https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-says-faa-will-ground-boeing-737-max-8-737-max-9-planes-following-deadly-ethiopian-airlines-crashPlane king wrote:
Nepotism?
The plane needs to be looked at, two major incidents within 5 months. Ground that POS!
Trump follows the lead of China and Europe. #sad
For those interested below is a link to the Airworthiness Directive issued after the Lion Air crash.
Note, the fix does not address the problem with the AOA sensor and hence runaway stabilizer as that will require software changes. Instead it is a temporary fix to revise the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) certificate limitations and operating procedures. Page 7 describes what the symptoms of a runaway stabilizer are and how to turn off the MCAS. Estimated cost: $85 for 1 hour to revise the manuals.
What is not mentioned is any obligation to train or even inform the pilots and crew of the manual revisions.
The latest issue will probably trigger another AD within the next week or so. If this thread is still alive then I will post it once I find it.
How is this political wrote:
I'm baffled at how people think this is political when deciding whether or not it's good to stop flying the plane. The plane has had two crashes in a few months in similar situations. Soon after takeoff and suddenly losing elevation very quickly, regaining control, then dropping again.
They think it's because the nose is pulling down on its own because of false sensor readings of the plane about to stall out. Seems very logical. The plane has a problem that happens more times than should be allowed.
There is a way to shut this off while it's happening but the two pilots that crashed apparently did not know how to do this.
Either more training needs done or the plane needs grounded. Probably grounded, and then have that feature removed, then the plane should be good to go again.
An entirely new plane model mandates pilots get thorough training on new plan. Boeing was trying to be clever. 737Max8 is a new plane and functions differently than former 737. Boeing and airlines wanted not pay to train pilots. No revenue for airlines when pilots are being paid to sit in training courses. No revenue for Boeing to make their engineers train pilots. Boeing sold airlines, no training necessary for pilots. Boeing stated pilots would figure out the differences on their own. Now, airlines will have to pay for pilot training. Boeing will have to pay their engineers to train pilots.
Not true.
.... been addressed on other threads wrote:
An entirely new plane model mandates pilots get thorough training on new plan. Boeing was trying to be clever. 737Max8 is a new plane and functions differently than former 737. Boeing and airlines wanted not pay to train pilots. No revenue for airlines when pilots are being paid to sit in training courses. No revenue for Boeing to make their engineers train pilots. Boeing sold airlines, no training necessary for pilots. Boeing stated pilots would figure out the differences on their own. Now, airlines will have to pay for pilot training. Boeing will have to pay their engineers to train pilots.
These horrific tragedies are likely due to conservative laissez-faire attitude regarding gov't oversight of industry. Basically, the FAA under W. Bush decided to start letting the airline industry oversee themselves as far as safety goes, so they could save $. Great idea, huh? And now we've had Boeing batteries catch fire, and now Boeing planes crash.
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/opinion/a-back-seat-for-safety-at-the-faa.html?module=inlinehttps://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/13/opinion/boeing-737-grounded.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=HomepageHey, but the Markets work, right? 100's are dead, and people will now decide not to fly Boeing planes (which will destroy Boeing, and the badly hurt many airlines). Because, when the gov't says: these planes are now safe, who is gonna trust them because conservatives have told us: don't trust the gov't! don't trust the experts! Google your own truth!
Cut regulations! Cut safety rules! Let the Markets decide! Yeah!!! What a right wing paradise.
Fake News here wrote:
Not true.
The government shutdown will have had some effect though not equivalent to five weeks. When a company is in a situation like this they will be regularly briefing the FAA on progress, test plans, validation plans etc and wanting the FAA's concurrence that they are fully resolving the issue. Nobody wants to go to the FAA with a solution that has been tested and validated to the company's satisfaction only to have the FAA turn round and say "But you haven't accounted for this condition." Also, during that time the FAA will have been keeping EASA (the European equivalent of the FAA) up to speed so European approval of the fix will follow quickly after the FAA approval.
So the five week shutdown will have disrupted this communication chain and Boeing will have had to hope that everything they did during those five weeks will be fully acceptable to the FAA. Once back at work the FAA engineers will have to play catch up on what Boeing did during those five weeks.
Software validation is a extremely painful in aviation, the costs and time required can be more than the mechanical equipment validation for components. This is because the requirement to get it right is huge and the consequences of a software glitch can be catastrophic. My company certified a product for the Boeing 747-400 in 1989, the software has never needed revision, it is still at version 1.0.0. I have lost count of the number of software upgrades my Windows 10 laptop has had.
Tyrone ReXXXing wrote:
These horrific tragedies are likely due to conservative laissez-faire attitude regarding gov't oversight of industry. Basically, the FAA under W. Bush decided to start letting the airline industry oversee themselves as far as safety goes, so they could save $.
Bush's decision to let the aviation industry self police had a much greater negative effect at the airline level. The OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) have carried on much as before. The appointment of Designated Airworthiness Representatives is really just the equivalent of the DAAs Canada has used for years. In Canada the DAA's can only approve Class 2 changes, Class 1 changes still have to go to the authorities. A new part number and any software change is class 1.
At the airline level the effects were greater. The FAA pulled a lot of their inspectors from airports and let the airlines appoint DARs who could sign off on maintenance and deferred maintenance. The result was some airlines took liberties:
American Airlines were fined $24M for what was a very creative reading of an Airworthiness Directive. The AD said the wiring bundles had to be changed. AA read it as only change them if you think it is necessary.
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/business/27fine.htmlSouthwest have been fined several times over deferring maintenance. The FAA said do it by a certain date, SW said we will do it when we have time.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-southwest-faa/faa-proposes-record-10-million-fine-for-southwest-air-idUSN0625144420080307Interesting development from the CBC.
They have gotten their hands on the 1,600 page Flight Manual. The MCAS is only mentioned once - in the list of abbreviations.
Which raises the question, why is it in the abbreviations if it is not in the manual? One theory is there originally was a section on the MCAS but it got deleted as Boeing wanted to keep training costs at an absolute minimum. If it was mentioned in the manual it would need to be included in 737 Max transition training, which in turn would add to 737 Max operators training costs.
A New York Times article reports on simulations carried out to replicate the Lion Air crash. It turns out the pilots had just 40 seconds to fix the issue before the plane crashed. During the final moments of the Lion Air crash the captain flipped through the manual trying to figure out what was happening. Not much chance of that as it was not in the manual. They managed to survive for several minutes by repeatedly pressing the override button, but after 10 seconds the MCAS kicks back in again and the plane is driven nose down.
After Lion Air, Boeing issued a special instruction on how to turn off the MCAS and the pilots of the simulator had those instructions so they did manage to 'save' the plane. The instructions: Press a button to temporarily disengage the MCAS, flip two switches to kill the power to the trim so when the MCAS kicks in again after 10 seconds it cannot drive the trim motors, crank the trim wheel by hand to get the aircraft back to normal trim.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/boeing-737-manual-mcas-system-plane-crash-1.5065842
Interesting article from Reuters:
Apparently the Ethiopian pilots did follow the Boeing procedures issued after the Lion Air crash: Press a button to temporarily disengage the MCAS, flip two switches to kill the power to the trim, crank the trim wheel by hand to get the aircraft back to normal trim.
However, they found the manual cranking to be too difficult and so restored electrical power to the trim motors and so re initiated the MCAS system. A 737 pilot is quoted as saying, "(It is) not physically easy to make large trim changes to correct, say, an MCAS input” by using the wheel. You - or more than likely the other pilot - have to flip out a little handle and wind, much like a boat winch,”.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ethiopia-airplane-idUSKCN1RF0B6
Boeing screwed up badly, killed two planes full of people.
From the article below:
Today we know the crowing from Western pilots, “Typical third world crews,” was not called for. Anyone who has tried a correctly set up MCAS situation in a simulator is more muted.
https://leehamnews.com/2019/04/03/et302-used-the-cut-out-switches-to-stop-mcas/
Preliminary report on the Ethiopian Crash. Confirms the Reuters article.
elektrikery wrote:
wellll wrote:
Well, cars are already grounded. So..
Not really. Tires are a pretty good insulator.
Considering my PR is 5:03 in the 1600 and 17:35 in the 5k.....the chances are not higher of beating Bekele in a race.
Also, when taking into account how many lightning strikes there are and how many airplanes there are, it's actually easier and more frequent to die in an airplane.
Posted on other thread too, but worth seeing Australian 60 min feature on this
https://www.9now.com.au/60-minutes/2019/episode-14
Its Boeing guys even your head of airline pilots union (American airlines pilot) says so