system, and even without it, there could easily be conditions where you can alter the thrust enough that an additional 3 second of error in trim can place you outside of normal protections under the certification standard. [think of the A310's, the A320 @ Perpignan etc, and other wildly out of trim from thrust/trim mismatches].

The B737 is not alone in being able to be put into a severe out of trim case, but the fact that a condition can arise where the trim cannot function at all as a result of the error is a serious lack of certification shortfall in the protections provided by certification. The only part of the regs that the MCAS appears to be actually non compliant with is related to stability augmentation systems. The trim case it may well have been compliant, the rules themselves were deficient in this case, and appear to be in any case where a condition may arise where the stabiliser can only be returned to function by undergoing special procedures that were not generally taught or discussed, could require a breach of the single crew on the controls policy, and would exceed the control input force requirement of certification. That latter item is a possible breach.

The OEM and the industry have had an expensive lesson on the real world behaviour of the worlds favourite jet transport, and as always the industry will learn from the wreckage and reinforce rules as a result. This particular deficiency is going to be more than a minor matter, personally, I would think that there is some serious issues raised in how to ensure trim is always able to be controlled. watch out for some T tabs on elevator TE in the near future etc... Perhaps nothing gets fixed.


RobertP 29th May 2019 12:52

Airworthiness
 
JSP 553 is not the only definitive statement regarding aeronautical products and reflects the USA Military and CFR14 FAR interpretations. This is a good definition, however Nations signatory to the ICAO Convention and in particular Annex 8 have jurisdiction concerning the interpretation and this is reflected in the National Regulatory Organisational standards. Whilst acceptance of Aeronautical Product certification standards between many but not all nations is to date convention this MAX 8 situation indicates that this may not hold true for the future. EASA have made it quite clear that automatic acceptance of FAA MAX 8 changes will not happen. This may have implications wrt the ICAO Convention not least as it also may affect Annex 13 and its interpretation.

Fly Aiprt 29th May 2019 13:15


Originally Posted by cessnapete (Post 10481940)


“Nothing wrong with leaving full power on”. Why would a competent crew ever do that? With speed whistling through 250/300 kts you are obviously not stalling. ( easily confirmed by GS readout). Reduce power, pitch and power ( covered in your Type Rating) if ASI indications unreliable. Partial flap as required, no automatics due erroneous Stick Shaker, and manually fly a return circuit to land.

Of course, in an armchair flight, no problem doing what has been discussed here for weeks. It is all too easy to pick just one part of the event and in the light of hindsight, choose the relevant C/L, which we now know would solve the problem.
Now, in the real airplane at takeoff, why would a crew reduce thrust while battling with a persistent stickshaker (it makes noise, no whistling sound) and lots of most distracting alarms, instead of climbing away to sort things out ?
Even just in a sim, warned and briefed crews had their hands full doing the correct thing, which implied resorting to the roller-coaster maneuver.
And just got away by a small margin that the real crew in the real event didn't have.

And BTW, it appears that no flight sim to date reflects the real airplane...
So...I must admit that I'd not be so affirmative...




Fly Aiprt 29th May 2019 13:38


Originally Posted by fdr (Post 10481965)

that the 737 was a "certified" aircraft, and so was supposed to be trimmable at any speed within the flight envelope.
unfortunately, that is not quite correct. There is an assumption that the crews can cope with an out of trim case at all times, e.g., there is always sufficient authority of the elevator to cope with an out of trim stabiliser, but reality is that is not what the rules actually require. The protection of the certification standard gives a partial coverage for out of trim conditions, of a 3 second error only in the trim at all speeds within the normal envelope effectively.

Point taken.
Was meaning "the trim was supposed to be moveable"...

safetypee 29th May 2019 16:41

fdr #44,
Interesting views, no disagreement.

This particular deficiency is going to be more than a minor matter …’
It might be premature to discuss specific solutions for a deficiency which as yet is not clearly understood (at least publicly).
Elevator effectiveness, yes; but also in normal operation consider the combined horizontal tail surfaces - trim drag. What do you imply with TE tabs; corrective effect must overcome the failed trim condition, but not detract from normal operation.

Alternative thoughts could question why it was necessary to increase the tail area, yet retain the same size elevator. More trim range required whilst the pitch control appeared to be adequate.
The obvious longer, heavier, cg, arguments apply, but pitching moment with varying thrust levels could add another dimension.
Another question is why the trim range was chosen (horiz stab angles), is this relatively large, what are the limiting aerodynamic conditions; high, low speed, configuration, cg, thrust.
Have these changed with the evolving variants.

Background ref; https://www.satcom.guru/2019/04/stab...and-range.html



ProPax 29th May 2019 16:50


Originally Posted by Zeffy (Post 10481947)
IATA Director General Alexandre de Juniac said the timing on the MAX’s return to service was up to regulators, but airlines were bracing for 10 to 12 more weeks of delay before the plane can resume commercial service.

“We have to maintain an alignment between those authorities. Hopefully an alignment in terms of schedule,” Mr. de Juniac told reporters.

Mr. de Juniac said it was unfortunate that the FAA meeting last week didn’t spell out a timeline for the MAX’s return to flight.

Mr. de Juniac said a meeting between airlines, Boeing and regulators is likely to be held in five to seven weeks to prepare for a smooth MAX return to service. “We need to restore confidence in our industry,” he said, both related to the MAX and the certification process for planes more widely.

So, correct me if I'm wrong here. The "decadent capitalist pig", the "Pentagon puppet", the "Trump man" Daniel Elwell says that 737MAX investigation "will be driven by safety and not by schedule". Whereas the French socialist who went to the same school as the recent French president Francois Hollande, a school where Jean-Paul Sartre, no less, was a teacher once, says that MAX investigation should reach an "allignment" (whatever that is) "in terms of schedule" because - OMG!!! - summer schedule is in danger.

And he thinks rushing an investigation of this magnitude and "alligning" it to a schedule will "restore confidence in [his] industry"?!

I think, IATA needs a new CEO.

Fly Aiprt 29th May 2019 17:37


Originally Posted by ProPax (Post 10482087)
Daniel Elwell says that 737MAX investigation "will be driven by safety and not by schedule". Whereas the French socialist who went to the same school as the recent French president Francois Hollande, a school where Jean-Paul Sartre, no less, was a teacher once, says that MAX investigation should reach an "allignment" (whatever that is) "in terms of schedule" because - OMG!!! - summer schedule is in danger.

And he thinks rushing an investigation of this magnitude and "alligning" it to a schedule will "restore confidence in [his] industry"?!

That's wishful talk.
Didn't it occur to you that both may be wrong^^?


Originally Posted by ProPax (Post 10482087)
I think, IATA needs a new CEO.

What's IATA to do ? There's no fault on the part of IATA. They bought aircraft, confident that they would be up to modern standards, and actually certified by a real, up to the task, aviation agency.

ProPax 29th May 2019 19:31


Originally Posted by Fly Aiprt (Post 10482111)
What's IATA to do?

That's actually a very good question. What do they usually do? ICAO issues and enforces the rules of international aviation, such as the freedoms of airspace. But what does IATA do? I'm seriously asking this question. I have NO idea. I'm sure there is an article in Wikipedia that will give me the official blurb, but what actual function do they perform, does anyone know? I honestly have never heard anything about IATA actions, good or bad, but then again, I may have not been paying attention.


n5296s 29th May 2019 20:39


What do they usually do?
I'm pretty sure they assign the three-letter airport identifiers. No idea what else they do.

c52 29th May 2019 21:01

I'm afraid that reading the Wikipedia article will not enlighten you.

DaveReidUK 29th May 2019 21:16


Originally Posted by ProPax (Post 10482186)
But what does IATA do? I'm seriously asking this question. I have NO idea. I'm sure there is an article in Wikipedia that will give me the official blurb, but what actual function do they perform, does anyone know?

Almost every industry has a trade association. Most of those carry out the functions that you would expect from such an organisation. IATA is the airline industry's trade association.


wheelsright 30th May 2019 01:48

Certification is a binary process denoting an acceptable level of risk. Safety or risk is inherently not binary but is subject to the exercise of judgment to arrive at a compromise that can be certified. Not sure what the pregnancy argument is about but clearly no system is absolutely safe but when you are pregnant you are absolutely.

MCAS is popularly considered to have introduced an unnecessary level of risk that should not have been certified. It is probable that the aircraft would have been safer without MCAS and the pilots were responsible for potential pitch up conditions due to the new engine locations. The investigation will have to resolve these suppositions and whether there were fundamental irregularities with the design and certification process. Quite rightly the focus must be on whether the design and certification was appropriate. Consideration of pilot performance are of course relevant, but are not the primary cause of the accidents and are not capable of obvious remedial action. There will always be pilots of varying ability. It is far from certain that the situation that they found themselves would have been recoverable by average pilots... more information is required to establish what the pilots actually did at all stages of the flights.

Based on the limited information, it appears to me that MCAS introduced an unacceptable level of risk and those risks were known to Boeing and possibly the FAA. It is not a good situation for public confidence in safety.

PAX_Britannica 30th May 2019 02:54

MAX needs MCAS for FAR 25 compliance
 

Originally Posted by hans brinker (Post 10478960)
It is about time. There is no difference between the NG and the MAX in manual trim, so if the pilots were unable to manually trim in the last crash, they wouldn't have been able to trim in any of the 6500 B737s flying.

Umm, apologies if I've misunderstood what you're saying, but...

The entire point of the introduction of MCAS is that the 737 MAX without MCAS responds to pitch control inputs differently to earlier models. In particular, runaway pitch-up is possible.

Without MCAS, the 737MAX would fail to meet FAR 25 requirements for controllability in manual flight.

In another thread


Originally Posted by gums
I like "25.203 Stall characteristics", as it may provide a clue why MCAS was incorporated. The first paragraph requires:
No abnormal nose-up pitching may occur. The longitudinal control force must be positive up
to and throughout the stall.


neville_nobody 30th May 2019 03:06


It is probable that the aircraft would have been safer without MCAS and the pilots were responsible for potential pitch up conditions due to the new engine locations.
Whilst in hindsight that is probably true, MCAS came about because the MAX didn't actually meet the certification standard in the first place. It would be interesting to know how far off the certification standard they were that Boeing believe it necessary to actually put in the MCAS system.

WHBM 30th May 2019 03:23


Originally Posted by ProPax (Post 10482186)
ICAO issues and enforces the rules of international aviation, such as the freedoms of airspace. But what does IATA do? I'm seriously asking this question. I have NO idea.

IATA is a trade body of all the mainstream carriers, on the commercial side. They represent interline agreements, revenue division, commercial policies, relations with travel agencies and other sales agents, and such like. This mirrors what ICAO do on the operational and technical side.

Their relevance to the situation is in the forward planning of schedules and making reservations, where the aircraft provision and schedules are currently substantially disorganised by the grounding, such that carriers currently are unsure what capacity they may have available for the season ahead. It now looks likely the Max is going to be grounded right through the summer peak period, and carriers affected are going to be facing up to different timetables, and offering different fare structures through their yield management plans, to what they might have hoped.

tdracer 30th May 2019 03:40

As others have noted, absolute safety is a myth - nothing in life is completely safe.
For certification purposes, there is a definition of safe:
The probability of a catastrophic outcome is ~ 10-9/flight hour (or less - less is always better).
The miss was that no one at Boeing or the FAA (or EASA) identified MCAS as being a flight critical system that needed to meet that 10-9 requirement.
I'm not privy to everything the 'fix' entails, but 10-9/hr. is the standard it will need to meet to be determined safe.

Water pilot 30th May 2019 03:52

I don't think the MAX will be flying in Europe any time soon, there is a very nasty trade war brewing. The WTO has found that Airbus has been illegally subsidized by the government and so the US will be able to impose tariffs. Boeing is also illegally subsidized but the case is not as far along so there is going to be five or six months of one-sided tariffs (affecting cheese makers, etc.) over airplanes. It is a little hard to see that the European regulators are going to cut Boeing much slack, I imagine a "work to rule" type situation and they have plenty of ammunition. I don't know how many airlines will be affected; I do know that Sunwings in Canada is already cancelling flights and blaming Boeing (although they are affected by a different trade war.)

Bidule 30th May 2019 06:09


Originally Posted by ProPax (Post 10482087)
SWhereas the French socialist who went to the same school as the recent French president Francois Hollande, a school where Jean-Paul Sartre, no less, was a teacher once, "?!

Which school? To my knowledge, Jean-Paul Sartre was never a teacher in HEC (Hautes Etudes Commerciales) or ENA (Ecole Nationale d'Administration).

As you do not seem to like the socialists, you should not be comfortable in Zurich as I think the mayor still is a socialist (for a number of years).
.

DaveReidUK 30th May 2019 06:32


Originally Posted by Bidule (Post 10482452)
Which school? To my knowledge, Jean-Paul Sartre was never a teacher in HEC (Hautes Etudes Commerciales) or ENA (Ecole Nationale d'Administration).

Lycée Pasteur (Neuilly-sur-Seine)

Icarus2001 30th May 2019 06:44


The entire point of the introduction of MCAS is that the 737 MAX without MCAS responds to pitch control inputs differently to earlier models. In particular, runaway pitch-up is possible.
Only at a very small part of the flight envelope at or near the critical angle of attack.

How many times...

ProPax 30th May 2019 08:11


Originally Posted by DaveReidUK (Post 10482461)
Lycée Pasteur (Neuilly-sur-Seine)

Thank you. :-)

ProPax 30th May 2019 08:18


Originally Posted by WHBM (Post 10482404)
IATA is a trade body of all the mainstream carriers, on the commercial side. They represent interline agreements, revenue division, commercial policies, relations with travel agencies and other sales agents, and such like. This mirrors what ICAO do on the operational and technical side.

Their relevance to the situation is in the forward planning of schedules and making reservations, where the aircraft provision and schedules are currently substantially disorganised by the grounding, such that carriers currently are unsure what capacity they may have available for the season ahead. It now looks likely the Max is going to be grounded right through the summer peak period, and carriers affected are going to be facing up to different timetables, and offering different fare structures through their yield management plans, to what they might have hoped.

Making schedules and reservations. IATA does that? Not the airlines themselves? So if, say, Lufthansa or British Airways want to open a new route, they have to go through IATA?

And another thing that caught my eye is "revenue division". How do they do that? Airlines pay to some kind of fund which then gets redistributed? I have never heard of any of this. Very interesting.

Is membership in IATA mandatory for any airline?

Just trying to understand how it works. (insert confused smiley)

GLAEDI 30th May 2019 08:33


Originally Posted by ProPax (Post 10482525)
Making schedules and reservations. IATA does that? Not the airlines themselves? So if, say, Lufthansa or British Airways want to open a new route, they have to go through IATA?

And another thing that caught my eye is "revenue division". How do they do that? Airlines pay to some kind of fund which then gets redistributed? I have never heard of any of this. Very interesting.

Is membership in IATA mandatory for any airline?

Just trying to understand how it works. (insert confused smiley)

not really for this thread but IATA covers things like interlining bags from one airline to another, tickets so that BA can ticket on AA and the like, they collect revenue from one airline that needs to pay another for services. They also cover route fares (an airline can reduce tickets from the IATA fare) ie a single from NY to LHR economy would be say $1,500. You don’t have to be a member but then you working with other airlines can be difficult. If you a small airline and you want to sell a route where one leg is with you and another is on a major airline, they won’t entertain you unless you have an IATA registration as it’s an insurance they’ll get paid if you go bust.

groundbum 30th May 2019 08:34

maybe the IATA bits need a separate thread..

G

ProPax 30th May 2019 09:50


Originally Posted by GLAEDI (Post 10482537)
not really for this thread but IATA covers things like interlining bags from one airline to another, tickets so that BA can ticket on AA and the like, they collect revenue from one airline that needs to pay another for services. They also cover route fares (an airline can reduce tickets from the IATA fare) ie a single from NY to LHR economy would be say $1,500. You don’t have to be a member but then you working with other airlines can be difficult. If you a small airline and you want to sell a route where one leg is with you and another is on a major airline, they won’t entertain you unless you have an IATA registration as it’s an insurance they’ll get paid if you go bust.

OOOOH! Like a clearing house of sorts. I see now. Thank you so much for the information. Looks like we do need them after all. Okay, Monsieur de Juniac, you may stay a while longer. :-)


Originally Posted by groundbum (Post 10482538)
maybe the IATA bits need a separate thread..

Nah. I got all the info I wanted... for now. :-)
Thanks.

Bergerie1 30th May 2019 10:20

IATA does many things for the aviation industry in addition to acting as a clearing house, such as training courses for airlines, publishing manuals like this one on dangerous goods:- https://www.iata.org/publications/dgr/Pages/index.aspx
and this one on ground handling:- https://www.iata.org/publications/st...ns-manual.aspx

These manuals and the work of the various specialist groups help to standardise procedures across the whole industry.

IATA also works with ICAO, national ANSPs and airports to improve facilities for international aviation:- https://www.iata.org/whatwedo/workgr...perations.aspx

ProPax, it helps to do your homework!!

DaveReidUK 30th May 2019 11:12


Originally Posted by ProPax (Post 10482592)
OOOOH! Like a clearing house of sorts. I see now.

In fact they couldn't think of a more imaginative name for it.

IATA Clearing House

BluSdUp 30th May 2019 12:51

IATA
 
Non of the big European Low Cost airlines are IATA members.
IATA is a club for the Big Flag carriers of old with any Commuters that wants business joining for a hefty fee.
The ONLY thing effecting me as a 737-800 pilot and future Max pilot from IATA is the Dangerous Goods Manual , once a Year on the Swimming Course ( Safety Course) with the girls.
IATA has NOTHING to do with the Certification of any Aircraft, they just have members that has bought a few 737 Max.
As a potentially united customer group they could push Boeing, but I doubt they are able to agree on any specific and productive demands.

So
ICAO and FAA issue Recommendations, NCAA, FAA and EASA set Rules, Regulations and Practices for Certification of Aircraft.
IATA play with the Toy and the Money.

This is the bigger picture , the way I see it.
Regards
Cpt B

Zeffy 30th May 2019 14:51

AP
 
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-...ore-max-crash/

Ethiopian pilot pleaded for training weeks before Max crash
May 29, 2019 at 12:47 pm Updated May 30, 2019 at 7:35 am

By BERNARD CONDON
The Associated Press

NEW YORK (AP) — Just days after a Lion Air Boeing 737 Max nosedived in Indonesia and killed all 189 people aboard, an Ethiopian Airlines pilot began pleading with his bosses for more training on the Max, warning that crews could easily be overwhelmed in a crisis and that one of their planes could be the next to go down.

“We are asking for trouble,” veteran pilot Bernd Kai von Hoesslin wrote in a December email obtained by The Associated Press, adding that if several alarms go off in the cockpit at once, “it will be a crash for sure.”

That prediction proved all too accurate.

What Ethiopian Airlines did in response to his warnings is unclear, and whether it made any difference is a matter of dispute. But within weeks, an Ethiopian Max indeed went down, killing all 157 people on board. It slammed into the ground amid a flurry of alarms as the pilots struggled to control a malfunction in the automatic anti-stall system.

While the anti-stall system has gotten most of the scrutiny in the two Max crashes five months apart that have led to a worldwide grounding of the planes, the concerns raised by von Hoesslin have added to a debate on the role pilot error played, and whether Ethiopian’s pilots were as prepared as they could have been to avert disaster.

Von Hoesslin, a Canadian citizen who resigned from Ethiopian last month, argued in three emails to senior managers after the anti-stall system came under scrutiny in the Lion Air crash that crews flying Ethiopian’s five Max jets should have been given more information and training on how the system worked. He also said pilots should be drilled on the steps to override it if it faltered. Von Hoesslin’s emails were first reported by Bloomberg.

The Max’s system, called MCAS, for Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, automatically pushes the plane’s nose down when it is at risk of stalling. It misfired in both fatal crashes, with pilots losing control of the plane as they fought against it.

According to the email chain obtained by the AP, Ethiopian responded to the Oct. 29 Lion Air crash with a few emails to pilots detailing bulletins from the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration and Boeing on what do if the anti-stall system malfunctioned. Other Ethiopian pilots who spoke to the AP say those emails required no signoffs that pilots actually read and understood the directives, and no mandated additional training.

“Ethiopian Airlines is a rapidly expanding airline and they have extremely inexperienced crews,” von Hoesslin said in documents obtained by the AP. “You need to spoon-feed them the information and make sure they understand.”

To underscore his point, von Hoesslin made a video shortly after the Ethiopian crash in which he quizzed a Max pilot on a Boeing list of warning signs on the stall system that crew members were required to commit to memory. That video, obtained by AP, shows him going blank on most of it.

“You have to have confirmation that they opened it, that they read it and that they understood it,” von Hoesslin said in a document obtained by the AP. “They should have done a little online test with 10 questions. You don’t pass until you get the 10 questions.”

Ethiopian Airlines tweeted Wednesday that “the source of these false allegations is a disgruntled former employee … who has left the airline after many administrative problems.”

Von Hoesslin’s lawyer, Darryl Levitt, issued a statement saying the pilot was not fired but “resigned due to legitimate concerns he had raised that he felt were not adequately addressed.” He added that von Hoesslin will be cooperating with regulators and authorities “with his sole objective of contributing to make air travel safe.”

Ethiopian has said that the requirements for warning and training Max pilots after the Lion Air crash were set by the FAA and Boeing and that their directives were used to “brief all our pilots” and incorporated into flight manuals.

CEO Tewolde Gebremariam said in an interview shortly after the Ethiopian crash, “Today we believe that might not have been enough.”

Gebremariam declined to say whether the pilots on the doomed flight took additional training after the Lion Air crash on Ethiopian’s Max simulator, a multimillion-dollar piece of equipment most airlines don’t have, but said “it wouldn’t have made any difference” because the simulator wasn’t designed to imitate problems in the new jet’s flight-control system.

Ethiopian has said both the captain and co-pilot followed all the steps Boeing laid out in its bulletin on how to respond to a malfunction in the anti-stall system.

But the preliminary report on the March 10 crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 from Addis Ababa to Nairobi showed that the pilots deviated from the directives and made other mistakes, notably flying the plane at an unusually high speed and inexplicably reactivating the anti-stall system shortly after manually overriding it.

Six minutes into its flight, the plane with passengers from nearly a dozen countries cratered into the ground about 40 miles from the airport.

Former FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt said the Ethiopian pilots clearly bear some of the blame.

“So Boeing was at fault because a light came on or this thing tripped mistakenly, but it shouldn’t have brought the airplane down,” Babbitt said of the anti-stall system. “That was very fixable and a pretty simple solution. And they didn’t come to grips with it. … They let the plane get away from them.”

Peter Lemme, a former Boeing engineer who worked on flight control systems, said apportioning blame between Boeing and the crew is difficult.

“Some pilots in their easy chairs are saying they would have known how to react, but it’s not so easy,” he said. “Did the pilots cause the accident? No. Could they have prevented it? Yes.”

Von Hoesslin, a 56-year-old pilot with three decades of flying experience, initially wrote to his bosses Nov. 11 in response to the airline’s five-sentence email to dozens of pilots alerting them to the Boeing bulletin and reminding them about the checklist of steps to perform should something similar go wrong.

He urged Ethiopian to give more information because pilots are not “fully or even aware of how” the MCAS works. That prompted a second email from the airline with more detail.

A month later, on Dec. 12, von Hoesslin sent another email, urging a close reading of a preliminary report from Indonesian regulators on the crash there. He pointed out several potential problems with the Max and recommended steps be taken to make sure pilots know the checklist.

The next day, he sent a third email recommending new simulator training designed to roughly re-create what went wrong in the Indonesian flight, adding that he had already practiced in a simulator rigged in such a way and his experience with all the alarms going off was frightening.

“Throw in a GPWS PULL UP” — a warning to pilots that the plane is in danger of crashing into the ground — “and it would be a crash for sure.”

Boeing has said that its fix to software on the Max’s anti-stall system will be accompanied by additional training for pilots. The acting chief of the FAA, Daniel Elwell, said last week that his agency hasn’t decided whether that training should be conducted on computers or in flight simulators.

___

AP writer David Koenig in Dallas and researchers Jennifer Farrar, Randy Herschaft and Rhonda Shafner in New York contributed to this report.

BERNARD CONDON

aixois 30th May 2019 21:27

Water Pilot wrote :


I don't think the MAX will be flying in Europe any time soon, there is a very nasty trade war brewing. The WTO has found that Airbus has been illegally subsidized by the government and so the US will be able to impose tariffs. Boeing is also illegally subsidized but the case is not as far along so there is going to be five or six months of one-sided tariffs (affecting cheese makers, etc.) over airplanes
That is right of course and for the disputes there is a brief on this website ::


leehamnews.com/2019/03/28/wto-appeals-court-rules-against-boeing-airbus-claims-minimum-15bn-in-harm/
:

Good evening to everyone.

nevillestyke 31st May 2019 17:26

Well, one thing they (IATA) do is set the rules for air transport of hazardous lithium-ion batteries. I see, from a listing for a power bank on ebay, that there are some Chinese suppliers who openly admit to flaunting these safety regulations.
Quote from the listing:
" 5、 The delivery time of each country's post office is different, the arrival time may be delayed, please be sure to wait patiently

6、Our product capacity is large, if the huge capacity (MAH) is printed on the power bank, it can not be allowed to transported by the aircraft,so our products are not printed capacity information, please understand

7、We ensure that the product 100% is brand-new, but the transport time is long, and the collision in the transport process may cause a small number of product damage, which is unavoidable, if there is damage please contact us in time. "

ProPax 31st May 2019 20:00

We do need a separate thread on IATA, it seems. :-) I'm learning more and more and I have more questions, but I do realize I started an off-top. Can we somehow move it to another thread?

BluSdUp 31st May 2019 20:59

Zeffy
 
A very interesting article on what Cpt Bernd von Hosselin had asked ET after the Lion accident.
I find that disturbing.
I hope he gets support to tell and document the truth.
Regards
Cpt B

Chris2303 31st May 2019 21:01

When I first started in the industry in 1967 IATA was responsible for:
  • Clearing house for interline travel
  • Tariff setting
  • Inflight standards (configuration/meals/alcohol)
Amongst other things that my old brain has forgotten

Bend alot 1st Jun 2019 06:51

As per the tread title - the delay seems to be more Boeing not officially submitting the fix to the FAA.

Why is there the delay?

Boeing say they have fixed it (not that there was ever a problem), is there fear in the test flight stage of not being able to manually move the trim wheel, when it is expected to be movable. Surely most regulators will want evidence of the trim wheel "actual flight" forces to move until it will not move.

Then since MCAS is not a part of this test flight now (had it's one input so locked out) and the MAX is essentially a NG with a trim wheel not able to move.

Nothing quite like doubling the bet - MAX grounding lifted or MAX and NG grounded.

Bergerie1 1st Jun 2019 07:57

Chris2303,

In its early days IATA was concerned too much with ticket pricing and meals standards etc. But now, as well as cting as a clearing house, a large part of IATA's work has been to work alongside ICAO to improve the Standards and Recommended Practices and to promote their application by member states to provide consistent standards for better worldwide ATC, airports and air navigation facilities. https://www.icao.int/safety/safetyma...ges/sarps.aspx

In the early days it was much like a cartel, but since then it has moved with the times, pushing for safer standards, more ATC and airport capacity to reduce delays and greater cost effectiveness. It also conducts safety audits for member airlines. https://www.iata.org/whatwedo/safety...ges/index.aspx

Beausoleil 1st Jun 2019 09:09


Originally Posted by capngrog (Post 10479342)
I agree that most people use the terms "safe" and "unsafe"; however, there is no such thing as "safe". "Safety" is a concept of relativity. There will always be risk in every human endeavor, ranging from "slight risk" to "severe risk", and the real world deals with risk management, not attempts to achieve absolute safety ... whatever that is. For example, walking is a relatively safe activity given normal circumstances; yet, walking on the edge of an icy precipice in a snowstorm involves more risk, requiring more caution ... hence "risk management". I could go on and on about this, but I won't.

This is just my opinion; but that opinion is based on 43 years of safety related work and accident investigation.

Cheers,
Grog

I think that for practical purposes, making "safe" means reducing the risk from an activity so that there is no significant additional risk from taking part above the risk encountered on a typical day.

At my age, I have about a 1 in 500000 chance of dying on any given day. Sitting in a commercial airliner for 8 hours protects me from some everyday risks but exposes me to some others (chiefly medical I suspect). Also the radiation exposure slightly increases my risk of developing cancer at some point. The risk from a crash is negligible... less than 1 in 10 million last time I looked.

The risk from crashes has been reduced far below the practical safe level as much for commercial reasons as anything. It is tremendously impressive




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:24.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.