Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Pilot Lounge > Safety
Ethiopian 737 MAX 8 crash >

Ethiopian 737 MAX 8 crash

Search
Notices
Safety Accidents, suggestions on improving safety, etc

Ethiopian 737 MAX 8 crash

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 03-27-2019, 01:57 PM
  #431  
:-)
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Default

Originally Posted by 1wife2airlines View Post
If Boeing hid the issue why was the Brazilian Certifying Authority aware of MCAS and actually listed it as a "B" training item in their OER with a Chief Boeing Technical Pilot listed as participating? Did some authorities bye the "info overload" rationale to not train on MCAS while Brazil did not. But I was surprised that GOL grounded their fleet after the second incident being that per ANAC they would have already been trained as to MCAS existence. Maybe they thought whatever they trained was insufficient.
Boeing didn't hide MCAS, there appears to be a paperwork issue with the 0.6 to 2.5 trim amount increase. MCAS training probably wouldn't involve recovery from a malfunction event specifically like we have seen. Without MCAS, the Max doesn't comply with FAR 25.173, but the current MCAS does not comply with FAR 25.672. Political pressure will probably keep the aircraft grounded for several months, who knows.
Mesabah is offline  
Old 03-27-2019, 07:49 PM
  #432  
AAmerican Way for AA Pay
 
B757200ER's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: B-737 Pilot
Posts: 1,617
Default

Originally Posted by 1wife2airlines View Post
The airplane is not unstable. In fact the autopilot does not need MCAS. It just puts attitude where it needs to be without being aware of column force.
Agree, the MAX-8 is very stable and flies well. On approach, with DLC, it maintains pitch attitude even if greater sink rate desired. Lands a bit easier than an NG.
B757200ER is offline  
Old 03-29-2019, 07:54 AM
  #433  
Gets Weekends Off
 
trip's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,230
Default

Looks like MCAS has been confirmed as active in the Ethiopian crash.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/investi...sh-11553836204
trip is offline  
Old 03-29-2019, 01:10 PM
  #434  
Line holder
 
symbian simian's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: On the bus,seat 0A
Posts: 3,228
Default

Originally Posted by atpcliff View Post
It WAS incorporated from the start, IF you paid EXTRA for the system to be connected to both of the AOAs. The base package only included one AOA to be connected to the MCAS.
Not totally true.
In the "base package" MCAS looks at one AOA at a time but is connected to both, it switches between AOA input after every flight, and defaults to AOA1 after the aircraft is powered back up (after shutting down all electronics, not just engines).
The "option available" is an AOA indication on the respective PFD, and an AOA disagree light. Neither of these are part of MCAS in any way (but off course having an indication that one of the AOA is broken might have helped the pilots figure out what was going wrong).

Presumably the software upgrade will among other things, include free AOA indication for all, and MCAS will compare both AOAs and sit on its hands if they disagree.
symbian simian is offline  
Old 04-02-2019, 02:50 PM
  #435  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 222
Default

Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer View Post
I’m going to guess flying again by April 15.
Doesn't look so imminent. See here:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/boein...003510053.html

The MCAS was put in place due to compliance issues after they pushed the MAX beyond the limits of the original type. The change from 0.6 to 2.5 degrees nose down trim was probably done for a reason. Designing it to activate repeatedly after you kill it with the thumb switches was also probably done for a reason. Rolling back all of those will solve the problem of the plane crashing for no good reason (faulty sensor), but may open certification questions. Also, the FAA is in no rush to approve anything now that they have blood on their hands and are themselves under investigation. This can drag for a while.
sgrd0q is offline  
Old 04-02-2019, 03:09 PM
  #436  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,253
Default

Originally Posted by sgrd0q View Post
Doesn't look so imminent. See here:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/boein...003510053.html

The MCAS was put in place due to compliance issues after they pushed the MAX beyond the limits of the original type. The change from 0.6 to 2.5 degrees nose down trim was probably done for a reason. Designing it to activate repeatedly after you kill it with the thumb switches was also probably done for a reason. Rolling back all of those will solve the problem of the plane crashing for no good reason (faulty sensor), but may open certification questions. Also, the FAA is in no rush to approve anything now that they have blood on their hands and are themselves under investigation. This can drag for a while.
I don't think the repeat activation was intended as a feature, I kind of gathered that they simply didn't think to limit it to one activation per event (or time period). So I don't think limiting that is going to be a certification issue.

I think the FAA is like you said in no hurry to do a rush job and have it blow up in their face (again), and they are likely considering other MAX certification issues, perhaps MCAS related, perhaps not.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 04-02-2019, 03:42 PM
  #437  
Perennial Reserve
 
Excargodog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,492
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
I don't think the repeat activation was intended as a feature, I kind of gathered that they simply didn't think to limit it to one activation per event (or time period). So I don't think limiting that is going to be a certification issue.

I think the FAA is like you said in no hurry to do a rush job and have it blow up in their face (again), and they are likely considering other MAX certification issues, perhaps MCAS related, perhaps not.
There were in fact a number of older standards that Boeing was able to “grandfather” into the MAX that they would not have been able to do as easily under contemporary criteria had this been considered a “new” aircraft. Not necessarily LOOSER criteria, more just different, with backups that were designed to ensure the grandfathered method was “just as safe” as more contemporary standards.

I suppose every one of those decisions is going to be looked at again and revalidated (or not).

An underlying difficulty though is that increasingly the FAA simply doesn’t have the level of expertise of the manufacturers they are nominally regulating, especially now that there are really only two big commercial passenger jet makers in the world. They wind up having to take Boeing or Airbus’s word for things, probably more often than they are really comfortable with.
Excargodog is offline  
Old 04-02-2019, 05:21 PM
  #438  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: retired
Posts: 992
Default

Originally Posted by B757200ER View Post
Agree, the MAX-8 is very stable and flies well. On approach, with DLC, it maintains pitch attitude even if greater sink rate desired. Lands a bit easier than an NG.
Had no idea there was DLC on any 737? Haven't heard of that since the L-1011, which a lot of guys just loved.
Dougdrvr is offline  
Old 04-02-2019, 09:19 PM
  #439  
:-)
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
I don't think the repeat activation was intended as a feature, I kind of gathered that they simply didn't think to limit it to one activation per event (or time period). So I don't think limiting that is going to be a certification issue.
If there is a lock out of MCAS, and on the subsequent maneuver in period of said time, the handling characteristics materially change, isn't that a tecnically new type? If that's the case, then MCAS isn't really needed at all I suppose. IMO, the FAA might, but other regulatory bodies will probably not be satisfied with this fix.
Mesabah is offline  
Old 04-02-2019, 10:48 PM
  #440  
On Reserve
 
Joined APC: Mar 2019
Position: Passenger
Posts: 10
Default

Ethiopian Airlines Pilots Initially Followed Boeing’s Required Emergency Steps to Disable 737 MAX System
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ethiopi...em-11554263276


"After turning off a flight-control system that was automatically pushing down the plane’s nose shortly after takeoff March 10, these people said, the crew couldn’t get the aircraft to climb and ended up turning it back on and relying on other steps before the final plunge killed all 157 people on board."
"The pilots on Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 initially reacted to the emergency by shutting off power to electric motors driven by the automated system, these people said, but then appear to have re-engaged the system to cope with a persistent steep nose-down angle. It wasn’t immediately clear why the pilots turned the automated system back on instead of continuing to follow Boeing’s standard emergency checklist, but government and industry officials said the likely reason would have been because manual controls to raise the nose didn’t achieve the desired results.

After first cranking a manual wheel in the cockpit that controls the same movable surfaces on the plane’s tail that MCAS had affected, the pilots turned electric power back on, one of these people said. They began to use electric switches to try to raise the plane’s nose, according to these people. But the electric power also reactivated MCAS, allowing it to continue its strong downward commands, the people said."
pacnw77 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
vagabond
Foreign
10
10-10-2013 04:49 AM
ToiletDuck
Safety
5
08-08-2012 09:04 PM
vagabond
Hangar Talk
2
05-05-2007 06:23 PM
LAfrequentflyer
Hangar Talk
1
09-07-2005 11:34 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices