Ethiopian 737 MAX 8 crash
03-10-2019, 07:22 PM
#61
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
Originally Posted by F4E Mx
Instead of trying to stretch the 737 to the seating capacity of the original 757why not just update the 757? Seems like there would be far fewer aerodynamic problems.
03-10-2019, 07:23 PM
#62
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
Originally Posted by Adlerdriver
I'm not defending Boeings approach to putting MCAS on the Max and blowing off proper communication.
But, it's not accurate to say they added a system that can fail catastrophically. They didn't. That's my the point. MCAS has no more potential for "catastrophic consequences" than the basic stab trim system or autopilot control on a 737-200 in 1967. Any of those systems can malfunction and the results of an IMPROPERLY handled malfunction would be the same. Boeing's not going to add "If the failure is determined to be MCAS, then blah, blah, blah........ to the Runaway Stabilizer procedures because it doesn't matter. The symptoms and solution of some kind of MCAS failure are basically the same as any other stab related malfunction. A pilot wouldn't need to know why his aircraft was pitching down uncommanded - just that it is and there are long established, proven procedures that he's supposed to follow.
Yes, and after you stated that "fact", you connected that fact to the crash which you have been implying and even outright saying was caused by MCAS.
I think you need to look up the word "indictment" because you seem to be making my use of it much more than it means in this case.
All I'm saying is that multiple write ups on a trim system over multiple flights followed by what appears to be a trim related crash looks a lot worse for that airline's maintenance practices than the aircraft manufacturer.
But, it's not accurate to say they added a system that can fail catastrophically. They didn't. That's my the point. MCAS has no more potential for "catastrophic consequences" than the basic stab trim system or autopilot control on a 737-200 in 1967. Any of those systems can malfunction and the results of an IMPROPERLY handled malfunction would be the same. Boeing's not going to add "If the failure is determined to be MCAS, then blah, blah, blah........ to the Runaway Stabilizer procedures because it doesn't matter. The symptoms and solution of some kind of MCAS failure are basically the same as any other stab related malfunction. A pilot wouldn't need to know why his aircraft was pitching down uncommanded - just that it is and there are long established, proven procedures that he's supposed to follow.
Yes, and after you stated that "fact", you connected that fact to the crash which you have been implying and even outright saying was caused by MCAS.
I think you need to look up the word "indictment" because you seem to be making my use of it much more than it means in this case.
All I'm saying is that multiple write ups on a trim system over multiple flights followed by what appears to be a trim related crash looks a lot worse for that airline's maintenance practices than the aircraft manufacturer.
03-10-2019, 07:36 PM
#63
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 3,988
Originally Posted by OldWeasel
Dude, scroll up. You placed onus on the airline’s practices and not the manufacturer. There was no provision your statement for maintenance performed by the manufacturers tech reps. Is that incorrect?
03-10-2019, 07:40 PM
#64
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Ending the Backlog one claim at a time
Posts: 486
Originally Posted by costalpilot
well ............yeah.
burgers dont have V speeds.?????? confused ???
as for showering...my shower is safer than any old airplane. I dont know about yours.
burgers dont have V speeds.?????? confused ???
as for showering...my shower is safer than any old airplane. I dont know about yours.
03-10-2019, 07:45 PM
#65
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 94
Originally Posted by Adlerdriver
I think you're splitting hairs. No, I didn't think about tech reps when I made that statement because that's not relevant.
You try again. I’m not splitting hairs. “That airline’s maintenance practices” was your statement. That clearly places blame on the customer. The tech reps are agents of the manufacturer and only represent the manufacturer. They are often able to sign off and return aircraft to service. Their expertise is implied to be superior to that of the customer.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
03-10-2019, 07:45 PM
#66
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2016
Position: 767
Posts: 132
Originally Posted by Adlerdriver
I'm not defending Boeings approach to putting MCAS on the Max and blowing off proper communication.
But, it's not accurate to say they added a system that can fail catastrophically. They didn't. That's my the point.
But, it's not accurate to say they added a system that can fail catastrophically. They didn't. That's my the point.
I never said MCAS can fail catastrophically, which is a "sudden and total failure from which recovery is impossible," because that is not accurate. However, the consequences of failure of that system can be catastrophic. See more below...
MCAS has no more potential for "catastrophic consequences" than the basic stab trim system or autopilot control on a 737-200 in 1967.
I guess I shouldn't expect all of you to read between the lines regarding my "wise" statement. I was referring to the limited experience and cultural issues found at many Chinese airlines along with pilots who spend only the first and last minute of each flight with the autopilot off. Given the choice of asking them to handle a non-standard situation that might require some hand flying or grounding the fleet and calling it good - I'd go with the grounding too.
03-10-2019, 07:51 PM
#67
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 222
Originally Posted by sailingfun
Best post on the subject. Uncommanded or runaway trim is the problem. The solution is simple. It does not matter in the least what generated the uncommanded trim.
03-10-2019, 07:57 PM
#68
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2017
Position: CRJ9 CA
Posts: 4,083
Originally Posted by Back2future
You don't think these guys new about the system at this point? To further your analogy Airbus didn't need to fix their pitot system; they just needed to better educate the pilots on handling the situation.
03-10-2019, 08:08 PM
#69
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 3,988
Originally Posted by OldWeasel
You try again. I’m not splitting hairs. “That airline’s maintenance practices” was your statement. That clearly places blame on the customer. The tech reps are agents of the manufacturer and only represent the manufacturer. They are often able to sign off and return aircraft to service. Their expertise is implied to be superior to that of the customer.
If that's the case, then - you win. I wasn't considering Boeing tech reps when I made the statement.
I still contend that who is maintaining and signing off the a/c wasn't really the focus of my initial statement. The guy I was responding to was trying to use the multiple write-ups, the Lion Air crash and the similarities of the Egypt crash to point toward MCAS as the culprit (whereas I'm pointing at local mx - whomever that happens to be).
I was trying to point out that multiple uncorrected write-ups followed by "could not duplicate" type sign-offs involving a critical system like flight controls is a serious problem. Far more serious than Boeing choosing to equip the Max with MCAS or failing to inform users about it's specifics. Bad practice and bad business for certain, but hardly the safety fiasco of multiple unaddressed write-ups.
Now, if that happens to be on local Boeing reps, that's a separate issue but in no way related to any of the original points to which I was referring.
03-10-2019, 08:21 PM
#70
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 3,988
Originally Posted by PlaneS
"Sounds like an indictment of Chinese aviation safety, troubleshooting and hand-flying procedures" - except it's apparently ok when you make the indictments
Dude - I'm not sure why you've decided to focus on "indictment". I wish I had chosen another word now because you're off on a tangent. I wasn't accusing you of an indictment. I was trying to say that your statements about the write-ups and the crash indicated a bigger problem with local maintenance than manufacturer choices or design. That's all.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
