Ethiopian 737 Max 8 crash and Fallout

[Quickstatus]

It’s not just ‘a couple of 737s’ though is it?

It’s three hundred and fifty people.

Even so, tragic as it is, it’s still unbelievable safe. Unfortunately airline deaths tend to come in mass numbers at a time.

There has only been 1 death in the US in 9 years (woman who partially exited the aircraft during a decompression) for all the flying they do.

 

[JB expat]

Very short listen - recent Boeing retiree blurb

Boeing Will Pause Delivery Of 737 Max Jets, But Continue To Build Them
Listen Now: Boeing Will Pause Delivery Of 737 Max Jets, But Continue To Build Them

 

[jb747]

The piece of wreckage that would show the aircraft 'was set to dive' is most likely part of the stabiliser jack. The stab is moved by a large screw jack, and its position will show the final stab trim settings.

Two aircraft have dived into the ground, and MCAS is being blamed, largely because it was a system that did not exist on the older aircraft. But, rather curiously, there was another 737 accident, involving a relativley new, but not MAX aircraft, which was also a case of massive inappropriate nose down trim....FlyDubai.

 

[straitman]

Not so sure about this last part. We have social media these days with info disseminated widely and fast. Aren't Malaysian still hurting financially from their incidents?

Absolutely, however suddenly having a cause for MH370 would change peoples perception completely.
People like resolution.

 

[flyer89]

Two aircraft have dived into the ground, and MCAS is being blamed, largely because it was a system that did not exist on the older aircraft. But, rather curiously, there was another 737 accident, involving a relativley new, but not MAX aircraft, which was also a case of massive inappropriate nose down trim....FlyDubai.

The 2010 Ethiopian incident whilst perhaps completely unrelated is an interesting read also....

 

[Deleted member 29185]

swanning, I am deadset against what I personnaly believe Boeing has done with the 737 MAX, but I think perspective is required here. This is a nasty glitch, but it is still a glitch. Airplane manufacturers, airlines, pilots, and everyone else involved have still managed to make this form of travel unbelievably safe. Even with the loss of a couple fo 737's.

Oh, I agree with you entirely. I was just wondering about the lisbility of those in charge. I doubt anyone belives this is anything other than a monumental tragedy, but that doesn't mean negligence can't be proven. Lack of info to airlines and pilots, poor manuals, delay in "fixes", lack of sufficient failure mode analysis and let's not forget the design itself... I tend to think a genuine case could be built against senior execs, and it may not just be civil action.

 

[JB expat]

Off topic but relates to my original reply to this thread. Air Canada has just offered a full refund as they cannot commit to keeping the flight as scheduled. So off to rebook later. Have all the screenshots for my travel insurer in case we are out $$ at the end of the day. However, regardless of what happens on that end, I’m very happy that I have my money back and can rebook.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

The piece of wreckage that would show the aircraft 'was set to dive' is most likely part of the stabiliser jack. The stab is moved by a large screw jack, and its position will show the final stab trim settings.

Two aircraft have dived into the ground, and MCAS is being blamed, largely because it was a system that did not exist on the older aircraft. But, rather curiously, there was another 737 accident, involving a relativley new, but not MAX aircraft, which was also a case of massive inappropriate nose down trim....FlyDubai.

A lot of people are pointing the finger at MCAS, but it's been stated that MCAS only becomes operational after flaps up ... so are there other systems that may have the same outcome to account for all the reports of similar issues occurring before MCAS became operational?

 

[JB expat]

A lot of people are pointing the finger at MCAS, but it's been stated that MCAS only become operational after flaps up ... so are there other systems that may have the same outcome?

And on my mind this is why the grounding was warranted - they don’t know if it is as “simple” as a software issue. It may depend on a confluence of events combined with the design. They need to figure it out and not just say “if the pilots were properly trained, this wouldn’t have happened” or “just a software update”

 

[straitman]

And on my mind this is why the grounding was warranted - they don’t know if it is as “simple” as a software issue. It may depend on a confluence of events combined with the design. They need to figure it out and not just say “if the pilots were properly trained, this wouldn’t have happened” or “just a software update”

Did anyone ever say it was simple?
I’m thinking you need to look at some ‘risk management in aviation’ scenarios.
Look at ‘The Reason Model’ as some guidance. It is actually what you have unknowingly alluded to above.

 

[tgh]

It may even be something quite left field.. like espionage.. a planted bug in the software .. but why ? to achieve what ??

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Oh, I agree with you entirely. I was just wondering about the lisbility of those in charge. I doubt anyone belives this is anything other than a monumental tragedy, but that doesn't mean negligence can't be proven. Lack of info to airlines and pilots, poor manuals, delay in "fixes", lack of sufficient failure mode analysis and let's not forget the design itself... I tend to think a genuine case could be built against senior execs, and it may not just be civil action.

Exactly. I don't think anyone is suggesting this was intentional (criminal). But tragic mistake, glitch, error, whatever... someone (singular or multiple) will be ultimately responsible. It may be a case of multiple causes coming together, but you can still look at accountability for each of those events.

This flight will be covered under the Montreal Convention (both Ethiopia and Kenya have ratified it). There is the immediate 'no fault' limit (~113000SDR), but that is waived unless the airline can show the accident was not due to their negligence. Question... knowing about the potential software issues and potential difficulty to regain control, is a co-pilot of just 200 hours a suitable person to have assisting the coughpit?

 

[JB expat]

Did anyone ever say it was simple?
I’m thinking you need to look at some ‘risk management in aviation’ scenarios.
Look at ‘The Reason Model’ as some guidance. It is actually what you have unknowingly alluded to above.

“People” (Facebook posters) have asserted it was simple - before the USA grounded the planes. It wasn’t an accusation re: anyone particular. I never saw it as simple which is why I was so upset the USA/Canada hadn’t grounded when I’m booked to be on one in april.

 

[Quickstatus]

A lot of people are pointing the finger at MCAS, but it's been stated that MCAS only becomes operational after flaps up ... so are there other systems that may have the same outcome to account for all the reports of similar issues occurring before MCAS became operational?

And the timing seems different.
ET302 only had 6-8 minutes of flight and JT610 longer.
Additionally ET302 was no more than approx 1000 ft AGL ( I think).
Then there was high speed during the flight which is why I asked in the "Ask the pilot' thread whether an overspeed would automatically retract the flaps to the point when MCAS becomes live. Not sure what the IAS was at the time. I suspect autopilot would not have been activated due to the problems with the flight controls
So I have a nagging thought that perhaps MCAS was not activated.
Everyone is waiting for the FDR.CVR data...

The Rostov FZ981 (737-800) also did a nose dive with Stabiliser nose down inputs from 1000 AGL....(but differs in that it was able to get to destination - sort of) and was 50deg nose down at the point of impact. The Russians believe its a problem with the 737.

The pilots on all 3 flights had hours of <10000hrs which is probably not as relevant. Certainly the 200hr pilot on ET was really only a cadet.

 

[serfty]

A lot of people are pointing the finger at MCAS, but it's been stated that MCAS only becomes operational after flaps up ... so are there other systems that may have the same outcome to account for all the reports of similar issues occurring before MCAS became operational?

I have seen references that the aircraft software has an automatic 'flaps up' in specific situations when airspeed has increased. I believe it's in the ask the pilot thread (recent posts).

 

[Quickstatus]

I have seen references that the aircraft software has an automatic 'flaps up' in specific situations when airspeed has increased. I'll try to dig it up.

@AviatorInsight and @jb747 has also posted about this in the ATP thread.

From what they say the flaps retract one "notch" at a time depending on the IAS. Not necessarily from flaps down to flaps fully retracted in one hit

Question... knowing about the potential software issues and potential difficulty to regain control, is a co-pilot of just 200 hours a suitable person to have assisting the coughpit?

Well my kids only needed 120 hours to get their "P" drivers license....And they only drive in 2 dimensional space. And no CRM is necessary. They hate my version of CRM when I get in the car.

The Air Asia motto "Now everyone can fly" I suspect also refer to pilots.

 

[jb747]

After the Apollo fire, there was an inquiry into what had happened. Right now, knowing what we know now, I'm sure we all think that ambient pressure, plus 5 psi, of pure oxygen would be extremely dangerous. It's obvious isn't it?

But, NASA, which is full of rocket scientists after all, decided to conduct a test with just such an atmosphere, with terrible results. Why? Well, in space the Apollo was going to use just 5 psi in the cabin (of pure oxygen). Items burn in that atmosphere exactly as they do in normal air, because that's exactly the same partial pressure of oxygen that exists in sea level air. Such a low pressure allowed the structure to be simpler, and the pressurisation system only had to handle a single type of gas. To emulate the pressure that would exist in space, a test on the ground would need to be ambient plus 5. At that pressure of pure oxygen, many metals happily burn.

Frank Borman, one of the astronauts, in explaining it to the inquiry, stated simply that nobody had thought of it. They were designing for operation in space, and issues that could occur in a test simply had not crossed their minds. You don't need negligence.

 

[AviatorInsight]

From what they say the flaps retract one "notch" at a time depending on the IAS. Not necessarily from flaps down to flaps fully retracted in one hit.

The flap load relief I was talking about really only applies to landing flap. Unless the Max has a short field performance package that either airline made an option for (I don't know), then if they had a flap of 10 or greater (possibility for performance with high altitude etc), then it would apply but it would not revert to flap up for MCAS to activate.

 

[Mattg]

I saw this advertisement in New York today. Probably not the best campaign for United to be running at the moment...

 

[JB expat]

I saw this advertisement in New York today. Probably not the best campaign for United to be running at the moment...

View attachment 157268

Well the big red hand saying stop works well