Ethiopian 737 Max 8 crash and Fallout

[ethernet]

And just now from the same source, Garuda has cancelled their planned order of the same aircraft...

Bet they were looking at residuals - out of lease resale prices, and instant depreciation numbers using the British Constellation as a guide or BMW 5 Series. In other news, the red light mismatch warning light built in to all planes is to be enabled free of charge - it was a golden screwdriver extra before. Oh, and the FBI investigation about outsourcing certification. I'm sure the lawyers will find enough smoke, now, to put in the boot - expensive too. Combined with 80 fighter jets, the reputational harm threat that was low on the executive strategy ladder is up there with Deepwater. Plenty of Champagne flowing at Airbus tonight. The trifecta will be the Chinese asking for a discount on these new designation 444 Max planes - or else.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I disagree. For example, this Ethiopian crash. They are a good airline. They have modern aircraft. Noone saw this coming. Who could possibly inform the travelling public? What is this "relevant and appropriate" information you name? Who would furnish this?

No doubt some of the issues you raise will be the subject of consideration by the courts. No one saw this coming? Or did they not adequately turn their minds to the fact that the same type of aircraft - with the same systems as one that crashed a few months earlier - could have the same issue? Did they inform the public that even if they had recently trained their pilots to combat the system issues experiened on Lion Air, that the co-pilot only had 350 hours of service?

On other issues... why not disclose which air routes you are going to use? If pax on MH17 were told they were going to fly over a war zone where several other aircraft had been shot down in the previous days and weeks, could that have informed their decision to board the flight? We often hear airlines simply say it's a 'mechanical issue' causing a delay. Why not tell any passenger, who is interested, exactly what the problem is? Why not tell passengers if you are using the same cabin crew to work a return AU-Bali-AU flight with 16 hours on duty (where other airlines may overnight their crew on the same flight)?

It shouldn't be difficult to establish a system where information could be made available. in the same way the public is now aware of the issues with the MAX, they could be made aware of other issues. Flying shouldn't be 'secret' for those who want the information to make - at least in their own minds - some sort of assessment of risk. Airlineratings website considers a while bunch of criteria in their ratings system. 99% of pax may choose not to read it, or want to take the time to undertand it. But those who wish to, can.

Airlines and regulators could play a role. Those airlines with better information may find themselves in a better competitive position.

Doctors may not always be the best at explaining issues... but we do have informed consent before operations. And there is a whole lot of accessible information out there for patients who want it. Flying doesn't really need to be any different. No reason for it to be a closed 'mysterious' club.

 

[dajop]

No doubt some of the issues you raise will be the subject of consideration by the courts. .

One hopes professional investigators with considerable aviation experiences will consider and answer the questions first. Courts are really there to determine if a specific party is at fault or not. Investigators are there to try and find all of the different factors that contributed to the tragic outcome, and what steps are needed to prevent that outcome, or similar outcomes happening again.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

One hopes professional investigators with considerable aviation experiences will consider and answer the questions first. Courts are really there to determine if a specific party is at fault or not. Investigators are there to try and find all of the different factors that contributed to the tragic outcome, and what steps are needed to prevent that outcome, or similar outcomes happening again.

Yes, but the courts also have a role in that. Investigators may determine what went wrong, but not necessarily conclude who should take steps to fix something.

And investigators don't always get it right, UA811 being an example.

 

[ethernet]

The Angle of attack sensor - possible bad readings. I am concerned that these have not been sampled and tested - as the urgency appears to be real. the sensor is the sharp end, and fools are being tricked into look at the software. There are many ways to make an AOA sensor. Airbus uses a static tube and holes - I think.
Expensive complicated, andif power to the heater fails, very obvious.. Boeing uses a vane - could be (potentimeter RVDT/linear variable differential transformer (LVDT)/rotary encoding What is the 737 Max one?
Link: Angle of Attack Vane - Basic Air Data
Potentiometer - because we know volume controls can get contaminated. salt, solvents, cleaning fluid, detergent or because the leads carry a low voltage - so connectors can be dirty as well.
US5438865A - Angle of attack sensor - Google Patents
swept back design of the vane will discourage service personnel from using the vane as a handhold or foot rest
Rotary ones can osiillate , wind gusts, turbulence.Ball bearings may sieze if enough desolvet hits it.
I reckon it is probable that Boeings is not averaged, and is of the volume control design, software reading every 1/2 second or so, and someone is working out an envelope is need to eliminate out of scope readings.
A neat solution would be keep one B encoder, and fit an airbus/tube aoa on the other side. Much more failsafe.
Technically a sanity AOA could just be an angled hole and an anemometer behind it adding its 2 cents worth on an I2C bus.

 

[oz_mark]

Yes, but the courts also have a role in that.nvestigator may determine what went wrong, but not necessarily conclude who should take steps to fix something.

And investigators don't always get it right, UA811 being an example.

Courts don't always get it right, either.

 

[ermen]

what has not been considered here is the issue of reputational damage caused by your customer.

these LCC / lower safety type airlines crash your plane and sudden you plane is not airworthy.

 

[jenib]

It seems incredible that an industry that supposedly values safety allows safety features that are optional

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/bu...at-boeing-sold-as-extras-20190322-p516f2.html

 

[docjames]

It's a bit like my knowledge of medicine. I don't even know how much I don't know.

Agree, but for a decision on treatment etc you should be having things fully explained prior to proceeding. (Note that i’d also agree that this isn’t universally done well.....). Not sure the pilot standing at the front of the aircraft telling you everything that might go wrong (x 500 pax) would work so well.


Having said that, it’s hard to see where that info is held in an aviation context. There’s a scatter of info now on the internet, but little of it is curated or in a helpful format. WHat should be the airlne’s or manufacturer’s disclosure requirement. A complex can of worms.

We’re also assuming consumers really want to know. There’s certainly plenty of patients who are happy to proceed on the basis “i’ll Just do what you tell me doc” rather than want every last detail......

 

[drron]

Though in Medicine some have too much information like the young person with epilepsy who told me they wouldn't ever take medication as they all had side effects.Your decision but then I have no choice informing the authorities and that means you will never get to drive a car or any other vehicle.
They took their meds.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Though in Medicine some have too much information like the young person with epilepsy who told me they wouldn't ever take medication as they all had side effects.Your decision but then I have no choice informing the authorities and that means you will never get to drive a car or any other vehicle.
They took their meds.

But your're not advocating the patient shouldn't be informed about the side effects. The patient knowing all the side effects is a good thing. They then made a decision based on the two issues (side-effects vs being able to drive.) Others may choose a different outcome.

There is no reason to shroud the mechanics or operations of flying in secrecy. Information shuold be freely available to those who want it, and they can make their decision to fly accordingly. No skin off anyone's nose if someone decides to book a ticket on airline B because they don't like the operations of airline A.

 

[drron]

Though the lists of side effects in the CPI you get with your medication is not necessarily accurate.It is a list of reported symptoms while taking the drug.Which is why you see with antibiotics a side effect is often a respiratory tract infection.
The particular side effects,in the case I referenced, were an increase in libido and a decrease in sexual desire-yes that's what was printed.Being told they were quite opposite didn't work.She was also of course also an anti-vaxxer.

 

[jb747]

The Angle of attack sensor - possible bad readings. I am concerned that these have not been sampled and tested - as the urgency appears to be real. the sensor is the sharp end, and fools are being tricked into look at the software. There are many ways to make an AOA sensor. Airbus uses a static tube and holes - I think.
Expensive complicated, andif power to the heater fails, very obvious.. Boeing uses a vane - could be (potentimeter RVDT/linear variable differential transformer (LVDT)/rotary encoding What is the 737 Max one?
Link: Angle of Attack Vane - Basic Air Data
Potentiometer - because we know volume controls can get contaminated. salt, solvents, cleaning fluid, detergent or because the leads carry a low voltage - so connectors can be dirty as well.
US5438865A - Angle of attack sensor - Google Patents
swept back design of the vane will discourage service personnel from using the vane as a handhold or foot rest
Rotary ones can osiillate , wind gusts, turbulence.Ball bearings may sieze if enough desolvet hits it.
I reckon it is probable that Boeings is not averaged, and is of the volume control design, software reading every 1/2 second or so, and someone is working out an envelope is need to eliminate out of scope readings.
A neat solution would be keep one B encoder, and fit an airbus/tube aoa on the other side. Much more failsafe.
Technically a sanity AOA could just be an angled hole and an anemometer behind it adding its 2 cents worth on an I2C bus.

I have never seen an AoA gauge that is anything other than a vane. These same forms also measures sideslip. They are generally perfectly reliable, and in almost 24,000 hours of flying, I've only ever seen one fail...and even in that case, it was an ancillary part (the heating) that failed, not the vane itself. The Airbus and Boeing designs are much the same...they are both vanes.

If Boeing is having multiple failures, you have to ask what has suddenly changed, as these exact same probes are fitted to all of their other types, and seem to work quite happily.

NASA had a different system for the X-15 and Space Shuttle, but was problematic.

Agree, but for a decision on treatment etc you should be having things fully explained prior to proceeding. (Note that i’d also agree that this isn’t universally done well.....). Not sure the pilot standing at the front of the aircraft telling you everything that might go wrong (x 500 pax) would work so well.

I recently had a operation, and yes the surgeon was very good at explaining things. The anaesthetist was even better. But, at the time my attitude was that I'm paying these people a lot of money for their expertise. I'm not going to micro vet it.

Do you seriously think that people who won't even listen to the safety briefing would listen to 'full disclosure'. It will take all day.

I tried to write a full disclosure listing for a flight...and I got to 20 items, without even filling in the blanks. You'd be best to never fly.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Do you seriously think that people who won't even listen to the safety briefing would listen to 'full disclosure'. It will take all day.

I tried to write a full disclosure listing for a flight...and I got to 20 items, without even filling in the blanks. You'd be best to never fly.

There is likely a compromise between the minutiae and matters which might be significant.

Some pax on MH17 might not have cared they were flying over a war zone where other aircraft had been shot down in the previous days. Others might. On what basis does a pilot or airline decide passengers don't need to know that information?

People have different needs. Some people don't want to listen to the safety briefing, is that grounds to not have it at all? Same with other information, just because some might not be interested, it doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't be provided at all. (It might not be that the crew is providing this information at flight time, it might be available in advance for significant issues.)

 

[jb747]

Those technical delays that you get, just near departure time, and which are often described as engineers doing paperwork, are often MELs. Whilst many of these can be accepted with a simple 'yep, got that', a huge percentage require us to read multiple pages out of a complex manual, choose appropriate procedures, and to sometimes print, or otherwise prepare, other procedures that we might possibly need. There is often quite lengthy discussion between the crew and the engineers (all of whom should understand the aircraft well) to ensure the concept of the MEL has been properly grasped and applied. And you want to know this? The chances of you having the slightest understanding would be close to zero, no matter how interested you are.

It simply is not viable.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Those technical delays that you get, just near departure time, and which are often described as engineers doing paperwork, are often MELs. Whilst many of these can be accepted with a simple 'yep, got that', a huge percentage require us to read multiple pages out of a complex manual, choose appropriate procedures, and to sometimes print, or otherwise prepare, other procedures that we might possibly need. There is often quite lengthy discussion between the crew and the engineers (all of whom should understand the aircraft well) to ensure the concept of the MEL has been properly grasped and applied. And you want to know this? The chances of you having the slightest understanding would be close to zero, no matter how interested you are.

It simply is not viable.

Agree. And it highlights the distinction between minutiae and significant issues that could affect safety. There really shouldn't be any safety concerns at the time of departure if the crew are intending to fly the plane.

Other issues may be relevant... an airline's choice to continue to fly a particular aircraft, or to a particular airport. Or an airline's choice of flight paths. Or crew management (qualifications, training, fatigue).

 

[pauly7]

Interesting Garuda’s claim that their customers check what aircraft they fly on and the Max would be one that will be avoided (for how long who knows at this point assuming the 1 they have ever flies for them again).

I wonder though if this is representative of most customers. This forum is not the right sample to ask, but even I don’t really check before the fact really what I’m flying.... inherently I know to be honest given amount of flying.

Sometimes if there is mixed hard product on offer related to aircraft types and I want the better one I’ll specifically check before requesting it to be booked.

Suspect most in ‘real world’ don’t think twice.

 

[pauly7]

I also wonder what VA’s contingency plans are now....

Surely at the least they have a delivery delay planned to accepting them should the investigation not return conclusions that will win back consumer confidence.

 

[OATEK]

Interesting Garuda’s claim that their customers check what aircraft they fly on and the Max would be one that will be avoided (for how long who knows at this point assuming the 1 they have ever flies for them again).

I wonder though if this is representative of most customers. This forum is not the right sample to ask, but even I don’t really check before the fact really what I’m flying.... inherently I know to be honest given amount of flying.

Sometimes if there is mixed hard product on offer related to aircraft types and I want the better one I’ll specifically check before requesting it to be booked.

Suspect most in ‘real world’ don’t think twice.

I check aircraft type, especially internationally. I know there can be a substitution, and I even try to select certain seat rows that exist on the aircraft for the route where possible so seat sticks (eg if CX A330/B777 used, 777 does not have row 14, 330 does).

But generally, not for safety, as I have already broadly made that decision when choosing to book with a particular airline, but nevertheless always aware of the aircraft used. I avoided Dreamliner at first for safety reasons, and would avoid 7M8 now if they were flying.

 

[juddles]

There is likely a compromise between the minutiae and matters which might be significant.

Some pax on MH17 might not have cared they were flying over a war zone where other aircraft had been shot down in the previous days. Others might. On what basis does a pilot or airline decide passengers don't need to know that information?

People have different needs. Some people don't want to listen to the safety briefing, is that grounds to not have it at all? Same with other information, just because some might not be interested, it doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't be provided at all. (It might not be that the crew is providing this information at flight time, it might be available in advance for significant issues.)

MEL-traveler, you need to say exactly what you want re info. You seem to be arguing a notion that is free from such precise reality. Such an argument is easy because it involves such ideal but without restricting itself to the reality. What is it exactly that you want?