737 Max

User avatar
JLv3.0
Posts: 4784
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2018 11:42 am

Re: 737 Max

Post by JLv3.0 »

NotoriousREV wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:29 am
Carlos wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:19 am The worrying part of that link is Boeing decided against providing Pilots with more detailed information on the system to prevent "Average Pilots" getting confused 😳🙄

What sort of people are flying these things 😥
Don't forget, AF447 was a perfectly serviceable aircraft was flown into the sea due, partly, to the fact the FO just kept pulling full back on the stick whilst the stall warning went off for nearly a minute. I'm not a pilot, but even I know that there's not many situations where that's going to be the correct answer.
This extract from an article posted here really does not put the aviation skills of the pilots in a good light, does it:

"A string of messages appeared on a screen in front of the pilots, giving crucial information on the status of the aircraft. All that was required was for one pilot (Pierre-Cédric Bonin) to maintain the flight path manually while the other (David Robert) diagnosed the problem.

But Bonin’s attempts to stabilize the aircraft had precisely the opposite effect. This was probably due to a combination of being startled and inexperienced at manually flying at altitude, and having reduced automatic protection. At higher altitudes, the safe flight envelope is much more restricted than at lower altitudes, which is why pilots rarely hand-fly there.

He attempted to correct a slight roll that occurred as the autopilot disconnected but over-corrected, causing the plane to roll sharply left and right several times as he moved his side stick from side to side. He also pulled back on the stick, causing the plane to climb steeply until it stalled and began to descend rapidly, almost in free-fall.

Neither Bonin nor Robert, nor the third crew member (Marc Dubois, the captain) who entered the cockpit 90 seconds into the episode, recognized that the aircraft had stalled despite multiple cues. In the confusion,

Bonin misinterpreted the situation as meaning that the plane was flying too fast and actually reduced the thrust and moved to apply the speedbrakes – the opposite of what was required to recover from the stall. Robert overruled him and attempted to take control, but Bonin continued to try and fly the plane. He and Robert made simultaneous and contradictory inputs, without realizing that they were doing so.

By the time the crew worked out what was going on, there was insufficient altitude left to recover, and AF447 crashed into the ocean, with the loss of all 228 passengers and crew."
User avatar
dinny_g
Posts: 5312
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:31 pm

Re: 737 Max

Post by dinny_g »

Maybe someone's been throwing coins into the Engine for luck...
JLv3.0 wrote: Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:26 pm I say this rarely Dave, but listen to Dinny because he's right.
Rich B wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 1:57 pm but Dinny was right…
User avatar
jamcg
Posts: 3863
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 5:41 pm

Re: 737 Max

Post by jamcg »

User avatar
NotoriousREV
Posts: 6437
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:14 pm

Re: 737 Max

Post by NotoriousREV »

jamcg wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:13 pm https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47562727

USA now grounding then
That’s VERY telling. There must be enough evidence “unofficially” that this was the same cause as the Lion Air crash.
Middle-aged Dirtbag
User avatar
Simon
Posts: 4765
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:03 pm

Re: 737 Max

Post by Simon »

I think the pressure on the FAA had become untenable. When even their neighbour Canada had grounded them, leaving just the USA as the only ones resisting then there was nothing left they could've realistically done.
The artist formerly known as _Who_
User avatar
Simon
Posts: 4765
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:03 pm

Re: 737 Max

Post by Simon »

The artist formerly known as _Who_
User avatar
Simon
Posts: 4765
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:03 pm

Re: 737 Max

Post by Simon »

Boeing's statement

I think there is a view that the 737 design has been pushed just too far. It's over 40 years since it was first introduced and it's on its fourth generation. Really they should've done a 797 and pensioned off the 737 design after the NG.
The artist formerly known as _Who_
User avatar
IanF
Posts: 2413
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:58 pm
Currently Driving: Ferrari F430 Spider
BMW M4 Comp
Mini Cooper
LR Evoque P300e
Contact:

Re: 737 Max

Post by IanF »

Well, this is a load of bollocks, but I'll come back to that. This is my opinion:

Air France AF447 - airmanship skills (ie. poor pilot training) and an airline that didn't/doesn't update its aircraft... what could go wrong!? I used to point out that the last three major hull loses by Western Carriers were all by Air France (Concorde at Paris {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590}, A340 at YYZ {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_358} and the A330 into the Atlantic). Summary:- piss poor pilot actions

Lion Air - airmanship skills with a poor understanding/explanation of an enhanced safety system (MCAS). The same problem arose on previous sectors, the crew dealt with it. This would have been written into the aircraft's tech log. (Plus it also being a written down drill in the pilot's procedure manual; maybe just follow your training!?). If you're curious, the runaway trim drill would (did previously) have solved this issue. Summary:- piss poor pilot actions

Ethiopian - harsh judgement on Lion Air? Maybe. This one - possibly, but definitely not if it's the same issue.

Imagine - you drive a Mercedes 3-Series; they start blowing up and you die in a fiery furnace if you brake too hard, but if you put it into sport mode then it doesn't. If Mercedes called you previously and informed you of this, would you remember 5 months later? In November last year, Boeing adjusted its procedures to include the parameters experienced by the Lion Air flight through an Airworthiness Directive (something that was sent to every Aviation Authority worldwide plus all the Airlines that operated B737MAX). Basically, if auto trim doesn't work the way you want it to, put it in manual (cutout). Imagine: you're on a motorway but when you put the cruise control on you accelerate uncontrollably, would you a) keep the cruise control on, but press the brake pedal repeatedly or, b) turn it off? BTW, they didn't introduce this procedure, they just added extra reasons to use it. To me it's that (painfully) simple. Summary:- piss poor pilot actions

MCAS - this is probably a contributory factor, but none of these accidents were solely caused by this issue. They were largely caused by poor pilot skills (if same issue on Ethiopian). The reasons why are probably numerous, but I would say the largest is cost; training pilots costs a lot of money, keeping them well trained isn't cheap either. If you have the "safest form of travel" and aircraft "basically fly themselves", then why waste money on simulators/briefing etc!? MCAS existed within the flight control systems on the previous gen B737, and has existed on Airbus forever - do they all crash 12mins into flight? Imagine: you add ABS to a car braking system - you inform buyers but don't go into too much depth. That is/has-been/may-well-change Boeing's mantra.

TL;DR? You know we have different standards of driving world wide - the same applies to flying. I know of check rides (simulator checks, evaluation flights) not too far away, that are heavily prescribed - you know the next issue, removing the shock value and so achieving a high pass percentage - winner! My company is/has been heavily revising this. Basically, now you depart without knowing it's a Rejected Take Off, Minor issue or Engine Fire, which gives a more realistic shock value/failure rate. It has increased the failure rate, and hence cost, but it certainly does make us better aviators. This makes the airline safer, but doesn't do anything for our blood pressure. (And we still have: fail 6-monthly check ride + retrain (1or2 sim sessions) + fail re-test = sacked, which equals even more blood pressure issues! :D )

My first statement, why is this bollocks? This is a similar response to Javid's actions wrt to the Begum issue: government bodies/regulators are now taking the populist route. Previously, Begum would've come back and been given a fair trial, but public response changed that. Imho, this happened with this accident aswell. We should be waiting for the official response, as we have previously, but that takes too long these days and so we are going for the loudest opinion, irrespective of whether it's right or wrong. I worry that by the time the facts come out, no one will care.
Cheers,

Ian
User avatar
Simon
Posts: 4765
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:03 pm

Re: 737 Max

Post by Simon »

If MCAS existed on 737 NG then why is it all over the press now? Was it identical to before?
The artist formerly known as _Who_
User avatar
IanF
Posts: 2413
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:58 pm
Currently Driving: Ferrari F430 Spider
BMW M4 Comp
Mini Cooper
LR Evoque P300e
Contact:

Re: 737 Max

Post by IanF »

Simon wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:33 pm If MCAS existed on 737 NG then why is it all over the press now? Was it identical to before?
MCAS contributed to the Lion Air flight accident. We don’t know whether it was involved in this accident. Identical? No. Simple to override? Yes.
Cheers,

Ian
User avatar
Simon
Posts: 4765
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:03 pm

Re: 737 Max

Post by Simon »

Sorry, I should've been more clear. You stated

"MCAS existed within the flight control systems on the previous gen B737"

I'm wondering why that was, and if it was present on the NG then why is it only causing issues for 'poorly trained' pilots now on the Max?
Last edited by Simon on Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The artist formerly known as _Who_
User avatar
IanF
Posts: 2413
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:58 pm
Currently Driving: Ferrari F430 Spider
BMW M4 Comp
Mini Cooper
LR Evoque P300e
Contact:

Re: 737 Max

Post by IanF »

It was there because it improves the safety of the aircraft. It’s probably because pilots were better experienced/trained then than they are now that means it’s now an issue. (Or not an issue at all, if you look at the European/American carriers who were happy to carry on flying it 🤷‍♂️)
Cheers,

Ian
User avatar
Simon
Posts: 4765
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:03 pm

Re: 737 Max

Post by Simon »

You know this country has 'had enough of experts', right? ;)

Good info, thanks Ian.
The artist formerly known as _Who_
User avatar
unzippy
Posts: 892
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 11:02 pm

Re: 737 Max

Post by unzippy »

JLv3.0 wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:48 am He attempted to correct a slight roll that occurred as the autopilot disconnected but over-corrected, causing the plane to roll sharply left and right several times as he moved his side stick from side to side. He also pulled back on the stick, causing the plane to climb steeply until it stalled and began to descend rapidly, almost in free-fall.
Tank Slapper, innit.
The Evo forum really is a shadow of its former self. I remember when the internet was for the elite and now they seem to let any spastic on

IaFG Down Under Division
V8Granite
Posts: 3960
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2018 11:57 am

Re: 737 Max

Post by V8Granite »

IanF wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:06 pm Well, this is a load of bollocks, but I'll come back to that. This is my opinion:

Air France AF447 - airmanship skills (ie. poor pilot training) and an airline that didn't/doesn't update its aircraft... what could go wrong!? I used to point out that the last three major hull loses by Western Carriers were all by Air France (Concorde at Paris {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590}, A340 at YYZ {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_358} and the A330 into the Atlantic). Summary:- piss poor pilot actions

Lion Air - airmanship skills with a poor understanding/explanation of an enhanced safety system (MCAS). The same problem arose on previous sectors, the crew dealt with it. This would have been written into the aircraft's tech log. (Plus it also being a written down drill in the pilot's procedure manual; maybe just follow your training!?). If you're curious, the runaway trim drill would (did previously) have solved this issue. Summary:- piss poor pilot actions

Ethiopian - harsh judgement on Lion Air? Maybe. This one - possibly, but definitely not if it's the same issue.

Imagine - you drive a Mercedes 3-Series; they start blowing up and you die in a fiery furnace if you brake too hard, but if you put it into sport mode then it doesn't. If Mercedes called you previously and informed you of this, would you remember 5 months later? In November last year, Boeing adjusted its procedures to include the parameters experienced by the Lion Air flight through an Airworthiness Directive (something that was sent to every Aviation Authority worldwide plus all the Airlines that operated B737MAX). Basically, if auto trim doesn't work the way you want it to, put it in manual (cutout). Imagine: you're on a motorway but when you put the cruise control on you accelerate uncontrollably, would you a) keep the cruise control on, but press the brake pedal repeatedly or, b) turn it off? BTW, they didn't introduce this procedure, they just added extra reasons to use it. To me it's that (painfully) simple. Summary:- piss poor pilot actions

MCAS - this is probably a contributory factor, but none of these accidents were solely caused by this issue. They were largely caused by poor pilot skills (if same issue on Ethiopian). The reasons why are probably numerous, but I would say the largest is cost; training pilots costs a lot of money, keeping them well trained isn't cheap either. If you have the "safest form of travel" and aircraft "basically fly themselves", then why waste money on simulators/briefing etc!? MCAS existed within the flight control systems on the previous gen B737, and has existed on Airbus forever - do they all crash 12mins into flight? Imagine: you add ABS to a car braking system - you inform buyers but don't go into too much depth. That is/has-been/may-well-change Boeing's mantra.

TL;DR? You know we have different standards of driving world wide - the same applies to flying. I know of check rides (simulator checks, evaluation flights) not too far away, that are heavily prescribed - you know the next issue, removing the shock value and so achieving a high pass percentage - winner! My company is/has been heavily revising this. Basically, now you depart without knowing it's a Rejected Take Off, Minor issue or Engine Fire, which gives a more realistic shock value/failure rate. It has increased the failure rate, and hence cost, but it certainly does make us better aviators. This makes the airline safer, but doesn't do anything for our blood pressure. (And we still have: fail 6-monthly check ride + retrain (1or2 sim sessions) + fail re-test = sacked, which equals even more blood pressure issues! :D )

My first statement, why is this bollocks? This is a similar response to Javid's actions wrt to the Begum issue: government bodies/regulators are now taking the populist route. Previously, Begum would've come back and been given a fair trial, but public response changed that. Imho, this happened with this accident aswell. We should be waiting for the official response, as we have previously, but that takes too long these days and so we are going for the loudest opinion, irrespective of whether it's right or wrong. I worry that by the time the facts come out, no one will care.
There was a great interview with John Hutchinson about the aircraft weight, wind speeds, pre-flight checks etc on YouTube a while back where comments were made about Air France. You could see there was friction with how they operated their aircrafts compared to BA. it was an interesting insight into how different companies view safety, training, upgrades etc.

Dave!
Peterlplp
Posts: 234
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2018 2:33 am

Re: 737 Max

Post by Peterlplp »

Similar to Dave!s suggestion, here is a good article about EgyptAir 990 showing the shockingly disparate ways different cultures handle airline safety.
User avatar
JLv3.0
Posts: 4784
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2018 11:42 am

Re: 737 Max

Post by JLv3.0 »

When my Etihad captain buddy was still living here and telling me war stories, it was abundantly clear that the local culture took precedent in terms of training - for example, Malaysian pilots were taught by rote, and to never, ever, ever do anything for themselves if they could help it.

My mate was a Pilot rather than a pilot and liked nothing more than to stick-fly when the occasions either arose, or was to be enjoyed. Malaysian pilots on the other hand would have the autopilot on ASAFP after takeoff and would not budge from that being best.

I don't really see a problem with having the training beaten into you - the issue is events arise that require a bit of creativity on occasion and when this happened they would be like rabbits in the headlights.

I dare not even imagine an Egyptian or Indian training regime. I'd imagine finding someone else to do the work and be a blame target takes up the first few years.
User avatar
Jackleg
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 9:36 pm

Re: 737 Max

Post by Jackleg »

I think if you're a Indian pilot, you just fly with your landing gear down the whole time.
User avatar
JLv3.0
Posts: 4784
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2018 11:42 am

Re: 737 Max

Post by JLv3.0 »

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 747345.cms

"After take off, both the women pilots forgot to retract the landing gear."

It literally beggars belief.
User avatar
Simon
Posts: 4765
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:03 pm

Re: 737 Max

Post by Simon »

JLv3.0 wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2019 9:11 am https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 747345.cms

"After take off, both the women pilots forgot to retract the landing gear."

It literally beggars belief.
You should've seen how they parked it too! ;)
The artist formerly known as _Who_
Post Reply