ET crash ADD NBO

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

The point that needs to be remembered about economic decisions is the economic effect on the person making the decisions.
Manager saves money, gets promoted, more pay, leave company 1 for company 2 having gained a reputation for saving money. Get even more money.
Company 1 goes bust when money saving causes fatal multimillion dollar accident.
Does manager gets sacked from company 2? Does he f#ck.
He probably gets even even more money because their competition has gone out of business.

[Boac]

I do find the 'sudden' airspace closures across the world rather puzzling. I would have thought a notified closure time ahead with a complete departure ban would have been more acceptable. I understand there is the odd 737 Max flying around looking for somewhere it will be allowed to land!!

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I understand the UK did that; one of Air Canada's 737 MAXs was able to depart just before the witching hour. Or maybe they were just lucky.

[Boac]

I guess the AC would have been out of UK airspace by the time? Still a strange decision.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Nothing's making much sense any more.

[G-CPTN]

I understand the UK did that; one of Air Canada's 737 MAXs was able to depart just before the witching hour. Or maybe they were just lucky.

Strange, indeed, when the two previous crashes occurred shortly after take-off.
You would think that aircraft that were airborne would have been allowed to land, but all departures would have been cancelled immediately.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Indeed, MCAS only operates with the flaps UP.

[Slasher]

Seems to me the beancounters overrode the engineers at Boeing. Known as "cost-saving engineering" it's meant to increase profits and more to the point executive bonuses. Probably orders from the top though I can't prove that. Nonetheless the CEO and CFO should be fired asap. This has really done severe damage to the Boeing Airplane Company - a mob that was supposed to save pilots from Airbus. This would never have occurred on Bill's watch.

[boing]

I doubt if there is a UK commercial pilot that does not own a copy of "Handling the Big Jets" by D. P. Davies. The following audio is an interview of Davis himself wherein he discusses aircraft certification. There are many comments that are directly related to the present events and , although the interview is an hour and ten minutes long, I do not think that there is a true pilot who will not listen intently to every second of the talk. It left me absolutely speechless and deep in thought.

https://www.aerosociety.com/news/audio- ... oeing-727/

Enjoy and contemplate.


.

[Alisoncc]

Two Boeing 737 MAX 8 pilots reported nosedives after engaging autopilot in 2018, data reveals.

Airline pilots on at least two US flights have reported that an automated system seemed to cause their Boeing 737 MAX 8 planes to tilt down suddenly.

In reports filed last year in a database compiled by NASA, the pilots said that soon after engaging the autopilot on their planes, the nose tilted down sharply.

In both cases they recovered quickly after disconnecting the autopilot, they said.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-13/ ... a/10895542

Could be more to it than just crook AoA sensors.

[Boac]

It has been reported that the Black Boxes cannot be read in Ethiopia and are being sent to the US.

[Ibbie]

Boxes are to be read in Europe, not USA.

[Boac]

Do you think the Chump upset them?

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Canada has just banned the 737 MAX from Canadian airspace. Ostensibly this is because the Minister has seen new satellite data that means a link to the Lion Air crash is more likely.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/garnea ... -1.5054234

Given the numbers in service with both Air Canada and Westjet, this will have a significant impact on Canadian operators.

I have read reports yesterday that seem to indicate passengers were refusing to fly on them, cannot verify this. It may be just hearsay. However, I have seen things change quite rapidly with Government, both provincial and federal, in Canada when the public turns for or against something.

[llondel]

I understand the UK did that; one of Air Canada's 737 MAXs was able to depart just before the witching hour. Or maybe they were just lucky.

Strange, indeed, when the two previous crashes occurred shortly after take-off.
You would think that aircraft that were airborne would have been allowed to land, but all departures would have been cancelled immediately.

The other side of that is getting your aircraft stranded somewhere. If you've got fuel to land somewhere they're not banned you can at least recover your aircraft and use it outside the ban zone if that's what you want to do.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I think only the US currently hasn't grounded them. Certainly Sunwing (who do Canadian holiday flights) grounded theirs this morning because it was becoming impossible to find a route they could fly on, including having diversions available.

[G-CPTN]

If an airline has the odd Max-8, they can probably cover with other aircraft, but when they have a significant number - they are screwed.

I must admit, knowing what (little) I know, I wouldn't want to be a passenger in one.

[Stoneboat]

Interesting article.

The world pulls the Andon Cord on the 737 Max.

[Mrs Ex-Ascot]

For a change an informative article from the Daily Wail; https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... aster.html

I certainly didn't realise that the new large engines designed to reduce fuel consumption by 30% had to be located on the front of the wings thus altering the centre of gravity. The knock on effect being the new computer technology. What I don't understand is the lack of training or technical information given to the pilots flying the new variant.

Edit; interesting article Stoneboat,

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Well, much of what follows is speculation based on comments on other forums that appear to be from people who know what they are talking about, but here's my best guess at what's going on.
The 737 MAX has bigger engines even than the 737NG, which you might know has flattened off nacelles at the bottom to make them fit in the usual place, so they had to move the engines forward.
The CoG change is not the problem (actually makes the aircraft more stable), but the nacelles now generate significant lift at high AoA.
This means the stick forces decrease approaching the stall, which is a certification no-no.
So they add in the MCAS to add nose down stabilizer trim (at high AoA, with the flaps up), so the stick forces have to increase to counter that.
And they have to call it an augmentation system, which it isn't - it's a de facto incidence limiting system - to get it through certification.
You will understand that this makes the FAA complicit in this also.
Now, either because of this, or to increase sales by reducing retraining, they pretend it doesn't need a separate type rating, so they don't tell new crews that it even has an MCAS.
To cover their @sses though, they stick it in the manual. Somewhere.
The system isn't a problem unless it fails, so let's look at that.
It appears to use only one of the two AoA gauges at any one time, so it's a simplex system. It therefore doesn't know if the AoA gauge is feeding erroneous data. Furthermore, it therefore also can't fail-safe. If it is only an augmentation system, failure isn't critical. However, it's an incidence limiting system which can apply large stabilizer trims (I've read up to 60 lbs force), so, as we've seen from two crashes, it seems it might well be a safety-critical system. It's incredible to me that anyone would either design or approve a simplex system here, so I may be barking up the wrong tree on this bit.
The AoA disagreement caption and AoA gauges which would clue the crew in to a failure are, apparently, optional extras on the MAX.
Because it only is needed flaps up, it doesn't cut in until the flaps are fully raised after take-off, which is why it isn't till then that the crew become aware of a trimmer fighting them. But, without the system being known to them, they don't know that all they need to do is hit the two guarded stabilizer trim cut-out switches below the throttles.
I believe the system cuts out if the trim buttons are used, but cuts back in again 5 seconds after the use stops. You can therefore imagine that, if the pilot handling gradually adds trim to counter the increased stick force, then with an AoA gauge which is telling the MCAS the aircraft is stalled, it will gradually increase the stabilizer trim each time the pilot handling stops using the trim button even more, until maximum stabilizer trim is applied. The aircraft gradually gets harder and harder to fly, with the changes becoming more violent 5 seconds after each trim button release.

It's a potentially illegal fix, potentially illegally approved, terribly designed, unbriefed system. It looks like corrupt failures at every level at both Boeing and the FAA. This is something that everyone should have known about at all levels from a technical standpoint.

I am happy to be corrected. As I say, much of this is effectively hearsay.