Post: #51

(03-11-2019 10:45 PM)Spectrumwalker Wrote:  Putting your life in a machine and defying physics. Not to mention for those of us who visit low iq countries and knowing the ground crews are looking after these things. Nothing a couple of in flight whiskeys can't fix.

When it comes to airlines like Ethiopian, Turkish, Qatar, Emirates etc, most of their mechanics and technicians are Westerners or Asians and they receive training from Western schools such as Flight Safety or CAE. Its not Hajji #1 and Hajji #2 from the caves of Jihadistan doing engine maintenance.

Post: #52

(03-12-2019 12:14 PM)Once Was Not Wrote:  What kind of plane needs to constantly be stabilized because the placement of the engines naturally pulls the aircraft up into a stall? But hey, it's super fuel efficient guys! It's not like systems ever fail on an aircraft right? And why would you want it to naturally be aerodynamic and able to glide in the event of a total failure? HAHAHA, how crazy would that be?

Jesus fucking Christ Boeing.

Thanks Obama!

Just kidding, Obama had nothing to do with it - but the way things are going, in the future that sort of situation might become a reality.

Post: #53

(03-12-2019 01:02 AM)Not a Second Hander Wrote:  Chick I know lost her father and brother on that flight. She's on suicide watch.

A Slovakian MP lost his wife and two children on the flight as well. Tragic.

As a family, we never went anywhere in the same car, bus or plane. Pops and mom would split and take 2 kids each people thought it was weird we never even went to church in the same vehicle.

Starting to make sense now.

I knew a family whose father passed away in the USAir 427 crash from Chicago approaching into Pittsburgh in September of 1994. It truly is a small world when it comes to these things. 6 degrees of separation. I'm sure folks on that flight knew people that knew people that know some guys on this forum. And you're basically directly linked to people that were on the Ethiopian flight. What are the odds? But that is reality.

Post: #54

This guy has a pretty good analysis of the situation.

He is a airline/flights geek.

Has some pretty good reviews on his youtube channel.

Post: #55

(03-12-2019 01:01 PM)RIslander Wrote:  When it comes to airlines like Ethiopian, Turkish, Qatar, Emirates etc, most of their mechanics and technicians are Westerners or Asians and they receive training from Western schools such as Flight Safety or CAE. Its not Hajji #1 and Hajji #2 from the caves of Jihadistan doing engine maintenance.

That's interesting. Good to know. How about the south American airlines like Avianca, LatAm, Copa, etc etc?

Post: #56

https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-to-m...1552413489

From what I'm reading, the MCAS is a single-sensor design that relies on one stream of data to decide whether or not the aircraft is in danger of stalling, and Boeing knew this was the suspected issue from Lion Air but hadn't completed the software update to incorporate multiple sensors yet?

Uh...

Good luck in court, guys.

Post: #57

The best place for info on plane crashes

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopi...&t=1417519

Post: #58

(03-12-2019 03:45 PM)Jetset Wrote:  https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-to-m...1552413489

From what I'm reading, the MCAS is a single-sensor design that relies on one stream of data to decide whether or not the aircraft is in danger of stalling, and Boeing knew this was the suspected issue from Lion Air but hadn't completed the software update to incorporate multiple sensors yet?

Uh...

Good luck in court, guys.

Single sensor causing potential catastrophe for the whole plane.
That is a systematic design flaw (hope they can fix it with software update), that can only be mitigated by human intervention which they prevented by not disclosing the necessary information.
According to NYT a big selling point of the new design was, that it doesn't require pilot training for the new model if pilots had old 747 experience.

To not disclose all necessary information and keep the selling point of "no pilot re-training required" was a decision of the business unit + project managers + marketing. Congratulations, you may have killed a few 100 people.

Anecdote: I receive similar requests in all my projects: "Make it better, but don't change too much. Especially this feature can't change, because the customers want to have it that way"
Result: A mediocre compromise that will neither achieve the best performance, nor the highest reliability, nor cost.
In case of an aircraft, one shouldn't compromise on reliability and safety.

This shouldn't apply to an aircraft in general, seems like it does to the new model:
The recent accidents can only be traced back to random failures or "infant mortality". I doubt wear is an issue for brand new planes, and they have regular maintenance schedules to ensure reliability.
Infant mortality occurs if the design is flawed in a severe way, or process and quality control for the assembly is so bad that a certain percentage of assembled products are actually a lot less reliable than the rest. Could also be caused by faulty specification limits.

Post: #59

This is completely fucked up from Boeing. At least in the infamous Air France 447 crash, the confusing stall alarm and subsequent pilot error/crash was initiated by the measuring device freezing during a storm in the middle of the Atlantic. What's the excuse here in clear weather just after the takeoff? It's unbelievable that something so vital can be left without a failsafe or at least additional safety instructions.

Post: #60

(03-12-2019 03:45 PM)Jetset Wrote:  https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-to-m...1552413489

From what I'm reading, the MCAS is a single-sensor design that relies on one stream of data to decide whether or not the aircraft is in danger of stalling, and Boeing knew this was the suspected issue from Lion Air but hadn't completed the software update to incorporate multiple sensors yet?

Uh...

Good luck in court, guys.

Do you think there is a way just to disable the system permanently or remove the sensors and system so that they cannot take over the controls?
Someone before said that there is a way to over-ride the automatic nose-dive but it must be done within a minute and is difficult to disengage.
It sounds like it would be easier just to rip it out than risk more deaths.
I wonder if there are any reported incidents from pilots of Southwestern of pilots encountering the error and being able to manually override the nose-dive.
Perhaps the US airports are designed better and the African airports have a steeper incline during takeoff?
A steeper incline during takeoff would trigger the sensor correct?

Post: #61

(03-12-2019 12:14 PM)Once Was Not Wrote:  What kind of plane needs to constantly be stabilized because the placement of the engines naturally pulls the aircraft up into a stall? But hey, it's super fuel efficient guys! It's not like systems ever fail on an aircraft right? And why would you want it to naturally be aerodynamic and able to glide in the event of a total failure? HAHAHA, how crazy would that be?

Jesus fucking Christ Boeing.

Apply a variation of the Fight Club "If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one" scene.





Strange irony that the scene ends in an imagined air crash. Possibly the good ol' subconscious at play.

Post: #62

(03-12-2019 09:23 PM)jcrew247 Wrote:  Perhaps the US airports are designed better and the African airports have a steeper incline during takeoff?
A steeper incline during takeoff would trigger the sensor correct?

A possible factor is that Addis Ababa is a mile and a half above sea level.

Think about two summers ago when Phoenix airport was shut down because it was so hot, the pilots didn't have lifting tables prepared to determine the necessary airspeed to safely take off when the air was that thin. It's not an insurmountable problem, but my recollection is that it was an insurmountable problem that day because they just didn't have proven numbers, and so couldn't run through their mandatory checklists.

It turns out there's aviation lingo for this: some airports are so-called "hot and high", and ADD and PHX are both listed as well-known examples on Wikipedia. In the old days, when aircraft were heavier, this was enough of a problem that they built special airliners intended for these airports. Boeing even sold a short-lived 727 variant with a rocket booster pack designed for Mexicana, so they could safely take off with a full payload out of Mexico City (roughly the same altitude as Addis Ababa). The rockets would fire if an engine failed past the point-of-no-return, so that the pilot could pick up enough speed to regain control.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_and_high
http://www.tailsthroughtime.com/2010/04/...g-727.html

Now look at this map from the WSJ:



https://www.wsj.com/articles/ethiopian-a...1552207841

The red line is his known path east, out of Addis Ababa. Three minutes. The arrow is the crash site, three minutes later. He's tried to turn, either toward Nairobi or even to circle back to Addis Ababa. From the news stories, I got the impression the flight was very full and heavy.

Speculating here on a layman's understanding of flight, but assuming it was the known sensor issue, it makes sense to me that what would have been manageable - maybe even barely noticed - under sea level conditions, was fatal here because they couldn't afford to lose as much lift. He's struggling from the outset, but it's after he tries to turn, unaware the aircraft is actively fighting his efforts to keep the nose up, that he loses so much energy that he can't recover. That seems like something that could happen quickly enough that by the time you realized something else was going on, it'd be too late.

Post: #63

Thanks for the info Jet.
I suspected it could be an issue with the airport design since no crashes have yet happened in the USA.
I wonder if the pilot could have had more time to correct or disable the trim if he had continued going straight?
Obvisouly he was unaware of the stall-system, and would not have made such a drastic turn back if he knew he would lose time and space to the ground with the turn.
I do wonder why no Southwest pilots have reported problems, or maybe they have and it has been kept hush-hush. Its so scary to think that pilot ignorance of the system can cause such a catastroyphy.

Post: #64

I wonder how instant your death is when the plane hits the ground. I bet the blunt impact would knock you out before the flames burn you. Or maybe everyone is incinerated while conscious. Yikes. If I'm in a plane crash I might unbuckle my seatbelt in hopes of getting knocked out before the flames come.

Post: #65

It's been reported there have been U.S. pilots complaining about the plane.

U.S. pilots complained about Boeing 737 Max 8 months before Ethiopia crash

Quote:Several American pilots submitted complaints about the Boeing 737 Max aircraft months before the same aircraft model crashed in Ethiopia on Sunday, killing 157 people.

The complaints, first reported by the Dallas Morning News, were revealed as the Federal Aviation Administration doubled down on its decision to continue flying the Max 8 and Max 9 in the United States.

At least five complaints about the Max 8 were made in October and November of 2018, and most mention issues with the aircraft model's autopilot and the plane going nose down shortly after takeoff. One pilot wrote that the Max 8's aircraft manual was "criminally insufficient."

Quote:"I think it is unconscionable that a manufacturer, the FAA, and the airlines would have pilots flying an airplane without adequately training, or even providing available resources and sufficient documentation to understand the highly complex systems that differentiate this aircraft from prior models," one pilot wrote about the lack of instructions regarding the aircraft's maneuvering characteristics augmentation system or MCAS.

Quote:"I am left to wonder: what else don't I know? The Flight Manual is inadequate and almost criminally insufficient," the pilot wrote.

In many of the complaints, the pilots noted the aircraft going nose down during takeoff.

One pilot wrote that "within two to three seconds the aircraft pitched nose down" after enabling the autopilot during takeoff. Once the autopilot was disengaged, the captain was able to continue climbing and the remainder of the flight was uneventful.

"We discussed the departure at length and I reviewed in my mind our automation setup and flight profile but can't think of any reason the aircraft would pitch nose down so aggressively," the pilot wrote.

And the list of countries banning or suspending this plane is growing. Soon the U.S. will be the only one left saying it's fine.

Post: #66

(03-13-2019 12:28 PM)jcrew247 Wrote:  I do wonder why no Southwest pilots have reported problems, or maybe they have and it has been kept hush-hush. Its so scary to think that pilot ignorance of the system can cause such a catastroyphy.

What I was thinking when I said that might barely be noticed under more typical conditions is that this malfunction could be occurring constantly, but that the effects are usually subtle enough that pilots overcome it without even realizing anything important has happened, or, at most, it goes into a report as a footnote somewhere.

Then you get out to these edge cases like taking off with a heavy payload in thin air, and suddenly this behavior that would be meaningless under other circumstances is causing something much more exaggerated to happen and eating up your entire margin for error.

...and it's starting to look like that's exactly what was happening. Pilots were experiencing this the whole time and were able to overcome it easily, until somebody happened to run into a combination of circumstances where it wasn't merely annoying, but fatal.

(03-13-2019 12:50 PM)Once Was Not Wrote:  In many of the complaints, the pilots noted the aircraft going nose down during takeoff.

If that's true, the amount of capture between Boeing and the FAA/NTSB that is allowing this to go on is insane. Ethiopia is entirely right to not want U.S. authorities extracting the data from the recorders.

Post: #67

I'm seeing that Canada has finally grounded the type - i'm surprised it took this long. I was expecting it sooner, not from any avaition safety perspective, but simply as a Bombardier-friendly, Trudeau gov't "F you" to Boeing. They're principled and forward thinking like that.

Post: #68

Sounds like the US is grounding the planes until further notice. About time in my opinion. Clearly we don't conclusively know what happened on ET302, but it seems too much of a coincidence. Safety should always come first, especially in aviation.

   

Post: #69

(03-13-2019 01:41 PM)RDF Wrote:  Sounds like the US is grounding the planes until further notice. About time in my opinion. Clearly we don't conclusively know what happened on ET302, but it seems too much of a coincidence. Safety should always come first, especially in aviation.

Boeing stock dropped another 2% in five minutes on that announcement. The FAA's backing was probably the only thing holding some peoples' hopes up.

EDIT: The news this morning was that Boeing's CEO called Trump personally, reassuring him that the aircraft was safe. Twenty minutes after Trump announced an emergency order grounding the aircraft, Boeing now issues a press release "recommending" to the FAA that the aircraft be grounded.

I wonder how fast I can get margin approval to short Boeing.

Post: #70

I would look into buying BA at the bottom, if it drops to $300, they'll fix the problem with a software patch. They've had a 5 decades track record of top flight (pun intended) safety. This is like the VW or Odwalla short term dip.

Post: #71

(03-13-2019 04:54 PM)911 Wrote:  I would look into buying BA at the bottom, if it drops to $300, they'll fix the problem with a software patch. They've had a 5 decades track record of top flight (pun intended) safety. This is like the VW or Odwalla short term dip.

Do you think there would be a possibility of Airbus taking over Boeing or some sort of re-branding of Boeing/liquidation/bankdrupcy?
I know they say its just a software patch and easy to fix.
But on the other hand, its still a serious problem for the autopilot to purposefully crash the plane into the ground.
So, what is the solution then, to turn off the autopilot into manual mode during every takeoff?
I don't think its just a sensor issue, I feel like the autopilot is just making a mistake upon takeoff due to the airport factors. The takeoff requires a steady incline and the plane is not going to stall during takeoff - or really the plane is trying to go climb with velocity and the autopilot is trying to keep it from climbing and bring it back towards the ground intentionally. How is the public going to feel safe knowing this autopilot function will continue to exist and function on the Max planes?

Post: #72

(03-13-2019 05:09 PM)jcrew247 Wrote:  Do you think there would be a possibility of Airbus taking over Boeing or some sort of re-branding of Boeing/liquidation/bankdrupcy?

Never.

Boeing is the major defense contractor to America and the rest of the world. Can't have the defense secrets in the hands of another country. Boeing is too big and too important to fail. If it is in fact a manufacturing defect there will be the CEO resignation, a Senate Panel, a hefty fine, a class action lawsuit, and some new safety regulations. But the US will covertly protect the company itself.

Post: #73

(03-13-2019 04:54 PM)911 Wrote:  I would look into buying BA at the bottom, if it drops to $300, they'll fix the problem with a software patch. They've had a 5 decades track record of top flight (pun intended) safety. This is like the VW or Odwalla short term dip.

I think this is the likely outcome, but I'd point out what I said before, about the long, painful decline of McDonnell-Douglas after their reputation with passengers was severely tarnished in the 1970s - somewhat unfairly. The DC-10 ended up relegated to cargo flights, and then the hits kept coming after that.

I couldn't find an old stock chart, but it was apparently worth $54 in 1991 and considered a "risky" stock. By 1996, it was reported at $52, and Boeing offered $63 to buy them out. By that point, their passenger airliner business was basically just parts and service.

We don't know what the scope of the grounding costs will be yet, and if this turns into a major scandal, and especially if China starts using this as an excuse to cancel orders and/or if Comac becomes a contender in the developing world, Boeing stock could languish for years or decades.

Then again, maybe not. Maybe somebody's Dell burst into flames in the cargo hold and this all turns out to be for nothing.

(03-13-2019 05:09 PM)jcrew247 Wrote:  Do you think there would be a possibility of Airbus taking over Boeing or some sort of re-branding of Boeing/liquidation/bankdrupcy?

It's an extreme case, but I was thinking about this today. There's no way Airbus would be allowed anywhere near Boeing's defense division. Commercial aircraft manufacturing is politically sensitive itself.

I agree with monster above that the government will bail them out if they have to, but if that weren't politically possible for some reason, Lockheed is the only marriage partner out there. They're smaller, but the revenue gap closes considerably if you take the 737 MAX program off the table, and they've been flirting with getting back into commercial aircraft in recent years: they'd been working on a collaborative supersonic jetliner until recently, when Boeing took over their role. They also already have a joint venture with Boeing building space rockets and work together on the F-22 Raptor, it's something regulators would probably facilitate very quickly if it was needed.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogai...sonic-jet/

Post: #74

(03-11-2019 08:48 PM)jordypip23 Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 08:38 PM)Jetset Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 06:18 PM)RIslander Wrote:  An engine failure is possible but I find it an unlikely cause. Modern aircraft fly perfectly fine on one engine and pilots receive extensive training on how to do so. I've probably done a thousand V-1 cuts in the sim (When the engine fails during takeoff, but you're at the speed where you must continue the takeoff single engine anyway) and they're pretty easy.

Now if the engine failed catastrophically and destroyed other systems... that is definitely possible.

Question:

Supposedly, witnesses to the Ethiopian crash say whatever happened caused the rear of the aircraft to smoke and luggage to rain down behind the aircraft.

Supposedly, the plane that crashed with Lion Air had had an earlier incident on the previous flight that filled the cabin with a burnt smell and passengers reported strange engine noises.

It is reasonably possible for something like a fire/explosion the witnesses described to bring down an aircraft and for that to not be discernible from the flight recorder? Meaning, is it possible Lion Air had little to do with the MCAS and that there's actually a fire-related design issue with the 737 MAX? I don't know what data is actually captured, but I'd assume things like engine temperatures would be.

Interesting eyewitness reports. I don't think the Lion Air CVR analysis has been completed yet. It's gonna be a good while till this Ethiopian CVR is analyzed as well. Might be time to opt for Scarebuses or maybe little bit older Boeing variants.

I know that air crashes are extremely rare, but this is definitely one of the ways that I do NOT want go. I'm already anxious enough in the sky to begin with. RIP to the all the victims & their families.

I don't know brah, but I think I'll take my chances in a Scarebus than Boeingdown.

Post: #75

(03-13-2019 07:47 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  I don't know brah, but I think I'll take my chances in a Scarebus than Boeingdown.

I can't wait for the successor product, the Boeing 737-9000. It's supposed to use a very advanced AI.