Another Country Grounds The 737-MAX

[Jing Jing]

Here is a video of the 737 Max taking off. The angle of attack is very extreme. In order to do this maneuver the MCAS has to have been turned off. Boeing convinced the FAA that this was a 737 like all the previous models and the pilots did not need any additional training. This no additional training was a selling point to the airlines. The engine size and placement cause the plane to nose up on takeoff. The MCAS was supposedly installed to counter this action. Boeing neglected to inform the pilots of this MCAS and how to control takeoff. Everyone had a hand in these disasters. The airlines want planes that fly themselves and hire a samlaw driver to baby sit!

https://youtu.be/RyeqeqSNSgQ

[glalt]

The part that bothers me the most is the eyewitnesses reports. They saw smoke and parts of the plane falling off. Are the witnesses all wrong? I had thought the flight recorders would have explained this but so far, no information. If the plane came apart in the air, Boeing rightfully deserves to have their asses in a bind.

[sometimewoodworker]

Here is a video of the 737 Max taking off. The angle of attack is very extreme. In order to do this maneuver the MCAS has to have been turned off. Boeing convinced the FAA that this was a 737 like all the previous models and the pilots did not need any additional training. This no additional training was a selling point to the airlines. The engine size and placement cause the plane to nose up on takeoff. The MCAS was supposedly installed to counter this action. Boeing neglected to inform the pilots of this MCAS and how to control takeoff. Everyone had a hand in these disasters. The airlines want planes that fly themselves and hire a samlaw driver to baby sit!

https://youtu.be/RyeqeqSNSgQ

That was an empty plane with test pilots at an air show and has nothing to do with normal operations, it is designed to demonstrate the capability of the plane to climb at about 40 degrees

Here is another https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0FBLVGFQciM AIRBUS A350-1000 near VERTICAL TAKEOFF
And a 787 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u0atIGRJNHU


Takeoff is virtually always manual with all autopilot functions off so MCAS is not involved and neither is the placement of the engines, you can't takeoff without the nose up!

MCAS is designed for stall situations to make the Max perform in a way similar to previous versions and to counter the new bigger, higher engines to push the nose up if power is applied too quickly.

If you would like to understand more about the system then an independent commercial pilot has a good video.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TlinocVHpzk

[Jing Jing]

I have previously watched that videos several times. If you go to the 17.00 mark he talks about the larger engines and the affect they have on takeoff. Several news reports have also discussed this issue. Until the final report is written there are many items that are worth considering.

[sometimewoodworker]

I have previously watched that videos several times. If you go to the 17.00 mark he talks about the larger engines and the affect they have on takeoff. Several news reports have also discussed this issue. Until the final report is written there are many items that are worth considering.

If you are talking about the mentor pilot video then no he doesn't talk about the MCAS during takeoff nore does he talk about the takeoff. He is talking about the flaps up situation and they are down during takeoff. He talks about the very different stall recovery requirements, and why when approaching a stall the correctly functioning MCAS is extremely helpful

There has been no suggestion that the problem happened during takeoff just look at the flight data graph. It was during the climb out after takeoff.

Yes Boeing are almost certainly culpable, the fact that the MCAS system zeroed itself after each activity and could put the trim 2.5 degrees down each time was very probably the cause together with the lack of training of the pilots . No the engines and positioning did not cause any takeoff problems

[Jing Jing]

Now it appears Lion Air maybe in the hot seat over their failure to react to a MCAS incident the day prior to the fatal crash.

An off-duty pilot hitching a ride in the cockpit jumpseat of a doomed 737 Max 8 last October reportedly saved the plane just one day before it crashed off the coast of Indonesia while being operated by a different crew, killing 189 onboard.



https://youtu.be/9Ts_AjU89Qk

[pipoz4444]

Now it appears Lion Air maybe in the hot seat over their failure to react to a MCAS incident the day prior to the fatal crash.

https://youtu.be/9Ts_AjU89Qk

Does MCAS mean = Might Crash Any Second

[pal52]

It appears a safety feature which might have stopped the crashes was an optional extra.
Being will now fit it as a Standard Feature to get the planes back in the air.
Money takes precedence over safety as far as Boeing is concerned.

https://www.bangkokpost.com/news/world/ ... recent_box

[sometimewoodworker]

It appears a safety feature which might have stopped the crashes was an optional extra.
Being will now fit it as a Standard Feature to get the planes back in the air.
Money takes precedence over safety as far as Boeing is concerned.

https://www.bangkokpost.com/news/world/ ... recent_box

There is sloppy research in that article.
It wrongly states that MCAS uses both angle of attack sensors. That may become true but was not true for both planes

They also say "after erratic takeoffs"

They are the only source suggesting that.

While they could be correct in the rest of the article they are so clearly wrong on the MCAS that they have no credibility for anything they claim.

[pal52]

It appears a safety feature which might have stopped the crashes was an optional extra.
Being will now fit it as a Standard Feature to get the planes back in the air.
Money takes precedence over safety as far as Boeing is concerned.

https://www.bangkokpost.com/news/world/ ... recent_box

There is sloppy research in that article.
It wrongly states that MCAS uses both angle of attack sensors. That may become true but was not true for both planes

They also say "after erratic takeoffs"

They are the only source suggesting that.

While they could be correct in the rest of the article they are so clearly wrong on the MCAS that they have no credibility for anything they claim.

If you look at the source of the article it is from the New York Times.

[mak]

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... air-crash/

[the-monk]

If true, very sad, a clear indication of the USA decline..
Let Boeing investigate itself.. just like the drug companies....with false research...
Let the tobacco industry regulate the the cigarette market..
Let the beef industry tell us that hormone beef is good for you..
Let Coca Cola brainwash your kids will sugar-filled drinks.
Let the coal barons pollute in the name of the $$$.
What s next ?
Not too long ago a USA-made product meant quality .... Today it s scandal after scandals.

[tamada]

Now it appears Lion Air maybe in the hot seat over their failure to react to a MCAS incident the day prior to the fatal crash.

An off-duty pilot hitching a ride in the cockpit jumpseat of a doomed 737 Max 8 last October reportedly saved the plane just one day before it crashed off the coast of Indonesia while being operated by a different crew, killing 189 onboard.

https://youtu.be/9Ts_AjU89Qk

I think that the deadheading pilot 'saved the plane' is more of a journalistic embellishment. Yes, he assisted the captain and FO on the flight from Bali the previous day when possibly MCAS/sensor related interference occurred during the flight. Hwoever, I think in that instance, the plane was already at significant, safer altitude. The crash of the same plane shortly after takeoff the following morning and the stark similarities with the Ethiopian crash suggests to me that when these systems malfunction during takeoff, there's simply too much other aerodynamic stuff going on for any of the 2 pilots to have time to solve the problem. The higher base altitude and corresponding thinner air at Addis Ababa probably made it virtually impossible.

[tamada]

Doomed Boeing planes lacked two optional safety features – report

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... res-report

Regarding Boeing making the backup mission-critical AOA sensor AND the simple indicator that shows if there's a disagreement between the two sensors optional, “They’re critical, and cost almost nothing for the airlines to install,” Bjorn Fehrm, an analyst at the aviation consultancy Leeham, told the newspaper. “Boeing charges for them because it can. But they’re vital for safety.”

More nickel and diming here: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/21/busi ... harge.html

By the same token, being vital for safety, it should cost the manufacturer nothing to include them for free. Optional extras that you charge customers for are the plush seats at the front of the plane or mood lighting or bigger LCD's in the seat backs. When you buy a car, lights and wipers come as standard.

Comfort is always optional. Safety never is.

[sometimewoodworker]

When you buy a car, lights and wipers come as standard.

Comfort is always optional. Safety never is.

That just isn't true.

There are a variety of extra safety features available for cars that if you want them you have to pay. Like cross traffic alert, reversing cameras, swivelling view reversing cameras to name just a few safety features.

In a plane every feature that you add requires pilot training or they are worthless and actually dangerous.

So the Boeing choice to claim no more than an hour familiarisation course was need is probably the ultimate cause of the crashes as otherwise the pilots would possibly have been able to recover the planes. Just adding another two indicators may add to safety or it may be a distraction.

[tamada]

When you buy a car, lights and wipers come as standard.

Comfort is always optional. Safety never is.

That just isn't true.

There are a variety of extra safety features available for cars that if you want them you have to pay. Like cross traffic alert, reversing cameras, swivelling view reversing cameras to name just a few safety features.

In a plane every feature that you add requires pilot training or they are worthless and actually dangerous.

So the Boeing choice to claim no more than an hour familiarisation course was need is probably the ultimate cause of the crashes as otherwise the pilots would possibly have been able to recover the planes. Just adding another two indicators may add to safety or it may be a distraction.

The car accessories you list aren't life-savers. They aint BASIC and yes, they cost more. They're OPTIONAL. The MCAS isn't a reversing camera. It's something that's supposed to keep the plane in the air. The system, it's redundancy of AOA sensors (now suddenly two instead of one) and the 'idiot light' shouldn't ever have been an item where its usefulness was decided by the accountants on EITHER side.

Agreed that Boeings' BASIC training was probably lacking but what drove that? Money. It costs money for basic training and more money for more extensive training. It's good to see Boeing suggesting they had all the time in the world to train more extensively but infer that budget airlines, by far the biggest customer of the Max-8, didn't budget for it. Maybe that's because the costs of these extra, neccessary classes were disproportionately high? Since Boeing hasn't been able to provide a comprehensive price-list for any of their add-on safety gadgets, it's safe to assume that the costs of their training (and any requested additional training) may have also depended on who the customer is. Don't forget that not long after the Lion Air crash, Boeing and/or their defenders publicly suggested that they can't cater for different 'grades' of pilots.

In the real world, bar owners, bartenders and license holders get penalised heavily if they knowingly let a drunk customer get behind the wheel of a car. Meanwhile, a plane manufacturer, in collusion with a federal agency, hands over the keys to loads of flying buses knowing their product has flaws, their training on their flawed product is inadequate and the software patches and training manual re-writes will be ready 'next month'.

[sometimewoodworker]

The car accessories you list aren't life-savers. They aint BASIC and yes, they cost more. They're OPTIONAL. The MCAS isn't a reversing camera. It's something that's supposed to keep the plane in the air. The system, it's redundancy of AOA sensors (now suddenly two instead of one) and the 'idiot light' shouldn't ever have been an item where its usefulness was decided by the accountants on EITHER side.

I never said that the safety features were life savers, just examples of safety equipment that costs more, for a life saver some cars don't have airbags or have fewer, you have to pay more for them. Is that a suitable example?

There have always been two AOA sensors, one on each side of the plane. The MCAS system as originally delivered used the information from only 1 I haven't seen anything suggesting that any earlier changes started using both.

And no the MCAS wasn't designed to keep the plane in the air, but to make recovery from a near stall possible. I don't have the data but wouldn't be surprised to find that in almost all flights it never activated.

It is possible that the fix may include information from both, that is pure guesswork. The logic of the software having to try to decide on which information is accurate if they disagree is not simple, get it wrong and you will have another plane falling out of the sky.

In all probability the rush to market has a significant bearing on the lack of sufficient testing.

[Udon Map]

Why is it Boeing's fault for making them options? Why aren't the airlines to blame for choosing not to buy them?

Separately, United apparently doesn't use them. UA released a statement saying that their pilots get this information another way.

[sometimewoodworker]

Why is it Boeing's fault for making them options? Why aren't the airlines to blame for choosing not to buy them?

Separately, United apparently doesn't use them. UA released a statement saying that their pilots get this information another way.

That is an excellent point and goes along with many other examples of items both involving extra safety and other things where you can choose to buy the options, or not.

You choose the options that suit you, often, usually, based on information from the maker. In that way it certainly could be that Boeing was at fault in not making clear why the options would be beneficial.

I speculated that if they had made a point that these would be needed then they would have had to make clear that pilot training for the Max would really require simulator training on the MCAS so putting the lie to the idea that the Max was functionally the same as the NG and making the sales pitch significantly less attractive and requiring consideration.

The people making buying choices are often not pilots and so have to go in the information provided.

The fact that the option is inexpensive or free to the maker has no bearing on the price to the final purchaser. There are many examples of this, one is Windows home, it is windows Pro and Education and just requires a key to enable those functions that are disabled in the home edition.

[pipoz4444]

Boeing's argument appears to be that MACS was introduced/added into the plane as a safety measure software, to prevent the plane from stalling during Take Off? Am I correct or is there more to Boeing's argument?

In aviation history, when did a the older version of the Boeing 737 ever stall, during take off. I can't find a single accident event recorded and its been flying for 40 plus years? Even the Boeing 737-800 Next Generation has been flying since 1997

Below are the last 7 years of recorded accidents for the Boeing 737-800 Next Generation, which was first released in 1997 (so a modern plan by any standards), before the 737 Max version - None of them come close to a potential accident during Take Off, except that of 04 April 2016 and he hit another plane

October 14, 2012: Corendon Airlines Flight 773, a 737-800, TC-TJK, sustained substantial fire damage to the cockpit at Antalya Airport in Turkey. The fire started in the flight deck during push-back from the gate.

April 13, 2013: Lion Air Flight 904, a 737-800 (registration PK-LKS) operating from Bandung to Denpasar in Indonesia, undershot runway 09 and crashed into the sea while landing at Ngurah Rai International Airport

July 22, 2013: Southwest Airlines Flight 345, a 737-700, suffered a nose gear collapse while landing at LaGuardia Airport after touching down nose gear first due to pilot error.

March 19, 2016: Flydubai Flight 981, a 737-800 flying from Dubai, United Arab Emirates to Rostov-on-Don, Russia, crashed on the final approach to Rostov-on-Don Airport, in inclement weather.

April 4, 2016: Batik Air Flight 7703, a 737-800, was in the takeoff roll at Halim Perdanakusuma Airport, Jakarta, Indonesia when its left wing tip struck the vertical tail and left wing of a TransNusa ATR 42 crossing the runway under tow and separated most of the vertical tailplane as well as the left wing from the ATR, with the left wing tank ruptured open.

August 27, 2016: Southwest Airlines Flight 3472, a 737-700, experienced an un-contained engine failure in flight from New Orleans, Louisiana to Orlando, Florida. Debris from the engine damaged the airplane fuselage, creating a hole and resulting in a loss of cabin pressure.

January 13, 2018: Pegasus Airlines Flight 8622, a 737-800, slid off the runway at Trabzon Airport while landing in rain.

April 17, 2018: Southwest Airlines Flight 1380, a 737-700, made an emergency landing at Philadelphia International Airport following an in-flight engine failure of the left engine. Debris from the engine cracked a cabin window which then failed, causing explosive decompression.

April 29, 2018: Lion Air Flight 892 , a 737-800 (registration PK-LOO), made a runway excursion at Jalaluddin Airport after landing under heavy rain conditions, resulting in the main nose gear collapsing.

August 16, 2018: Xiamen Airlines Flight 8667, a 737-800 (registration B-5498), crash-landed at Manila's Ninoy Aquino International Airport, Philippines during heavy monsoon rains. The 737-800 skidded off the end of the runway, causing left engine and main gear to collapse.

September 1, 2018: Utair Flight 579, a 737-800, on a flight from Vnukovo International Airport with 164 passengers and 6 crew, overran the runway and caught fire while landing at Sochi International Airport.

September 28, 2018: Air Niugini Flight 73, a 737-800, on a flight from Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, to Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, with an intermediate stop at Chuuk International Airport, undershot the runway at Chuuk and landed in a lagoon.

In fact when was the last recorded accident, of any commercial plane attributed to stalling during take off?

In theory a Plane can stall during take off, but this doesn't appear to be a common occurrence or a high risk type of accident, (considering the amount of take offs in the past 20 years) when compared to other accident events, unless of course there is something inherent in the 737- 8 Max Plane Design that potentially increases the risk of this particular plane stalling during take off? Maybe Boeing should come clean and explain why the 737- 8 Max Design really needs the MACS, or simply take the MACS out of the plane??

If anything more accidents can be attributed to when the plane is coming into land, and I don't see how the MACS would make the landing approach any safer.

As far as I can find out, other Boeing plane types do not have the MACS and so presumably do not need the MACS system. So are these other Pilots uniquely different from those of the 737-8 Max. I doubt it.

So my question is, if the 737-8 Max is properly designed, why can't the 737-8 Max be flown without the MACS system??? also given the fact that most of the Pilots flying them have spent many hours flying the older 737 version. Just doesn't make sense to me, unless I have missed something in Boeing's argument of "Add for Safety during Take Off"

pipoz4444