Ethiopian 737 Max 8 crash and Fallout

[straitman]

Most people would have no idea what it means anyway.

 

[NZflygirl]

Kayak is working on a feature that will allow users to remove specific airplane models from their searches, including the Boeing 737 Max. That could spell a bit of trouble for the accountants!

Kayak is working on a feature that will allow users to remove specific airplane models from their searches, including the Boeing 737 Max

 

[straitman]

Kayak is working on a feature that will allow users to remove specific airplane models from their searches, including the Boeing 737 Max. That could spell a bit of trouble for the accountants!

Kayak is working on a feature that will allow users to remove specific airplane models from their searches, including the Boeing 737 Max

I really don’t use Kayak but this will just serve to reinforce that.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

I really don’t use Kayak but this will just serve to reinforce that.

Why? Surely they are just responding to a consumer need. I'm not convinced it will achieve anything though!

 

[ozfflyer]

I really don’t use Kayak but this will just serve to reinforce that.

but aircraft get switched all the time, especially if flights are booked a long way in advance. We often book December flights to USA in January/February & quite often the domestic flights in USA, will change timing/flight number/aircraft type probably linked to demand or lack of it. Have seen some flights changed from a B757-200 to an A319 & even widebody to narrowbody & vice versa.

 

[dajop]

but aircraft get switched all the time, especially if flights are booked a long way in advance.

Depends on where and which airline you are booking. Qantas, for example, tends to be fairly reliable on international flights

On the other hand Thai pilots rock up to the airport and the decide which plane they might take for a spin that day

Of course in the US, things do change a lot.

But with the rise of narrow bodies on medium haul flights I can see usefulness to the functionality, for example eliminating 737s from choices when searching for a 7 hour flight.

 

[oz_mark]

But with the rise of narrow bodies on medium haul flights I can see usefulness to the functionality, for example eliminating 737s from choices when searching for a 7 hour transcontinental flight.

Fixed it!

 

[The man with no name]

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?

You are the leading protagonist on AFF of pointing the finger at MCAS and Boeing in general. Comments like "Programming planes to crash" and numerous others are not useful.

There are current investigations into both the Lion and Ethiopian crashes, neither of which appears close to any findings. Nothing wrong with discussing our theories about what may or not have happened to these flights, but it is certainly not the time for uninformed finger pointing.

 

[JohnM]

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.

This very recently published book may be pertinent to that incident and more: The Intelligence Trap : David Robson : 9781473669833

 

[amaroo]

This very recently published book may be pertinent to that incident and more: The Intelligence Trap : David Robson : 9781473669833

The cough-up with metric and imperial was a classic When NASA Lost a Spacecraft Due to a Metric Math Mistake | SimScale

 

[straitman]

Looks like a dud plan


The cough-up with metric and imperial was a classic When NASA Lost a Spacecraft Due to a Metric Math Mistake | SimScale

So long as things are done by humans there will be errors.

Another good example is/was the Gimli Glider - Wikipedia.

We just need to keep on our game and use the appropriate techniques to minimise these errors and then to also keep them in the correct perspective.

 

[codash1099]

A couple of articles that may be of interest:

Airline’s painful pilot error

How a 50-year-old design came back to haunt Boeing with its troubled 737 Max jet

 

[jb747]

I think we might be off the rails now. NASA gets it wrong. Nothing new there, but I expect that if you aim as high as they do, you trip up more often.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

You are the leading protagonist on AFF of pointing the finger at MCAS and Boeing in general. Comments like "Programming planes to crash" and numerous others are not useful.

There are current investigations into both the Lion and Ethiopian crashes, neither of which appears close to any findings. Nothing wrong with discussing our theories about what may or not have happened to these flights, but it is certainly not the time for uninformed finger pointing.

You may have missed the point that 300+ people have lost their lives on an aircraft that was supposedly "state of the art". I'm a frequent flyer who's job dictates that I fly frequently and I'll be dammed if I'm about to let some people suggest I'm a protagonist for suggesting there are problems in a plane I'm set to fly.

In case you haven't noticed, some other far more knowledgeable people have stated the same.

And for your information, Boeing have indeed programmed planes to crash in certain situations, so there is absolutely no protagonism on my behalf ... simply the facts the way I, and many others see it.

 

[oz_mark]

So long as things are done by humans there will be errors.

Another good example is/was the Gimli Glider - Wikipedia.

We just need to keep on our game and use the appropriate techniques to minimise these errors and then to also keep them in the correct perspective.

And yet, after all these years, we end up with a control system that gets designed, approved and certified, that acts on the input of one sensor.

 

[straitman]

And yet, after all these years, we end up with a control system that gets designed, approved and certified, that acts on the input of one sensor.

Yep. They certainly got it wrong on this occasion.

Where I am currently working at RAAF East Sale on the PC-21 project I work with people from many and various backgrounds and current employments. An Emirates A380 captain, an RAAF A330 refuelling pilot, Central flying School and the Roulettes and even a guy who as late as 2000 was the Spitfire display pilot for the South African Air Force.

Working there and with these people we get to discuss all things aviation and from a better knowledge base that the rumour mills. It’s all about correct training and safety and how easy it is for things to go from ‘normal’ to dangerous and even the reverse.

 

[juddles]

You are the leading protagonist on AFF of pointing the finger at MCAS and Boeing in general. Comments like "Programming planes to crash" and numerous others are not useful.

There are current investigations into both the Lion and Ethiopian crashes, neither of which appears close to any findings. Nothing wrong with discussing our theories about what may or not have happened to these flights, but it is certainly not the time for uninformed finger pointing.

Hmmm. I feel I am very much against the whole concept of MCAS. Both the technical side and also the implementation.

I agree that the investigations are not complete. But my personal belief is that the software concept that Boeing implemented is wrong. It has ( and maybe this will be unfortunately confirmed) the capacity to effectively be what you seem from your post to reject - the effective programming that will crash a plane.

 

[oz_mark]

Hmmm. I feel I am very much against the whole concept of MCAS. Both the technical side and also the implementation.

I actually find the concept of MCAS fine - but what they have designed and implemented, not so much. It went wrong shortly after the idea got off the whiteboard....

 

[RooFlyer]

MCAS seems to have analogies with the HAL9000 in 2001 A Space Odyssey. Part of the horror of that film was the concept of 'man in the (lethal) hands of a machine'.

 

[The man with no name]

You may have missed the point that 300+ people have lost their lives on an aircraft that was supposedly "state of the art". I'm a frequent flyer who's job dictates that I fly frequently and I'll be dammed if I'm about to let some people suggest I'm a protagonist for suggesting there are problems in a plane I'm set to fly.

In case you haven't noticed, some other far more knowledgeable people have stated the same.

And for your information, Boeing have indeed programmed planes to crash in certain situations, so there is absolutely no protagonism on my behalf ... simply the facts the way I, and many others see it.

Your attempt use of the loss of 300+ lives to make a flimsy point is at contemptible as it is distasteful.

The fact that you bring up the fact you're a frequent flyer holds no water here as this is actually a frequent flyer forum so you're not likely the only FF around here. Apart from the fact that that line screams DYKWIA, it also does not give you licence to point the finger at anyone until the investigation is complete.

Yes I have noticed far more knowledgeable people here have given their views and I read them with great interest. Perhaps you can take on board all the ideas they discuss instead of clinging to the posts that support your view. An example of which was yesterday from jb747:

"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."

Clearly the investigations and reports are far from complete.