Another (2nd) 737 Max 8 crash

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

1 | ... | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | ... | 32

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#2219457 16-Apr-2019 21:40

jarledb:
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.

The MCAS system in the crash aircraft acted in a similar manner to another potential fault situation - a runway trim - a failure that is part of the training for pilots flying the 737.

An MCAS fault doesn't put the aircraft in immediate danger like you describe with a steering fault would with a car. Handled correctly there is adequate time to recover from an MCAS fault. This has been demonstrated.

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

dafman

4056 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2653

Trusted

#2219462 16-Apr-2019 22:16

Technofreak:
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.

Personally, I find it pretty hard to understand your unfounded, unceasing and obsessive attack on the pilots. Your posts are at odds with everything I have read from global aviation experts whose views I respect. This is my last post on this thread.

Sidestep

1019 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 567

Lifetime subscriber

#2219513 17-Apr-2019 01:27

jarledb:

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.

If we're going to compare to vehicles, imagine this scenario:

Autonomous Vehicles have become a thing, but must still have a steering wheel, brake and accelerator, and the driver's seat must be occupied by someone over 16, with say, a minimum 5 hours simulated driver training.

Auckland Transport retrofits some of it's older semi-autonomous buses with a manufacturer's kit for Autonomous operation.

After thousands of hours of trouble free operation, a bus's heading North from the city on the Northern Motorway, when a truck in front of it flicks up a length of metal off the road. It spears through the grille, piercing the main computer.

Aunty Sal's in the drivers seat when the alarm sounds, warning lights begin to flash and a loud voice begins saying 'take control!, take control!'.. The bus, as it's programmed to, begins to decelerate and pull over to the verge.

But they're on the Harbour bridge where there's no verge.. and the bus's pulling towards the side.

Aunty Sal grabs the steering wheel, and remembers she must tap the brake to get manual control..Unfortunately - in the noise and confusion – she presses the accelerator instead. The harder she presses the faster it goes and the more it tries to steer off the road..

After recovering the bus an accident investigation points to design faults - placing the critical computer near the front of the bus, having loud, distracting warnings, and for requiring a tap on the brake to take control of the bus. (there's an emergency steering over-ride button below the manual light switch on the stalk, but it had only discussed in passing)

AT's told to correct these problems. They retrofit steel protective cases to the computer, and signs are fixed to the dash showing the brake pedal location.

Within a week though, there's another crash, this time a bus full of 16 year olds. The computer overheats inside the steel protective box, warnings blare out. In spite of the sign on the dash, the driver, who's been distracted watching videos on his phone again hits the accelerator, and again the bus runs off the road.

All that model of bus are taken off the road.

Now, in this scenario are those buses intrinsically unsafe? They drove safely for years under manual control. Obviously the manufacturer's mainly at fault for allowing a single hardware failure to progress to a life threatening situation, for the vehicle's steering being able to overpower the driver, but there's also likely a human interaction & training problem.

Expecting the driver to suddenly grab the steering wheel & 'tap the brake' during a cacophony of noise and warnings, with minimal training, and when distracted and lulled into a false sense of security by many hours of just being a passenger - is likely expecting too much. A driver who's spent years driving the bus manually would likely have no problem finding the brake pedal, but if every autonomous bus driver has to have that much experience driving a non autonomous vehicle it defeats the purpose.

I see parallels with the distracted driver in the Uber that hit & killed a pedestrian unexpectedly crossing the road.

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#2219517 17-Apr-2019 05:39

dafman:
Technofreak:
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.

Personally, I find it pretty hard to understand your unfounded, unceasing and obsessive attack on the pilots. Your posts are at odds with everything I have read from global aviation experts whose views I respect. This is my last post on this thread.

Please read what I wrote

If you re-read what I wrote in my last post you will see I was being critical of the airlines, not the pilots.

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

amiga500

1484 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 422
Inactive user

#2220319 18-Apr-2019 08:22

There is a new Youtube video with over 4 million views in 3 days...

'The real reason Boeing's new plane crashed twice'

Worth a watch if you are new to this issue. It's going to be like the Comet problem, totally fixed, but no-one will trust the plane for years and years.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#2220326 18-Apr-2019 08:42

amiga500:

There is a new Youtube video with over 4 million views in 3 days...

'The real reason Boeing's new plane crashed twice'

Worth a watch if you are new to this issue. It's going to be like the Comet problem, totally fixed, but no-one will trust the plane for years and years.

I don't see how you can make the claim that "nobody would trust the plane".

Knowing the real cause of the accident now I'd quite happily fly on a 737 MAX tomorrow IF it was on an airline that has properly trained it's pilots. I'd never fly on some of the MAX operators regardless of the aircraft type they had.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

amiga500

1484 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 422
Inactive user

#2220334 18-Apr-2019 08:57

sbiddle:

amiga500:

There is a new Youtube video with over 4 million views in 3 days...

'The real reason Boeing's new plane crashed twice'

Worth a watch if you are new to this issue. It's going to be like the Comet problem, totally fixed, but no-one will trust the plane for years and years.

I don't see how you can make the claim that "nobody would trust the plane".

Knowing the real cause of the accident now I'd quite happily fly on a 737 MAX tomorrow IF it was on an airline that has properly trained it's pilots. I'd never fly on some of the MAX operators regardless of the aircraft type they had.

O.K. maybe I should have said many instead of no-one. Right now it's a huge issue on Youtube, and for its aviation geeks.

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#2220370 18-Apr-2019 09:06

amiga500:

There is a new Youtube video with over 4 million views in 3 days...

'The real reason Boeing's new plane crashed twice'

Worth a watch if you are new to this issue. It's going to be like the Comet problem, totally fixed, but no-one will trust the plane for years and years.

Keep up with the play. 😊 There was a link to this video on the previous page.

That video doesn't cover the real reason those aircraft crashed.

I too would happily fly on a 737 Max with properly trained crew.

Southwest were the launch customer for the Max and currently operate 34 of them and have had no crashes.

Southwest is the largest low cost airline in the world, 8 accidents since 1967 with only three fatalities.

The Wikipedia list of Lion Air crashes makes interesting reading. 12 since 2002.

Ethiopian Airlines have had 61 crashes since 1965, 494 deaths.

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

amiga500

1484 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 422
Inactive user

#2220388 18-Apr-2019 09:24

Technofreak:

amiga500:

There is a new Youtube video with over 4 million views in 3 days...

'The real reason Boeing's new plane crashed twice'

Worth a watch if you are new to this issue. It's going to be like the Comet problem, totally fixed, but no-one will trust the plane for years and years.

Keep up with the play. 😊 There was a link to this video on the previous page.

That video doesn't cover the real reason those aircraft crashed.

I too would happily fly on a 737 Max with properly trained crew.

Southwest were the launch customer for the Max and currently operate 34 of them and have had no crashes.

Southwest is the largest low cost airline in the world, 8 accidents since 1967 with only three fatalities.

The Wikipedia list of Lion Air crashes makes interesting reading. 12 since 2002.

Ethiopian Airlines have had 61 crashes since 1965, 494 deaths.

Oops missed that link! To be honest I am ready to stop following this so closely until I hear the airlines are flying the planes again. As I don't fly frequently myself I can easily avoid the problem by flying on older B737s and various Airbus offerings!

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#2220535 18-Apr-2019 12:30

amiga500:

Oops missed that link! To be honest I am ready to stop following this so closely until I hear the airlines are flying the planes again. As I don't fly frequently myself I can easily avoid the problem by flying on older B737s and various Airbus offerings!

Your logic in making statements like;

It's going to be like the Comet problem, totally fixed, but no-one will trust the plane for years and years.

and

As I don't fly frequently myself I can easily avoid the problem by flying on older B737s and various Airbus offerings!

doesn't add up to me.

From some of your posts elsewhere it seem you are quite happy to fly on the ATR 72. If you care to do some research you will find that due to the design it had a bad habit of killing the occupants when it was operated in certain icing conditions . ATR largely addressed the issue and while airframe icing can still be an issue, the ATR 72 has gone on the be a hugely successful aircraft.

Base on your comments you shouldn't be flying in the ATR 72 either.

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

amiga500

1484 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 422
Inactive user

#2220637 18-Apr-2019 14:28

Technofreak:

amiga500:

Oops missed that link! To be honest I am ready to stop following this so closely until I hear the airlines are flying the planes again. As I don't fly frequently myself I can easily avoid the problem by flying on older B737s and various Airbus offerings!

Your logic in making statements like;

It's going to be like the Comet problem, totally fixed, but no-one will trust the plane for years and years.
and

As I don't fly frequently myself I can easily avoid the problem by flying on older B737s and various Airbus offerings!

doesn't add up to me.

From some of your posts elsewhere it seem you are quite happy to fly on the ATR 72. If you care to do some research you will find that due to the design it had a bad habit of killing the occupants when it was operated in certain icing conditions . ATR largely addressed the issue and while airframe icing can still be an issue, the ATR 72 has gone on the be a hugely successful aircraft.

Base on your comments you shouldn't be flying in the ATR 72 either.

The main reason Boeing will keep its Max orders is a lack of competition quite different to the aviation manufacturing scene in the 1950's. I am quite happy to fly on the ATR 72-600,however I am very happy if it's during the summer months when flying to Queenstown.

At a basic level the Max is unstable with the engines positioned where they are. Every other generation of 737 has them close to the ground - this is not an accidental design.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

amiga500

1484 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 422
Inactive user

#2220764 18-Apr-2019 17:39

I am leaving this topic alone from now on. I may come back to it once the software fix is finalised and the airlines start flights with passengers on the 737 MAX.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#2220899 19-Apr-2019 07:31

amiga500:

Oops missed that link! To be honest I am ready to stop following this so closely until I hear the airlines are flying the planes again. As I don't fly frequently myself I can easily avoid the problem by flying on older B737s and various Airbus offerings!

Is that the same Airbus that produced the A321 that had an uncommanded 45 degree roll rotating at JFK that resulted in significant wing damage when it smashed into the distance markers and ground next to the runway and somehow miraculously avoided a disaster? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/american-airlines-flight-300-jfk-close-call-appears-worse-than-first-reported/

Airbus have a history of planes performing uncommanded movements. To me that's a lot scarier than a 737 MAX doing exactly what it should be doing, and pilots failing to fly it correctly.

jarledb

Webhead
3319 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1983

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2221347 20-Apr-2019 02:03

sbiddle:

To me that's a lot scarier than a 737 MAX doing exactly what it should be doing, and pilots failing to fly it correctly.

I am reasonably sure that having to write special software to avoid a plane stalling out because you moved the engines doesn't really warrant "doing exactly what it should be doing".

Writing that software without any limits on how much it can push the planes nose down and just using one sensor seems pretty irresponsible.

I would be very surprised if Boeing doesn't end up having to pay a huge amount in damages because of the two crashes. Not to mention the cost they are incurring at the moment from airlines that have 737 Max planes grounded.

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.

Sidestep

1019 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 567

Lifetime subscriber

#2221348 20-Apr-2019 05:41

jarledb:
I am reasonably sure that having to write special software to avoid a plane stalling out because you moved the engines doesn't really warrant "doing exactly what it should be doing".

The software wasn't written to avoid an aerodynamic stall.
It was written to meet a requirement that the 'feel' of the controls remained within certain parameters over the range of the aircraft's angle of attack.

jarledb:
Writing that software without any limits on how much it can push the planes nose down and just using one sensor seems pretty irresponsible.

Agree

jarledb:
I would be very surprised if Boeing doesn't end up having to pay a huge amount in damages because of the two crashes. Not to mention the cost they are incurring at the moment from airlines that have 737 Max planes grounded.

Yes - Everyone's trying to quantify what those costs are going to be. No doubt they'll be huge.
Even Boeing shareholders have joined in with class action suits.

Edit: They're having a run of bad luck with the recent total loss of one of their satellites as well..

1 | ... | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | ... | 32