We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Being 737 max8....an explanation and asking should it ever been flying?

Rusty Dave said:
I made the mistake of reading the comments at the end of that article. Some people are just plain dumb.
Click to expand...

Yeah, those are always gems.
 
Rusty Dave said:
You don’t actually turn MCAS off. You turn the switches to the electric/autopilot trim off which disables that system. Once off, you leave it off and fly the airplane with manual trim. It will fly perfectly fine with manual trim.
Click to expand...

in the article , doesnt it state that they turned the electronics off , then still unable to control, and then back on again? Or im missing something or misunderstanding.
 
rollin said:
in the article , doesnt it state that they turned the electronics off , then still unable to control, and then back on again? Or im missing something or misunderstanding.
Click to expand...

You're missing it. They turned the elec trim off and eventually back on. They aren't turning the MCAS off, just the electric trim. Without the electric/auto trim on, the MCAS isn't able to affect the aircraft aerodynamically.

It would be similar to you turning off the cruise control in your car. The cruise control is still there, but, when turned off, isn't able to change the speed of your car. Same type of thing here. The MCAS is still there, just unable to do anything to the aircraft.
 
Rusty Dave said:
I made the mistake of reading the comments at the end of that article. Some people are just plain dumb.
Click to expand...

I made the same mistake haha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
tomcat said:
You're missing it. They turned the elec trim off and eventually back on. They aren't turning the MCAS off, just the electric trim. Without the electric/auto trim on, the MCAS isn't able to affect the aircraft aerodynamically.

It would be similar to you turning off the cruise control in your car. The cruise control is still there, but, when turned off, isn't able to change the speed of your car. Same type of thing here. The MCAS is still there, just unable to do anything to the aircraft.
Click to expand...

So basically they never shut off the MCAS specifically. it was only shut down when they shut off electric control but then when they put electric control back on after failed attempt to manually trim via the wheel, that then re-engaged the MCAS. So they needed to disable MCAS only by itself. But also leaving electric control of the stabilizer working. If thats correct, then should they have known how to shut out the MCAS? even though they may not have gotten in depth training on it? Did they even know it existed and how to shut it off? If not then is that on Boeing or the airline? If they did know it existed (even if only briefed via bulletin/written notice) then they should have considered this and looked to turn it off. That is then on the pilots imo and/or the general training they receive and not necessarily a fail by boeing since they did know the MCAS existed.
 
The pilots don't have the option to turn off MCAS or disconnect MCAS from the trim system. In order to disable the MCAS, they also lose the ability to use electric trim. While I'm not a pilot of a large transport category aircraft, I don't believe having your electric trim disabled in that situation isn't a big as you still have manual trim.

Only Lion Air and Ethiopian crew have the ability to speak to what they were or weren't trained on. We know that multiple other North American carriers hadn't trained specifically regarding MCAS, but we know they DO train on how to handle runaway trim (which is essentially what this situation is).

It's primarily up the the aircraft manufacturer to issue information on the aircraft they're building. If there's a new system, they should advise customers on that new system. They evidently did not do this. That's on Boeing.
 
Read a very lengthy article last night from The NY Times that actually shredded Lion Air (and Ethiopian) to pieces as a larger concern over how little pilots these days can actually fly these planes regardless of the systems. The technical term was “airmanship” and the complete lack of it by modern day pilot factories in these 3rd world countries. To summarize my 45 minutes of reading; they were sh*tty pilots and should’ve been able to figure out runaway stabilizer regardless of why in about 30 seconds and safely fly the plane back to an airport. Lion Air and Indonesian airlines in general were fraught with problems, lax maintenance, training etc. Ironically this is exactly what I advocated initially when these incidents occurred, so I’m not shocked at the outcome. The article did fault Boeing for one thing though; not catering to how poor these new pilots can fly. Airbus had taken a lot of this out of pilots hands and Boeing still lets the pilot make the final call.
 
Girardcorp said:
Airbus had taken a lot of this out of pilots hands and Boeing still lets the pilot make the final call.
Click to expand...

Airbus has some additional automation, but I wouldn't imply that pilots don't have the final call on their Airbus aircraft. Definite differences between the two in different events, but pilots ALWAYS have the final call.

(I understand that this may not be what you're saying.)

That being said, I do agree that pilot training in some other parts of the world is vastly lacking. I will NEVER fly many airlines in that part of the world.
 
tomcat said:
Airbus has some additional automation, but I wouldn't imply that pilots don't have the final call on their Airbus aircraft. Definite differences between the two in different events, but pilots ALWAYS have the final call.

(I understand that this may not be what you're saying.)

That being said, I do agree that pilot training in some other parts of the world is vastly lacking. I will NEVER fly many airlines in that part of the world.
Click to expand...
Have you seen the video of the airbus hovering at 10 feet above the runway as it plows into the forest? I believe that pilot was trying to put it down on the runway. The airplane thought differently
 
Girardcorp said:
Have you seen the video of the airbus hovering at 10 feet above the runway as it plows into the forest? I believe that pilot was trying to put it down on the runway. The airplane thought differently
Click to expand...

Yea, but that situation was at an airshow-like demo when the A320 was new. The demo pilots intentionally pulled some circuit breakers to override some of those internal protections, thus creating a problem that shouldn't have existed.
 
It’s stuff like this that make stupid people not want to fly this plane when it gets recertification. 767 lost pressurization and made a controlled decent from FL390. Hardly “plunging” as described. The airplane actually was going slower descending than during cruise.

www.wsbtv.com

Panic in the sky: Delta flight from Atlanta plunges nearly 30,000 feet

<p>A Delta Air Lines pilot had to make a rapid, controlled descent of nearly 30,000 feet after getting an alarm on an Atlanta flight.</p>
www.wsbtv.com www.wsbtv.com
 
Yeah, I just saw another headline that said it "plunged 30,000 feet". Absolutely crazy that they're more concerned about shock than accuracy.
 
And so...just when will these planes fly again? It just keeps getting pushed back and little to no news is easily available. First was early summer, then late summer, now through the holidays and even into early 2020. It was said they had the fix pretty early on, then needed more tweaking, then still no planes back in service.

Its almost as though no one wants the responsibility of giving the "ok". Either that or there are still issues they have yet ironed out.

On another note, the FAA has also taken alot of heat on this and it seems the trust in the FAA's integrity is also in question.

On yet another note, it surprises me that we are not hearing much at all just where the blame truly lies. There is criticism on Boeing, the FAA, and ill trained pilots.

from what i recall reading last spring and doesnt get much attention , the FAA had seen steady budget cuts for years now and was forced to pass more of its responsibilities on the the manufacturer. Honestly thats a conflict of interest and i also recall the powers that be allegedly being too friendly with airlines and boeing. . I always felt the FAA was a seriously fine tuned trustworthy machine being the best in the world and it disappoints me to know while still may be the best, it had become a bit less than it was via budget cuts as well as favoritism. But what about the ICAO (international civil aviation organization)? Or for that matter, the EASA (European aviation agency)? Or whatever other agencies there are world wide?

Then there is Boeing. The maker of the aircraft of course. Just what did they do wrong. Did they cut corners when it came to them leaving it up to airlines to go for certain optional equipment/systems that could some say have prevented this. And what about the extra pilot training as for the MCAS and disabling. Is/was that up to Boeing to insist, the FAA, or up to other countries agencies or the international agency?

For that matter what about the (what many are saying) inadequate pilots of the two airlines or countries involved and again the international ICAO and pilot/airline requirements. ? Of course if there is any real factual blame on the pilots, no one wants to insult anyone because as ridiculous as it is even when lives are lost it still becomes discriminatory to ever imply such a thing nowadays. How dare anyone do such a thing.

It just seems to me especially in the forever expanding and perhaps even overcrowding flying world that the whole world needs to get on board and on the same darn page as for manufacturing , and pilot training requirements. And while the damage here is already done it would still be nice to know just where does the largest blame fall.

A lot is asked in this post, i know. But while i love planes and flying (or at least the idea of it, not so much anymore the way we are hurtled and squeezed..lol) but its is concerning as to just how good all the hands are in (and that doesn't mean just the pilots but all parties concerned) in which we trust our lives to as we travel anywhere.
 
This all became a huge issue because Boeing didn’t want to call out Indonesian and Ethiopian airlines as sh***y pilots because they have huge orders. Not good business to piss off huge customers. Apparently Indonesia is well know for poor piloting, horrible maintenance practices, and aviation authority/government corruption. A lot of that points back to the guy who runs Lion Air. Of course Indonesian authorities aee going to blame the plane. Shocker.

Max will start flying in the 4th quarter. I think it’s more about logistics of getting the planes back moving and whatever stupid requirements are being put forth. Competent pilots had no issue with this airplane for the 1,247th time. That’s why no Southwest, American, United or WestJet (Rusty!) plane fell out of the sky onto Topeka Kansas
 
Girardcorp said:
This all became a huge issue because Boeing didn’t want to call out Indonesian and Ethiopian airlines as ****** pilots because they have huge orders. Not good business to piss off huge customers. Apparently Indonesia is well know for poor piloting, horrible maintenance practices, and aviation authority/government corruption. A lot of that points back to the guy who runs Lion Air. Of course Indonesian authorities aee going to blame the plane. Shocker.

Max will start flying in the 4th quarter. I think it’s more about logistics of getting the planes back moving and whatever stupid requirements are being put forth. Competent pilots had no issue with this airplane for the 1,247th time. That’s why no Southwest, American, United or WestJet (Rusty!) plane fell out of the sky onto Topeka Kansas
Click to expand...
But its even worse for business when the manufacturer allows themselves blame by not blaming pilot skill because it then gives the impression the plane isnt worthy. That imo seems far worse for business vs the other. and then we have the FAA which looks embarrassingly incompetent if they dont announce pilot skills to be any blame and that makes the US look bad.
But god for bid anyone gets insulted because thats more important than any truth nowadays and even safety.
 
Neither Boeing nor the NTSB were lead investigators in these accidents. So, you're not going to have either entity stating that the cause was "xyz". The FAA issued the Airworthiness Directive once they had an idea that there was an inherent problem. Boeing isn't going to point the finger at the pilots because they know that they failed at some of the design issues, and that just makes them look even more guilty. The foreign investigators are likely hesitant to blame the pilots because they know that many of those carriers have pilots with extremely low amounts of time. This is a big problem that you could go in a big circle with everyone pointing the finger at the next person, and they'd all be right.

I think the Max will be flying again in the next 3-4 months. I don't believe there's really any more development of fixes, or changes to hardware. I think most of what we're seeing now is red tape. Things that are having to be done to make government entities feel good again about the aircraft. Of course, who knows, it may be longer.
 
The New Republic - Crash Course

Interesting article. Not shocked that The New Republic would throw some anti-capitalist screeds in there, but I was surprised to see how deeply the influence of Jack Welch infiltrated Boeing through his acolytes. These guys think that edicts can make the impossible happen without any adverse consequences. If you want to see Jack Welch's true legacy, look at GE today - he prepared the soil for all of those weeds.
 
I made it one sentence in and won't waste anymore time. If your leading statement is that the MCAS crashed the planes, you're already exposing an agenda.
 
Max should be flying beginning of 2020.

Southwest as well as other carriers will tell passengers when they are flying on one so they can decide if they want to or not. I find it strange that they would handcuff themselves to fly one type of plane on a route months ahead of departure. Unless the plan is to let people know when they arrive at the gate. Then it will be "if you want off this plane you can switch to another flight that leave hours later for free" It will be interesting to see how many people really care that they are flying on one.
 
Well, we DID have to change the emergency exit briefing cards to separate the -800 from the Max 8 since people were asking.
 
Out Sourcing the hardware and the software lead to the demise of an icon in the industry.
I doubt it will ever fly again. They just need to scrap it and start over.
Things usually won't turn out as well planned as in the planning. Reality is still quite a few steps away from the perfect world.
Nothing is built, made the way it was in my father's generation. People used to be proud of what they made. Now , it's all bottom line, minimizing to the edge of vapor.
Sorry to say, they saw it coming.
I'd known this 30 years ago when I questioned one of my client whom was in the higher level in the design and engineering ( he couldn't talk much about what he was involved ).
I asked, shouldn't we be worried about losing local job positions to out sourcing ? He answered , not yet. The diploma and the promise to make the requirement and meeting the dead line were not there, according to what he understood.

I'd think after 3 decades, things should improved somewhat. Guessed wrong.
To muddle through a b business deal is one thing, to try to muddle through the design and construction of something human lives were depending on can't be 99% passing grade. It must be 200% certain that nothing unexpected could happen.
There are things would pass with flying color at 80% competent level, but others can't pass without being 100% sure.
We can't go back and create a "patch" for a passenger airplane.
 
Last edited:
tomcat said:
I made it one sentence in and won't waste anymore time. If your leading statement is that the MCAS crashed the planes, you're already exposing an agenda.
Click to expand...

There are multiple agendas in the article, no doubt. I guess I agreed with the one that points out the fallout (as it were) from the Neutron Jack School of Management. To me, that was worth putting up with the screeds.
 
no doubt like most things in the corporate world it comes down to bottom line. And yes, unfortunately even often at the expense of human safety. Not to mention even at the expense of the financial well being of an economy of a commons for the sake of a few. That's a downward self feeding spiral that sickens me but another subject.

But none of this should still dismiss any the sub standard practices set forth by the same bottom lines that bread training and pilots of the different agencies and airlines world wide. That is real too. Not even to also mention similar regarding maintenance as well. Then of course there is this demand (pilot shortage) for pilots to fill the cockpits and yet again lies another flaw indirectly related to another bottom line.

In a forever increasing commercial aviation world it just seems to me from the plane makers to the pilots to the folks who clean the planes and even to the monitoring of the crowded skies and everyone in between all involved should get themselves on the same highest standard page everywhere. There should be one standard and that should be the highest possible for everyone everywhere. But i suppose thats a dream of mine and something we'll never see. But as more and more of the people of the world take to the skies , the more risky things become and the more exposed things will eventually become but unfortunately that mauy only be at the cost of peoples lives.
 
rollin said:
no doubt like most things in the corporate world it comes down to bottom line. And yes, unfortunately even often at the expense of human safety. Not to mention even at the expense of the financial well being of an economy of a commons for the sake of a few. That's a downward self feeding spiral that sickens me but another subject.

But none of this should still dismiss any the sub standard practices set forth by the same bottom lines that bread training and pilots of the different agencies and airlines world wide. That is real too. Not even to also mention similar regarding maintenance as well. Then of course there is this demand (pilot shortage) for pilots to fill the cockpits and yet again lies another flaw indirectly related to another bottom line.

In a forever increasing commercial aviation world it just seems to me from the plane makers to the pilots to the folks who clean the planes and even to the monitoring of the crowded skies and everyone in between all involved should get themselves on the same highest standard page everywhere. There should be one standard and that should be the highest possible for everyone everywhere. But i suppose thats a dream of mine and something we'll never see. But as more and more of the people of the world take to the skies , the more risky things become and the more exposed things will eventually become but unfortunately that mauy only be at the cost of peoples lives.
Click to expand...

They don't call it "substandard", they have a name for pushing the envelop - minimize the cost of doing business, be competitive , be profitable.
This is also true in roadway building, bridge construction, and high rise building. Even the appliances in your house.
Because we use the CAD and calculation with the super computer to reduce the material we use to complete a project to the bare minimum. We used to built automobiles , aircraft, bridge with 100% plus the extra margin for unforeseen error. The margin for safety measure is gone ( or minimized ).
You had seen the documentary of a B-17 limping home after it got shot to pieces. This will not happen in today's scenario.
My father's Buick and GM vehicles last close to half a century, so was my mother's Singer. Nothing is built like that these days.
Question for the leader of the company should be, at what cost the leadership is willing to sacrifice for the bottom line ? Even after the report from internal source of questioning the safety of the newer aircraft. after the first incident ...... Can't cover it up forever if the problem is not found and fixed.
Another laughable practice was to make the training for the pilots to operate the new aircraft as "optional". In what name can we even to consider this as an option when human life is at stake ?
A huge number of jobs and families are depending on the corporation, so I can't wish it to be shut down, but it needs to make sure such incidents will never happen ever again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top