What’s Up With The 737 Max?

[fazool]

Originally Posted by valleyguy

The first crash was due to the auto pilot and its reaction to false speed readings due to poor maintenance on the pitot tubes that measure airspeed. The auto pilot's reaction to low speed readouts on the new models changed from prior models. It automatically adjusted the flight path rather than providing a warning. There should have been training for pilots to know when this was occurring (many US airline pilots said they were trained on it). There is some question whether the pilots from the first crash were aware of the change.

Some thought Boeing should have changed the auto pilot response after the accident, but with a crash I would think EVERY pilot would be aware of this issue. Boeing may have felt to change the software would have been an admission of guilt.

Let's see what the cause of this is. Both black boxes have been found. The pilot radioed back that he was having "problems" and was turning back.

Regardless of the cause of this accident, this is not good for Boeing. It makes people skittish to fly their planes.

I heard that it has a new saety feature that detcts imminent stall and lowers the nose to overcome stalls. Once in that mode it cannot be pulled out so it goes into a nose dive. I heard there is some suspicion that the sensors falsely indicated stall conditions.

I heard that Boeing sent out a paper instructing pilots how to override/disengage this feature during a nose down event.

Not sure how true all that is but it sounded very specific and plausible.

[M19]

Originally Posted by Kerbie

There was an excellent discussion this morning on C-SPAN's, "Washington Journal," which is a daily newshow that engages in current events with callers. The guest for the 45-minute segment was Mary Schiavo, who is a pilot and former Inspector General for the Department of Transportation.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?458743...airline-safety

Kerbie, have you ever piloted the Max?

[Dru Edwards]

Originally Posted by fazool

I heard that it has a new saety feature that detcts imminent stall and lowers the nose to overcome stalls. Once in that mode it cannot be pulled out so it goes into a nose dive. I heard there is some suspicion that the sensors falsely indicated stall conditions.

I heard that Boeing sent out a paper instructing pilots how to override/disengage this feature during a nose down event.

Not sure how true all that is but it sounded very specific and plausible.

That's what I recall from the first crash last year. I believe the autopilot is also involved as well.

[SpiderTrap]

This is my Theory . Boeing forgot to install in critical piece in their software that would defeat 150 people all turning on their " smartphones " just after takeoff, causing a tremendous amount of R F I ( Radio Freq Interference ) thus confusing the plane's autopilot. This has been reported many times by Pilots on NASA Forms ( if you're familiar with aviation and know what that is ) Where experienced pilots immediately turned off the auto pilot, and took over manually . Same thing has happened on other aircraft such as the Gulfstream and several others ...reported by pilots, tho they had enough sense to immediately turn auto pilot off .....This may also had an affect with manual control on the max ., only a theory ...

[Birdbrain]

But the best media coverage I've found comes from the Atlantic site, by James Fallows, their long-time correspondent. As an avid private pilot, his contacts in the avation community are coming in handy. His latest dispatch refers to an article in the Seattle Times, who keeps a close eye on its region's biggest employer.

Here's a brief summary of what's coming out:
-- Boeing sold the 737 Max as a modification of the old 737, one that wouldn't require extensive retraining. Initially, pilots could qualify to fly it by watching a one-hour video.
-- But it was significantly different. Its larger, more efficient engines were mounted higher and forward of the older design, changing thrust angles and flight behavior.
--To counteract this, a special autopilot system called MCAS was used to make the new plane behave like its predecessors.
-- This system takes inputs from an angle of attack sensor, to activates stall warnings and automated control countermeasures. This system appears to have been faulty in both crashes. Although there are two of these sensors, only one was wired to the MCAS system.
-- This fault makes the plane think it's stalling. MCAS compensates by raising the tail stabilizer to aim the nose down. This action is additive, meaning every time a pilot pulls up manually, it resets and begins and even stringer response.
-- After the crash, the tail stabilizer on the Ethiopian jet was found to be set in full down position, forcing a nose-dive.

Truly a hair-raising story. The passengers and crew must have felt like they were in a rodeo during their final minutes. There's greed and sloppy engineering all over this incident. But maybe it wasn't entirely Boeing's fault. They had promised a software fix by January, but the work was stalled for five weeks when the government shutdown closed down the FAA offices partnering on the project.

My heart goes out to the victims, families, and even the Boeing personnel who should have known better. They will have to live with their guilt forever.

[imwjl]

Today’s news covered the fast track some pilots have had - something I wondered about even before the recent accidents. We were shopping for flights and I noticed some new carriers had very modern fleets but marketing photos and YouTube content sure gave the impression there were a lot of young men and women in planes that usually more experienced pilots in the US.

We have a cabin neighbor (777 pilot) and personal friend (A320 pilot) who feel really strong about the experience aspect but not everyone has had or can have their careers as military pilots first. This might not be fair but might be true, but both of them also detest seeing overweight pilots and say they always hope pilots have the military experience they had.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-..._copyURL_share

I hope the software fix is done soon. It all reminded me of the auto industry shoehorning bigger engines in an old chassis. When I was in one of these new planes I did not notice taller landing gear but the winglets were different and seating was more comfortable.

Looking at less expensive LATAM and AeroMexico tickets, I think of the two acquaintances who always point out their military experience but do not think you can count on that for most flights.

On the whole, we have a problem much like those who fear automation in our cars. By the numbers it’s all much safer but you can have a problem from the technology itself.

[Fogducker]

The FAA has the license/medical/manufacture/training regulation here in the USA. The foreign governments have the oversight in their sovereign domains. Pilot training and experience is different I'm sure!

Fog

[imwjl]

Originally Posted by Fogducker

The FAA has the license/medical/manufacture/training regulation here in the USA. The foreign governments have the oversight in their sovereign domains. Pilot training and experience is different I'm sure!

Fog

We have had a trend toward self-regulation in the US. I understand where it came from, how it can be good, or how it can be bad. I have no expertise in aviation or making planes but do know about it in the food industry.

In food regulation I've had had projects where I've worked in same facilities, and set up some of the communication infrastructure for the inspectors. I've been part of audits when parts of automation and communication have been involved. There have been a few times when I've had to participate in the legal discovery process. It all left me willing to absorb the small costs for safety & quality.

Maybe the Embraer purchase will mean completely new designs vs the car treatment of dropping new power in old chassis??? The completely new planes seem so efficient that maybe no more same route as the Max and NEO planes?

Let's hope that software fix is here fast, and anything else learned becomes needed change. Also, that paranoia will not reign. We need to remember how much safer air travel is thanks to technology and automation.

[Kerbie]

Originally Posted by M19

Kerbie, have you ever piloted the Max?

I'm sorry for my tardiness, Marty... I missed your question. No, I have not flown any 737s. I've flown the 747 simulator several times and I flew a turboprop that was designed by Boeing.

Boeing designs airplanes well, but this debacle has been interesting to follow. The MCAS system is actually very much like some of the overrides that Airbus created decades ago. At the time, many Boeing pilots were highly critical of Airbus. But Airbus incorporated multiple sensors and informative manuals. They provided airline training departments the resources to train their pilots well. From what I've read, it appears that the Airbus anti-stall systems were and are far superior to Boeing's.

[Dru Edwards]

Air Canada just announced that the Max 8 will be grounded until at least July 1. So, even if Boeing gets in a fix they'll sit in Canada. It's to provide certainty for passengers looking to book flights.

[Acousticado]

With so many 737 Max’s grounded, I wonder what aircraft the airlines are putting into service to adequately and safely handle the shortfall?

[Dru Edwards]

Originally Posted by Acousticado

With so many 737 Max’s grounded, I wonder what aircraft the airlines are putting into service to adequately and safely handle the shortfall?

Guessing that airlines may have cancelled some flights on frequent routes (i.e. multiple flights a day) and those planes were used. Also, for Air Canada, the Halifax - London UK route used a Max 8 so passengers were flown to Montreal or Toronto first and then on to the UK instead.

That and a lot of passengers were stranded for a couple of days waiting for planes.

[nitram]

Originally Posted by unimogbert

Mentour Pilot channel describes 737 stall recovery procedures and then discusses what's different about the 737 MAX.

Might be too pilot technical but it's accurate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlinocVHpzk

I was somewhat surprised to learn that incipient stall recovery requires lowering the nose before slowly adding power. In light planes you do both at the same time.

He also demonstrates how many warnings there are to the pilots from a healthy airplane so that they don't actually stall.

He also indicated that because the engines are lower on the MAX if the pilot tries to power through to correct the situation the nose just lifts more due to the angle of lift so it's counterintuitive to the conventional model where the engines are placed higher.

[imwjl]

Originally Posted by Acousticado

With so many 737 Max’s grounded, I wonder what aircraft the airlines are putting into service to adequately and safely handle the shortfall?

I had an interesting holiday time flight where one leg was a truly new 737 where the pilot kept repeating how thrilled he was and then to a MD-80 they said was pulled out for the extra capacity. One of my kids enjoyed seeing the cockpits of both. FWIW, the DC-9 pilot said he was a growing minority who can still fly them and pointed out to my son the mirrors that make the compass visible.

This bit in today's news is interesting. I'm aware of the upcharges because I sort of follow Boeing (stockholder) but with such high penalty for failure surprised they don't all have the safety options or that US doesn't require the fire extinguisher capacity Japan does.

Do we predict this will be the end of the aircraft maker as their own inspector?

https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...mN2-S-av57NNbw

[Dru Edwards]

Originally Posted by imwjl

I had an interesting holiday time flight where one leg was a truly new 737 where the pilot kept repeating how thrilled he was and then to a MD-80 they said was pulled out for the extra capacity. One of my kids enjoyed seeing the cockpits of both. FWIW, the DC-9 pilot said he was a growing minority who can still fly them and pointed out to my son the mirrors that make the compass visible.

This bit in today's news is interesting. I'm aware of the upcharges because I sort of follow Boeing (stockholder) but with such high penalty for failure surprised they don't all have the safety options or that US doesn't require the fire extinguisher capacity Japan does.

Do we predict this will be the end of the aircraft maker as their own inspector?

https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...mN2-S-av57NNbw

I was surprised when I read that both the Max 8s that crashed didn't have the "optional" add ons that could have helped them diagnose the problem. Amazing! Boeing stated they will now add one of those two features free on all planes ... a little too late. If it's that important it should be part of the core package.