Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.




7580 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3995


Topic # 242470 29-Oct-2018 16:22
Send private message quote this post

A new 737 Max 8 with 188 people on board - it doesn't look hopeful.

 

Flightaware data shows it flying erratically - not gaining altitude for the last few minutes, and as if it wasn't under control, before descending rapidly and all contact was lost.

 

This was more or less a brand new plane.  Edit to say that there's an unsubstantiated claim that the pilot reported a technical issue, and requested to return.  There's no sign of it actually turning before contact was lost.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
 1 | 2 | 3
5572 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 251

Trusted
Geekzone
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2116374 29-Oct-2018 16:22
Send private message quote this post

Allow me to introduce you folks to our new travel community: TravelTalk NZ.

 

We hope to see you there!

 





I am the Geekzone Robot and I am here to help. I am from the Internet. I do not interact. Do not expect other replies from me.





7580 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3995


  Reply # 2126879 14-Nov-2018 22:30
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post
 
 
 
 


1695 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 190

Subscriber

  Reply # 2126903 15-Nov-2018 06:29
Send private message quote this post

In my previous long time following of "flight crash investigation" on SKY........

 

 

 

I always saw many a incident that involved air speed sensors.....

 

 

 

All Im saying is... if you wanna play with em then you better be sure about it and if one fails then replace it quick....  (seen too many episodes where they didnt). 


13786 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2501

Trusted

  Reply # 2126905 15-Nov-2018 06:34
Send private message quote this post

That is a shocker. So much wrong there. They released this a week after, in a standard bulletin, clearly not coincidence. Its one thing for a new aircraft to have an unknown design issue, but another to change the design, and then say you dont need any extra training.


I fix stuff!
1711 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 381

Trusted
Vocus
Subscriber

  Reply # 2126952 15-Nov-2018 08:56
Send private message quote this post

Goosey:

 

I always saw many a incident that involved air speed sensors.....

 

 

This one seems quite different, as it wasn't in any of the material given to the Airlines for training. Its unique to the MAX model due to its bigger engine sizes which results in a much faster stall speed.


13786 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2501

Trusted

  Reply # 2126958 15-Nov-2018 09:07
Send private message quote this post

Sounddude:

 

Goosey:

 

I always saw many a incident that involved air speed sensors.....

 

 

This one seems quite different, as it wasn't in any of the material given to the Airlines for training. Its unique to the MAX model due to its bigger engine sizes which results in a much faster stall speed.

 

 

AND, no extra training if you already know the 737. For a pilot, the MAX is just a 737, except it wasnt as now found


17 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 4


  Reply # 2127282 15-Nov-2018 16:26
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

Hate it how it says “We are confident in the safety of the 737 MAX.”

 

189 dead people and their families think otherwiseundecided

 

 

 

And "the company had decided against disclosing more details to cockpit crews due to concerns about inundating average pilots with too much information—and significantly more technical data—than they needed or could digest."

 

Passengers put their lives in those "average" pilots hands every day. Boeing denied crew the tools / information to get themselves out of a deadly situation. 

 

This isn't some app that you get to fix after the release when you find out about problems. It seems they were more interested in selling the MAX as 'nothings changed' no extra training. 

 

 

 

 




7580 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3995


  Reply # 2127808 16-Nov-2018 10:15
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

I expect that there'd be more from the investigation than "Boeing goofed".

 

The flight data recorder apparently confirms that there'd been a problem with that sensor/system on previous flights.  The issue was supposedly fixed (but apparently wasn't?).  If there were issues with pilots gaining manual control yet they managed to get the plane back on the ground okay, how did they manage that? What actions were taken etc?  Flightradar show data for the previous flight by the plane, the first 11 minutes of data look similar the doomed flight, except they managed to maintain control.  From Flightradar:

 

 

I guess there are lots of unanswered questions, about pilot training, maintenance, procedures etc.  It doesn't give me a lot of confidence in Lion Air, regardless of the issue with Boeing.


27248 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6683

Moderator
Trusted
Biddle Corp
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2127835 16-Nov-2018 11:13
Send private message quote this post

There are two very distinct issues here.

 

Boeing have changed the way the stall protection works on the MAX and there appears to have been a fault with the pitot tubes and sensors on the aircraft that may have been providing incorrect data.

 

It would seem based on what we know so far that as a result of incorrect data the plane has entered a dive to prevent a stall and the pilots have potentially not taken the appropriate action which would have prevented the crash.

 

What is very clear from past incidents in that part of the world is that the pilots are not up to the same standard of training that many Western airlines would have. It doesn't take a lot of skill to get a plane from A to B these days, but that doesn't mean you really know how to fly the plane or deal with an emergency.

 

 

 

 


18685 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5349

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2127845 16-Nov-2018 11:19
Send private message quote this post

This is really scary. Most traditional thinking is that planes don't just "fall out of the sky" but in this instance and in theory, others, it quite possibly could.

 

I am a nervous flyer despite having taken hundreds of flights over my 40 years. I have only really had one "close" call, but even then it wasn't THAT close.

 

I am the guy white knuckling it, every time the plane makes an unexpected speed increase, decrease, sharp adjustment or unexpected sound. NC headphones have helped a fair bit, but I am still "hyper vigilant". 

 

Last night flying back from Wellington, we had one of the fastest descents I've experienced, it literally felt we were doing a million miles an hour and sounded like it too. 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't fully understand what happened, was it a speed sensor failure? Aren't there like 6 of them on modern planes for redundancy? Did they all report the wrong thing?

 

It's scary. What's even as scary is the way Boeing announced the "issue" in a bulletin. Seems like it should have been one of those emergency notifications.

 

 


4156 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 758

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 2127846 16-Nov-2018 11:19
Send private message quote this post

On Airbus aircraft inconsistent pitot, static port and AOA readings usually engage direct or alternate law, which effectively disengages the flight envelope protection.

 

I would have thought that Boeing would have implemented something similar?


18685 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5349

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2127852 16-Nov-2018 11:22
Send private message quote this post

alasta:

 

On Airbus aircraft inconsistent pitot, static port and AOA readings usually engage direct or alternate law, which effectively disengages the flight envelope protection.

 

I would have thought that Boeing would have implemented something similar?

 

 

I have no idea what you just wrote :)

 

Disengaging the anything protection doesn't sound like a good idea :)

 

 


81 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 41


  Reply # 2127859 16-Nov-2018 11:28
Send private message quote this post

sbiddle:

It would seem based on what we know so far that as a result of incorrect data the plane has entered a dive to prevent a stall and the pilots have potentially not taken the appropriate action which would have prevented the crash.




From what I’ve read so far is that the appropriate action to prevent the crash is in the manuals the pilots have access to (buried in a book no less than 5,500 pages long), however the situation the crew found themselves in and what they had to do to stop it were not immediately obvious.

What they tried to do, and what every pilot in the world has been trained to do in this situation has made the problem worse.

There are more questions to ask, and more answers to be uncovered as I believe from what I’ve read, we don’t know everything yet about this.

2744 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 371

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2127860 16-Nov-2018 11:29
Send private message quote this post

alasta:

 

On Airbus aircraft inconsistent pitot, static port and AOA readings usually engage direct or alternate law, which effectively disengages the flight envelope protection.

 

I would have thought that Boeing would have implemented something similar?

 

 

Not in all cases.





My views (except when I am looking out their windows) are not those of my employer.

18685 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5349

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2127861 16-Nov-2018 11:33
Send private message quote this post

I'm certainly no expert, pilot and so my comments are made from a laypersons perspective, however, if the plane went into a dive, surely "pull up, pull up" would have been screaming at them from the cockpit computer.

 

The simulation I saw (that admittedly I don't know if accurate" was that the plane went into the ocean nose first at a VERY steep angle. Maybe there just wasn't the height to bring it out of the dive or something. 

 

I would imagine, that if the plane dives, it builds up speed, which if you can get the plane to somewhat of an angle, gets wind under the wings to provide lift.

 

It's obviously, much more complicated than that, I am just struggling to understand how a plane hits the ocean nose first like that (if the simulation was accurate).

 

 


 1 | 2 | 3
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.