Some nations ground 737 Max 8 planes after second catastrophic crash in five months (1 Viewer)

[MLU]

But that highlights in my mind the need for the airline to provide that training. I just don’t believe that there is anyone out there flying this aircraft, after Lion Air, who didn’t know about the potential problem with MCAS. If nothing else, turn it off.
I saw a story yesterday that said the aircraft was going unusually fast. They said abnormally fast, which suggests that something else was going on.
Could be here say though.

Didn't both of them experience different airspeed reading between the Captain and First Officer instruments?

 

[superchuck500]

But that highlights in my mind the need for the airline to provide that training. I just don’t believe that there is anyone out there flying this aircraft, after Lion Air, who didn’t know about the potential problem with MCAS. If nothing else, turn it off.
I saw a story yesterday that said the aircraft was going unusually fast. They said abnormally fast, which suggests that something else was going on.
Could be here say though.

I think both crashes saw unusual vertical speed. My understanding is that the speed numbers demonstrate that the systems are in conflict (and not being over-taken by the pilots).

 

[superchuck500]

Check out the plot that someone did from the data:

 

[Blackcricket]

I still think it's not necessary to ground the fleet. If airlines are not 100% convinced their pilot group is competent, they should provide training/re-training on the necessary systems. Then, no pilot is allowed to sit up front on a B73M until they have been signed off. Grounding the fleet is a political message and has nothing to do with safety unless there is actually something wrong with the aircraft. If there was, I'd think you have more than two incidents on non-US/EU air carriers who just started flying the model.

Grounding the fleet isn't political. Where is that thought coming from? It's erring on the side of caution. Timeout and get a hold of what's going on.

I think you're over analyzing it a bit too much. The pressure is coming from the fact that hundreds of people died so when we're analyzing the technical aspects you have to take human toll into account.

 

[superchuck500]

I still think it's not necessary to ground the fleet. If airlines are not 100% convinced their pilot group is competent, they should provide training/re-training on the necessary systems. Then, no pilot is allowed to sit up front on a B73M until they have been signed off. Grounding the fleet is a political message and has nothing to do with safety unless there is actually something wrong with the aircraft. If there was, I'd think you have more than two incidents on non-US/EU air carriers who just started flying the model.

Just a point of order, I don't think that a specific problem with the aircraft itself is the sole basis upon which to ground an airplane. If pilots are having issues with it, even if not technically a defect in the airplane, it bears consideration. The FAA said the agency's revised viewpoint by the time Trump made the decision was "data driven" - and it might very well be that they took a look at flight data (perhaps relating to the handful of notifications they got from pilots over the past few months) and determined that the issue was indeed happening.

At some point, it's fair to say "While we have total confidence in the American commercial pilot population to safely handle this issue, we err on the side of caution here and ground the aircraft." We have to also consider the full context: there aren't that many Max aircraft in service in the USA relative to the total aircraft population, and the software fix is anticipated in a few weeks. Had it been the whole 737 fleet with this same kind of issue, they might have chosen to keep them flying.

I think it bears mentioning again, that once there is a known problem, it's no longer purely a case of accident/negligence and becomes something different, something more willful. If you choose to keep flying the plane and there is an incident in the US, you and everyone involved in the decision probably loses their job and the financial exposure becomes massive because it introduces different considerations than those that apply to accidents. Given the small number of airplanes involved, it just seems like the obviously prudent choice. And that means that the alternative, not grounding, is obviously imprudent.

 

[DCSaints_Fan]

I mean, I make it sound much simpler than it is from behind the yoke while you can't understand why the aircraft wants to put you in the ground. However, I am not a trained airman with 5,000+ hours in the cockpit of commercial aircraft either. Three of the four pilots involved in those two accidents had flying time in the thousands of hours. I'm sure that's total time. I don't know the breakdown of type, multi, etc.

I question the wisdom of giving pilots one more thing to worry about on top of everything else they have to deal with. Personally I think any automated flight control system should disengage the moment the pilot engages the controls. Failing that I think there should be a very obvious 'Go Manual' button/switch which bypasses any automation having to deal with flight control.

Suppose a car company came out with a new car that tended to drift to the left. To compensate, they added an auto-steering mechanism which would steer the car to the right if a sensor was reading the car drifting to the left. Of course, there is a non-obvious disable switch for the auto-steering mechanism. But drivers have been accustomed to being able to control the directionof the car through the steering wheel. They are not used to this weird auto-steering mechamism.

Personally I think that's a very bad design and that car should never be sold, unless you're talking about something like a race car or military vehicle, where fundamentally unstable and complicated designs might be acceptable if there is a clear performance benefit.

 

[mt15]

I think us “lay people” are probably oversimplifying the problem and the solution. I am overall reassured after this that we have really great pilots and airport personnel who were able to recognize the problem quickly and resolve it without crashing.

I’m also okay with the decision to ground the planes until we are really sure there isn’t something else going on besides what we have already heard about. It may be more of a public relations move than a necessary thing, but I’m okay with that.

 

[Bill]

I think us “lay people” are probably oversimplifying the problem and the solution. I am overall reassured after this that we have really great pilots and airport personnel who were able to recognize the problem quickly and resolve it without crashing.

I’m also okay with the decision to ground the planes until we are really sure there isn’t something else going on besides what we have already heard about. It may be more of a public relations move than a necessary thing, but I’m okay with that.

This process had to happen in order to satisfy the court of public opinion. Boeing will have the opportunity to reveal how things have been corrected and airplanes updated. And the entire flying world will hear about the new training program for any possible emergency situations involving attitude control.

In this case, big problems require big solutions so that everyone will take notice and trust the design once again.

 

[superchuck500]

This process had to happen in order to satisfy the court of public opinion. Boeing will have the opportunity to reveal how things have been corrected and airplanes updated. And the entire flying world will hear about the new training program for any possible emergency situations involving attitude control.

In this case, big problems require big solutions so that everyone will take notice and trust the design once again.

Yeah that’s probably pretty accurate.

Public confidence is a huge component to commercial aviation. If people don’t trust that they’re going to live the flight, they’re not gonna fly. It isn’t always rational but it’s real. Business thrives on demand and a loss of confidence cuts demand and can pressures regulators.

 

[Bill]

Yeah that’s probably pretty accurate.

Public confidence is a huge component to commercial aviation. If people don’t trust that they’re going to live the flight, they’re not gonna fly. It isn’t always rational but it’s real. Business thrives on demand and a loss of confidence cuts demand and can pressures regulators.

Indeed. I just read an article describing how the airlines have been bombarded with people cancelling their flights. Most people wouldn't know the difference between a 700 series or a Max series airplane, and just the thought of their flight slamming into the ground is enough to cause a lack of trust about the whole industry. Earning back the trust of the anxiety ridden public will be very important to keep the airlines from taking a big hit no matter what airplane models they use. The stock market is already reflecting the 'panic mentality' of the flying public. It's gonna take some serious PR work to get some folks back into the friendly skies.

 

[bclemms]

Indeed. I just read an article describing how the airlines have been bombarded with people cancelling their flights. Most people wouldn't know the difference between a 700 series or a Max series airplane, and just the thought of their flight slamming into the ground is enough to cause a lack of trust about the whole industry. Earning back the trust of the anxiety ridden public will be very important to keep the airlines from taking a big hit no matter what airplane models they use. The stock market is already reflecting the 'panic mentality' of the flying public. It's gonna take some serious PR work to get some folks back into the friendly skies.

In other words, I'll be able to fly cheap over the coming months.

 

[MLU]

I question the wisdom of giving pilots one more thing to worry about on top of everything else they have to deal with.

Everything a pilot does varies by equipment, equipment restrictions, aircraft weight, fuel quantity, weather, flight plans, etc. and the scenarios are drilled into you via flight sim and check rides until it becomes a reaction. If flipping another switch gives a pilot "worry" then they shouldn't be a pilot. I doubt you will find a single commercial pilot who will disagree with me. If it's too much, they just bid Airbus next year.

Personally I think any automated flight control system should disengage the moment the pilot engages the controls. Failing that I think there should be a very obvious 'Go Manual' button/switch which bypasses any automation having to deal with flight control.

I'm sure there are a hundred scenarios that airline pilots can share as to why this is a terrible idea. I will leave designing airplanes to the experts like Boeing and Airbus.

Suppose a car company came out with a new car that tended to drift to the left. To compensate, they added an auto-steering mechanism which would steer the car to the right if a sensor was reading the car drifting to the left. Of course, there is a non-obvious disable switch for the auto-steering mechanism. But drivers have been accustomed to being able to control the direction of the car through the steering wheel. They are not used to this weird auto-steering mechanism. Personally I think that's a very bad design and that car should never be sold, unless you're talking about something like a race car or military vehicle, where fundamentally unstable and complicated designs might be acceptable if there is a clear performance benefit.

Your analogy starts with the idea that something is wrong with the car. No evidence has been produced thus far that suggests something is wrong with the B73M, so the analogy kinda dies there. Grounding an entire aircraft fleet without evidence of an actual technical issue is unprecedented.

 

[MLU]

Grounding the fleet isn't political. Where is that thought coming from?

Of course it's political. Where is the evidence of physical, technical failure of the B73M? A B767 also crashed in Houston right at the same time all of this happened. No one is talking about grounding that fleet and there are about 1,000 more of those flying than the B73M. If it was grounded for an actual issue with the aircraft, it would have been grounded immediately. Sure Boeing takes a stock hit, but you know what causes a bigger stock hit? More crashes. It was grounded only after public pressure increased and even then, it was on a country by country basis.

No one has more to lose than Boeing, US air carriers and the FAA by flying an unsafe aircraft.

 

[MLU]

Just a point of order, I don't think that a specific problem with the aircraft itself is the sole basis upon which to ground an airplane. If pilots are having issues with it, even if not technically a defect in the airplane, it bears consideration.

We don't park cars because people don't know how to drive. We train the drivers better. Grounding an aircraft fleet because four pilots operating for companies with less than stringent training programs and less than vigilant airspace regulators don't know what they're doing is not cause to ground their operation in the EU, US or Canada. It was done to prevent public panic. It has been well documented that when it comes to commercial aviation, the public doesn't know ****.

At some point, it's fair to say "While we have total confidence in the American commercial pilot population to safely handle this issue, we err on the side of caution here and ground the aircraft." We have to also consider the full context: there aren't that many Max aircraft in service in the USA relative to the total aircraft population, and the software fix is anticipated in a few weeks. Had it been the whole 737 fleet with this same kind of issue, they might have chosen to keep them flying.

Not sure of what software fix you are talking. What Boeing is talking about doing is tweaking the displays and warning indications on the aircraft a bit. The biggest changes will be the computer-based learning software geared towards the MCAS and more details in the flight manual which have nothing to do with the actual aircraft or MCAS system. Again, everything I have read indicates the MCAS system behaved as designed. My curiosity has shifted now towards how they find cause to place these aircraft back in service after not being able to fix a problem that didn't exist?

 

[MLU]

In other words, I'll be able to fly cheap over the coming months.

Probably not. When seating capacity reduces, ticket prices increase.