Another (2nd) 737 Max 8 crash

Forums › Travel (planes, train, cruise) › Another (2nd) 737 Max 8 crash - no survivors

1 | ... | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | ... | 32

1484 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 422
Inactive user

#2215831 12-Apr-2019 15:35

Dingbatt: As far as I’m aware, both the after take off and the after landing checklists on Airbuses are performed silently.
Ones that check flight critical configurations, such as the before take off and the landing checklists are challenge and response.
I have long wondered why Boeing hasn’t developed a single aisle airliner by scaling down the 787 and all they have learned from that.

Just watched that A380 video again & from when one pilot calls out 'After landing checklist' it is only eight seconds until you hear 'After landing checklist complete' and the other pilot says 'Check'. So either it has a checklist shorter than a Piper Cub or it must have a lot of automatic procedures!

Beccara

1473 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 517

ID Verified

#2215835 12-Apr-2019 15:37

I chuckled

https://www.facebook.com/atcmemesofficial/posts/1949660978477383

Yes it's a joke/sim/not real

Most problems are the result of previous solutions...

All comment's I make are my own personal opinion and do not in any way, shape or form reflect the views of current or former employers unless specifically stated

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#2216167 12-Apr-2019 22:32

Beccera your post is somewhat dramatic in places. I thought there had to be intent with murder. No one set out to kill anyone with the 737 Max.

Just as you found opinions from pilots about the 737 Max that are critical of Boeing and the 737 Max there are plenty of pilots who are happy with the 737 Max.

It’s not clear whether the comments in your post are all from “other pilots” or that you have interspersed your own thoughts as well.

There are several points made in your post which cannot be substantiated or are just patently wrong. I’m only going to comment on the most obvious ones.

The 737 Max wasn’t a rush job. Boeing had been quietly working on a programme for a 737 upgrade while the decision was being made whether or not to do a clean sheet design. When the decision to go with an upgraded 737 much of the work had been done.

The 737 Max was never “potentially very dangerous”. It was demonstrated during testing that it could be flown very safely without MCAS. MCAS was only ever fitted to meet design rule stability requirements.

There was never any need to manually trim the aircraft to recover from MCAS input. The comment about 250 rotations of the manual trim and the difficulty in doing this while flying the aircraft is pretty irrelevant. The electric trim could have and should have been used to counter the MCAS inputs.

The following link goes to an article which provides some worthwhile reading and debunks your claims about the pilots not having any responsibility for the accident outcome. I’ve also copied a summary from that article.

https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/398764-vaughn-cordle-cfa/5290930-boeing-737-max-8-crashes-case-pilot-error

Summary

The pilots (crew) mismanaged engine thrust and airspeed.

Excessive airspeed rendered manual trim ineffective.

The crew deviated from the emergency procedure.

Crew experience and competency a major contributing factor.

CONCLUSION

Examining both accidents separately provides valuable insights—it’s easy to understand how these unrelated airlines and crew may have responded in similar ways—but the overall conclusion in our previous article, “Boeing’s Grounding: Catastrophic Crashes, and Questions About Boeing’s Liability And 737 MAX Aircraft Viability,” still stands—the major contributing factor to these accidents was pilot error.

After a more comprehensive analysis of each of the two accidents, especially Lion Air Flight 610, we are persuaded more than ever that the case for pilot error—as well as inadequate training—are the dominant contributing factors in both accidents, not the onlyones but the most serious factors.

The LA 610 accident is somewhat excusable since the pilots were not privy to MCAS and its challenges. Even so, there were surprising pilot practices and judgment shortfalls as well as concerns with appropriate MAX training. The Ethiopian accident, however, is more confounding since it was verified by the airline that the pilots were trained in accordance with Boeing (and FAA) recommendations. Perhaps the company’s training verification should be scrutinized.

As we have highlighted, the ET 302 pilots did follow the runaway trim procedure, at least initially. However, questions remain as to why the pilots mismanaged the airspeed and deviated from company and Boeing procedures. These actions led to an unrecoverable dive resulting in the loss of crew and passengers. We believe that the final accident report will (or should) reflect this finding.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

networkn

Networkn
32879 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15481

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2216230 12-Apr-2019 23:37

I met a American 737 Max pilot on a recent trip to Australia. I can't recall a person more adamant in a long time. He is absolutely *utterly* convinced there isn't anything "wrong" with the planes. He blames the pilots, training or lack thereof and said he would put every member of his family into one every day of the week so long as a pilot he knew was trained was flying it.

Despite this, I will stay off them :)

alasta

6894 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3368

Trusted

Subscriber

#2216374 13-Apr-2019 10:40

Technofreak: There was never any need to manually trim the aircraft to recover from MCAS input. The comment about 250 rotations of the manual trim and the difficulty in doing this while flying the aircraft is pretty irrelevant. The electric trim could have and should have been used to counter the MCAS inputs.

Then why does Boeing's procedure involve activating the trim motor cutout switches?

Batman

Mad Scientist
30015 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2216386 13-Apr-2019 11:02

alasta:

Technofreak: There was never any need to manually trim the aircraft to recover from MCAS input. The comment about 250 rotations of the manual trim and the difficulty in doing this while flying the aircraft is pretty irrelevant. The electric trim could have and should have been used to counter the MCAS inputs.

Then why does Boeing's procedure involve activating the trim motor cutout switches?

From my reading I think this is across the board of many aircraft not just the MAX, may or may not help your Q.

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

Sidestep

1019 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 567

Lifetime subscriber

#2216403 13-Apr-2019 11:40

alasta:

Technofreak: There was never any need to manually trim the aircraft to recover from MCAS input. The comment about 250 rotations of the manual trim and the difficulty in doing this while flying the aircraft is pretty irrelevant. The electric trim could have and should have been used to counter the MCAS inputs.

Then why does Boeing's procedure involve activating the trim motor cutout switches?

The updated 'Airworthiness Directive" sent out by the FAA in December reads, in part:

"Initially, higher control forces may be needed to overcome any stabilizer nose down trim already supplied. Electric stabilizer trim can be used to neutralize control column pitch forces before moving the STAB TRIM CUTOUT switches to CUTOUT. Manual stabilizer trim can be used before and after the STAB TRIM CUTOUT switches are moved to CUTOUT."

So they were advising to trim the aircraft BEFORE using the CUTOUT switches.

Beccara

1473 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 517

ID Verified

#2216404 13-Apr-2019 11:40

Look I'm going to bow out at this point, there's a real undertone of "Those stupid darkie pilots" going on here that I disagree with. One final thing I will say tho, MCAS wasn't just a "nice to have"to satisfy a design rule, The MAX was failing FAA Airworthiness standard's, Specifically 25.203(a) of its Stall characteristics.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#2216406 13-Apr-2019 11:51

Beccara:

Look I'm going to bow out at this point, there's a real undertone of "Those stupid darkie pilots" going on here that I disagree with. One final thing I will say tho, MCAS wasn't just a "nice to have"to satisfy a design rule, The MAX was failing FAA Airworthiness standard's, Specifically 25.203(a) of its Stall characteristics.

MCAS is not, and never was "stall prevention" software. Any article that refers to it as such is written by somebody who is simply showing they don't fully understand what they're writing about.

It's become more clear than ever that the pilots were at fault with some of their actions. Are they solely to blame for the plane crashing? No they're not - but their actions contributed to a situation that may have been recoverable.

networkn

Networkn
32879 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15481

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2216434 13-Apr-2019 12:41

I have seen nothing to indicate race is even remotely referred to in this thread. I don't believe it's a consideration. Wouldn't matter from where the pilots originated from. I think suggestions of the sort are silly.

amiga500

1484 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 422
Inactive user

#2216511 13-Apr-2019 15:28

Boeing have built so many excellent planes that arrogance did gradually creep into its culture. One small example. In the 777 programme I have seen a video clip where Alan Mulally & a team of his engineers were discussing the use of a certain alloy for the making of seat mounts. It had been discovered that hairline cracks had been seen in some of these seat mounts made of the new alloy. The new alloy would have saved some weight. It was generally agreed by all the engineers that the new alloy would be safe to use but after a lot of discussion they decided to stick with the metal used up to then for seat mounts. However one engineer said 'If Boeing says it is O.K. then it is O.K.' Pretty much saying that any airline who objected to the new seat mounts could take a hike.

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#2216593 13-Apr-2019 17:21

Beccara:

Look I'm going to bow out at this point, there's a real undertone of "Those stupid darkie pilots" going on here that I disagree with. One final thing I will say tho, MCAS wasn't just a "nice to have"to satisfy a design rule, The MAX was failing FAA Airworthiness standard's, Specifically 25.203(a) of its Stall characteristics.

No one has said the pilots race had anything to do with these accidents. What has been called into question is their training, ability and experience.

It is obvious from what is being reported about the Ethiopian accident that the pilots weren't aware of Boeing's instructions (training) or didn't carry them out correctly (training or ability). It also appears the First Officer on the Ethiopian flight may have bee struggling with the role he was undertaking (training and or experience).

The First Officer was very inexperienced. It has been reported he had as little as 200 hours other reports say about 350 hours. In New Zealand it takes about 220 hours to gain the absolute minimum requirements to be a First Officer, plus the hours to train on the aircraft type i.e. B737. Line training for a job like this could be up to around 100 hours.

I haven't said MCAS was a nice to have function, perhaps someone else has said this. What I have said it was required by a design rule, but without MCAS the aircraft was able to be safely flown without any difficulty.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

kingdragonfly

12001 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12907

Subscriber

#2219408 16-Apr-2019 19:43

The real reason Boeing's new plane crashed twice
Vox
"This isn’t just a computer bug. It’s a scandal."

jarledb

Webhead
3320 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1983

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2219453 16-Apr-2019 21:26

sbiddle:

It's become more clear than ever that the pilots were at fault with some of their actions. Are they solely to blame for the plane crashing? No they're not - but their actions contributed to a situation that may have been recoverable.

From what I have read this MCAS system acted in a way that would be similar to a car suddenly taking over and pulling your car to the right. And to fix it you would have to find the switch for it and turn it off, while keeping on the road, and to correct you would have to turn a wheel next to your gear box to straighten the car up.

A head on crash with such a car would never be blamed on the driver.

Jarle Dahl Bergersen | Referral Links: Want $50 off when you join Octopus Energy? Use this referral code
Are you happy with what you get from Geekzone? Please consider supporting us by making a donation or subscribing.

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#2219455 16-Apr-2019 21:30

kingdragonfly: The real reason Boeing's new plane crashed twice
Vox
"This isn’t just a computer bug. It’s a scandal."

It's not a computer bug and I don't believe there's any scandal. Unless you're referring to why on the flight previous to the accident flight, one Lion Air crew managed to control and land the aircraft but the next crew were never made aware of what happened on that fight and how the problem was dealt with, and why the Ethiopian crew didn't appear to be properly conversant with the Boeing Instruction issued after the Lion Air crash.

The scandal if any lies with the lack of information provided by Lion Air to the crew of the accident flight and why the Ethopian crew weren't properly trained on the Boeing Instruction.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

1 | ... | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | ... | 32