Another (2nd) 737 Max 8 crash

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

1 | ... | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | ... | 32

4056 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2653

Trusted

#2221414 20-Apr-2019 10:55

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 said earlier I was bowing out of this discussion, but you remind of Trump trumpeting "no collusion, no obstruction", whereas the facts plainly state the opposite.

The official review concluded that the pilots of the Ethiopian flight correctly followed Boeing emergency procedures.

I'll trust the official findings over a member of the public independently dreaming up their own theories as to the crash cause.

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#2221416 20-Apr-2019 11:09

dafman:

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 said earlier I was bowing out of this discussion, but you remind of Trump trumpeting "no collusion, no obstruction", whereas the facts plainly state the opposite.

The official review concluded that the pilots of the Ethiopian flight correctly followed Boeing emergency procedures.

I'll trust the official findings over a member of the public independently dreaming up their own theories as to the crash cause.

The official report isn't out yet. I cannot see how you can continue to say you trust the official findings.

Despite the CEO of Ethiopian Airlines saying the crew correctly followed the Boeing procedures there is ample evidence to show they didn't follow the procedures correctly.

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

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#2221420 20-Apr-2019 11:30

Several posters seem to think these accidents are all Boeing's fault.

While there is no doubt Boeing have some responsibility there are some posters who refuse to acknowledge the airlines and crew involved had a significant and a fatal impact on the outcome of these two accidents. These accidents should have only been an incident with no loss of life.

As well as NOT following the correct procedures for the MCAS fault the Ethiopian crew also didn't follow the correct procedure for the sticker shaker/airspeed miscompare fault which was also triggered by the faulty AoA sensor. This resulted in the aircraft overspeed which made it impossible to re trim the aircraft.

There are other question marks about some of their other actions.

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

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#2221423 20-Apr-2019 11:45

dafman:

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 said earlier I was bowing out of this discussion, but you remind of Trump trumpeting "no collusion, no obstruction", whereas the facts plainly state the opposite.

The official review concluded that the pilots of the Ethiopian flight correctly followed Boeing emergency procedures.

I'll trust the official findings over a member of the public independently dreaming up their own theories as to the crash cause.

The official report is not out, merely a summary of it. That summary very clearly shows the pilots failed at the aviate part of "aviate, navigate, communicate".

They flew a plane significantly overspeed and made no attempts to resolve that issue. That is not a case of following emergency procedures to the tee, and is certainly not a case of following Boeing MCAS procedures by reenabling MCAS after failing to regain control.

dafman

4056 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2653

Trusted

#2221425 20-Apr-2019 12:03

sbiddle:

dafman:

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 said earlier I was bowing out of this discussion, but you remind of Trump trumpeting "no collusion, no obstruction", whereas the facts plainly state the opposite.

The official review concluded that the pilots of the Ethiopian flight correctly followed Boeing emergency procedures.

I'll trust the official findings over a member of the public independently dreaming up their own theories as to the crash cause.

The official report is not out, merely a summary of it. That summary very clearly shows the pilots failed at the aviate part of "aviate, navigate, communicate".

They flew a plane significantly overspeed and made no attempts to resolve that issue. That is not a case of following emergency procedures to the tee, and is certainly not a case of following Boeing MCAS procedures by reenabling MCAS after failing to regain control.

Ok, I'll bow out now until the formal report is published. Nothing I have read from numerous credible news agencies aligns with what you and Technofreak assert. The media is clear that initial findings are that the pilots correctly followed Boeing's procedures; the clear implication for fault sitting firmly with Boeing.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#2221432 20-Apr-2019 12:22

dafman:

Ok, I'll bow out now until the formal report is published. Nothing I have read from numerous credible news agencies aligns with what you and Technofreak assert. The media is clear that initial findings are that the pilots correctly followed Boeing's procedures; the clear implication for fault sitting firmly with Boeing.

The same "credible news agencies" that keep referring to MCAS as anti stall software? Which it isn't.

I'll just leave this here from what I deem to be a credible aviation news outlet, and something written by an actual MAX pilot https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/opinion-et302-interim-report-raises-more-questions-457369/

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#2221577 20-Apr-2019 22:19

dafman:

Ok, I'll bow out now until the formal report is published. Nothing I have read from numerous credible news agencies aligns with what you and Technofreak assert. The media is clear that initial findings are that the pilots correctly followed Boeing's procedures; the clear implication for fault sitting firmly with Boeing.

Perhaps you've never seen a news item about an event you knew the intimate details to. Very often that news items bears no resemblance to the event.

The news media (including some who proclaim to have aviation experts on the team) have not covered this very well. e.g. calling the MCAS an anti stall system. They haven't bothered to look at other underlying causes either.

So far as the preliminary report goes, yes it does say that the pilots initially followed the Boeing Instructions by turning the electric trim off. But what is also in that report is the fact that at some later time the trim must have been turned back on as the MCAS system was able to drive the trim in the final stages of the flight. The Boeing Instructions say that once the trim is switched off it should be left off.

The news media have only reported the bit about the pilots initial actions and conveniently leave out the bit where the crew turned the system back on contrary to Boeing's instructions.

My posts are based on my own experience (which I admit isn't in the 737) and what I have read on various aviation sites where this issue has been discussed.

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

DuncanMcC

180 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 14

#2221606 21-Apr-2019 09:43

Technofreak:

dafman:

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 said earlier I was bowing out of this discussion, but you remind of Trump trumpeting "no collusion, no obstruction", whereas the facts plainly state the opposite.

The official review concluded that the pilots of the Ethiopian flight correctly followed Boeing emergency procedures.

I'll trust the official findings over a member of the public independently dreaming up their own theories as to the crash cause.

The official report isn't out yet. I cannot see how you can continue to say you trust the official findings.

Despite the CEO of Ethiopian Airlines saying the crew correctly followed the Boeing procedures there is ample evidence to show they didn't follow the procedures correctly.

Yes it's pretty hard to agree with that (the preliminary report)...

They re-engaged MCAS!

They didn't do the "fly the plane" thing. That's rule #1. They were flying far too fast, and so made it very hard to manually trim the stabilizer.

They had undoubtably lost situational awareness.

DuncanMcC

180 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 14

#2221608 21-Apr-2019 10:04

This 777 pilot discusses the accident and MCAS system in some detail. I thought it was quite good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgkmJ1U2M_Q&list=PL6SYmp3qb3uPp1DS7fDy7I6y11MIMgnbO

jarledb

Webhead
3319 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1983

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2225573 26-Apr-2019 14:48

This story from The New York Times The Daily podcast "The Whistle-Blowers at Boeing" makes me worried about flying on any new Boeing airplane.

Sounds like the focus on getting out new airplanes have taken presidence over safety at Boeing.

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.

DuncanMcC

180 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 14

#2225575 26-Apr-2019 14:51

Yeah well I think that's just the media being sensationalist.

The aviation industry is years behind the times in terms of technology - as a direct result of how long it takes to approve stuff in order that safety is not compromised.

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

jarledb

Webhead
3319 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1983

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2225578 26-Apr-2019 15:00

DuncanMcC:

Yeah well I think that's just the media being sensationalist.

The aviation industry is years behind the times in terms of technology - as a direct result of how long it takes to approve stuff in order that safety is not compromised.

The NYT podcast episode tells a tale of things like discarded parts (hydraulic tubes is mentioned in the piece) being used to complete planes, and of planes being delivered without being properly cleaned with metal shavings that could get into electronics etc.

DuncanMcC

180 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 14

#2225585 26-Apr-2019 15:04

Yeah I read it a week or two back too.

I think we'd need to see some better info to judge it though. More info on the sources (IIRC, two employees were quoted).

I don't doubt (much :)) the data itself - just don't think it's particularly meaningful without way more depth to it all.

As said, I think it's just the media doing what they do. :)

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2228271 30-Apr-2019 22:43

From a BBC article:

Boeing has also come under pressure over the information available to pilots aboard the aircraft, after one of its major customers, Southwest Airlines, told US media it had not been informed that a warning feature previously offered as standard on the 737 had become a paid-for option on the new model.

The feature was a so-called "AOA Disagree" alert, meant to inform pilots of significant discrepancies between the information provided by two angle-of-attack sensors in the nose of the aircraft. This would provide a warning if one of them was faulty.

FWIW, I listened to someone (expert) on the radio talking about the software fix, commenting that with MCAS, a two AOA sensor system was fundamentally flawed. Reason given was that the AOA sensors are prone to occasional failure, and that the two never give an identical signal. So if one fails, a computer doesn't know which one is sending a rogue signal. The expert claimed that other airliners including from Boeing (which ones?) have 3 AOA sensors, so if one sends a crazy signal to the computer, it's easily identified, signal averaged from the identified "good" two. This makes sense to me, but I've got no expertise whatsoever on the subject.

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#2228727 1-May-2019 13:32

Fred99:

From a BBC article:

Boeing has also come under pressure over the information available to pilots aboard the aircraft, after one of its major customers, Southwest Airlines, told US media it had not been informed that a warning feature previously offered as standard on the 737 had become a paid-for option on the new model.

The feature was a so-called "AOA Disagree" alert, meant to inform pilots of significant discrepancies between the information provided by two angle-of-attack sensors in the nose of the aircraft. This would provide a warning if one of them was faulty.

FWIW, I listened to someone (expert) on the radio talking about the software fix, commenting that with MCAS, a two AOA sensor system was fundamentally flawed. Reason given was that the AOA sensors are prone to occasional failure, and that the two never give an identical signal. So if one fails, a computer doesn't know which one is sending a rogue signal. The expert claimed that other airliners including from Boeing (which ones?) have 3 AOA sensors, so if one sends a crazy signal to the computer, it's easily identified, signal averaged from the identified "good" two. This makes sense to me, but I've got no expertise whatsoever on the subject.

There is more than one part to this discussion before you can say the two sensor system is fundamentally flawed. It might not be state of the art nor best practice by today's standards but to say it is fundamentally flawed, is in my opinion overstating the facts

To have an automatic and failsafe system you need three input sources, i.e. three AoA sensors.

The MCAS piggy backs on an existing system which uses two AoA sensors. This system has a miscompare alert when there is a discrepancy between sensors and the crew become the judge and jury (effectively the third sensor) using other information to decide which system is faulty. The crew are the failsafe component. It is failsafe but isn't automatic and doesn't need three AoA sensors to be safe.

The MCAS is automatic and therefore a two sensor system will not work as the system cannot deal with a situation where one sensor is faulty. However the crew are once again the failsafe component. A failure of the sensor the MCAS is connected to will also give a miscompare alert. The crew use other data to work out which side is faulty and control the aircraft accordingly and if necessary turn off the electric trim to stop the MCAS causing any more problems.

Boeing should have been more upfront about the inclusion of the MCAS, there's no doubt about that. However in my opinion if the crew had used standard procedures for AoA miscompare alerts and electric trim problems they should have been able to handle the MCAS failures.

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 | ... | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | ... | 32