Boeing Max.

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

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

User avatar
Flying Low
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 927
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:22 pm
Location: Northern Ontario...why change now?

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by Flying Low »

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: 1507
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 2:57 pm
Location: West coast

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by boeingboy »

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 2
Rank 2
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:58 am
Location: LINNG

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by ToolShed »

Arm chairing at its best.
---------- ADS -----------
 
C.W.E.
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1262
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by C.W.E. »

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 5
Rank 5
Posts: 344
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:04 pm

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by mixturerich »

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: 927
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:22 pm
Location: Northern Ontario...why change now?

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by Flying Low »

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 5
Rank 5
Posts: 368
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013 8:42 am
Location: CYUL

Bad news for Boeing and its MAX...

Post by Jet Jockey »

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: 16
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 3:33 am

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by AZ382 »

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: 1507
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 2:57 pm
Location: West coast

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by boeingboy »

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: 33
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2019 7:43 pm

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

Post by imcool »

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 4
Rank 4
Posts: 235
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 10:04 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by L39Guy »

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 5
Rank 5
Posts: 335
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:38 am
Location: Unknown

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by Daniel Cooper »

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: 1948
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by goingnowherefast »

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 5
Rank 5
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by corethatthermal »

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 4
Rank 4
Posts: 235
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 10:04 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by L39Guy »

So no real value, just political points. Great.
---------- ADS -----------
 
boeingboy
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1507
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 2:57 pm
Location: West coast

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by boeingboy »

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: 825
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 3:10 pm

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by leftoftrack »

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 »

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: 611
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 7:33 am
Location: yyz

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by pilotbzh »

---------- ADS -----------
 
boeingboy
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1507
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 2:57 pm
Location: West coast

Re: Boeing Max.

Post by boeingboy »

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 -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”