Boeing Max.
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
- Flying Low
- Rank 8
- Posts: 927
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:22 pm
- Location: Northern Ontario...why change now?
Re: Boeing Max.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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).
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.
"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."
Re: Boeing Max.
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.
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.
Re: Boeing Max.
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.
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.
-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:04 pm
Re: Boeing Max.
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.
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.
- Flying Low
- Rank 8
- Posts: 927
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:22 pm
- Location: Northern Ontario...why change now?
Re: Boeing Max.
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.It will be interesting to see what happens in their corporate structure because the share holders will be very concerned.
"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."
-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 368
- Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013 8:42 am
- Location: CYUL
Bad news for Boeing and its MAX...
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
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
Last edited by Jet Jockey on Sat Sep 07, 2019 7:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Boeing Max.
The airport is at 7625ft. The ET crew got a bit above 8000ft, they never climbed more than 1000ft from the ground.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.
Re: Boeing Max.
Umm - not quite - at 1000ft AGL the L autopilot was engaged, the flaps retracted and pitch trim position decreased.The airport is at 7625ft. The ET crew got a bit above 8000ft, they never climbed more than 1000ft from the ground.
Look at the FDR data- They reached about 9000 AGL and were airborne for roughly 6 min.
Re: Bad news for Boeing and its MAX...
Great initiative by Europe.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
Re: Boeing Max.
And what expertise resides in Tower C in Ottawa that the Yanks don’t have? What value would a TC review add - none.
- Daniel Cooper
- Rank 5
- Posts: 335
- Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:38 am
- Location: Unknown
-
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am
Re: Boeing Max.
Not so much expertise, but credibility. The FAA is a little short on credibility at the moment.
-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm
Re: Boeing Max.
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 !And what expertise resides in Tower C in Ottawa that the Yanks don’t have? What value would a TC review add - none.
Re: Boeing Max.
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.
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.
-
- Rank 8
- Posts: 825
- Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Re: Boeing Max.
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
Re: Boeing Max.
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.
Re: Boeing Max.
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.
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.