Travel Boeing 737 MAX issues

[rdhopkins2]

The Boeing 737 MAX has been grounded worldwide after two tragic and horrific crashes. All souls on board both flights perished in the disasters.

Firstly a Lion Air flight crashed approximately 11 mins after departure in the Java Sea near Jakarta, Indonesia.

The second crash involved an Ethiopian Airlines flight which crashed on land 6mins after departing Addis Ababa.

With the grounding of the B737-MAX, questions are being asked as to whether the causes are related. If so, how can Boeing rectify the issue and regain the confidence of the flying public?

With Lion Air, who don’t have the most enviable safety record, the finger was quickly pointed at a pilot or maintenance issue. The Ethiopian Airlines crash has opened the posibilty that it isn’t just an airline issue.

Unfortunately in aviation, when mistakes are made or something overlooked, the consequences can be catastrophic.

 

[Allikat]

Poor pilot training because cheap airlines don't realise how different new technology can make the handling of aircraft.

 

[SHAKESPEARE]

Poor pilot training because cheap airlines don't realise how different new technology can make the handling of aircraft.

Couldn't these crashes have been avoided by the flick of a switch?

 

[Admiral Byng]

Poor pilot training because cheap airlines don't realise how different new technology can make the handling of aircraft.

The aircraft are almost brand new, Boeing should alert their customers as to the new features. What what I have read there seems to be a new feature that monitors airspeed and if it thinks a stall is about to happen it dips the nose down of it's own accord, to increase the airspeed. This is something that they should take the initiative on to make sure airlines and pilots are aware of. If it turns out that the software monitoring the airspeed situation is faulty, or that the airspeed sensors are of a faulty design and give false readings, then it is pretty much all up to Boeing. Trying to imporve safety but ending up making it worse.

 

[FRUMPY]

The aircraft are almost brand new, Boeing should alert their customers as to the new features. What what I have read there seems to be a new feature that monitors airspeed and if it thinks a stall is about to happen it dips the nose down of it's own accord, to increase the airspeed. This is something that they should take the initiative on to make sure airlines and pilots are aware of. If it turns out that the software monitoring the airspeed situation is faulty, or that the airspeed sensors are of a faulty design and give false readings, then it is pretty much all up to Boeing. Trying to imporve safety but ending up making it worse.

Yeah from what I gather, rather than re-training pilots they put in new sensors/gadgets etc that would handle the new upgrades etc. These new sensors are faulty. So rather than spend money on re-training, they cut costs and its come back and bit them on the ass big time.

 

[darrenmorgan]

Boeing have got blood on their hands here. they rushed to get this updated version on the 737 out to compete with the Airbus 330neo, which offered airlines a more fuel efficient (cheaper) short haul workhorse option. Boeing had to compete (American Airlines, their biggest client, indicated they'd be looking at the Airbus given the cost savings). but Boeing didn't want to change the 37 too much as that would result in costly crew training requirements, which would put the airlines off the idea anyway. so they said its just an upgrade on the 37, but essentially the same aircraft, so pilots will be all sweet to fly it.

except it IS different - the engines are further forward which pitches the aeroplane nose-up when travelling at lower speeds (i.e. just after take off) which can cause a stall. so they whacked in the MCAS software to push the nose back down to prevent this. but, ahem, they didn't train anyone in it. in fact, they didn't even really mention it (or what to do to override or turn it off if its receiving faulty readings). even after the Lion crash, they said all good, we'll plug in a software fix and job done, keep flying. but again, they kept it all this very hush hush, nothing to see here.

i guess this is what happens when the FFA allows them to essentially semi-self regulate. sure, its not in Boeing's interest to have their planes crashing to the ground, but its as clear as clear can be that they've gone for profit over safety here. and it will hurt them big time.

 

[Art Corvelay]

Yep, everything I’ve read so far suggests Boeing are at fault here, not the airlines or pilots. Seems Boeing tried to act like there were only minor differences when that’s not the case at all.

That everyone has grounded the new planes suggests where the fault lies.

 

[rdhopkins2]

I’m a big Boeing fan but it seems they have made a major oversight here.

 

[darrenmorgan]

I’m a big Boeing fan but it seems they have made a major oversight here.

the problem is it wasn't an oversight. it was a clear business decision.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Reporting that the pilots on the Lion Air plane can be hard on the CVR .

As the seconds ticked by on the doomed Indonesian flight, the pilot handed the controls to his co-pilot and flipped through the pages of a technical manual, trying to figure out what was happening.

Then, as the nose of Lion Air Flight 610 repeatedly bucked downward, Harvino, the co-pilot, began to pray.

The supplication was caught on the final seconds of audio in the cockpit voice recorder.

“God is great,” Mr. Harvino, an experienced Indonesian aviator, said, then recited a verse asking God to grant a miracle.

But there was no miracle on Oct. 29, when the brand-new Boeing 737 Max 8 dived into the Java Sea in Indonesia, amid good weather, after 12 minutes in the air.

 

[Admiral Byng]

I came here just to post that ^^ Just read a very similar article.

Does not sound good for Boeing if the pilots were scrambling for the manual to find out how to override the automatic systems. It does begin to sound like faulty sensors or faulty software thinking the plane is about to stall and putting the plane into a dive, when it fact it was in normal flight mode.

 

[darrenmorgan]

Reporting that the pilots on the Lion Air plane can be hard on the CVR .

As the seconds ticked by on the doomed Indonesian flight, the pilot handed the controls to his co-pilot and flipped through the pages of a technical manual, trying to figure out what was happening.

Then, as the nose of Lion Air Flight 610 repeatedly bucked downward, Harvino, the co-pilot, began to pray.

The supplication was caught on the final seconds of audio in the cockpit voice recorder.

“God is great,” Mr. Harvino, an experienced Indonesian aviator, said, then recited a verse asking God to grant a miracle.

But there was no miracle on Oct. 29, when the brand-new Boeing 737 Max 8 dived into the Java Sea in Indonesia, amid good weather, after 12 minutes in the air.

Yes they tried to correct 26 times I think and it was going in 20 second increments (? From memory, I may be wrong). The poor guys had no legitimate response because no one told them how to manage the situation (which in actuality is quite a simple thing).

As I said, Boeing have 350+ lives on their hands here (and many years and $$$ in court cases coming up) because of a business ops/financial decision.

 

[darrenmorgan]

mind you, the Trump Admin has severly weakened oversight on Secretary of Transportation so much so that like most government agencies under this WH, there remains a veritable plethora of crucial jobs unfilled in that agency. who needs oversight when it hinders profit opportunities? typical trump "policy" here. there's a reason that institutions exist, and there's a reason that the USA was an economic powerhouse - its precisily because of these institutions (which he openly craves to break down). and this is a prime example.

Trump of course doesn't understand that, because he only just sees things as money making opportunities. i fear for the country once he's gone because its very easy to break things, but its a hell of a lot harder to rebuild them.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Yes they tried to correct 26 times I think and it was going in 20 second increments (? From memory, I may be wrong). The poor guys had no legitimate response because no one told them how to manage the situation (which in actuality is quite a simple thing).

As I said, Boeing have 350+ lives on their hands here (and many years and $$$ in court cases coming up) because of a business ops/financial decision.

I see Boeing have said they have a software fix for it now. That's comforting, I'm more interested in why they think it's acceptable to have to use a software fix to make their plane fly properly.

I'll keep a keen eye on this, I fly quite a bit despite not being the biggest fan. I fly Virgin from Melbourne to Perth and return on a regular basis and I'm a platinum member but I'm not sure how I'll feel if they go ahead with their purchase of these planes. When I book my flights, it will generally have the flight down as being an A330, which I like, but we invariably end up on a 737. We fly A320s up to work.

 

[darrenmorgan]

the 737 is a workhorse, and a magnificent aircraft. and they have a great track record. and i have no doubt Boeing will solve this. but they've done untold damage to their brand here by trying to rush things just to keep up with the competition.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

What were the reports that darrenmorgan alluded to earlier?

They wouldn't change the platform to accommodate newer, bigger more fuel efficient engines, so they've had to be mounted further forward throwing the balance of plane out, they also made adjustments to the front landing gear but left the rear alone. The also came up with their software workaround.

Very ordinary for some extra dollar$.

 

[darrenmorgan]

What were the reports that darrenmorgan alluded to earlier?

They wouldn't change the platform to accommodate newer, bigger more fuel efficient engines, so they've had to be mounted further forward throwing the balance of plane out, they also made adjustments to the front landing gear but left the rear alone. The also came up with their software workaround.

Very ordinary for some extra dollar$.

what reports are you referring to sorry? just trying to understand... you mean the one re: the corrections?

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

what reports are you referring to sorry? just trying to understand... you mean the one re: the corrections?

Just about the ones where they had to make some changes to be able to accommodate the new engines.

 

[darrenmorgan]

Just about the ones where they had to make some changes to be able to accommodate the new engines.

Good wrap here (link):
"Remember those larger CFM LEAP engines? Well, because they're bigger, and because the 737 sits so low to the ground (a deliberate design choice to let it serve small airports with limited ground equipment), Boeing moved the engines slightly forward and raised them higher on their underwing pylons. (If you place an engine too close to the ground, it can suck in debris while the plane is taxiing.) That change allowed Boeing to accommodate the engines without completely redesigning the 737 fuselage. But the new position changed how the aircraft handled in the air, creating the potential for the nose to pitch up during flight. A pitched nose is a problem in flight -- raise it too high and a plane can stall. To overcome this action, Boeing designed software called the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, or MCAS. When a sensor on the fuselage detects that the nose is too high, MCAS automatically pushes the nose down."

 

[SHAKESPEARE]

So technically it was pilot error, and the planes are safe...if you know how to fly them?

 

[Art Corvelay]

So technically it was pilot error, and the planes are safe...if you know how to fly them?

Except Boeing self certified the changes, and did not provide enough training/information on how to fly them and the changes between the new plane and an older 737. Plus, the fact software patches have since been developed clearly indicates the planes were not behaving as expected.

It’s pretty pathetic passing the buck onto the pilots here.

 

[SHAKESPEARE]

Except Boeing self certified the changes, and did not provide enough training/information on how to fly them and the changes between the new plane and an older 737. Plus, the fact software patches have since been developed clearly indicates the planes were not behaving as expected.

It’s pretty pathetic passing the buck onto the pilots here.

But if the pilots were trained, then this wouldn't be an issue?

 

[Art Corvelay]

But if the pilots were trained, then this wouldn't be an issue?

They still needed to write software changes, so I wouldn’t 100% agree with that statement.

 

[SHAKESPEARE]

They still needed to write software changes, so I wouldn’t 100% agree with that statement.

So it's squarely a Plane error, because even the most knowledgeable, trained pilot could still crash it in a potential situation?

Just trying to understand whats going on, because i've read a bit but its still unclear.

Not passing bucks onto Pilots, just trying to get my head around it

 

[Art Corvelay]

Most of the posts in this thread from darrenmorgan & Herne Hill Hammer cover my understanding of what’s being happening.