Boeing Max.

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

tbaylx
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 734
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 6:30 pm

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by tbaylx » Fri Sep 06, 2019 6:22 am

mixturerich wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 1:38 am
Flying Low wrote:
Thu Sep 05, 2019 10:28 pm
...I still do not understand how either crew lost the airplane.
What are you implying? That they were incompetent??
Assuming that the regulatory body maintained ICAO standards and that the crew passed their PPC's then the crew wasn't incompetent. That still leaves a lot of room between marginal and Chuck Yeager however.

They were presented with a challenging situation outside of their training and weren't able to handle it. That doesn't mean they were incompetent, but they weren't up to the task of recovering a flyable aircraft outside the realm of their training. To say that crew response didn't have a part in it is as ignorant as saying Boeing MCAS design had no part in it. Both were contributing factors to varying degrees.

The point is that Boeing can't send an aircraft out with a non normal that X% of the worlds pilots are unable to recover from. Even if that's a small percentage it will lead to a hull loss every so often, which is obviously unacceptable.
---------- ADS -----------
  

co-joe
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:33 am
Location: YYC 230 degree radial at about 10 DME

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by co-joe » Fri Sep 06, 2019 8:58 am

mixturerich wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 1:38 am
Flying Low wrote:
Thu Sep 05, 2019 10:28 pm
...I still do not understand how either crew lost the airplane.
What are you implying? That they were incompetent??
The thought certainly has crossed a few minds. An guy who "flew 8000 hours in 6 years", and a 200 hour FO? Not saying it outright, but questions of experience have to factor in to the discussion.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Flying Low
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 925
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:22 pm
Location: Northern Ontario...why change now?

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by Flying Low » Fri Sep 06, 2019 1:45 pm

I'm not implying anything. I don't know why they did what they did. I do fly the 737NG and have flown the MAX before it was grounded.

The first crew actually did a decent job of flying the plane. The flight data shows a corresponding manual electric trim nose up after each MCAS triggered nose down trim. I just checked my numbers and that airplane was in the air for 13 minutes so they were successfully dealing with this for longer than I initially thought. Control was only lost after the Captain handed control to the FO so he could look through the QRH. I don't understand why the Captain didn't call for the Runaway Stabilizer checklist or memory items.

Image

The second crew did manage to get to the trim cutoff switches but never pulled back the thrust. It stayed at 94%. By the time the cutoff switches were used they were at Vmo. The other curious thing I just noticed is that when the flap handle is moved from the flap 5 position the airplane looks to be close to 250 knots (although it's hard to tell on such a small graph).

Image

Our checklist instructions in the QRH state, "While every attempt is made to supply needed non-normal checklists, it is not possible to develop checklists for all conceivable situations."

I don't understand how a crew does not make the jump to the Runaway Stabilizer non-normal checklist in this case as the only significant difference is that they had an intermittent runaway stabilizer.
---------- ADS -----------
  
"The ability to ditch an airplane in the Hudson does not qualify a pilot for a pay raise. The ability to get the pilots, with this ability, to work for 30% or 40% pay cuts qualifies those in management for millions in bonuses."

boeingboy
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1039
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 2:57 pm
Location: West coast

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by boeingboy » Fri Sep 06, 2019 4:37 pm

I've mentioned this many times before in previous posts....but for all the fighting the 2 crews did - they were both able to continue their climb and/or maintain altitude. Now the stick may have been in their laps or they had their feet on the dash - but they were still able to maintain control. So switch the damn thing off.

As pilots we are all taught from our first flight that you trim the airplane for level hands off flight. Why these crews did not do that is beyond me. Lion air did it - but never shut it off. ET did it - but not long enough. We all know MCAS will trim faster than the manual trim will - so why were they only trimming half as much? The ET crew did shut it off then turned it back on - I suspect this is because the nose was still very heavy so they switched it on to trim up - which is what the data shows. However they did not trim nearly long enough and then did not turn it off again, allowing the system to trim it down. Even with the heavy nose - the whole time the trim was shut off the ET crew managed to climb about 8000 feet. The aircraft was controllable and recoverable - the crews must share the blame in these accidents.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
ToolShed
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:58 am
Location: LINNG

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by ToolShed » Fri Sep 06, 2019 7:18 pm

Arm chairing at its best.
---------- ADS -----------
  

C.W.E.
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1130
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by C.W.E. » Fri Sep 06, 2019 7:28 pm

Boeing has been a great builder of airplanes and will in the end recover from this situation they are in.

However the cost will be staggering.

It will be interesting to see what happens in their corporate structure because the share holders will be very concerned.
---------- ADS -----------
  

mixturerich
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:04 pm

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by mixturerich » Fri Sep 06, 2019 8:54 pm

In all honesty, the first questions I asked myself after the dual Max crashes were, what were their experiences levels, what kind of training did they do, and what was the company culture like? This sh*t is important. It literally was as simple as pulling the electric trim circuit breaker to solve the problem. Huge can of worms but we’re lucky to have pretty top notch training environments in North America, plus in Canada we have the bush - makes you really think outside the box.

That being said, Boeing cut some corners and now they’re paying for it. Perhaps it’s a blessing in disguise - huge wake up call, don’t do it again.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Flying Low
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 925
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:22 pm
Location: Northern Ontario...why change now?

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by Flying Low » Sat Sep 07, 2019 1:46 am

It will be interesting to see what happens in their corporate structure because the share holders will be very concerned.
Yes...they are concerned now. They didn't seem very concerned as Boeing gradually switched from an engineering company to one that was focused on unlocking shareholder value. This is typical of short term investor outlook. Get the money now, quickly rather than concentrate on creating a superior product and letting value increase over time.
---------- ADS -----------
  
"The ability to ditch an airplane in the Hudson does not qualify a pilot for a pay raise. The ability to get the pilots, with this ability, to work for 30% or 40% pay cuts qualifies those in management for millions in bonuses."

Jet Jockey
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 292
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013 8:42 am
Location: CYUL

Bad news for Boeing and its MAX...

Post by Jet Jockey » Sat Sep 07, 2019 6:37 am

Europe's aviation safety watchdog will not accept a US verdict on whether Boeing's troubled 737 Max is safe.

Instead, the European Aviation Safety Agency (Easa) will run its own tests on the plane before approving a return to commercial flights.

Hope Canada does the same thing.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49591363
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by Jet Jockey on Sat Sep 07, 2019 7:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

AZ382
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 3:33 am

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by AZ382 » Sat Sep 07, 2019 6:57 am

boeingboy wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 4:37 pm
I've mentioned this many times before in previous posts....but for all the fighting the 2 crews did - they were both able to continue their climb and/or maintain altitude. Now the stick may have been in their laps or they had their feet on the dash - but they were still able to maintain control. So switch the damn thing off.

As pilots we are all taught from our first flight that you trim the airplane for level hands off flight. Why these crews did not do that is beyond me. Lion air did it - but never shut it off. ET did it - but not long enough. We all know MCAS will trim faster than the manual trim will - so why were they only trimming half as much? The ET crew did shut it off then turned it back on - I suspect this is because the nose was still very heavy so they switched it on to trim up - which is what the data shows. However they did not trim nearly long enough and then did not turn it off again, allowing the system to trim it down. Even with the heavy nose - the whole time the trim was shut off the ET crew managed to climb about 8000 feet. The aircraft was controllable and recoverable - the crews must share the blame in these accidents.
The airport is at 7625ft. The ET crew got a bit above 8000ft, they never climbed more than 1000ft from the ground.
---------- ADS -----------
  

boeingboy
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1039
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 2:57 pm
Location: West coast

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by boeingboy » Sat Sep 07, 2019 11:26 am

The airport is at 7625ft. The ET crew got a bit above 8000ft, they never climbed more than 1000ft from the ground.
Umm - not quite - at 1000ft AGL the L autopilot was engaged, the flaps retracted and pitch trim position decreased.

Look at the FDR data- They reached about 9000 AGL and were airborne for roughly 6 min.
---------- ADS -----------
  

imcool
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2019 7:43 pm

Re: Bad news for Boeing and its MAX...

Post by imcool » Mon Sep 09, 2019 2:47 pm

Jet Jockey wrote:
Sat Sep 07, 2019 6:37 am
Europe's aviation safety watchdog will not accept a US verdict on whether Boeing's troubled 737 Max is safe.

Instead, the European Aviation Safety Agency (Easa) will run its own tests on the plane before approving a return to commercial flights.

Hope Canada does the same thing.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49591363
Great initiative by Europe.
---------- ADS -----------
  

L39Guy
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 10:04 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by L39Guy » Mon Sep 09, 2019 3:35 pm

And what expertise resides in Tower C in Ottawa that the Yanks don’t have? What value would a TC review add - none.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Daniel Cooper
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 158
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:38 am
Location: Unknown

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by Daniel Cooper » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:41 pm

L39Guy wrote:
Mon Sep 09, 2019 3:35 pm
And what expertise resides in Tower C in Ottawa that the Yanks don’t have? What value would a TC review add - none.
I purely political one, after the C-Series shenanigans.
---------- ADS -----------
  

goingnowherefast
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1588
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by goingnowherefast » Mon Sep 09, 2019 6:22 pm

L39Guy wrote:
Mon Sep 09, 2019 3:35 pm
And what expertise resides in Tower C in Ottawa that the Yanks don’t have? What value would a TC review add - none.
Not so much expertise, but credibility. The FAA is a little short on credibility at the moment.
---------- ADS -----------
  

corethatthermal
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 208
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by corethatthermal » Mon Sep 09, 2019 6:30 pm

And what expertise resides in Tower C in Ottawa that the Yanks don’t have? What value would a TC review add - none.
Political, After what happened between the FAA and Boeing, any great nation would be wise to score pathetic bonus political points AND remind Boeing AND the FAA not to play their little Russian Roulette games again !
---------- ADS -----------
  

L39Guy
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 10:04 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by L39Guy » Mon Sep 09, 2019 7:28 pm

So no real value, just political points. Great.
---------- ADS -----------
  

boeingboy
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1039
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 2:57 pm
Location: West coast

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by boeingboy » Mon Sep 09, 2019 9:28 pm

Last we heard a couple of weeks ago is the FAA still will not require sim training for the Max - it's all computer based. However - we believe that TC will require sim training for it. Which is just fine with me.

For such a hot button topic - It seems like this would be the easiest of the issues to solve - but I guess Boeing and the FAA are going to leave it at that and if anyone else wants to do sim training - so be it. I suspect that's what most of the world's airworthiness people will do. I don't really see any other sticking points with the proposed fix.
---------- ADS -----------
  

leftoftrack
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 755
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 3:10 pm

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by leftoftrack » Tue Sep 10, 2019 9:16 am

if Canada requires all Max airplanes in their airspace to have aircrews who have demonstrated a MCAS recovery in the sim or be banned from the airspace you'll see all the majors in the US add it to their training
---------- ADS -----------
  

Lecowboy
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 1:29 pm

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by Lecowboy » Tue Sep 10, 2019 11:06 am

L39Guy wrote:
Mon Sep 09, 2019 7:28 pm
So no real value, just political points. Great.
Credibility and impartiality are good values when you have to judge any common situation.

But when you put into the equation the lives of thousands of people and the sale of billions dollars of aircrafts, theses values are, ironically, unvaluable.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
pilotbzh
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 575
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 7:33 am
Location: yyz

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by pilotbzh » Thu Sep 12, 2019 2:57 am

---------- ADS -----------
  

boeingboy
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1039
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 2:57 pm
Location: West coast

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by boeingboy » Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:09 pm

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/wh ... li=AAggNb9

One of the best articles I've ever read. About not only the airplane and what happen in each accident - but more importantly of the way stuff happens in other parts of the world.
---------- ADS -----------
  

W5
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 844
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 4:44 pm
Location: Edmonton,AB

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by W5 » Wed Sep 18, 2019 4:34 pm

That article is spot on. Although it does not go into the corporate shenanigans of Boeing.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Eric Janson
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 806
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:44 am

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by Eric Janson » Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:32 am

boeingboy wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:09 pm
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/wh ... li=AAggNb9

One of the best articles I've ever read. About not only the airplane and what happen in each accident - but more importantly of the way stuff happens in other parts of the world.
Fantastic article indeed - especially the cultural aspects which will never make it into any final report. Glad to see the author ignores Political Correctness.

Having worked in Asia I've experienced the "Protect the National Carrier" mentality first hand. Numerous incidents were covered up with the co-operation of the local CAA. Virtually impossible to fire anyone no matter how incompetent.

The only thing that surprises me is that there aren't more accidents.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Always fly a stable approach - it's the only stability you'll find in this business

Shibby
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 9:58 pm

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by Shibby » Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:57 am

It is not just the MCAS' erroneous commands,

It is not just the misinterpretation of information displayed to the pilots.

It is not just the lack of training specific to the MCAS.

It is not the just the pilot training records.

It is not just the maintenance practices.

It is not just Boeing's arrogance.

It is not just the variances in design.

It is not just the degradation of manual skill.

It is all these things together. We would be ignorant to think that this could not have happened on North American soil. We are not privy of the flaws of aviation's darkest corners solely because of where we are located in the world. I do not envy what these two crews were up against. It was a lot more than just a runaway.

The plane will fly again. There is much to be learned from this. From lessons in aerodynamics, skill and the ever fragile human factors at play in a high stress environment.

If there is a stand out quote from Langewiesche's article is the difference in philosophy between Airbus and Boeing... "The idea was that it would no longer be necessary to protect the public from airplanes if Airbus could get airplanes to protect themselves from pilots."

His writing has explored many accidents in which pure human frailty was the cause of accidents, he does so on both manufacturer's planes.

What isn't mentioned however is how a "runaway" of this magnitude is a once in a blue moon event, not 5 months apart on brand new airplanes.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”