Author Topic: Boeing 737 Max  (Read 6614 times)

Offline guncrasher

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17313
Re: Boeing 737 Max
« Reply #105 on: July 05, 2020, 01:55:13 PM »

I know a guy who used to be a co-pilot (or First Officer, for you official types) for a local regional airline.  I said, "So what's it like to fly a passenger jet?"  He replied, "I know quite a lot about the autopilot."

- oldman

well that explains a lot to me.  i like to watch airplane crash recreations. always wondered why a pilot would mess with the autopilot during an event. even seen a few where either failed to activate or set it wrong and airplane crashed.


semp
you dont want me to ho, dont point your plane at me.

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Re: Boeing 737 Max
« Reply #106 on: July 05, 2020, 03:04:14 PM »

The last type endorsement I completed as my career wound down was conducted almost completely on the automation. It was the most technologically advanced airplane I ever flew. After the Proficiency Check, I asked my young Instructor, "Do we ever get to fly this thing?" He calmly answered "It's discouraged".

An Airbus by any chance? :)

That AF447 crash as described in Vanity Fair by Langewiesche really highlighted the minimal actual stick time that the AF pilots were getting and the direction to use the autopilot almost all the time per the company directives. Obviously it's not just AF either.

As an aside, AF447 is another example where the crew couldn't handle the abnormal in a completely flyable aircraft.. It also featured numerous incredibly poor design features from the manufacturer. But they never grounded the 330.

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline TyFoo

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
Re: Boeing 737 Max
« Reply #107 on: July 05, 2020, 03:36:16 PM »
Most likely yes, it would have made a safe return.  The reason I am saying most likely is that the Ethiopian pilots are reported to have followed the Boeing guidelines for disabling MCAS however as you stated, they left other aspects of the flight uncontrolled which complicated the situation to the point of fatality.There are a number of questions that come out of this:

  • Did the jump seat pilot correctly diagnose the issue or did he get lucky?  I say lucky because remember at this stage Boeing had not made the presence of MCAS widely known.
  • If that 3rd pilot had been one of the regular crew that day and there had not been a third pilot present would he have made the same decision or would he have become overwhelmed as with the other crews?
[li]

The Ethiopian pilots were in Visual Metrological Conditions, meaning they didn't have the extra burden of trying to keep the airplane upright in clouds with no visual cues. So the Other Apspects of the flight following the Trim Disconnect would have been to reduce the thrust and return to the airport. Or as they say in the Business - Fly the Plane -.

Unfortunately many of these 3rd world airlines put pilots into the plane with very low hours and little hands on flying experience. A good example is the 350hr Right seater on the Ethiopian flight. Mind you, that the average flight student at least here in the U.S. - just to get your Private Pilot license is around 70hrs. Although the FAA allows you to get it in as little as 40hrs. More than 1/2 those hours are with an instructor. To get your commercial license is around 250hr total time, and less if you attend a Part 141 school. Thats 250 to 350 hours total time spread out over 2+ years to attain such time. So, consider how much experience the right seat pilot could have really had and put that into perspective.

With the engines set to takeoff power during the entire event - it is a good indication the crew quickly became overwhelmed. Although they initially performed the runaway trim procedure correctly following the recommended procedure. They spent less than 6 seconds trying secondary trim, and then re-activated the Primary Trim. That is not in ANY manual.

There are two trim wheels sitting next to each pilots Knees the size of a dinner plate blackish brown in color with a big 1" white stripe painted on them. It moves anytime the plane is being trimmed. You wont miss it. When it moves uncommanded, the "Memory" (Immediate action)(No Looking it up in the Emergency Checklist) item for every aircraft is to disable the Primary Trim. Every Pilot is tought this, trained in class on this, given an oral exam on this, and trained in the simulator. It doesn't get overlooked. If it is, then that's on the Airline training department, not the manufacturer.

You say "Lucky" - I say the 3rd pilot studied his manual and offered the proper advice because that is what he was trained to do. It doesn't matter whether the trim malfunctioned or MCAS activated it. The deciding factor is if it moved without pilot or autopilot input.

Since the pilot deactivated the autopilot and was hand flying and getting uncommanded trim, its obvious he recognized a trim problem countering with opposite trim. What isn't obvious is why he waited so long to deactivate the trim - again more than likely he was overwhelmed and input overloaded.

The Ethiopian 350hr right seater was reading through the Emergency checklist taking up valuable "Minutes" on items that should have been quickly looked up and some by memory. This is a strong indication of a lack of thorough training, lack of experience, and a strong indication about the airlines culture as it relates to safety and desire to make money. Having a 350hrs total time person in a jet with sophisticated systems when compared to your Cessna 172 in an emergency situation is about as helpful as 5 year old sitting in a puddle of spilled milk while you try to clean it up.

BOEING handled the entire MCAS situation completely wrong, should be going through what they are going through, and is paying the price - as they should.

And while the Pilots made mistakes in their handling of the events no matter what % it contributed, in your 8 Bullet Points, I did not see anything put onto the airlines themselves, there lack of maintenance and safety processes, or their governing body which should oversee such actions, which BTW owns the airline. The Airlines and their respective Governments are as much a party to these accidents as the manufacturer and they clearly put the desire to make Money over Safety.

Offline Busher

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2057
Re: Boeing 737 Max
« Reply #108 on: July 05, 2020, 04:38:22 PM »
An Airbus by any chance? :)

That AF447 crash as described in Vanity Fair by Langewiesche really highlighted the minimal actual stick time that the AF pilots were getting and the direction to use the autopilot almost all the time per the company directives. Obviously it's not just AF either.

As an aside, AF447 is another example where the crew couldn't handle the abnormal in a completely flyable aircraft.. It also featured numerous incredibly poor design features from the manufacturer. But they never grounded the 330.

No Toad. I was senior enough that I could bid around the Airbus's in our fleet. I refused to fly any of them.
Being male, an accident of birth. Being a man, a matter of age. Being a gentleman, a matter of choice.

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Re: Boeing 737 Max
« Reply #109 on: July 06, 2020, 07:04:07 AM »
Don't blame you a bit Busher; I'd have done the same thing.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline Busher

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2057
Re: Boeing 737 Max
« Reply #110 on: July 06, 2020, 09:22:42 AM »
Tyfoo, thank you for that well written summary. Forgive me for asking but it sounds like it was written by an experienced Boeing pilot...
Being male, an accident of birth. Being a man, a matter of age. Being a gentleman, a matter of choice.

Offline Puma44

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6688
Re: Boeing 737 Max
« Reply #111 on: July 06, 2020, 12:39:40 PM »
Don't blame you a bit Busher; I'd have done the same thing.

Ditto!



All gave some, Some gave all

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Re: Boeing 737 Max
« Reply #112 on: July 06, 2020, 01:03:32 PM »
Tyfoo,

Yes, indeed. Good post. Welcome to the "you guys" club. :)
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline mikeWe9a

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 261
Re: Boeing 737 Max
« Reply #113 on: July 06, 2020, 02:29:33 PM »
get off your high horse.  from my point of view a 1200 gadget could have prevented, in addition to pilots being told no simulating training needed and to qualify and ipad was sufficient.

pilots were so under trained that they had thousands of hours with no accidents. but of course they were lucky.


semp
A "$1200 gadget" may or may not have saved that aircraft from the incompetence of its operators.  On the other hand, it would be another thing to break, and in breaking might cause another set of incompetent pilots to crash their aircraft instead.  Every thing you add to an airplane has the potential to break, be misinterpreted, or be misused.  Some of those results are more likely than the chance of whatever problem it is intended to prevent.

Mike

Offline Mister Fork

  • AvA Staff Member
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7253
Re: Boeing 737 Max
« Reply #114 on: July 06, 2020, 03:09:31 PM »
I would like to point out, it doesn't take an active commercial or retired pilot to point the finger at a bunch of issues with both crashes.

Let's see here....

Let's Crash an Airplane Checklist
3rd world country - check
Mechanical issues prior to crash - check
Aircraft would of been maintenance grounded if in North America/Europe - check
Pilots that didn't follow SOP's for standard commercial flying 101 issue - check
Pilots that didn't 'fly the plane' - check
Poorly trained pilots - check
Airline with poor maintenance practices - check
Airline that spends little safety/preventative training - check
Plane with features pilots didn't understand - check
Government known to be corrupt - check
Flying over warzone -
Hijacked aircraft -
Incompetent ATC -
Poor pilot certification programs - check


Two or three checkboxes can crash a plane. These guys almost had most of them .

Final point, just because Boeing had a weak training program on MCAS, it's still ultimately up to the airline and pilots to ensure they properly know all the systems of aircraft they fly to ensure the safety of their passengers.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2020, 03:32:31 PM by Mister Fork »
"Games are meant to be fun and fair but fighting a war is neither." - HiTech

Offline guncrasher

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17313
Re: Boeing 737 Max
« Reply #115 on: July 06, 2020, 04:33:16 PM »


Final point, just because Boeing had a weak training program on MCAS, it's still ultimately up to the airline and pilots to ensure they properly know all the systems of aircraft they fly to ensure the safety of their passengers.

wow, actually wt$ is more appropriate.

so grounding the plane was the right thing to do. we have no help from Manu, let's not crash another plane


semp
« Last Edit: July 06, 2020, 04:47:06 PM by guncrasher »
you dont want me to ho, dont point your plane at me.

Offline FESS67

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1051
Re: Boeing 737 Max
« Reply #116 on: July 07, 2020, 02:16:47 AM »
The Ethiopian pilots were in Visual Metrological Conditions, meaning they didn't have the extra burden of trying to keep the airplane upright in clouds with no visual cues. So the Other Apspects of the flight following the Trim Disconnect would have been to reduce the thrust and return to the airport. Or as they say in the Business - Fly the Plane -.

Unfortunately many of these 3rd world airlines put pilots into the plane with very low hours and little hands on flying experience. A good example is the 350hr Right seater on the Ethiopian flight. Mind you, that the average flight student at least here in the U.S. - just to get your Private Pilot license is around 70hrs. Although the FAA allows you to get it in as little as 40hrs. More than 1/2 those hours are with an instructor. To get your commercial license is around 250hr total time, and less if you attend a Part 141 school. Thats 250 to 350 hours total time spread out over 2+ years to attain such time. So, consider how much experience the right seat pilot could have really had and put that into perspective.

With the engines set to takeoff power during the entire event - it is a good indication the crew quickly became overwhelmed. Although they initially performed the runaway trim procedure correctly following the recommended procedure. They spent less than 6 seconds trying secondary trim, and then re-activated the Primary Trim. That is not in ANY manual.

There are two trim wheels sitting next to each pilots Knees the size of a dinner plate blackish brown in color with a big 1" white stripe painted on them. It moves anytime the plane is being trimmed. You wont miss it. When it moves uncommanded, the "Memory" (Immediate action)(No Looking it up in the Emergency Checklist) item for every aircraft is to disable the Primary Trim. Every Pilot is tought this, trained in class on this, given an oral exam on this, and trained in the simulator. It doesn't get overlooked. If it is, then that's on the Airline training department, not the manufacturer.

You say "Lucky" - I say the 3rd pilot studied his manual and offered the proper advice because that is what he was trained to do. It doesn't matter whether the trim malfunctioned or MCAS activated it. The deciding factor is if it moved without pilot or autopilot input.

Since the pilot deactivated the autopilot and was hand flying and getting uncommanded trim, its obvious he recognized a trim problem countering with opposite trim. What isn't obvious is why he waited so long to deactivate the trim - again more than likely he was overwhelmed and input overloaded.

The Ethiopian 350hr right seater was reading through the Emergency checklist taking up valuable "Minutes" on items that should have been quickly looked up and some by memory. This is a strong indication of a lack of thorough training, lack of experience, and a strong indication about the airlines culture as it relates to safety and desire to make money. Having a 350hrs total time person in a jet with sophisticated systems when compared to your Cessna 172 in an emergency situation is about as helpful as 5 year old sitting in a puddle of spilled milk while you try to clean it up.

BOEING handled the entire MCAS situation completely wrong, should be going through what they are going through, and is paying the price - as they should.

And while the Pilots made mistakes in their handling of the events no matter what % it contributed, in your 8 Bullet Points, I did not see anything put onto the airlines themselves, there lack of maintenance and safety processes, or their governing body which should oversee such actions, which BTW owns the airline. The Airlines and their respective Governments are as much a party to these accidents as the manufacturer and they clearly put the desire to make Money over Safety.

All good points and all have been made before.  I agree I was remiss in not mentioning the part the airlines themselves played.

I maintain my stance that whilst the pilots played their part in the issue I do not think it fair to throw them under the bus.  It may be media hype or just Hollywood but wasn't Sullenberger initially vilified for not making it back to the airport as simulations proved he could and it was only due to the fact that he was alive to argue his case that a different conclusion was arrived at?  These guys are not alive to argue their case, they are not here to defend their competency or otherwise.


Offline FESS67

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1051
Re: Boeing 737 Max
« Reply #117 on: July 07, 2020, 02:20:39 AM »


Final point, just because Boeing had a weak training program on MCAS, it's still ultimately up to the airline and pilots to ensure they properly know all the systems of aircraft they fly to ensure the safety of their passengers.

My understanding was not that it was a weak training program, they actively sought to have no training required, effectively hiding the system from the pilots.  There are plenty of reports from US pilots who were pretty upset once they became aware of the existence of MCAS, not because of what it did but because they were not told it was there.


Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Re: Boeing 737 Max
« Reply #118 on: July 07, 2020, 08:20:25 AM »
This is from the Final Report on Lion Air 610. It details the AOA/MCAS problems on the previous flight. I found it interesting that it really does not highlight the jumpseat pilot as the guy that saved the aircraft as the news reports kind of did. I was also somewhat surprised to see that the jumpseat pilot was a F/O; for some reason I thought he was a Captain.

In any event, it shows what the crew of 610 could have done but failed to do. This I think once again highlights what the "you guys" have been saying. In the end, the crew is the last entity that can break the accident chain. On Lion Air 043 the crew was able to do just that. On Lion Air 610, the crew was unable to do that despite flying in the exact same aircraft with the same problem.


Quote
2.1 Previous Flight Crew (LNI043) Actions

Lion Air flight 043 (LNI043) was from DPS to CGK and was about 1.5 hours long. The  LNI043  flight  crew  was  able  to  successfully  land  the  accident aircraft while experiencing the same conditions as the accident flight. The investigation looked at the flight crew’s situation awareness and handling of flight  deck  indications,  their decision  to  continue  the  flight,  and  their  reporting  of  encountered  issues  after  the flight.

2.1.1  Situation Awareness and Handling of Flight Deck Indications

The Captain’s initial response,as the PF, to the activation of stick shaker during lift-off and subsequent response of numerous caution lights was to continue rotation by maintaining  pitch  15  degrees  and   existing  take-off  thrust. After  the Captain transferred   control   to   the   FO,   he   cross-checked   the   flight   instruments   and determined  his  instruments  were  erroneous.  The  Captain  action  of  transferring  the control  prior  to  crosscheck of the  instruments may have indicated  that  the  Captain generally was aware of the repetitive previous problem of SPD and ALT flags and the replacement of the left AOA sensor on this aircraft

During acceleration and clean up, there were three occasions where the aircraft did not  climb  positively.  Following  the  advice  from  the  deadheading  crew  on  the observer seat that the aircraft was diving down, the Captain commanded the FO to follow  F/D  command  and  re-trim  the  aircraft  to  retain  appropriate  climb  path.  The FO commented that the aircraft is “too heavy to hold back” which suggests and the FO  also  unable  to  trim  the  aircraft  as  intended  where  the  aircraft  started  to  pitch down after nose-up trim  was released.  Observation of the aircraft to the  condition reinforced  the  Captain  to  cut-out the  Stabilizer  Trim.  This  action  made  the  aircraft under  control  and  enabled  the  flight  crew  to  fly  the  aircraft  normally  using  the manual trim.

http://knkt.dephub.go.id/knkt/ntsc_aviation/baru/2018%20-%20035%20-%20PK-LQP%20Final%20Report.pdf

That's pretty much how the problem on 610 should have been handled. Note the use of standard pitch/power. Note the cutout of the stab trim. Same aircraft, same problem...different crew. One lives, one doesn't.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2020, 08:40:04 AM by Toad »
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline Busher

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2057
Re: Boeing 737 Max
« Reply #119 on: July 07, 2020, 11:35:55 AM »
Toad, did the report that provided that detail for you address how a clearly malfunctioning airplane was dispatched to fly again?
Being male, an accident of birth. Being a man, a matter of age. Being a gentleman, a matter of choice.