Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Question about the 737 Supermax 8 crashes

The aircraft I worked on over thirty years ago, IIRC the port AOA probe drove the pilots display while the starboard probe fed the copilot's instruments. Pitot tubes were set up the same. Both were independent systems.

My understanding is that both crashed aircraft had two AOA sensors.

Of the two sensors (on the nose) of the Ethiopian,, one began giving readings nearly 60 degrees different from its counterpart.

Lion Air had a problematic sensor worked on by Florida based aerospace co.



When initially released, MCAS only relied on a single AOA sensor.
There are multiple AOA sensors in a 737 Max 8.


Boeing sells (2) MCAS upgrades that weren’t installed on either the Lion Air jet or the Ethiopian Airlines craft;

. The first is the ability to compare data from more than one AOA sensor via a display that shown readings
from both at the same time. The second a ‘disagree light’ n that activates when contradictory data is
received from both sensors. Either might have alerted the pilots that something was wrong with the MCAS system specifically.

Boeing will now make the disagree light standard on all 737 Max 8, in addition to software updates.
After the due software changes, MCAS will be updated to check both sensors and to disable itself if there is “meaningful disagreement”
between the two.



even the lowest experience bordering on dumbaZZ PP would know that...as would some half savvy types who have never
piloted in their life.....but thanks for sharing.

Neighbor is a 737 pilot for South West. Haven't seen him to ask his opinion but it seems fairly obvious it's a case of inexperienced pilots and a sub-par airline putting them in command.

Not that the plane is perfect, but more experienced pilots seem to have handled similar situations without the catastrophic results.


Ethiopian airlines? WTF? Probably gotta split one lousy peanut with the whole fuggin' row on a trans ocean flight.....

Well, it seems that Boeing's behind-the-scenes efforts to control costs at all-cost might have played a role.
see: https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/20...px.cnn/video/playlists/around-the-world/

.....

unless, the airline paid $11,000 for the optional dual aoa probes feeding into the MAS system. Boeing also offered a cargo hold fire suppression system (not standard). Cut-rate airlines often do all possible to minimize costs by not opting for additional equipment even if it enhances safety.

And yet Ethiopian airlines own a few(not sure how many?) Boeing 787s and those things can't be cheap?

no doubt that played a huge part.. Along with third world pilots.,,,,

All this third world talk. Ethiopian airlines has a tier 1 rating from the FAA which means it is allowed to and does operate in the US. It flies in the EU as well. It has a good safety rating by any measure and might be even more impressive considering how much flying it does in Africa where equipment and conditions at airports are likely to be less than great.

They're the best African airline. When I told my brother that, he said "that makes them the best of the worst".

Whenever Boeing "improves" an airplane model, it attempts to minimize the new stuff the airline has to learn as much as possible. This makes the new version attractive to airlines already flying the old.

In the case of the 737 Max8,the only additional training recommended was a 1-hour session on an iPad. Id didn't cover the CMAS system. It should have.

Remotely taken over by an outside source by over-riding software!!

Already proven that it can be done!

Third World pilots? Boeing and others have touted Ethiopian as the best run (and trained) airline in Africa, eclipsing South African Airlines. BTW, Ethiopian has a 737-Max simulator, the only one in African and at least one European airlines sends their pilots to Ethiopian for training and certification.

Boeing, accepting the fact that "We own the problem" (Boeing CEO) and that the problem now appears to be larger than thought a week ago, is contemplating a reduction in production (now 52/month - they hd planed to increase this to 57/month). It seems that (among other things) they are running out of storage space at the Renton Airport.
see: https://seekingalpha.com/news/34487...owdown-scenarios-reuters?dr=1#email_link

I do hope they solve this issue quickly as I am a Boeing shareholder and don't want the stock to get lower (now down to about $395/share).

A statement from Dennis Mulenberg today (Boeing CEO):

"We at Boeing are sorry for the lives lost in the recent 737 MAX accidents. These tragedies continue to weigh heavily on our hearts and minds, and we extend our sympathies to the loved ones of the passengers and crew on board Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302. All of us feel the immense gravity of these events across our company and recognize the devastation of the families and friends of the loved ones who perished.

The full details of what happened in the two accidents will be issued by the government authorities in the final reports, but, with the release of the preliminary report of the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 accident investigation, it’s apparent that in both flights the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, known as MCAS, activated in response to erroneous angle of attack information.

The history of our industry shows most accidents are caused by a chain of events. This again is the case here, and we know we can break one of those chain links in these two accidents. As pilots have told us, erroneous activation of the MCAS function can add to what is already a high workload environment. It’s our responsibility to eliminate this risk. We own it and we know how to do it.

From the days immediately following the Lion Air accident, we’ve had teams of our top engineers and technical experts working tirelessly in collaboration with the Federal Aviation Administration and our customers to finalize and implement a software update that will ensure accidents like that of Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 never happen again.

We’re taking a comprehensive, disciplined approach, and taking the time, to get the software update right. We’re nearing completion and anticipate its certification and implementation on the 737 MAX fleet worldwide in the weeks ahead. We regret the impact the grounding has had on our airline customers and their passengers.

This update, along with the associated training and additional educational materials that pilots want in the wake of these accidents, will eliminate the possibility of unintended MCAS activation and prevent an MCAS-related accident from ever happening again.

We at Boeing take the responsibility to build and deliver airplanes to our airline customers and to the flying public that are safe to fly, and can be safely flown by every single one of the professional and dedicated pilots all around the world. This is what we do at Boeing.

We remain confident in the fundamental safety of the 737 MAX. All who fly on it—the passengers, flight attendants and pilots, including our own families and friends—deserve our best. When the MAX returns to the skies with the software changes to the MCAS function, it will be among the safest airplanes ever to fly.

We’ve always been relentlessly focused on safety and always will be. It’s at the very core of who we are at Boeing. And we know we can always be better. Our team is determined to keep improving on safety in partnership with the global aerospace industry and broader community. It’s this shared sense of responsibility for the safety of flight that spans and binds us all together.

I cannot remember a more heart-wrenching time in my career with this great company. When I started at Boeing more than three decades ago, our amazing people inspired me. I see how they dedicate their lives and extraordinary talents to connect, protect, explore and inspire the world — safely. And that purpose and mission has only grown stronger over the years.

We know lives depend on the work we do and that demands the utmost integrity and excellence in how we do it. With a deep sense of duty, we embrace the responsibility of designing, building and supporting the safest airplanes in the skies. We know every person who steps aboard one of our airplanes places their trust in us.

Together, we’ll do everything possible to earn and re-earn that trust and confidence from our customers and the flying public in the weeks and months ahead.

Again, we’re deeply saddened by and are sorry for the pain these accidents have caused worldwide. Everyone affected has our deepest sympathies.


Signature



Dennis Muilenburg
Chairman, President and CEO
The Boeing Company

djs: Owning a sim means nothing. Airlines rent sim time from each other all the time but they use their own instructors. What does an Ethiopian instructor know about KLM, Air France, or British Air procedures? Maybe a check ride performed by a pilot designee approved by the Ethiopian FAA gives you a warm and fuzzy but it doesn't mean much to me.

Hell, its all just Boeing cutting corners trying to make up for all the losses in in the KC-46 program,,, and their many failed attempts to BS the Air Force in to accepting it and they will fix all the problems later.

Surprised their stock isn't down 30-40 %, except that the tanker problems or the latest refusal to accept hasn't really been in the front pages.


Phil

The Ethiopian Copilot had 200 hours total flight experience. That is flat ridiculous. They put a damned student in there.

Yes they had a Max sim. Want to guess how much time the captain logged on it?

Like I said, the plane ain't perfect, Boeing has some fault, but Ethipoian Air and those pilots killed those people.

I don't claim to know a lot (anything?) about the technical aspects of flying an airplane. I do have a friend who has flown a lot for a lot of years. He recently sent me his thoughts on this issue which I have copied from his email and will post below for those of you with much more knowledge of this stuff than I to peruse:

Boy, your timing is superb concerning the Max's 8 situation. I don't know much about Civilian aircraft ( the USAF always took care of that stuff) but ... I think there is a lot going on behind that magic curtain - Dorothy, back at Boeing SEA-TAC and the FAA.

I retired from the NYANG in a "Lockheed" HC-130 (ski-model) flying "workhorse". Since the "original" C-130 took flight in 1954 - they have been almost completely updated, modified and re-certificated several times but maintained some basic characteristics. My 1st aircraft was a General Dynamics' F-111 ( the first "Swing-wing Fighter) that resulted in the F-14 that Tom Cruise made famous in Top Gun. The F-111 maintained most of the original layouts/characteristics. Shortly after the F-111 was grounded - I stood under the wing of my first Boeing (707-type) aircraft.

OK - I've established my history .. During my "Original" - first ever "sit in the seat" flying session for the (heavily modified Boeing 707) Q-Model KC-135 (Habu - SR-71 Package) - the Flight Instructor (from Boeing) specifically told us/me; "once you are familiar with this Boeing aircraft - you should be able to jump in the seat of "ANY" Boeing made aircraft from WWII to present..." He said; it won't be pretty but in an emergency (with help via radios) you will be able to find just about everything and all "yoke" driven Boeings are similar." Fortunately; I never had to find out. But, he said they've tried to maintain the same basic blood lines and familiarity. I was fond of the Boeing from the 1st moment. I still own Boeing stock.. I bought my Grandson his 1st (framed) Boeing Stock Certificate.

If you don't want to read a rant - delete this now. The more I learn about the Max the more I hate it. I'm a huge Boeing fan but I do believe the millenials have made it up inside the corporate structure of Boeing. Here are the facts as gleaned from an unnamed retired AA (American Airlines; 757, 67 and 787) Captain / Retired USAF Res. (Rockwell built) B-1B Pilot who is the Brother of a 40+ year friend.

The Max is a redesign of the 737. Boeing wanted a longer range midsize jet but didn't want to spend bazillions getting a new design certified. If they "updated" a current design they self certify the AC with no interference from the FAA. Step one, needed more powerful engines. Here's where the aeronautical fun begins.

Standard 737 could not take bigger engines, the current ones (now, in a new location) practically darn near dragged on the tarmac. So they; extended the landing gear, moved the engines closer to the fuselage which also moves the engines forward (swept wing). OK; CG and centerline of thrust - are severely compromised. Engineers knew this of course. They've created by their own admission an UNSTABLE AIRCRAFT!!! To get around this issue the computer genius' came up with MCAS system, never used in any Boeing aircraft. MCAS - Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System. Personal note here, I wouldn't want to fly any plane with the word augmentation in it.

Pilots have to enter data into the MCAS prior to departure. Weight, fuel, baggage, cargo, elevation, temperature, etc. Weight and balance on MAX is very critical, especially when you realize the aircraft is already inherently UNSTABLE. Think of it this way, the engines are mounted below the wings and centerline of the fuselage. The MAX engines are insanely powerful. You fist the throttles on this puppy in flight and it will nose right up, especially if the load is light.

The MCAS system automatically controls thrust, trim, pitch and roll. Since the plane design is inherently unstable Boeing decided to forgo a single AP (auto pilot) disconnect because flying the MAX manually is dangerous and only the best test pilots could handle it. Pilots today are no longer stick & rudder, they all are gear up AP on, gear down AP off.

Even then most pilots fly AP all the way to the threshold. Tons of youtube vids showing them coming over the numbers and calling out auto throttle off. Expecting a crew to hand fly the new MAX when they rarely if ever hand fly in the first place is a recipe for disaster. Thus, Boeing Engineers and techies decided in order for pilots to disable the MCAS system they have to do it in three steps, hopefully rather quickly,,,,.....

And get this gem from an actual Boeing Engineer, "Pilots entering incorrect data into the MCAS prior to flight could force the aircraft into a ten second dive in flight! WHAT??? Now there's a great feature that sent me over the edge. WTF??? Make a mistake at the gate and the goddam plane could go into a TEN SECOND DIVE???

Latest news tonight, Boeing claims they will have a "software fix" within a couple of weeks.... Fly by wire, pilots don't hand fly, relying more and more on computers. The MAX has more than one million lines of computer code! Chew on that my former KC-135/Boeing 707 Crewmember . So, after my rant here it must be said I could be absolutely wrong on the cause however it's hard to blame the pilots for training they never received.

This is not new: Imagine you pull back on the yoke but the nose goes down, or you throttle up and it goes to idle, you go to idle, it goes to full, on and on. I don't like fly by wire. Remember the SAS (Scandinavian Airlines) pilot that crashed an MD-80 in Scandinavia not too many years ago. Lost both engines on takeoff and dead sticked into a snowy field. They all lived but some major injuries. Investigators blamed the Captain. Said he overboosted the engines and blew them up on takeoff. Captain said they had a fire warning and one engine quit. Shortly after the other engine ran away and grenaded itself. It took 18 months and a very good investigator to figure out what really happened.

(Another - for instance): There was clear ice on the plane. Captain had the plane de-iced just minutes before departure. The ice was thought to be over an inch thick and the ground crew missed it cuz it was clear ice and dark. Upon rotation and liftoff the ice came off, right into the engines. One compressor lost blades and ate itself on fire. The other engine - the Capt was holding/maintaining control on takeoff power but it kept going to full throttle.

He said he would pull the throttle back so as not to overboost but it would go right back to full throttle. The engine compressor stalled and ate itself. The Captains career was ruined. Turns out MD installed a software system that controls engine thrust in an emergency. Climbing out on one engine the puter was sensing too close to a stall so it throttled up! SAS nor any of its pilots were aware of the system being on their newest MD-80 models. Capt never flew again, said the entire process ruined him mentally and he never ever wants to fly again. Discovery did a program about it and him.

We are not hearing it all. I'm not selling my Boeing stock (yet) but waiting for another 10-15% drop to buy more. Boeing will survive (they are just that good) but the FAA and Boeing Execs will have some explaining to do. The Max 8 & 9 are far more than just a easily "modified" 737... I believe they should be a complete "re-certification" - maybe considered a totally new aircraft (from ground up).

I can't believe you can't (with 1 hand to the pedestal) quickly disconnect from AP and manually re-trim - taking over - hand-flying the plane as we were lead to believe we could "with every Boeing aircraft built since WWII..." (frigging millennial-type computer - total fly-by-wire crap.).. jp

1. US (and European carriers) also use and experienced this issue, yet they were able to recover.
2. Two (2) third world airlines did not.
3. Pilots turned the fuggin' MCAS on three more times (for a total of four) every time it went tits up (Hint, in the flying business, if sheit is giving you problems, you turn it off and the problems GO AWAY, LEAVE IT OFF until you land. Kept me alive...