Maybe true…

“The doomed Ethiopian Airlines jet that crashed killing all 157 on board yesterday 'had smoke pouring from the rear' before coming down 'with a loud boom', a witness has said…”

https://mol.im/a/6794233

quote:

Originally posted by Crom:

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
Really?

Failure of an electrical / electronic component can and will happen.......

Yes, "anything" can happen. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
I should have said something like "If a system requires the pilots to be aware and trained to disengage it to avoid crashes as a standard part of takeoff procedure because the system frequently miscalculates
...."

and:

quote:

Example: Electric pitch trim can fail in a "runaway" mode....

It "can fail"....but if it is a common occurrence it is a "flawed system".

Do you think cruise control on a car is a failed system?

Are you a pilot?

So, if you were scheduled to fly on an American 738 in about 2 weeks would you change the flight to get away from that plane and into something different?

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:
Do you think cruise control on a car is a failed system?

You are seriously comparing cruise control of a car to some commercial airline system that is apparently engaged during takeoff?

I have never heard of a cruise control failing in a mode that caused 238 people to fall out of the sky. If it fails "off" you just slow down. If it fails "on" you just brake, all exactly as you normally would react.

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:

quote:

Originally posted by Crom:

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
Really?

Failure of an electrical / electronic component can and will happen.......

Yes, "anything" can happen. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
I should have said something like "If a system requires the pilots to be aware and trained to disengage it to avoid crashes as a standard part of takeoff procedure because the system frequently miscalculates
...."

and:

quote:

Example: Electric pitch trim can fail in a "runaway" mode....

It "can fail"....but if it is a common occurrence it is a "flawed system".

Do you think cruise control on a car is a failed system?

Are you a pilot?

Hi, I'm not sure whether you are addressing those questions to Crom, or to me (V-Tail). If you're asking me, yes I am a pilot. My commercial pilot certificate (with instrument rating) was originally issued in 1965, ground instructor and flight instructor certificates a year or two later, so I have been doing it for a while.

Not sure what you mean by the other question: "Do you think cruise control on a car is a failed system?" Maybe you can re-phrase it?

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:

quote:

Originally posted by Crom:

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
Really?

Failure of an electrical / electronic component can and will happen.......

Yes, "anything" can happen. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
I should have said something like "If a system requires the pilots to be aware and trained to disengage it to avoid crashes as a standard part of takeoff procedure because the system frequently miscalculates
...."

and:

quote:

Example: Electric pitch trim can fail in a "runaway" mode....

It "can fail"....but if it is a common occurrence it is a "flawed system".

Do you think cruise control on a car is a failed system?

Are you a pilot?

Hi, I'm not sure whether you are addressing those questions to Crom, or to me (V-Tail). If you're asking me, yes I am a pilot. My commercial pilot certificate (with instrument rating) was originally issued in 1965, ground instructor and flight instructor certificates a year or two later, so I have been doing it for a while.

Not sure what you mean by the other question: "Do you think cruise control on a car is a failed system?" Maybe you can re-phrase it?

V-tail, apologies for the ambiguity of the post it was intended for Crom but due to user error I quoted you as well!

My point to him was merely that auto-pilot comes in many flavors, as you know, and the fact a trained pilot must be ready to take the controls is NOT indicative of a fundamentally flawed system. It’s just normal ops. My query about whether he was a pilot wasn’t to be rude, it’s because this principal is an obvious one to me and other experienced pilots I know, therefore I was curious why his opinions were so strong. I’ll refrain from speculation on the cause of this crash, and I’ll be more careful as I type replies on my phone. Cheers!

To answer the question posed above. If you’re scheduled to fly on a Max 8 should you reschedule? No. That would be a very over the top response.

You guys are ignoring a couple important points. The system in question is designed to keep a stalling aircraft flying. In possibly both cases the problem started by a failure of airspeed indication. This alone is a big deal for both pilots to lose this. Forget the system in question. You have to have a pretty big failure to precipitate this.

I am guessing, as we all are, but there is a MASSIVE chain of failures in both these airlines to get to the crash site. Assuming of course the report of a loud bang and smoke doesn’t prove to be correct in which case none of this discussion is relevant.

Due diligence requires, demands that all possibilities are examined. Drawing firm conclusions at this point though is a fools errand.

If you are afraid to fly on a Max that is your prerogative. It just isn’t grounded in facts at this point.

FAA isn’t grounding these for a reason. And for you conspiracy types it isn’t because somebody is in somebody’s pocket.

I'm reading witness reports of smoke,sparks and luggage streaming from the aircraft just before the nose dropped. If true,it shouldn't take very long to verify.Its likely the FDR & VR will be flown DC for analysis.By the week end we'll know if the aircraft or crew is an issue.

quote:

Originally posted by 104RFAST:
I'm reading witness reports of smoke,sparks and luggage streaming from the aircraft just before the nose dropped. If true,it shouldn't take very long to verify.Its likely the FDR & VR will be flown DC for analysis.By the week end we'll know if the aircraft or crew is an issue.

I'm wondering why these would go to DC for analysis, since it was not a U.S. airline. I'm just curious, I'm not challenging you. Unless maybe the U.S. provides analysis services for other countries? Or is it because it was a U.S. manufactured airplane?

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:


FAA isn’t grounding these for a reason. And for you conspiracy types it isn’t because somebody is in somebody’s pocket.

I wouldn't be so sure of that.

quote:

Mrs. Mitch McConnell will be looking into the Sunday Ethiopian Airlines crash involving a 737 MAX 8s. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao said Monday that the DOT is "very concerned" about the recent Boeing crashes, is closely monitoring the situation and that she has met with FAA officials to review the crash.

U.S. DOT CHIEF CHAO MONITORING RECENT BOEING 737 MAX CRASHES
DOT `VERY CONCERNED' ABOUT RECENT BOEING 737 MAX CRASHES: CHAO
CHAO MET WITH FAA OFFICAL TO REVIEW CRASHES, PATHS FORWARD
U.S. FAA TO ISSUE NOTIFICATION ON BOEING 737 MAX SAFETY
DOT SECRETARY ELAINE CHAO REVEALS PLANS FOR MONDAY NOTICE
CHAO GAVE NO FURTHER INFORMATION ON PLANNED 5 PM NOTICE

More importantly, Chao said the DOT will issue a "safety notification" about the Boeing 737 MAX 8 at 5 pm Monday. She wouldn't reveal any more information about the announcement, but the timing - one hour after the market closes - is certainly curious.

Boeing shares, which have pared their losses throughout the day, dipped on the news.

FAA To Issue "Safety Notification" On Boeing 737

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by 104RFAST:
I'm reading witness reports of smoke,sparks and luggage streaming from the aircraft just before the nose dropped. If true,it shouldn't take very long to verify.Its likely the FDR & VR will be flown DC for analysis.By the week end we'll know if the aircraft or crew is an issue.

I'm wondering why these would go to DC for analysis, since it was not a U.S. airline. I'm just curious, I'm not challenging you. Unless maybe the U.S. provides analysis services for other countries? Or is it because it was a U.S. manufactured airplane?

Yes, because it's a US manufactured plane.

US investigators are always involved when there is an accident with a US plane like Boeing. I'm pretty sure anyway.

Also the NTSB in DC has the best capabilities in the world for recovering data from FDRs and CVRs. Considering they said they had recovered both but they were somewhat damaged, sending them to the NTSB will provide the best chance of recovering all available data.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
Here’s the problem. There has been a procedure for this problem in the Boeing books forever. There is a also a procedure for loss of airspeed.

The controversy and outcry around the 737 Max has been the MCAS, which involved an autotrim, but which wasn't detailed to pilots in training or the FCOM when the aircraft was released; it wasn't included as training or in differences, and the idea was that it would work behind the scenes, be transparent, and that pilot didn't need to know.

Yes, if a trim runaway is recognized, it can be shut off, but if one doesn't know the system is on board, if it's independent of things like trim in motion clackers etc, then it may present a more subtle hazard.

Whether that had any play in these mishaps is as yet unknown, but it's been the bulk of the outcry among pilot groups and unions since the Lion Air crash.

Personally I'd be more concerned about the Airline you choose (Pilot qualifications / currency / experience) than the airframe type.

quote:

The rumor on this last event is that the First Officer had around 200 hours. Total or in type I’m not sure. I suspect his qualifications were minimal.

I heard that this morning along with the captain had 8,000 hours.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:

quote:

The rumor on this last event is that the First Officer had around 200 hours. Total or in type I’m not sure. I suspect his qualifications were minimal.

I heard that this morning along with the captain had 8,000 hours.

The Captain was 29 years old and the youngest 737 Captain in the history of Ethiopian Airlines.
He had been a Boeing Captain since Nov of 2017.
And yes, the FO had 200 hours.

Not confidence-inspiring...

https://heavy.com/news/2019/03/yared-getachew/

quote:

Personally I'd be more concerned about the Airline you choose (Pilot qualifications / currency / experience) than the airframe type.

This, big time.

Yeah, 8K is a lot of flight time, but it has come up before that lots of these long haul guys get tons of time but that doesn't mean they have extensive experience actually flying.

95% of that time is on autopilot, at altitude, just cruising along getting coffee from the stews. Not actually flying, turning down low, dealing with malfunction, ie actual stick time.

Just look at the Asiana 214 where all the pilots had thousands and tens of thousands of hours and flew a perfectly good 777 into the seawall just short of the runway at SF International.

ETA to correct airline referenced to Asiana

This message has been edited. Last edited by: RHINOWSO,

^^^^^^^^^^
Just for the record, that was Asiana, not Korean Air. But the point remains valid.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by 104RFAST:
I'm reading witness reports of smoke,sparks and luggage streaming from the aircraft just before the nose dropped. If true,it shouldn't take very long to verify.Its likely the FDR & VR will be flown DC for analysis.By the week end we'll know if the aircraft or crew is an issue.

I'm wondering why these would go to DC for analysis, since it was not a U.S. airline. I'm just curious, I'm not challenging you. Unless maybe the U.S. provides analysis services for other countries? Or is it because it was a U.S. manufactured airplane?[/QUOTE

Not very many Countries have the capability to do a complete analysis of FDR's. Plus its a Boeing, If it was an Airbus
it would likely go to France.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
Here’s the problem. There has been a procedure for this problem in the Boeing books forever. There is a also a procedure for loss of airspeed.

The controversy and outcry around the 737 Max has been the MCAS, which involved an autotrim, but which wasn't detailed to pilots in training or the FCOM when the aircraft was released; it wasn't included as training or in differences, and the idea was that it would work behind the scenes, be transparent, and that pilot didn't need to know.

Yes, if a trim runaway is recognized, it can be shut off, but if one doesn't know the system is on board, if it's independent of things like trim in motion clackers etc, then it may present a more subtle hazard.

Whether that had any play in these mishaps is as yet unknown, but it's been the bulk of the outcry among pilot groups and unions since the Lion Air crash.

While this is true, the fact remains that the MCAS uses the stabilizer trim, and in the 737 any time the trim is moving so are the big wheels on either side of the pedestal. So while the system logic and operation may be behind the scenes and not known to the crew there's no way to overlook the sight and sound of those wheels moving. We do know that the control yoke opposite motion trim cutout does not work with the MCAS. Trimming nose up opposite the MCAS will also stop it for 10 seconds if I recall correctly. And you can always physically grab the wheel and stop the trim if all else fails, this is addressed in the QRH but I highly doubt either crew got that far. If they had at least been able to run the QRC it has you activate both stab trim cutout switches on the pedestal which removes power to the motor, so my guess is Boeing figured this would be enough reason to not include MCAS in flight manuals or training since crews would go right to that card thinking it was a trim runaway.

If it's true that the FO only had 200 hours total, or even if it was more but still pretty low time there's a good chance that when things started going south that Captain effectively became single-pilot which would only make things much harder.