"No Survivors": Second New Boeing 737 to Crash in Four Months

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
10,458
Paul, not trying to be funny but my GF and I fly a few times a month. We've flown already 12 times in 2019.

What would you recommend. Normally, we do not pay a lot of attention to what we are flying on.

If we run into one of these Boeing 737 MAX 8's do we fly it or re-book. What do you suggest to people who play often enough this could be a concern.

What's your offical word on to fly or not to fly.

I just saw China is grounding these aircraft.
Fly it. Two airlines of questionable maintenance/pilot quality had issues, one of which we don't currently know the cause of. Did people stop flying A330s when Air France (it is safe to say, superior maintenance & pilots) lost one? No.

The PRC is forcing most of their airlines to purchase their indigenous aircraft. I assume this is a political move to help further push adoption of it. It is called the C919. So far about 1000 have been ordered, with all but 10 being Chinese airlines more than likely forced to purchase it.

COMAC_B-001A_May_2017.jpg
 

gamerk2

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 9, 2012
Messages
1,700
plane not flying right on automation?

***Turn it off and fly manually*** that is what you as a pilot are paid to do.
In the case of the MAX, there's an additional step that needs to be done to disable the autopilot. And most airlines did NOT spend the necessary time to re-train their pilots; hell, Boeing specifically had to make the MAX as close to existing planes as possible for this exact reason.

So given the lack of retraining, it's not tetribly shocking something like this would happen.

[As an aside, I've created software fault detection & correction systems for various platforms. As a general rule, automatic recovery systems only kick on after detecting two or more independent indications of a problem. In the case of Lion Air, Boeing's system kicked in after ONE. This is a major design fault as far as I'm concerned; you never work on the assumption your sensors do not fail.]
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
10,486
In the case of the MAX, there's an additional step that needs to be done to disable the autopilot. And most airlines did NOT spend the necessary time to re-train their pilots; hell, Boeing specifically had to make the MAX as close to existing planes as possible for this exact reason.
It is not autopilot it is a "safety" feature that kicks in even if the plane is being flown in manual mode. Which apparently wasn't part of the re-training when it was originally issued by boeing.
 

YeuEmMaiMai

Death Incarnate
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
17,184
In the case of the MAX, there's an additional step that needs to be done to disable the autopilot. And most airlines did NOT spend the necessary time to re-train their pilots; hell, Boeing specifically had to make the MAX as close to existing planes as possible for this exact reason.

So given the lack of retraining, it's not tetribly shocking something like this would happen.

[As an aside, I've created software fault detection & correction systems for various platforms. As a general rule, automatic recovery systems only kick on after detecting two or more independent indications of a problem. In the case of Lion Air, Boeing's system kicked in after ONE. This is a major design fault as far as I'm concerned; you never work on the assumption your sensors do not fail.]

the pilots at any time can override the automation simply by moving the flight controls to a certain degree... pull/push yoke far enough the plane will cede control to the pilot. Ditto for thrust control...

rule #1 fly the plane
rule #2 have the co pilot help assist with the problem.

i suggest watching a dude called captain Joe or Mentour pilot

AF 441 is a prime example of how someone with a ton of experience forgot the flight rules

if the plane is saying stall, u need to push the nose down

if the dudes flying these planes do not know how to disable the automation, then they should not be in the pilot seat, amirite?
 

Marees

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
344
if the dudes flying these planes do not know how to disable the automation, then they should not be in the pilot seat, amirite?
I believe it is not easy to disable certain automated features, such as the, automated anti-stall feature, in Boeing 747 max
That was clearly the issue in the Lion air flight
 

[Spectre]

[H] Admin
Staff member
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
16,071
Paul, not trying to be funny but my GF and I fly a few times a month. We've flown already 12 times in 2019.

What would you recommend. Normally, we do not pay a lot of attention to what we are flying on.

If we run into one of these Boeing 737 MAX 8's do we fly it or re-book. What do you suggest to people who play often enough this could be a concern.

What's your offical word on to fly or not to fly.

I just saw China is grounding these aircraft.
I'd recommend you immediately ground all automobiles and stop driving.
 

Zepher

[H]ipster Replacement
Joined
Sep 29, 2001
Messages
17,289
the pilots at any time can override the automation simply by moving the flight controls to a certain degree... pull/push yoke far enough the plane will cede control to the pilot. Ditto for thrust control...

rule #1 fly the plane
rule #2 have the co pilot help assist with the problem.

i suggest watching a dude called captain Joe or Mentour pilot

AF 441 is a prime example of how someone with a ton of experience forgot the flight rules

if the plane is saying stall, u need to push the nose down

if the dudes flying these planes do not know how to disable the automation, then they should not be in the pilot seat, amirite?
There was one crash where the 1st officer accidentally engaged Go-Around-Mode while on approach, which increases throttle and pitches the nose up.
1st officer pulled back on the throttle and the Captain told the 1st officer to push the yoke forward and nothing was happening, plane was still pitching up, he then pushed it as hard as he could and nothing.
Captain took control and he was pushing it as hard as he could and the plane was still pitching up and they were only a few hundred feet above the ground when the plane eventually stalled and just fell to the ground just to the right of the runway.

The flight simulator for this aircraft the captain trained on would disengage Go-Around-Mode when the control stick was pushed forward, on this aircraft it didn't function like that and there was a procedure to disable Go-Around_Mode that the captain and 1st officer
didn't know. After the investigation, the manufacturer made it so that Go-Around-Mode would disengage if the control stick was pushed forward.
 

c3k

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 8, 2007
Messages
2,118
Paul, not trying to be funny but my GF and I fly a few times a month. We've flown already 12 times in 2019.

What would you recommend. Normally, we do not pay a lot of attention to what we are flying on.

If we run into one of these Boeing 737 MAX 8's do we fly it or re-book. What do you suggest to people who play often enough this could be a concern.

What's your offical word on to fly or not to fly.

I just saw China is grounding these aircraft.
The most important factor is not going to be what piece of metal you're flying on...it's going to be what airline is operating it. There is a wide difference in experience and training between third world and first world airlines.
 

YeuEmMaiMai

Death Incarnate
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
17,184
In the case of the MAX, there's an additional step that needs to be done to disable the autopilot. And most airlines did NOT spend the necessary time to re-train their pilots; hell, Boeing specifically had to make the MAX as close to existing planes as possible for this exact reason.

So given the lack of retraining, it's not tetribly shocking something like this would happen.

[As an aside, I've created software fault detection & correction systems for various platforms. As a general rule, automatic recovery systems only kick on after detecting two or more independent indications of a problem. In the case of Lion Air, Boeing's system kicked in after ONE. This is a major design fault as far as I'm concerned; you never work on the assumption your sensors do not fail.]
then it is the airline/pilot's job to learn what the differences are in this model vs it's predecessor... this is not he first time that a pilot was unfamiliar with a new aircraft and it directly resulted in a crash...
 

deton8

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 27, 2007
Messages
428
So basically safety feature crashes plane. Because pilots weren't educated properly on it's operation. Seems to be a case of both human and technical error.
It seems like in these cases people always want a single "smoking gun" but it's usually a perfect storm of events which prevent the failsafes in place from successfully averting a disaster.
 

Jim Kim

2[H]4U
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
3,700
I just saw China is grounding these aircraft.
Airlines in multiple countries have suspended the use of Boeing's new 737 MAX 8 aircraft over concerns about its safety.

fwiw
An eyewitness saw smoke coming from the plane before it crashed on Sunday.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
10,458
Airlines in multiple countries have suspended the use of Boeing's new 737 MAX 8 aircraft over concerns about its safety.

fwiw
An eyewitness saw smoke coming from the plane before it crashed on Sunday.
Too early to tell and there is a massive chance that "what they saw" is entirely false, but it wouldn't amaze me if poor maintenance or pre-flight checks was the fault. As someone else mentioned, underdeveloped countries don't exactly have the same standards as wealthy ones.
 

faugusztin

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 9, 2008
Messages
2,665
Too early to tell and there is a massive chance that "what they saw" is entirely false, but it wouldn't amaze me if poor maintenance or pre-flight checks was the fault. As someone else mentioned, underdeveloped countries don't exactly have the same standards as wealthy ones.
At same time you talk about airlines which are allowed to fly to EU and US, which automatically means very high standards and demands. Airlines literally can't fly to EU if you are put on a blacklist of untrustworthy airlines due safety issues. Just because it was a semi-local flight doesn't mean it is a local small airlines:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ethiopian_Airlines_destinations
 

surlyroad

Weaksauce
Joined
Dec 9, 2018
Messages
88
I'm not a pilot, nor am I an avionics expert.

What I am is a US Air Force vet whose AFSC (job title) was "Comm/Nav." My job covered all aspects of radio communication and RADAR, capitalized because it's an acronym, not talking down to anybody who knows that. I have more hours in the back of MC-130H's than most airline pilots have hours as aircraft commanders. I was called up to the cockpit/flight-deck many, many times, to troubleshoot the TF/TA system while in flight. I know, none of you give a fuck. Trust me, I know. I just wanted to throw my credentials out there. Give a fuck, or don't give a fuck, I don't give a fuck.

Ok, I think it is way to early to blame Boeing, or Ethiopian Airlines, for the crash. The Orange Boxes will need to be thoroughly gone through, that means flight controls, air-speed, angle of attack, RADAR, CVR, weather, and a hell of other "etc."

It might be easy to equate Ethiopian Airlines with rust-bucket C-47's that are deathtraps. But that is not the case. Why would Boeing want to get a rep for crashes? Shoddy maintenance? Absolutely could be. BS loading that the flight crew didn't know about? But let's not forget about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ValuJet_Flight_592

Just my "take."

Again, I understand that few, if any, of you will give a shit about my opinions.

That's fuzzily-fine with me.



EDIT:
Just what I figured, ambivalence. I'm kinda on the fence as to whether or not that's a good thing or not.
 
Last edited:

umeng2002

Gawd
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
923
Automation is exactly probably why this and the other 737 Max crashed.

A faulty sensor confuses the automation or makes it think everything is alright.

Meanwhile, a human can just look out and see what's what.

I'm going to guess it's the same issue as the other 737 Max accident; but this time, the pilots didn't know the corrective bulletin Boeing put out to bypass the anti-stall system.
 

Jim Kim

2[H]4U
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
3,700
FAA just announced that they will announce changes to all 737 Max 8 aircraft next month.
 

ewb302

Gawd
Joined
Oct 20, 2003
Messages
727
My generalized guess is that this is a new variant and these pilots are not experienced to deal with the behavior of this plane. It took out of the norm behavior (faulty sensor, etc) to cause unexpected behavior and the pilots did not know how to handle it. Now, this could be a design issue with the plane, it could be lack of training for the pilots, it could be faulty maintenance. It could be a combination of all. Boeing's reputation is down right now, you can be sure they are going to do everything possible to come out as unscathed as possible. Their predicament is likely walking the fine line of blaming on the airline, vs taking blame for a design. Issuing a software update can be argued as some admittance of a design flaw.
 

Nafensoriel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Messages
229
Just a question.

This is a 737 variant which has been around for a while with no more or fewer problems than its comparable airframes right? Does the flight system in any way override the pilot entirely? As in, can it force the plane to dive even if they have active control of the aircraft?
And if it does... how the hell did ANYONE think that was a good feature?
 

zrikz

Gawd
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
905
Nothing useful to add, just found out a friend was on that flight unfortunately =/
 

Jim Kim

2[H]4U
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
3,700
France's aviation authority bans Boeing 737 MAX aircraft from its airspace
“French airline companies do not have Boeing 737 MAX in their fleets. Nevertheless, given the circumstances of the accident in Ethiopia, the French authorities took the decision, as a precautionary measure, to prohibit any commercial flight carried out on a Boeing 737 Max to, from, or over French territory."
 

Marees

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
344
Does the flight system in any way override the pilot entirely? As in, can it force the plane to dive even if they have active control of the aircraft?
And if it does... how the hell did ANYONE think that was a good feature?
This is an example of Artificial Intelligence
 

[Spectre]

[H] Admin
Staff member
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
16,071
Just a question.

This is a 737 variant which has been around for a while with no more or fewer problems than its comparable airframes right? Does the flight system in any way override the pilot entirely? As in, can it force the plane to dive even if they have active control of the aircraft?
And if it does... how the hell did ANYONE think that was a good feature?
No, the system you are referring to can be turned off. The pilots just have to work the checklists correctly.
 

Tsumi

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
13,245
Just a question.

This is a 737 variant which has been around for a while with no more or fewer problems than its comparable airframes right? Does the flight system in any way override the pilot entirely? As in, can it force the plane to dive even if they have active control of the aircraft?
And if it does... how the hell did ANYONE think that was a good feature?
Would have saved that one flight where the rookie pilot kept pulling up and the plane pancaked into the ocean from 40,000 feet because it stalled.
 

ewb302

Gawd
Joined
Oct 20, 2003
Messages
727
Would have saved that one flight where the rookie pilot kept pulling up and the plane pancaked into the ocean from 40,000 feet because it stalled.
I think you are referring to AF447. Totally different plane, different manufacturer, different issue all together.
 

[Spectre]

[H] Admin
Staff member
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
16,071
I think you are referring to AF447. Totally different plane, different manufacturer, different issue all together.
Indeed, but as the argument always goes that is design philosophy difference between Boeing and Airbus. The classic argument is Boeing believes in the pilot while Airbus believes in the computer. Automation versus handflying. Sidesticks versus yokes. Computer limits versus human override. Etc.
 

Clickjocky

n00b
Joined
Jul 24, 2015
Messages
13
Comprehension fail. I said 'some' details.
Calm down. I know what you meant. Sometimes it's fun just to throw darts in the dark, and when the lights come on and you've hit something you can pat yourself on the back.
 

focbde

Gawd
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
545
Calm down. I know what you meant. Sometimes it's fun just to throw darts in the dark, and when the lights come on and you've hit something you can pat yourself on the back.
That very much depends on what you've hit...
 

focbde

Gawd
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
545
Indeed, but as the argument always goes that is design philosophy difference between Boeing and Airbus. The classic argument is Boeing believes in the pilot while Airbus believes in the computer. Automation versus handflying. Sidesticks versus yokes. Computer limits versus human override. Etc.
That was more true a while ago but less so these days to be honest... the main difference is that in a Boeing you can exert enough force through the yoke to 'override', whereas in the Airbus you can't do that with the sidestick, but have to actually disable the flight augmentation computers. Boeing planes are also now fly-by-wire in any case.
 

Clickjocky

n00b
Joined
Jul 24, 2015
Messages
13
Such as?



Without context of when he said that it could be incredibly ironic.
I would agree with your assumption from above that they were having to deal with a faulty/iced sensor, likely creating havoc for the automatic systems and the pilots.

When I saw the preliminary flight telemetry (sorry can't find link again) It looked like its possible they were fighting the autopilot.

M76 Posted an AD that was sent From the FAA on 12-12-2018 describing a possible flight characteristic that looks like a good fit to this situation.

I remembered the details from AF477 and it seemed both problems stemmed from faulty air speed data and thus posted the comment. It may or may not be in anyway related. The comment was made in response the the AF crash.

More questions about decimation of information and pilot training concerning the AD.
 

[Spectre]

[H] Admin
Staff member
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
16,071
That was more true a while ago but less so these days to be honest... the main difference is that in a Boeing you can exert enough force through the yoke to 'override', whereas in the Airbus you can't do that with the sidestick, but have to actually disable the flight augmentation computers. Boeing planes are also now fly-by-wire in any case.
That is not quite accurate. The "exert" enough force through the yoke is one way that allows human override in Boeing aircraft. In Airbus aircraft you can not fully override the flight envelope protection. You can select an alernate control law but the software restrictions can not be completely removed on Airbus aircraft. It is exactly as I stated, the classic argument is Boeing believes in the pilot while Airbus believes in the computer. It is excactly why barring a structural failure of some sort (or take over, etc.)at least part of the cause of this accident will end up being pilot error as would be the case on all Boeing aircraft. The pilot has ultimate control, the computer can not say no if the pilot works the procedures correctly.

As for Boeing being FBW, that doesn't mean anything in the scheme of things. An electronic signal to actuator is no real difference than the old method of manipulating control surfaces other than it weighs less, is less maintence, and more reliable. The FBW systems employed by Boeing are meant to mimic the older hydraulic/mechanical while Airbus are completely divorced from the interaction.
 

SPARTAN VI

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
7,485
You are much more likely to die in a car anyway.
This. To the tune of over 100 times more likely. According to 2017 mortality data, a typical American runs a lifetime risk of 1/103 odds of dying in any automative collision, or 1/572 if specifically a vehicle passenger (e.g. not a pedestrian struck by a vehicle nor motorcyclist) versus 1/10764 odds of dying in a plane/space travel incident. Hell, you're more likely to die just by walking on the sidewalk than being a passenger in a car or plane. Car fatalities are so common in the United States that some automotive commuters would become catatonic if MSM reported on every single fatality. I doubt there are enough hours in a day to report every fatality on nationwide news.

Personally the psychology of a plane crash weighs more heavily in my mind because of the helplessness, the instantaneous fatalties of upwards of 200 passengers at once, and the MSM love affair with reporting on them. I know that's somewhat irrational because although I have control of my own vehicle, there are probably hundreds of ways to die in a car that are outside of my locust of control.
 

[Spectre]

[H] Admin
Staff member
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
16,071
Personally the psychology of a plane crash weighs more heavily in my mind because of the helplessness, the instantaneous fatalties of upwards of 200 passengers at once, and the MSM love affair with reporting on them. I know that's somewhat irrational because although I have control of my own vehicle, there are probably hundreds of ways to die in a car that are outside of my locust of control.
It may be irrational, but that is why it makes the news. No one cares about the normal even when it is far deadlier. They only care about the sensation outliers in every situation. It is a weird part of human psychology that we have to actively control and not let people manipulate in us to get the desired effect like you are seeing now with this crash and the media.
 

Jim Kim

2[H]4U
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
3,700
Canada banned it.

Man Who Grounded the Boeing Dreamliner, former U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, says the FAA Should Ground the Boeing 737 Crash 8.
But what does he know.
 

[Spectre]

[H] Admin
Staff member
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
16,071
Canada banned it.

Man Who Grounded the Boeing Dreamliner, former U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, says the FAA Should Ground the Boeing 737 Crash 8.
But what does he know.
You mean the same guy who then let 787's fly again without actually fixing the root cause of the battery issue but instead let an engineered containment be used so the problem can happen again?
 

Jim Kim

2[H]4U
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
3,700
You mean the same guy who then let 787's fly again without actually fixing the root cause of the battery issue but instead let an engineered containment be used so the problem can happen again?
Spin it however you like.

The Aviation Safety Reporting System captures confidential reports, analyzes the resulting data, and disseminates vital information to the aviation community.
ASRS - Aviation Safety Reporting System - NASA

Cool idea, but if we're are just gonna ignore the reports it captures I don't see what good it does.
 

[Spectre]

[H] Admin
Staff member
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
16,071
Spin it however you like.
Well, some one had to give the key information you intentionally left out in your spin since with the WHOLE story you get a much different picture of how things actually work.
 

capnstabn

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Messages
491
It's obviously way to early to know for certain but here are some details regarding the previous crash of the same model.

"Preliminary investigation into the Lion Air crash established that a faulty sensor triggered a new flight control system on the MAX — called MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) — that repeatedly pushed the nose of the airplane down."

"The Lion Air flight data showed that airplane repeatedly losing and then regaining altitude for 12 minutes before the final dive into the sea, as the pilots struggled to pull the nose up each time MCAS pushed it down."

https://www.seattletimes.com/busine...cond-recent-crash-of-a-boeing-737-max-begins/
I had some friends that assembled components for planes in college. If you screwed something up you could face criminal charges on what you touched for the next 20 years. I am curious if the engineers of these systems are facing jail time.
 

ewb302

Gawd
Joined
Oct 20, 2003
Messages
727
I had some friends that assembled components for planes in college. If you screwed something up you could face criminal charges on what you touched for the next 20 years. I am curious if the engineers of these systems are facing jail time.
It would have to be proven that they knowingly let a faulty design into production/operation. That'll keep the lawyers busy for the next decade or so. And there will be no clear answer in the end.
 
Top