Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in
kgwilson

Ethiopian 737-800 Max crash - No survivors

Recommended Posts

Story now coming out showing that Trump's attempt to make partial concession to N Korea were undermined by the 2 lunatics  Bolton & Pompeo. It figures that a deal maker is frustrated by agents of the MIC. what hope is there? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not much. The vested Interests are always there, looking after THEIR Interests.  Nev

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a recent (post Ethiopia) video similar to the one above (an airline pilot trying to explain the issue):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Informative 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Precisely!  If there was an independently powered GPS failsafe system that over-rode all systems where non-landing automation was merrily flying into the ground, the GPS "terrain-floor failsafe" could stop it.

 

Remember the story of the "little old lady that swallowed the fly". The gps "terrain floor failsafe" if it malfunctioned could cause the aircraft to stall (if the MCAS was working correctly) or prevent a landing (imagine  the terrain floor stuck at 12000' resulting in fuel exhaustion.

 

  The reason I would happily fly in a max 8 with Mr Brown is because he owns a Luscome 8A, a lovely old aircraft devoid of any electronic gadgets that is flown by looking out the front with only occasional reference to the ASI, also he seems to understand how trim systems work.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is news that investigators have found the horizontal stab in the Ethiopian crash trimmed for nose-down position - which is reportedly the same thing found on the Lion Air 737-800 MAX wreckage.

 

I think this is possibly the reason behind the grounding of the 737-800 MAX by Boeing.

 

It looks like Boeing engineers are starting to understand that there needs to be changes in Boeing automation to account for sensors feeding incorrect data to ADIRU's, to give better fallback options to pilots.

 

I believe Poteroo may have touched on part of the reason behind both crashes - the pilots in both crashes were possibly reluctant to turn off any automation (trim cut-out switches, specifically), and hand fly the aircraft, to regain control.

 

The basis of many training regimes, particularly in the "3rd World" countries, could be that the aircrafts electronic controls are virtually fail-safe, and it's better not to interfere with their operation. It could also be a cultural thing amongst the pilots from these nations.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we need to stay away from speculating about the crew.

 

From the above links we have:

 

"Boeing executives sat down last November with pilots at the Allied Pilots Association's in Texas............"

 

and

 

"The same week Boeing executives met with pilots in Fort Worth, they also asked pilots at Southwest Airlines - to meet with them......."

 

This was after the first crash, and only at that point did Boeing inform the US pilots of how this addition to the automation works.

 

But how was that information delivered to pilots outside the US?  And more specifically, was the recovery routine spelled out?

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also from the above link:

 

"I think it is unconscionable that a manufacturer, the FAA, and the airlines would have pilots flying an airplane without adequately training, or even providing available resources and sufficient documentation to understand the highly complex systems that differentiate this aircraft from prior models," one pilot wrote in November. "The fact that this airplane requires such jury rigging to fly is a red flag. Now we know the systems employed are error prone - even if the pilots aren't sure what those systems are, what redundancies are in place, and failure modes."

 

In my view, that says it all.

 

 

  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lawyers are going to have a field day with Boeing. Won't be long before the class actions start.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boeings own lawyers will now be in full damage control mode & probably have been for a while. I would have originally expected one of the most respected names in Aviation with an incredible safety record to have been totally up front and transparent from day 1 & by that I mean when they originally got the Max 8 in the air. It now seems that the aircraft has progressed past its realistic limits requiring levels of automated input approaching the low end of the military stuff that is so unstable it won't actually fly without the massive control inputs by the on board flight control systems. Their failure to tell pilots about these (MCAS) systems and provide appropriate training from the beginning is unforgivable.

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all leads back to Boeing's marketing strategy with these new aircraft.

 

Downplaying the differences between these newer Max 8 models and previous models to get orders from existing 737 users.

 

Promoting the interoperability in maintenance and pilot training.

 

There is a point I guess, where "upgraded" moves from simple to complex differences and these should be explained thoroughly to the customer.

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest question should be ,why did the aircraft fail to climb out.It never reached 2500 feet.Why were the engines not producing enough thrust/power.The MCAS comes in to pitch down in an impending stall.I believe there is more and hopefully Investigators will pick it.Did they have a stuck down trim tab that forced the elevator full up.Did the pilots program wrong weight into system.I believe the MCAS came into effect after the system detected a stall was imminent,so to me it was responding to a crisis just like a fuse will blow if high current passes through its rated capacity.We are mostly focusing on the result not exploring the causes.Why did the aircraft fail to climb out???  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The lawyers are going to have a field day with Boeing. Won't be long before the class actions start.

 

They may need to wait until the report is released. The two previous flights, maintenance, the role of management and the chief pilot will all be of interest. Were the pilot's aware of the aircraft's problems, did they know what the other crews did to recover ?   

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here comes the damage control.....disingenuous title, much???

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Below is an excellent dissertation on the 737 MAX's MCAS problems - written straight after the Lion Air crash, late last year.

 

The source of much of the increasing problems with the MAX, is the new engines, which have added a number of potential problem-causing scenarios, particularly related to the bigger engine positioning, and the new design, engine nacelles.

 

Add in AOA or airspeed sensor faults, coupled with the MCAS loop, and you can see where the handling problems are getting beyond pilots, who have not been run through the increased number of fault scenarios, or even how the MCAS works.

 

https://leehamnews.com/2018/11/14/boeings-automatic-trim-for-the-737-max-was-not-disclosed-to-the-pilots/

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The design of the 737 in 1966 was never meant to have to deal with such powerful engines. Moving the new engines forward provided only a small correction for the additional weight and thrust with MCAS designed to do the rest. The main competitor, the A320 didn't appear for another 20 years and quickly made inroads into the 737 marketplace. It was a new FBW design with a wider fuselage. It is now the fastest selling narrow body jet airliner with over 6000 firm orders, a position previously held by Boeing which has 5000 orders for the 737 Max. 

 

It is understandable why Boeing has persisted with the design being the most successful jet airliner of all time but perhaps a new total redesign would have been a better option given the current issues. The main reason why this did not happen is most likely Cost. Boeing may rue this decision depending on the final outcome of the current investigations

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The design of the 737 in 1966 was never meant to have to deal with such powerful engines. Moving the new engines forward provided only a small correction for the additional weight and thrust with MCAS designed to do the rest. The main competitor, the A320 didn't appear for another 20 years and quickly made inroads into the 737 marketplace. It was a new FBW design with a wider fuselage. It is now the fastest selling narrow body jet airliner with over 6000 firm orders, a position previously held by Boeing which has 5000 orders for the 737 Max. 

 

It is understandable why Boeing has persisted with the design being the most successful jet airliner of all time but perhaps a new total redesign would have been a better option given the current issues. The main reason why this did not happen is most likely Cost. Boeing may rue this decision depending on the final outcome of the current investigations

 

The problem as I understand it is the massive fan diameter on the newer fuel efficient engines. The engines have to be positioned lower further from the centre of drag. This causes a pitch up when thrust is applied. 

 

The only clean sheet design that would eliminate this would be a high wing with under slung engines, the public would not like this.

 

The engines on the new 777-x have a similar diameter to the 737 fuselage. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem as I understand it is the massive fan diameter on the newer fuel efficient engines. The engines have to be positioned lower further from the centre of drag. This causes a pitch up when thrust is applied...

 

Are you sure, T88? Surely a larger-diameter engine would be mounted higher, to maintain ground clearance.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The engines aren't lower. They're moved forward and raised.

 

The first video in message #54, above, does a pretty good job of explaining the relocation of the engines, and the effect/s of that.

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you sure, T88? Surely a larger-diameter engine would be mounted higher, to maintain ground clearance.

 

Yes, all the bypass air(most of the thrust) has to go under the wing, all the newer aircraft have very little clearance. 

 

 

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later for your post to be seen If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...