Some nations ground 737 Max 8 planes after second catastrophic crash in five months (2 Viewers)

[MLU]

Again, not I'm an expert and I don't intend to present myself as one. I do have unique access in the aviation industry and to people that understand this from a professional level. I have now and in the past participated in TSA and FAA programs that collect, disseminate and act on safety and accident reporting, so I understand the processes and have received formal training to do so. The company for which I currently am employed does not operate any Boeing aircraft. I have no issues admitting when I am wrong, so if evidence is produced that shows the failure, then I will happily accept the aircraft was at fault. Unlike fleets of the B787, Concorde, DC10, that were grounded to known issues, I have yet haven't see the issue with the B73M.

 

[superchuck500]

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?

They might be doing multiple things but the “software update” was part of the plan as of last Monday or Tuesday.

Boeing 737 MAX software patch expected before end-March: sources

Boeing Co <BA.N> plans to release upgraded software for its 737 MAX in a week to 10 days, sources familiar with the matter said.

www.reuters.com

 

[MLU]

They might be doing multiple things but the “software update” was part of the plan as of last Monday or Tuesday.

Boeing 737 MAX software patch expected before end-March: sources

Boeing Co <BA.N> plans to release upgraded software for its 737 MAX in a week to 10 days, sources familiar with the matter said.

www.reuters.com

The software update has been the plan since the Lion Air crash and before the Ethiopian Air crash. Immediately after the Lion Air crash, Boeing issues a "Operations Manual Bulletin (OMB) directing operators to existing flight crew procedures to address circumstances where there is erroneous input from an AOA sensor". The next day the FAA follows suit with an emergency directive to revise flight manuals in order to reinforce for pilots how to recognize and respond to the software. Shortly after this, US pilots start filing ASRP reports complaining about the lack of training for the MCAS system. Boeing gets w/ ALPA and has pilots from United, Southwest and American up to the facility to address concerns. My understanding is that the changes in the software don't actually change anything for the aircraft and how it flies, but rather provides different (better?) notifications that do a better job of prompting/directing the pilots to act and how to act. This is in response to the apparent deficiencies in pilot training. The FAA actually brought people back to work during the governmet shutdown two weeks before it was over to work the update. My understanding now is that update has been done and is in the testing phase. I'm willing to bet that barring any software bugs or impact to other systems, the "fix" gets released before April. I have read that since 2017, there have been 40,000 U.S. flights in the B73M and they have not found any incidents of the software being activated. Lion Air received the very first B73M I believe (not sure if that was mentioned yet). This is the third time the B737 has been re-worked like this.

That software release will probably be "spun" as the "fix". As soon as it has been implemented the aircraft will be allowed to fly. I hope that the airlines who parked their aircraft use the time between now and the day the fix is released to put their pilots through a week or sim training that emphasizes the concerns.

Surprisingly enough, it seems the FAA was content to not require additional training on the MCAS. Typically when Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier, etc roll out a new variant of a current model the airline goes through a "differences training". This typically amounts to "Hey, this new aircraft has a wingspan that's 6 feet wider, center of gravity has shifted and requires new software, worksheets,etc." It's much, much more in depth than that, but you get the idea. The criticism has been that not enough emphasis was directed by the FAA, EU, Boeing on the MCAS system, which I assume has inspired this round of attention to that particular system. Interestingly, the ANAC (FAA-equivalent in Brazil) did require additional training on the MCAS system.

 

[MLU]

From a pilot who flies the aircraft:

An airline pilot with 737 MAX-8 flying experience who wished to remain anonymous explained to AOPA that the new augmentation system affected the stabilizer trim but noted several ways to defeat it. “It doesn’t move any primary controls,” and MCAS doesn’t function when the autopilot is active. “When the autopilot is on, it isn’t even a player,” the pilot added. Switching off the electric trim overrides the system and cut-off switches are located on the center pedestal “near the red fire cutoffs between the pilot and first officer and both of them” can access the switches. The pilot also noted MCAS doesn’t work if flaps are extended in the aircraft’s normal takeoff configuration.

A system malfunction “should appear to a pilot the same way a runaway trim wheel appears,” the pilot continued. “The result is that we have a runaway trim checklist—and a procedure” to work around it. You turn off the electric trim and go to a manual reversion. It’s something we train for. It is true that Boeing didn’t tell anyone about it [MCAS]—so that is problematic.”

He noted that the control yokes on models with the new technology have a lighter feel than on previous 737 models and can be touchy at high angles of attack. “The idea of the new system is, if it trims a little down, you’ll pull the same [force] as in the old airplanes.” In previous versions of the 737, “When you pull five pounds of force on the yoke, you get five degrees of pitch change, and when you pull 10 pounds, you get 10 degrees” of pitch change.

However, “On the MAX, it only takes about a 10-pound pull to get 15 degrees of pitch” because the aircraft responds quicker to input. “The trim system dials in about 2.5 degrees of nose-down trim in a little less than 10 seconds,” he added. “On the ground it feels different on the nose and the sight picture is a little different” from previous 737 models. “It’s [enough to be] noticeable,” the pilot said.

In the air, the 737 MAX “flew just like a Boeing. I like to hand-fly it myself and they did a pretty good job of the control input and on response. It didn’t feel much different” than other 737s.

and further into the article...

“In order to compensate for what the engineers perceived to be an issue with respect to pitch, they added this MCAS system that operates when the autopilot is off and the angle of attack exceeds certain limitations and when the airplane is banked pretty steeply.” He said the technology runs the stabilizer pitch down for several seconds and it “reassesses and will start again until it believes the airplane has reached a safe angle of attack, and it operates without the pilots knowing [about it].”

Tecce noted that in the case of the Lion Air Boeing 737 MAX crash, “now the airplane is pitching down and actually moving the control wheel will not stop that system. If the pilot uses the trim system on the yoke, the [MCAS] system will stop" but "if the airplane isn’t in the proper attitude it will reactivate,” Tecce said, further forcing the aircraft downward if pilots fail to recognize the situation and take proper corrective action.

A pilot familiar with the system pointed out that recognizing this scenario was crucial to determine if there was a problem that warranted activating the trim cutoff switches. Additionally, if the autopilot is engaged, activating a yoke trim switch disconnects the autopilot and gives full control back to the pilot immediately.

Tecce did not fault the FAA for taking a wait-and-see approach. “A lot of people throwing a lot of rocks at the FAA. Since 2010 we’ve had one aviation fatality” in the United States. “Our safety record is astonishing,” he said. “I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the airplane. If you talk to the pilots who fly them, they’ll tell you it’s not the airplane so much as whether or not the manual properly describes what’s going on.”

It's important to understand that the MCAS is getting attention not because it failed, but because Boeing implemented it, didn't provide details to the extent that was satisfactory to working pilots in the manuals and they complained about it via ASRS.

 

[MLU]

 

[DCSaints_Fan]

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.

The 737 MAX design is inherently aerodynamically unstable. Of course for something like a military fighter or experimental plane, this is expected, and you have fly by wire systems. But for a commercial that carrying thousands of passengers a day?

 

[MLU]

The 737 MAX design is inherently aerodynamically unstable. Of course for something like a military fighter or experimental plane, this is expected, and you have fly by wire systems. But for a commercial that carrying thousands of passengers a day?

Correct. That's why they added the MCAS system to electronically correct for the aircraft's handling deficiencies. The idea is to make it "feel" the same as the rest of the B737s so that with the MCAS system a blindfolded pilot can't tell what aircraft they're flying.

I read this morning that Boeing sells a package that includes an extra AoA vane, AoA disagree light. Neither of the B73Ms that crashed were delivered with this option. This was an unofficial source. If the pilots had correctly and quickly identified the problem and run the stab trim runaway checklist they would not have crashed. This was probably more difficult to recognize and diagnose without the extra AoA vane, AoA disagree light.

 

[Merl]

The 737 MAX design is inherently aerodynamically unstable. Of course for something like a military fighter or experimental plane, this is expected, and you have fly by wire systems. But for a commercial that carrying thousands of passengers a day?

Most modern commercial and military aircraft are inherently unstable.

 

[Bill]

Stories are leaking out about the information that was heard on the cockpit voice recorder. The anonymous report says the pilot struggled with excessive airspeed (far too high) and erratic pitch control as he was requesting a return to the airport. The report was that there was great fear in his voice. I can only imagine the emotional stress he was under. I just wish he had known what to do to override that system. Such an avoidable tragedy. ?

 

[bclemms]

How Did the F.A.A. Allow the Boeing 737 Max to Fly?

Boeing has delivered three hundred and seventy-six of these planes to airlines around the world. Since the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crash, most of them have been grounded.

www.google.com

So if I am reading this correctly, the pilot can briefly turn the system off but it quickly turns itself back on. This system also only has a single sensor for data and if it fails these crashes happen. Then Boeing failed to disclose quite a bit about the system. The FAA outsourced the certification of the system to Boeing. Attorneys will have a field day with this one. Maybe the FAA should worry less about drones and more about commercial airliners falling out the sky.

 

[Dago]

How Did the F.A.A. Allow the Boeing 737 Max to Fly?

Boeing has delivered three hundred and seventy-six of these planes to airlines around the world. Since the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crash, most of them have been grounded.

www.google.com

So if I am reading this correctly, the pilot can briefly turn the system off but it quickly turns itself back on. This system also only has a single sensor for data and if it fails these crashes happen. Then Boeing failed to disclose quite a bit about the system. The FAA outsourced the certification of the system to Boeing. Attorneys will have a field day with this one. Maybe the FAA should worry less about drones and more about commercial airliners falling out the sky.

the same way the FDA allowed big pharma to get around laws when it comes to narcotic pain relievers

politicians got paid

 

[bclemms]

the same way the FDA allowed big pharma to get around laws when it comes to narcotic pain relievers

politicians got paid

Yep, it's what happens when you allow superpacs, corporate donations to campaigns and lobbying.

 

[superchuck500]

Yep, it's what happens when you allow superpacs, corporate donations to campaigns and lobbying.

And this goes back to the whole capitalism / crony capitalism point. There's a growing political viewpoint that capitalism is what has wrought these ills upon us - but there is nothing about capitalism that says that corporations have to be favored in a way that isn't fair and objective. There is nothing about capitalism that says that wealth has to be concentrated among the top sliver of society. Most of these ills are a bastageization of capitalism, a crony-capitalism where objective, fair treatment is sold out to donors and special interests, and where wealth buys favor that results in more concentrated wealth . . . and it becomes a cycle that is vicious if you're not a beneficiary of it.

The counterpoint, I suppose, is that well if that's true, don't the capitalists bear the brunt of responsibility - they failed to keep their structure genuine. They sold it out and now to claim that it's not capitalism's fault is disingenuous? It's fascinating to me that these discussions are happening (again - they pop up every few decades or so), but they are. There is a very serious condemnation of facets of capitalism that is gaining traction - and just dismissing it as crazy isn't helpful IMO.

 

[bclemms]

And this goes back to the whole capitalism / crony capitalism point. There's a growing political viewpoint that capitalism is what has wrought these ills upon us - but there is nothing about capitalism that says that corporations have to be favored in a way that isn't fair and objective. There is nothing about capitalism that says that wealth has to be concentrated among the top sliver of society. Most of these ills are a bastageization of capitalism, a crony-capitalism where objective, fair treatment is sold out to donors and special interests, and where wealth buys favor that results in more concentrated wealth . . . and it becomes a cycle that is vicious if you're not a beneficiary of it.

The counterpoint, I suppose, is that well if that's true, don't the capitalists bear the brunt of responsibility - they failed to keep their structure genuine. They sold it out and now to claim that it's not capitalism's fault is disingenuous? It's fascinating to me that these discussions are happening (again - they pop up every few decades or so), but they are. There is a very serious condemnation of facets of capitalism that is gaining traction - and just dismissing it as crazy isn't helpful IMO.

I couldnt agree more. Problems from capitalism are real but it is more in the form of monopolies, price fixing (which the airlines have lobbied to keep their price fixing scheme in place) and stuff like that.

The Capitalism we have today is some screwed up fusion of legal cat and mouse sex between business, government and politicians.

We continue to vote for people knowing they are crooked because we've been baited and brainwashed into doing so. Make stupid choices, get stupid consequences.

 

[MLU]

How Did the F.A.A. Allow the Boeing 737 Max to Fly?

Boeing has delivered three hundred and seventy-six of these planes to airlines around the world. Since the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crash, most of them have been grounded.

www.google.com

So if I am reading this correctly, the pilot can briefly turn the system off but it quickly turns itself back on. This system also only has a single sensor for data and if it fails these crashes happen. Then Boeing failed to disclose quite a bit about the system. The FAA outsourced the certification of the system to Boeing. Attorneys will have a field day with this one. Maybe the FAA should worry less about drones and more about commercial airliners falling out the sky.

It can reset, but it doesn't default to resetting is my understanding. Also, the B73M has two AOA sensors, not one. I'm am not aware of any system on a commercial aircraft that flies without a backup system, sensor, battery, etc in place.

As for Boeing certifying aircraft for the FAA, that's at least a decade-long practice and it's not limited to Boeing. Two engineers independently verify systems checks and both sign their names to it, exposing them to personal liability if something goes wrong. One of the two engineers "represents the FAA". It is a massive undertaking that lasts for months. I would personally like to see it disappear, but that' snot going to happen when the people running the government resist the idea of hiring more federal employees. The FAA has been short-handed (and growing more short-handed every year) for over two decades of government trimming. For the most part, this process has worked. No one wants to talk about the 1 time it doesn't though.