Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Join this forum to discuss the latest news that happened in the world of commercial aviation.

Moderator: Latest news team

Post Reply
Passenger
Posts: 6827
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

Re: Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Post by Passenger »

Passenger wrote:
18 May 2019, 20:03
TUI NL will do a second attempt on Sunday to ferry PH-TFO (737 MAX 8) from Sofia to Amsterdam.

I got this information: "PH-TFO will fly flaps 1 and max 250 kts to avoid activation of the MCAS. Cruising alt will be FL230, and a fuel stop is planned in Cagliari".
This second attempt is cancelled.

User avatar
sn26567
Posts: 36984
Joined: 13 Feb 2003, 00:00
Location: Rosières/Rozieren, Belgium
Contact:

Re: Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Post by sn26567 »

After two faulty Boeing jets crash, the Trump administration blames foreign pilots

The U.S. aviation system needs urgently to restore the world’s confidence after two crashes of Boeing 737 Max jets.

Instead, the Trump administration’s top aviation official, goaded by some Republican lawmakers, informed the world Wednesday that the problem isn’t that Boeing put a faulty aircraft into the skies, nor that the Federal Aviation Administration’s lax oversight kept it flying. The trouble, they argued, comes from lousy foreign pilots — particularly the ones on Ethiopian Airlines and Indonesia’s Lion Air who died struggling to pull the Max jets from death plunges.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html
André
ex Sabena #26567

Passenger
Posts: 6827
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

Re: Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Post by Passenger »

sn26567 wrote:
19 May 2019, 18:28
After two faulty Boeing jets crash, the Trump administration blames foreign pilots

The U.S. aviation system needs urgently to restore the world’s confidence after two crashes of Boeing 737 Max jets.

Instead, the Trump administration’s top aviation official, goaded by some Republican lawmakers, informed the world Wednesday that the problem isn’t that Boeing put a faulty aircraft into the skies, nor that the Federal Aviation Administration’s lax oversight kept it flying. The trouble, they argued, comes from lousy foreign pilots — particularly the ones on Ethiopian Airlines and Indonesia’s Lion Air who died struggling to pull the Max jets from death plunges.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html
I know you don't like Trump, but why don't you mention that there was unanimity by the Democrats ànd Republicans that the certification system failed, and that this is the main cause for 737 MAX debackle?

The above quote "lousy foreign pilots" is put out of context. Sam Graves (Republican congressman ànd commercial pilot) replied to the fact that the Ethiopian crew reactivated the automated system:
In fact, the Ethiopian pilots tried to follow the procedures that Boeing and the FAA had outlined for such an emergency, the Journal reported, citing people briefed on the findings. Recent flight simulations have indicated that the pilots on the Indonesian jet may have had just 40 seconds to figure out what was wrong before their plane plunged into the sea, The New York Times reported last week. Much of the initial scrutiny for both crashes has focused on an automated software system that was designed to automatically push the plane’s nose down if it appeared to be climbing too steeply. But the Journal and Seattle Times stories indicate that the 737 MAX may have other shortcomings. They said evidence suggests that the pilots were unable to pull the plane up even after cutting off power to the automated system and attempting to turn a manual crank wheel, as training dictates. After that failed, the pilots then apparently reactivated the automated system, the newspapers said.

Rep. Sam Graves, the top Republican on the House Transportation Committee and a pilot with a commercial-grade license, said that points to a problem with the pilots' response. “The last thing you do is reengage the damn thing. You just don’t do that,” Graves said. “The only scenario I would ever see that they would possibly switch back is because they don’t know how to fly the damn airplane.” Graves continued to question the pilots’ training, in particular asking how the 29-year-old captain of the Ethiopian plane could have had 8,000 flight hours. “We got guys retiring at 65 with 25,000 hours. He was either Hercules or he was pencil-whipping his logbook,” Graves said. “I question that every bit as much as I question Ethiopian Airlines putting a co-pilot in there with 200 hours. Doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.”

Passenger
Posts: 6827
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

Re: Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Post by Passenger »

346 people have keen killed, due to fatal errors from aviation professionals. Non aviation professionals therefore have the right to discuss what caused their death. Let me quote Rick Larsen, president of the US Congress Subcommittee Aviation (and note: he is a Democrat): “…Congress has an obligation to the traveling public and the victims of these accidents and their families to ensure the safety of air travel…”

I brought up Geert Noels, a non aviation professional with aviation skills and with relevant knowledge of the aviation trade. You don’t like his message? Fine, no problem with that. But then, don’t ridiculize his statement by minimizing his relevancy. Geert Noels is more then “a C172 pilot” (by the way: it’s not a Cessna): he is one of Belgium's leading macro-economists. De Morgen says he is one of the ten most intelligent people in the north. In his column “Noelsspeaks” in De Tijd, he described what went wrong: not the FAA, but Boeing certificated the Boeing 737 MAX. And Boeing did so because their 737 MAX design sucks (says Geert Noels).

Allow me to post that opinion article again:
https://www.tijd.be/opinie/column/leer- ... 21323.html

What Geert Noels describes, is the unconvenienth truth for all aviation professionals involved with the 737 MAX, including some av24.be-members. For me, that explains who some shoot the messenger.

sean1982
Posts: 3269
Joined: 18 Mar 2003, 00:00
Contact:

Re: Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Post by sean1982 »

737MAX wrote:
20 May 2019, 11:20
Passenger wrote:
19 May 2019, 21:48

What Geert Noels describes, is the unconvenienth truth for all aviation professionals involved with the 737 MAX, including some av24.be-members. For me, that explains who some shoot the messenger.
:mrgreen:
Hahaha, Sure, the macro-economist (and lets not forget a Cessna pilot) is right and the majority of the professional aviation community isn’t :lol:

Passenger
Posts: 6827
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

Re: Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Post by Passenger »

sean1982 wrote:
20 May 2019, 16:16
Hahaha, Sure, the macro-economist (and lets not forget a Cessna pilot) is right and the majority of the professional aviation community isn’t :lol:
I'm pretty sure that a majority of your "majority of the professional aviation community", if they would read the full article from Geert Noels, will say that he might be right indeed. Including his final verdict that the 737 MAX will get approval from the FAA because the financial and economical interests for the USA are too high to reject approval.

sean1982
Posts: 3269
Joined: 18 Mar 2003, 00:00
Contact:

Re: Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Post by sean1982 »

Passenger wrote:
20 May 2019, 16:38
sean1982 wrote:
20 May 2019, 16:16
Hahaha, Sure, the macro-economist (and lets not forget a Cessna pilot) is right and the majority of the professional aviation community isn’t :lol:
I'm pretty sure that a majority of your "majority of the professional aviation community", if they would read the full article from Geert Noels, will say that he might be right indeed. Including his final verdict that the 737 MAX will get approval from the FAA because the financial and economical interests for the USA are too high to reject approval.
I have read the article very clearly and I still think its bullshit. your analogy doesnt make sense either as every airline first and foremost wants to operate safely, no matter what type they fly or have on order

Secondly, have I not said before I do not want you mentioning my employer? Wasn't that clear enough?

jan_olieslagers
Posts: 3085
Joined: 24 Jun 2006, 08:34
Location: Vl.Brabant
Contact:

Re: Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Post by jan_olieslagers »

I do not want you mentioning my employer
Why then did you make it clear who that is? Not that I care, either way, but you have no ground for whining.

Passenger
Posts: 6827
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

Re: Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Post by Passenger »

sean1982 wrote:
20 May 2019, 16:51
...your analogy doesnt make sense either as every airline first and foremost wants to operate safely, no matter what type they fly or have on order
Sure. Just like the Ethiopian crew. They were also 100% sure it was safe.

User avatar
luchtzak
Posts: 11461
Joined: 18 Sep 2002, 00:00
Location: Hofstade, Zemst - Belgium
Contact:

Re: Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Post by luchtzak »

sean1982 wrote:
20 May 2019, 16:51

Secondly, have I not said before I do not want you mentioning my employer? Wasn't that clear enough?
Text removed.

Passenger: please respect personal details.

Passenger
Posts: 6827
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

Re: Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Post by Passenger »

luchtzak wrote:
20 May 2019, 17:49
sean1982 wrote:
20 May 2019, 16:51
Secondly, have I not said before I do not want you mentioning my employer? Wasn't that clear enough?
Text removed.
Passenger: please respect personal details.
Sorry webmaster - but I didn't mention name or function. And actually it was relevant. It proofs why some people insist and persist that the 737 MAX is safe.

Actual damage so far: 1 billion USD (1 miljard). And that's going to increase a lot more because Boeing has choosen for salami communication (= a quote from travel news editor Jan Peeters, travel360.be, 6th May): bad news is released in slices, and only when there is no possibility anymore to hide it.

Latest example: Boeing admits errors in the flight simulator software:
https://www.afp.com/en/news/15/boeing-a ... oc-1gm9761

lucas
Posts: 177
Joined: 01 Feb 2017, 15:06

Re: Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Post by lucas »

Come-on guys, is it really that hard to do what a forum is meant for? Listen to each others opinion and respect it. That's the only way to have a constructive debate. You don't have to share somebody's ideas to respect them.

User avatar
luchtzak
Posts: 11461
Joined: 18 Sep 2002, 00:00
Location: Hofstade, Zemst - Belgium
Contact:

Re: Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Post by luchtzak »

Boeing 737 MAX parking lot, crowded.

User avatar
sn26567
Posts: 36984
Joined: 13 Feb 2003, 00:00
Location: Rosières/Rozieren, Belgium
Contact:

Re: Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Post by sn26567 »

We could fill a dictionary with the requests to Boeing for compensation for the grounding of the 737 MAX airline fleets. Here are the latest ones:

TURKISH AIRLINES expects compensation from Boeing for losses over the grounding of 12 737 Max aircraft, the chairman of Turkey's flagship carrier was quoted as saying, adding that he would meet Boeing's chief executive on Friday.

China's three biggest airlines have filed claims seeking compensation from Boeing over the grounding and delayed delivery of 737 MAX 8 aircraft following two deadly crashes, Chinese state media reported on Wednesday. The reports in various state-run media that China Southern Airlines, China Eastern Airlines, and Air China would seek payouts from the American aerospace giant come against the backdrop of an escalating US-China trade war.
André
ex Sabena #26567

pilot_gent
Posts: 36
Joined: 21 Jul 2015, 22:38

Re: Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Post by pilot_gent »

The reason why people don't want to fly the MAX anymore is quite easy, social media and so claimed experts sprouting their opinions. In the days without social media there wouldn't have been such a hype around this. I'm, btw, not claiming these deads are not a tragedy, they are.

A lot of opinions of people, some more correct than others. I'll give my own :D Like with every crash, several causes. Like with most crashes, pilot error plays a big role.

"There was nothing more the pilots could have done" (quote Ethiopian):
- Fact: they did not once touch the throttles. Forces became uncontrollable due to the high speed.
- Fact: they re-engaged the trim system (not recommended). Due to the re-engaging, the faulty system put the nose even more down.
- Fact: they did not perform the items for unreliable airspeed.

"The MCAS is a fix for an unstable aircraft, it should have never flown".:
I understand this might be difficult to understand for the public, this is however common practice in aviation. The Fokker 100 has a stick pusher, it pushes the nose down when AOA gets too high. Sound familiar? Have a look at what MCAS does.

The crash has in my opinion 3 main causes:
- Faulty AOA sensor --> fix it or replace it.
- MCAS functioning on faulty sensor --> build in extra check (software).
- Pilots unable to fly an aircraft without autopilot --> the disease of commercial aviation, won't be fixed soon unfortunately.

Would the crash have happened if the pilots knew how to fly? Probably not.

Would the crash have happened if MCAS didn't activate? I'm not sure. It would have still been unreliable airspeed + pilots not able to fly. Just look at Air France how well that played out...

Bracebrace
Posts: 231
Joined: 04 Apr 2006, 00:00

Re: Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Post by Bracebrace »

pilot_gent wrote:
22 May 2019, 21:28
- Fact: they did not once touch the throttles. Forces became uncontrollable due to the high speed.
Can you explain this "fact"?

pilot_gent
Posts: 36
Joined: 21 Jul 2015, 22:38

Re: Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Post by pilot_gent »

Bracebrace wrote:
23 May 2019, 03:11
Can you explain this "fact"?
Sure.

- The aircraft took off with takeoff thrust (almost full thrust).
- The thrust setting remained there till the crash.
- The force of the stabilizer (the surface controlled by MCAS) is proportional to the airspeed

meaning: an input by MCAS might have been recoverable by pulling the yoke at low speed, but not at high speed due to the increased force.

This is not just my analysisis, Flight Global:

"Proper response to an overspeed would be to retard the thrust levers and adjust pitch attitude. The crew was trying to raise the nose, yet thrust remained at 94% N1. Retarding the thrust levers and extending the speed brakes would have slowed the aircraft, and may have allowed the descent to be arrested by the elevator alone.

Bracebrace
Posts: 231
Joined: 04 Apr 2006, 00:00

Re: Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Post by Bracebrace »

pilot_gent wrote:
23 May 2019, 08:41
- The force of the stabilizer (the surface controlled by MCAS) is proportional to the airspeed

meaning: an input by MCAS might have been recoverable by pulling the yoke at low speed, but not at high speed due to the increased force.

This is not just my analysisis, Flight Global:

"Proper response to an overspeed would be to retard the thrust levers and adjust pitch attitude. The crew was trying to raise the nose, yet thrust remained at 94% N1. Retarding the thrust levers and extending the speed brakes would have slowed the aircraft, and may have allowed the descent to be arrested by the elevator alone.
I am still not getting the explanation. An aircraft uses aerodynamic forces to steer. The elevator is hydraulic driven, they didn't have a hydraulic failure. Elevator was moveable. More airspeed means more controllability and an increased natural tendency of the aircraft to pitch up. Reducing thrust creates the opposite: it gives a slight nose-down. Opposite.

If you are referring to manual trim, as the MCAS trims down, the manual trim becomes harder (to impossible) to move the further away you move from the in-trim speed. Manual trim forces depend mainly on "out-of-trim" condition. As it provides a trim-down, the in-trim speed becomes higher and you need to dive down to gain speed (clearly described in the 737 FCTM, aerodynamic offloading).

In short: if the MCAS activates you need speed to correct the situation. If you/they do know all in detail, then I would like to know what the final "in-trim speed" was when the MCAS activation was stopped in reference to their actual speed.

BTW: the article is very clear. The wording is "may". They don't know. They guess.

pilot_gent
Posts: 36
Joined: 21 Jul 2015, 22:38

Re: Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Post by pilot_gent »

Bracebrace wrote:
23 May 2019, 09:29
I am still not getting the explanation. An aircraft uses aerodynamic forces to steer. The elevator is hydraulic driven, they didn't have a hydraulic failure. Elevator was moveable. More airspeed means more controllability and an increased natural tendency of the aircraft to pitch up. Reducing thrust creates the opposite: it gives a slight nose-down. Opposite.

If you are referring to manual trim, as the MCAS trims down, the manual trim becomes harder (to impossible) to move the further away you move from the in-trim speed. Manual trim forces depend mainly on "out-of-trim" condition. As it provides a trim-down, the in-trim speed becomes higher and you need to dive down to gain speed (clearly described in the 737 FCTM, aerodynamic offloading).

In short: if the MCAS activates you need speed to correct the situation. If you/they do know all in detail, then I would like to know what the final "in-trim speed" was when the MCAS activation was stopped in reference to their actual speed.

BTW: the article is very clear. The wording is "may". They don't know. They guess.
Just to be clear, I'm talking about aerodynamic forces, not force experienced by pulling a yoke. Wether the elevator is hydraulic or cable or whatever is thus irrelevant (for this discussion). I'm also not talking about the thrust pitching moment as that effect is negligible compared to stab trim movement.

- Each time the stabilizer moves a change in pitching moment occurs.
- At low speed a certain amount of change will trigger a pitching moment, the same amount of change will cause a larger pitching moment at high speed.
- the final blow of MCAS at >340 kts put the aircraft in a nose down moment, unable to arrest with elevator alone (while before they were).

Anyway, this is all secondary. If you drive a car and the car goes too fast you remove your foot from the pedal. You would expect a fully qualified flight crew to do the same with an aircraft going in overspeed.

Bracebrace
Posts: 231
Joined: 04 Apr 2006, 00:00

Re: Boeing 737 (MAX) news

Post by Bracebrace »

pilot_gent wrote:
23 May 2019, 11:46
- At low speed a certain amount of change will trigger a pitching moment, the same amount of change will cause a larger pitching moment at high speed.
- the final blow of MCAS at >340 kts put the aircraft in a nose down moment, unable to arrest with elevator alone (while before they were).

Anyway, this is all secondary. If you drive a car and the car goes too fast you remove your foot from the pedal. You would expect a fully qualified flight crew to do the same with an aircraft going in overspeed.
Not really, it's about the in-trim speed. As said before, in order to move the stabilizer, the forces depend on the difference between the in-trim speed and the actual speed. The lower the difference, the lower the forces. So in order to be able to move the stabilizer - trimmed for a high-speed, you need to go for that speed. If that speed is an overspeed, you need to go into overspeed or you will not be able to recover. Reducing speed will only reduce effectiveness. You need the speed. Aerodynamic offloading with a jammed stabilizer as explained in the FCTM (which Boeing asks you to do in the stab trim runaway checklist)
Last edited by Bracebrace on 23 May 2019, 12:50, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply