News Ethiopian 737 crashed on way to Kenya, 157 people on-board

MaverickSawyer

Acolyte of the Probe
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
3,919
Reaction score
5
Points
61
Location
Wichita
But, it's still tolerant of a single failed sensor, right? That's the rub of the issue with MCAS on the MAX. It's NOT tolerant of a single failed sensor.
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,588
Reaction score
2,312
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
But, it's still tolerant of a single failed sensor, right? That's the rub of the issue with MCAS on the MAX. It's NOT tolerant of a single failed sensor.


No. It is not, as you can see with the AF447 crash.



The important difference is: On the 737 MAX, an FBW-like component tries to kill you when one sensor fails. On any Airbus aircraft, the FBW shuts down all advanced functions when a single sensor fails, completely changing the flight characteristics and leaves it to the pilots to fly a completely different aircraft from one second to the other.
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,588
Reaction score
2,312
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
Aaaah, I thought they'd fixed that.


No, they essentially just made a few optional features of the Airbus family standard - they now have a very explicit warning for dual input situations and a PFD function that assists during air data conflicts to help estimating forward speed by variometer and attitude. Both software features had been available before to airlines.



The BEA had recommended to FAA and EASA to make AOA indicators mandatory, the FAA has only made it mandatory for general aviation, not commercial airlines. Both Airbus and Boeing have no AOA indicators right now.
 

Linguofreak

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2008
Messages
5,017
Reaction score
1,253
Points
188
Location
Dallas, TX
Whether or not AOA sensors are generally required, they should certainly be required when an automatic system is able to modify the pilot's flight control inputs based on AOA (such as FBW or stick pusher systems).
 

MaverickSawyer

Acolyte of the Probe
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
3,919
Reaction score
5
Points
61
Location
Wichita
Just drove past Renton Municipal Airport... I counted three non-MAX 737s on the field: two NGs and a P-8 Poseidon.
On the other hand, there's 20+ MAXes stacked up all around the field right now, some without engines. It seems that Boeing isn't going to stop building the MAX for any period of time, even while the investigation is still underway.

At the rate they're currently building them, though, they're going to run out of ramp space by the end of the month.
 

Attachments

  • 15529417689731663910858.jpg
    15529417689731663910858.jpg
    264.6 KB · Views: 21

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,588
Reaction score
2,312
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
At the rate they're currently building them, though, they're going to run out of ramp space by the end of the month.


Can you give Boeing the hint that Volkswagen just gets out of the woods with the WLTP problems and the apron of the never-to-be-finished Berlin International Airport will soon be empty again and not the biggest parking lot in German. ;)



They just would need to SHIP them to Germany, after all, flying is not allowed. :rofl:
 

MaverickSawyer

Acolyte of the Probe
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
3,919
Reaction score
5
Points
61
Location
Wichita
Well, this is... disturbing:
http://arstechnica.com/information-...e-risks-self-certified-much-of-planes-safety/
Boeing significantly and deliberately understated the risk MCAS posed, despite knowing that a failure was considered "hazardous", and the FAA took Boeing's presentation at face value and didn't do their own investigation, largely due to... drumroll please...
Congress.
Congress has forced the FAA to outsource safety testing and analysis to either the manufacturer or to third-party companies to "improve government efficiency". :facepalm:
 

Keatah

Active member
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
2,218
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Although it's possible to disable the MCAS manually, it requires manually cranking the trim wheel or pressing the MCAS cutout switch on the trim wheel, and 737 pilots are not trained on that because the MAX was certified to not require retraining for existing 737 pilots (!!). Regarding the MCAS system on the MAX:

This was done very specifically because Boeing's sales department used "no retraining required" as a major selling point to reach x amount of orders. A financial incentive.In fact, from what I heard, MCAS was designed TO help prevent needing retraining. And it was supposed to just sit in the background doing its thing, error free, not unlike any'ol lugnut

---------- Post added at 06:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:23 AM ----------

So I would probably crash the plane, because the autopilot needs to be shut off first. And if I understand you correctly, that's a complicated set of actions. I think the autopilot should disable immediately when any manual input is registered and give full control to the pilot. I doubt whether certificates of airworthiness are issued to planes which fight pilots.

On the way to complete automation, planes do try to prevent pilots from putting them into dangerous attitudes or positions. So yes the plane will fight against you. Been that way for years.

---------- Post added at 06:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:25 AM ----------

I would be astonished if it turns out that the pilots were struggling to take manual control to pull the plane, a 737 which can be flown manually very easily, out of a descending situation and failed to do so in time. If pilots can't take manual control, why have pilots aboard at all? That's unheard of. So I think some other events must have caused this crash. We'll have to wait.

It's becoming more complex and tedious to regain 100% full manual control. Used to be just press the red button on the yoke, for Boeing. Now you need to do other things like pull switches or breakers.

Also at the same time, when automation fails, and it will, is the time it takes for a pilot to get back in the loop.

---------- Post added at 06:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:30 AM ----------


Two Boeings of TUI enroute to The Netherlands had to land elsewhere because the airspace closed at 20:00hrs. One landed in Bulgaria, one diverted to Gran Canaria.

This makes me quite angry. What a freakshow is this turning into. Denying these planes to finish their planned routes adds nothing to safety. It just causes inconvience for people, extra costs for the airlines and most hypocritical: It exposes the passengers and crew to the risks of an extra take-off and landing.

Don't let these planes take-off then! Planes in-flight should not be subject to the latest dwellings of politicians influenced by the latest messages on Twitter. This makes no sense at all.

In a day and age where so many things are taken care of for us, and so little effort is required to accomplish that - people will invent makework. Idle hands. Political posturing. Look at me! Sensationalism. Make some noise..

---------- Post added at 07:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:46 AM ----------

Now various news sources are now reporting that the grounding of the 737 is the result of a chain reaction in 'Public emotion'. Exactly the point I made. I named it a snow-ball effect. Again, important safety decision should not be the result op public outcries. That's a dangerous safety flaw by itself.

Sometimes the public and uneducated-in-aviation can get it right by common sense. And it's becoming more ingrained in our culture - doing things without technical or scientific proof.

After all, marketing push through MCAS as a bandaid for the consequence of moving the engines forward and making bigger. All in the name of efficiency and profit.

Sorry to be all gung-ho and cynical on this, but it happens all the time.
 
Last edited:

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,588
Reaction score
2,312
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
On the way to complete automation, planes do try to prevent pilots from putting them into dangerous attitudes or positions. So yes the plane will fight against you. Been that way for years.

For Airbus - Boeing preferred an other approach there, that is IMHO way more dangerous: Creating the illusion that the aircraft only does what the pilot wants it to do - unless the pilot is not clear in stating his intentions to the aircraft...
 

Thorsten

Active member
Joined
Dec 7, 2013
Messages
785
Reaction score
56
Points
43
Again, important safety decision should not be the result op public outcries. That's a dangerous safety flaw by itself.

If the reports that Boeing essentially certified the device itself and deliberately understated the potential risk turn out to be true, than it would seem so that important safety decisions in the hands of the 'experts' can be a complete sham - in this case, public outcry is one of the possible correctives.

So I would not play it down until the truth of this matter has been resolved satisfactorily.
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,588
Reaction score
2,312
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
The first airline, Garuda of Indonesia, has cancelled an order of 49 737 Max aircraft. They cite lost confidence of the passengers in the model as reason there.
 

tl8

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Tutorial Publisher
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
3,645
Reaction score
25
Points
88
Location
Gold Coast QLD
Interesting that Garuda is the first. They are not known for their safety...
 

dbeachy1

O-F Administrator
Administrator
Orbiter Contributor
Addon Developer
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,214
Reaction score
1,560
Points
203
Location
VA
Website
alteaaerospace.com
Preferred Pronouns
he/him
Speaking personally, I would never get on a 737 MAX even with the "software fix" that is supposed to be rolling out soon.
 

Evil_Onyx

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
60
Points
63
At this point I would not fly on any Boeing aircraft certified in the last decade at this point. As it seems that something is wrong with the way that the MAX Family was allowed to be sold with out much independent oversight concerns me.
 

MaverickSawyer

Acolyte of the Probe
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
3,919
Reaction score
5
Points
61
Location
Wichita
At this point I would not fly on any Boeing aircraft certified in the last decade at this point. As it seems that something is wrong with the way that the MAX Family was allowed to be sold with out much independent oversight concerns me.

Well, then all you really have to avoid is the MAX. The 787 has resolved all of its teething issues and has become a highly reliable airliner... Though I think the jury is still out on the long-term durability and repairability of the composite structure.
 

Keatah

Active member
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
2,218
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Are modern day airliners becoming so complex that we have to crowd-test them in the field?
 

MaverickSawyer

Acolyte of the Probe
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
3,919
Reaction score
5
Points
61
Location
Wichita
Are modern day airliners becoming so complex that we have to crowd-test them in the field?

No. Boeing decided that profits were more important than safety, and predictably, they found out the hard way that wasn't a good idea.
 
Last edited:
Top