Or you could lay off the weed for a week.boeingboy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:19 pm I wonder how everyone calling for this to be grounded - and costing companies billions of dollars - would say if the investigation in Africa shows it was say - a bomb? 1 lost due to crew and maintenance error, and one lost to terrorism. Sounds stupid to run around calling for it to be grounded doesn't it?
(disclaimer - I'm not saying the Ethiopia jet was bombed just playing devils advocate based on eyewitness accounts.....and that there is no evidence yet saying it wasn't either)
I do know that a major part of Boeings software fix is that if the aircraft finds it has an airspeed disagree - it will disable the MCAS and not let it operate in any situation. I agree this should have been done in the first place - but again - it's not an unrecoverable situation.
Ethiopian Airlines: 'No survivors' on crashed Boeing 737 max
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore
Re: Ethiopian Airlines: 'No survivors' on crashed Boeing 737 max
Liberalism itself as a religion where its tenets cannot be proven, but provides a sense of moral rectitude at no real cost.
Re: Ethiopian Airlines: 'No survivors' on crashed Boeing 737 max
I think this will go down as one of the largest social media caused global panics of all time.
-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 368
- Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013 8:42 am
- Location: CYUL
Re: Ethiopian Airlines: 'No survivors' on crashed Boeing 737 max
Found this on another forum and I don’t know how accurate the info is...
You do realize the MAX8 was to be given a different type rating but MCAS was the solution to allow Boeing and the carriers to get around that so no new type rating was required for their pilots. Only a couple hours training on the new systems.
The MAX8 flew significantly enough different it was going to be a different type until MCAS was added to make it behave the same. This saved a ton of training and certification costs.
The problem is when in a problem situation and MCAS is disabled the pilots are for all intents and purposes now flying a type they have not been trained on.
If you don't believe me just open your eyes... Many many many pilots are reporting these issues. The FAA anonymous reporting system is full of such complaints.
This was a boondoggle from Boeings and the FAA's side.
.......>>> is one example.
Rather important is that it was in fact considered to have substantially different enough behavior to warrant a required type rating for pilots, obviated due to the software abstraction provided by MCAS. However, this abstraction is effectively disabled when setting stabilizer trim to cutoff which is one of the later steps in the normal troubleshooting sequence. OK? So the airplane is in an emergency situation, with a flight characteristic normalizing software routine disabled, thereby making it possible for the airplane to exhibit the very behavior that pilots were never informed of, never trained for, and not required to have a type rating for, that MCAS existed for in the first place.
I think that's quite a lot more relevant than airline safety records. Ethiopian Airlines has a good recent safety record anyway. And the outcry, upon MCAS being publicly revealed, among the U.S. pilot community I also think demonstrates important relative concern.
And, quite a concerning story about U.S. 737 MAX pilots using the anonymous aviation safety reporting system to communicate their concerns, whether instead of or because of the normal channels for doing so.
https://www.dallasnews.com/business/air ... 03/12/boei...
You do realize the MAX8 was to be given a different type rating but MCAS was the solution to allow Boeing and the carriers to get around that so no new type rating was required for their pilots. Only a couple hours training on the new systems.
The MAX8 flew significantly enough different it was going to be a different type until MCAS was added to make it behave the same. This saved a ton of training and certification costs.
The problem is when in a problem situation and MCAS is disabled the pilots are for all intents and purposes now flying a type they have not been trained on.
If you don't believe me just open your eyes... Many many many pilots are reporting these issues. The FAA anonymous reporting system is full of such complaints.
This was a boondoggle from Boeings and the FAA's side.
.......>>> is one example.
Rather important is that it was in fact considered to have substantially different enough behavior to warrant a required type rating for pilots, obviated due to the software abstraction provided by MCAS. However, this abstraction is effectively disabled when setting stabilizer trim to cutoff which is one of the later steps in the normal troubleshooting sequence. OK? So the airplane is in an emergency situation, with a flight characteristic normalizing software routine disabled, thereby making it possible for the airplane to exhibit the very behavior that pilots were never informed of, never trained for, and not required to have a type rating for, that MCAS existed for in the first place.
I think that's quite a lot more relevant than airline safety records. Ethiopian Airlines has a good recent safety record anyway. And the outcry, upon MCAS being publicly revealed, among the U.S. pilot community I also think demonstrates important relative concern.
And, quite a concerning story about U.S. 737 MAX pilots using the anonymous aviation safety reporting system to communicate their concerns, whether instead of or because of the normal channels for doing so.
https://www.dallasnews.com/business/air ... 03/12/boei...
Re: Ethiopian Airlines: 'No survivors' on crashed Boeing 737 max
Update from the minister today.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/tr ... -1.4333935
OTTAWA - Transport Minister Marc Garneau is set to update Ottawa's position on the Boeing 737 Max 8, the aircraft that crashed in Ethiopia, and whether Canada will fall in line with other nations that have grounded the planes.
Garneau is scheduled to address Canada's plan and safety concerns regarding the Max 8, but it's not yet clear whether he will impose similar restrictions on the aircraft.
Advertisement
The update comes after Toronto-based Sunwing Airlines announced late Tuesday that it is temporarily grounding its four Boeing 737 Max 8 aircraft in the wake of the crash in Addis Ababa that killed all 157 people on board, including 18 Canadians.
Sunwing says it made the decision for "evolving commercial reasons" unrelated to safety, including airspace restrictions being imposed in other countries.
Garneau is facing an escalating dilemma over the aircraft, which is being grounded or banned by a growing number of countries after the accident that some experts have said has parallels to a Lion Air crash of the same model of aircraft in Indonesia that killed 189 people last October.
Garneau said Tuesday that he has no plans to ground Canada's fleet of the Max 8 aircraft, but that "all options are on the table."
https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/tr ... -1.4333935
OTTAWA - Transport Minister Marc Garneau is set to update Ottawa's position on the Boeing 737 Max 8, the aircraft that crashed in Ethiopia, and whether Canada will fall in line with other nations that have grounded the planes.
Garneau is scheduled to address Canada's plan and safety concerns regarding the Max 8, but it's not yet clear whether he will impose similar restrictions on the aircraft.
Advertisement
The update comes after Toronto-based Sunwing Airlines announced late Tuesday that it is temporarily grounding its four Boeing 737 Max 8 aircraft in the wake of the crash in Addis Ababa that killed all 157 people on board, including 18 Canadians.
Sunwing says it made the decision for "evolving commercial reasons" unrelated to safety, including airspace restrictions being imposed in other countries.
Garneau is facing an escalating dilemma over the aircraft, which is being grounded or banned by a growing number of countries after the accident that some experts have said has parallels to a Lion Air crash of the same model of aircraft in Indonesia that killed 189 people last October.
Garneau said Tuesday that he has no plans to ground Canada's fleet of the Max 8 aircraft, but that "all options are on the table."
Re: Ethiopian Airlines: 'No survivors' on crashed Boeing 737 max
This whole thing is just another horrible example money trumping safety. It'll never change. Money always has and always will trump safety no matter what the cute little SMS manual write up says. The 737 is a modern dinosaur, it should've been updated decades ago regardless whether it would require a new type rating or not. When I started on the NG/Max I was totally blown away by the fact we still had to manually select generators on after an engine start! It was truly disappointing to see the 60's logic still holding on. Even the old clapped out ATRs and even the BAE31 had automated generators FFS. Just shows you how far they will go to not require a separate type rating. Boeing just keeps stretching and subtly modifying this relic that has clearly reached it's maximum potential purely for the cost savings for them and Southwest. The Max is just lipstick on a pig.
I hope they figure this out soon and move forward from it.
I hope they figure this out soon and move forward from it.
Re: Ethiopian Airlines: 'No survivors' on crashed Boeing 737 max
Really?Or you could lay off the weed for a week.
That's your response?? whatever.
Re: Ethiopian Airlines: 'No survivors' on crashed Boeing 737 max
That seems an oddly specific thing to be upset about.
Re: Ethiopian Airlines: 'No survivors' on crashed Boeing 737 max
Another poster mentioned that if the stab becomes excessively out of trim nose down, the force required to hold back the column can become very high, depending on the speed etc. I'm curious if in this circumstance, is it still possible or plausible for the pilots to remove one hand from the yoke in order to manually re-trim the stabilizer with the knee basher handle? I imagine this would take many turns of the trim wheel?
Last edited by BMLtech on Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Rank 6
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:42 pm
Re: Ethiopian Airlines: 'No survivors' on crashed Boeing 737 max
Re: Sunwing
They kind of had to ground the fleet. Didn't most Caribbean countries not join the ban yesterday?
They kind of had to ground the fleet. Didn't most Caribbean countries not join the ban yesterday?
Good question. I'd actually like to try that in the sim next month.BMLtech wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:53 am Another poster mentioned that if the stab becomes excessively out of trim nose down, the force required to hold back the column can become very high, depending on the speed etc. I'm curious if in this circumstance, is it still possibly or plausible for the pilots to remove one hand from the yoke in order to manually re-trim the stabilizer with the knee basher handle? I imagine this would take many turns of the trim wheel?
Re: Ethiopian Airlines: 'No survivors' on crashed Boeing 737 max
Ya... I'm not actually upset about it, I was just giving one example of the old school systems on a "modern" airliner. There's a lot of systems they should've updated a long time ago.
But you're right, that was an oddly specific item.
Re: Ethiopian Airlines: 'No survivors' on crashed Boeing 737 max
Some of us still like flipping switches.
Re: Ethiopian Airlines: 'No survivors' on crashed Boeing 737 max
Ottawa now grounding the Max in Canada
Re: Ethiopian Airlines: 'No survivors' on crashed Boeing 737 max
Canada grounds Boeing 737 Max Aircraft
Canada Minister of Transport Marc Garneau just announced that as the result of new data that they received this morning, they will no longer allow Boeing 737 Max 8 or 9 aircraft to take off and land or fly over Canadian airspace.
https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/boe ... 41d8c5bdf5
Canada Minister of Transport Marc Garneau just announced that as the result of new data that they received this morning, they will no longer allow Boeing 737 Max 8 or 9 aircraft to take off and land or fly over Canadian airspace.
https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/boe ... 41d8c5bdf5
- rookiepilot
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4403
- Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm
Re: Ethiopian Airlines: 'No survivors' on crashed Boeing 737 max
LIve on CBC NW.....
Re: Ethiopian Airlines: 'No survivors' on crashed Boeing 737 max
Not to nitpick, but I think this is painting with a bit too wide of a brush. As I understand it:Jet Jockey wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:32 am
The MAX8 flew significantly enough different it was going to be a different type until MCAS was added to make it behave the same. This saved a ton of training and certification costs.
The problem is when in a problem situation and MCAS is disabled the pilots are for all intents and purposes now flying a type they have not been trained on.
- The (further) forward positioning of the engines on the MAX causes them to generate additional lift at higher AoA's when approaching stall.
- One of the certification requirements of this aircraft was that, as the aircraft approached a (clean) stall, the back pressure required to maintain a constant rate of AoA increase should not decrease. i.e. It should not get easier to raise the nose as you approach a stall. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this.
- The additional lift from the engine, at high AoA, was causing a pitch up moment, reducing the back pressure required to maintain a constant rate of AoA increase - hence failing that particular certification requirement. The 737-800 (NG) did not display this behaviour.
- MCAS was designed to nullify the effect of the extra lift at high AoA, by adding forward trim, causing the aircraft to behave like it's predecessor during an approach to stall.
- As I understand it, the MCAS does not augment the behaviour of the aircraft during any phase of flight other than a high AoA with flaps retracted and autopilot disengaged. (Approach to stall)
So, with the MCAS disabled, you will not notice any significantly different handling characteristics to the 737NG, unless you are in an approach-to-stall condition.
To say you are now flying a type you have not been trained on is probably a bit of a stretch w.r.t. disabling the MCAS system.
Re: Ethiopian Airlines: 'No survivors' on crashed Boeing 737 max
For an astronaut/engineer Garneau is a running dog-lackey to the sway of internet hysteria. He did not specify what "new information" he was processing with his engineer or astronaut "chapeau" on. Vertical profile? That was available from the start with Flight Radar. All my Max pilot buddies, including some training captains, don't have a concern flying it but emphasize that like any modern airliner you need to have a good understanding of the systems. And the Lion Air system issues with MCAS are now well known and reviewed in training, with thanks DaviiB for that explanation of this "bogeyman".
Copilot with 200 hrs? Was crew pairing done on a risk-assessed model? Things will go wrong with any machinery, the human interface is, or was, meant to mitigate the fact that every conceivable problem cannot be anticipated. The safety net of punching everything off and then systematically re-engaging after control is regained has now fallen out of favour because of the new religion that only full and complete automation can make an aircraft safer. Combined with pilot skill level that you wouldn't trust to hand fly, so just as well I suppose.
Like the large assortment of slightly different helmets in my closet for every leisure activity, this hypersensitivity to perceived or imagined risk is just a sign of the times. And the power of internet emotion and political interference has replaced the lengthy certification process, engineering analysis, and careful safety management systems.
Copilot with 200 hrs? Was crew pairing done on a risk-assessed model? Things will go wrong with any machinery, the human interface is, or was, meant to mitigate the fact that every conceivable problem cannot be anticipated. The safety net of punching everything off and then systematically re-engaging after control is regained has now fallen out of favour because of the new religion that only full and complete automation can make an aircraft safer. Combined with pilot skill level that you wouldn't trust to hand fly, so just as well I suppose.
Like the large assortment of slightly different helmets in my closet for every leisure activity, this hypersensitivity to perceived or imagined risk is just a sign of the times. And the power of internet emotion and political interference has replaced the lengthy certification process, engineering analysis, and careful safety management systems.
Re: Ethiopian Airlines: 'No survivors' on crashed Boeing 737 max
Very well stated . It seems that man's superstitions and fears override science and technology . In the end , all politicians ever care about, is votes .karmutzen wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:35 am For an astronaut/engineer Garneau is a running dog-lackey to the sway of internet hysteria. He did not specify what "new information" he was processing with his engineer or astronaut "chapeau" on. Vertical profile? That was available from the start with Flight Radar. All my Max pilot buddies, including some training captains, don't have a concern flying it but emphasize that like any modern airliner you need to have a good understanding of the systems. And the Lion Air system issues with MCAS are now well known and reviewed in training, with thanks DaviiB for that explanation of this "bogeyman".
Copilot with 200 hrs? Was crew pairing done on a risk-assessed model? Things will go wrong with any machinery, the human interface is, or was, meant to mitigate the fact that every conceivable problem cannot be anticipated. The safety net of punching everything off and then systematically re-engaging after control is regained has now fallen out of favour because of the new religion that only full and complete automation can make an aircraft safer. Combined with pilot skill level that you wouldn't trust to hand fly, so just as well I suppose.
Like the large assortment of slightly different helmets in my closet for every leisure activity, this hypersensitivity to perceived or imagined risk is just a sign of the times. And the power of internet emotion and political interference has replaced the lengthy certification process, engineering analysis, and careful safety management systems.
Re: Ethiopian Airlines: 'No survivors' on crashed Boeing 737 max
Agreed - perfectly phrased karmutzen.tsgas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:45 amVery well stated . It seems that man's superstitions and fears override science and technology . In the end , all politicians ever care about, is votes .karmutzen wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:35 am For an astronaut/engineer Garneau is a running dog-lackey to the sway of internet hysteria. He did not specify what "new information" he was processing with his engineer or astronaut "chapeau" on. Vertical profile? That was available from the start with Flight Radar. All my Max pilot buddies, including some training captains, don't have a concern flying it but emphasize that like any modern airliner you need to have a good understanding of the systems. And the Lion Air system issues with MCAS are now well known and reviewed in training, with thanks DaviiB for that explanation of this "bogeyman".
Copilot with 200 hrs? Was crew pairing done on a risk-assessed model? Things will go wrong with any machinery, the human interface is, or was, meant to mitigate the fact that every conceivable problem cannot be anticipated. The safety net of punching everything off and then systematically re-engaging after control is regained has now fallen out of favour because of the new religion that only full and complete automation can make an aircraft safer. Combined with pilot skill level that you wouldn't trust to hand fly, so just as well I suppose.
Like the large assortment of slightly different helmets in my closet for every leisure activity, this hypersensitivity to perceived or imagined risk is just a sign of the times. And the power of internet emotion and political interference has replaced the lengthy certification process, engineering analysis, and careful safety management systems.
Re: Ethiopian Airlines: 'No survivors' on crashed Boeing 737 max
CYHQ PURSUANT TO SECTION 5.1 OF THE AERONAUTICS ACT, THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT IS OF THE OPINION IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF AVIATION SAFETY AND THE PUBLIC TO PROHIBIT THE OPS OF BOEING 737-8 MAX AND 737-9 MAX ACFT IN CANADIAN AIRSPACE. B737-8 MAX OR B737-9 MAX ACFT ARE PROHIBITED FM OPR IN CANADIAN AIRSPACE EXC FOR FERRY FLIGHTS OR ACFT IN FLIGHT FOR THE DURATION OF THAT FLIGHT ENROUTE TO OR FM OR WITHIN CANADA AT THE TIME THIS NOTICE TAKES EFFECT.
That's a strange way to word a NOTAM. The Minister of Transport is of the opinion?
That's a strange way to word a NOTAM. The Minister of Transport is of the opinion?
Re: Ethiopian Airlines: 'No survivors' on crashed Boeing 737 max
That is a very Canadian notam. All that is missing is a sorry at the end.A346Dude wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:23 am CYHQ PURSUANT TO SECTION 5.1 OF THE AERONAUTICS ACT, THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT IS OF THE OPINION IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF AVIATION SAFETY AND THE PUBLIC TO PROHIBIT THE OPS OF BOEING 737-8 MAX AND 737-9 MAX ACFT IN CANADIAN AIRSPACE. B737-8 MAX OR B737-9 MAX ACFT ARE PROHIBITED FM OPR IN CANADIAN AIRSPACE EXC FOR FERRY FLIGHTS OR ACFT IN FLIGHT FOR THE DURATION OF THAT FLIGHT ENROUTE TO OR FM OR WITHIN CANADA AT THE TIME THIS NOTICE TAKES EFFECT.
That's a strange way to word a NOTAM. The Minister of Transport is of the opinion?
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship