What this guy did would have been very unlikely to cause a mishap, though it would have resulted in a return or diversion or rejected takeoff, which carry their own hazards.

His claim that he'd get overtime doesn't hold water, as the odds of him actually getting work on the same aircraft would be very low, and if he didn't get the work, he'd have been found out.

There's really no way to get around that what he did is a federal crime and an act of sabotage, and there's no way to misconstrue the purpose. It isn't possible that someone who has been in his position for 30+ years would have thought he'd get overtime out of this.

It was an act of terrorism, but a very poor attempt.

A bigger concern here is the significance: the system was probed to see how much he could get away with. Flaws have been exposed, and information gained that can be exploited in the future. This dingbat has been caught. I'd be a lot more concerned about his contacts to got him to do it, who won't be caught.

quote:

A bigger concern here is the significance: the system was probed to see how much he could get away with. Flaws have been exposed, and information gained that can be exploited in the future. This dingbat has been caught. I'd be a lot more concerned about his contacts to got him to do it, who won't be caught.

Yeah, this sounded like a probing attack more than anything. They should really go back and look at the logs for other systems he worked on. Might find a few more Easter eggs in there.

If I recall, the "substance" was inserted in a pitot tube. If so, the aircraft COULD fly. He (the pilot) would not get airspeed indications.

In perspective, Billy Joe driving his Chev truck, the speedometer cable broke. BJ COULD still drive but . . .

If the aircraft took off, (which he probably would NOT have done since the flight deck airspeed indications did not indicate) the pilot COULD have turned around and landed.

Enough rambling -- give the terrorist 30 days for any appeals, the hang him in the town square (sell tickets).

Tinyman

quote:

Originally posted by Tinyman:
If I recall, the "substance" was inserted in a pitot tube. If so, the aircraft COULD fly. He (the pilot) would not get airspeed indications.

Tinyman

I've never piloted a commercial aircraft, but am almost certain they have multiple pitot tubes for redundancy.

Indeed they do. Still need to hang him.

Tinyman

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:
I've never piloted a commercial aircraft

And THAT is where you should have stopped. I believe you are missing a YUGE forest due to seeing one little sapling.

quote:

Originally posted by Tinyman:
If I recall, the "substance" was inserted in a pitot tube.

Tinyman

Probably just falafel dough. No worries.

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:
I've never piloted a commercial aircraft

And THAT is where you should have stopped. I believe you are missing a YUGE forest due to seeing one little sapling.

Never said it wasn't a big deal or a criminal act. Do commercial aircraft have redundant pitot systems for airspeed indication or is it a single tube? I did say "almost certain", so I'm asking.

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:
I've never piloted a commercial aircraft

And THAT is where you should have stopped. I believe you are missing a YUGE forest due to seeing one little sapling.

Never said it wasn't a big deal or a criminal act. Do commercial aircraft have redundant pitot systems for airspeed indication or is it a single tube? I did say "almost certain", so I'm asking.

Simple version
Pitot Static systems I've worked on have more than one input and are used for more than airspeed indication in the cockpit. The different inputs are compared to each other and fed to other systems like AFCS (Auto-pilot). If there's a miss-compare the system will have a fault.
There have been cases where multiple sensors have been blocked (like by ice) that have ended very badly.

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:

quote:

Originally posted by Tinyman:
If I recall, the "substance" was inserted in a pitot tube. If so, the aircraft COULD fly. He (the pilot) would not get airspeed indications.

Tinyman

I've never piloted a commercial aircraft, but am almost certain they have multiple pitot tubes for redundancy.

It's a bit more complicated than that. Air data modules and air data computers, as well as multiple other systems, receive that input, and the differing inputs can cause multiple problems, mismatches, and errors.

The Ethiopian 737-8 Max had, among other issues, an airspeed mismatch, along with stick shaker indications and other problems, as well as angle of attack data. Some of the problem that the crew experienced in ultimately mishandling the event was that the data errors were incongruous and did not make sense in context with their knowledge of the airplane.

The capability to fly with the blockage induced by the AA mechanic is there: it can be done, but it's not as simple as you may think.

Another glaring concern with sabotage of this nature is the underlying question: what else may have been done, which hasn't been discovered yet? It's very hard, at 36,000,' to pull over and call AAA. Once airborne, you are your own planet; nobody goes in, nobody goes out, and anything you have to work with is whatever was aboard when you took off. If that's not good enough, you won't be landing.

The diagram above illustrates a simple direct pitot-static system; in an advanced aircraft it is substantially complicated by the scope of systems and equipment that use that air data. It affects a whole lot more than just a cockpit indication, and the cockpit indication doesn't get it's information direct from the pitot input.

The old adage, " it's better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air than to be in the air wishing you were on the ground. "

Sabotage is sabotage.

It was probably the two MAX crashes that gave him the sabotage idea. In both those cockpits the captains side showed wildly incorrect data while the first officer side was correct. Without devolving into the MCAS discussion, that was enough to allow both crashes.

He absolutely thought it might take down that jet. Arguably the Indonesian and Ethiopian MAX crashes would not have turned out the same way flown by the average American crew. Different training different standards. Different argument.

Hang this guy. He was trying to kill people. The only way he doesn’t get caught is if his handiwork burns up in a crash. Any other scenario where the plane is inspected to fix the gripe, he gets caught. EVERY TIME.

He meant to kill.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
Arguably the Indonesian and Ethiopian MAX crashes would not have turned out the same way flown by the average American crew. Different training different standards. Different argument.

This statement right here, I could NOT agree more!!! Been saying that to my friends and family since the incidents occurred...might have even posted it here. I believe U.S. pilots would have successfully mitigated the threats in these two incidents based solely on training quality and training practices alone. AMEN, pedropcola!!!

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
Sabotage is sabotage.

This right here, DAMMIT!!!

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
It was probably the two MAX crashes that gave him the sabotage idea. In both those cockpits the captains side showed wildly incorrect data while the first officer side was correct. Without devolving into the MCAS discussion, that was enough to allow both crashes.

It really wasn't. In fact, every transport category aircraft has pitch/power charts available for loss of airspeed indications or erroneous airspeed indications, and in the case of the Ethiopian 737-8 Max aircraft, the crew both recognized and verbalized the airspeed problem.

The reason the crash occurred was a simple failure to fly the airplane. The captain pushed the power up and never retarded it, impacting the ground well over max airspeed (Vne/Mmo). The crew fought trim, but it woiuldn't have been an issue had they reduced power.

The incident wouldn't have occrred in the US. That said, while training and pilot experience in general is better in the US, we see a large crop of aviators today who do little more than follow the crutches in front of them, and have no experience beyond leaving their flight school environment and coming to an airline where they're spoonfed every step of the way. I've seen some very stupid stuff from US pilots, too.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

In fact, every transport category aircraft has pitch/power charts available for loss of airspeed indications or erroneous airspeed indications

I did not know that, but I use a similar technique.

I have been a CFI for well over 50 years, focusing primarily on the Bonanza / Baron family since 1989. The pitch trim wheels on these are marked in degrees (other GA airplanes that I am familiar with do not have degree markings on the elevator trim wheels, just an indication for take-off setting).

I have always taught trim setting / power setting for various phases of flight. That has served me well on the couple of occasions that I have had loss of airspeed indication.

Example: on the 35 series, 15 degrees of nose-up trip with gear and flaps extended will be right on the proper airspeed for final leg of landing, descent rate controlled with power, but airspeed will be right where it should be with no pitch input on the yoke (in reasonable smooth air).

Oh fuck guppy is in the house. Again.

I stand by what I said. Those two crews were overwhelmed by events. Zero air work or competency shown. They failed to follow checklists, use the proper checklist, or just plain out fly the fucking airplane. Stick shaker, erroneous airspeed on one side of cockpit was way too much going on at once. MCAS was the final nail.

I am sure you will come back and tell all of us how much experience you have in the 737 and we will all hang on your every word. The pitch power you refer to is right on the QRC (quick reference card) right next to the other checklist they didn’t use, runaway trim. Fuck dude, you would argue with Jesus if you thought it made you sound smarter than everybody else. I won’t know your response unless someone copies and pastes it, hope not, because I have had you on ignore for a long time and wish to keep it that way.

You quoted me. It had 3 statements. You basically didn’t disagree with anything I said but you had to fucking disagree anyway. Again. Erroneous data on one side of cockpit coupled with distraction of the stick shaker had them at their limit. Once they retracted the flaps MCAS was the final straw. What they experienced, while tragic, should have been survivable. And yes, I bet that is where that mechanic got his inspiration. So what are you disagreeing with me for, you basically just rewrote what I said for fucks sake.

1) mechanic got inspiration from those crashes.
2) inaccurate data on captain side.
3) that was enough to cause crash

You: nope, they didn’t fly airplane.
Me: no shit, didn’t I just say that? Verbalizing the fucked up data but not doing anything about it is not flying the airplane. I’m just a stupid old Navy pilot but you are one argumentative SOB.

Take a valium, Pedro.

Get over yourself.

Seriously. You're going to give yourself a heart attack.

The airspeed mismatch wasn't the issue at all; it's a red herring. The fact that the crew discussed it, verbalized it, indicates that they weren't overwhelmed by this. Moreover, they discussed the correct procedure, and the recent memo regarding MCAS; it's on the CVR. They knew the problem, they discussed the correct response, then simply didn't do it.

Calm down. One hopes you're not actually an aviator, and if so, god help the passengers should you fall apart like this in the cockpit.

Oy!

parabellum: "OK...are y'all through? Let's move on".

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:
parabellum: "OK...are y'all through? Let's move on".

Dayum! You sound just like him.