Another 737 MAX-8 down

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Hyperboles

Multiple pilots that I've been discussing this with all mentioned that runway stabilizer is a memory item, and the NG checklist still shows it as one.

runaway stabiliser would fall under the aviate category, so would have to be a skill item rather than any physical check list

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Azureblue

He's an idiot. You don't have to all be college graduate super geniuses to build an aircraft.

Why is Stone an idiot?

Last week I couldnt spell Airframe Engineer.Now I are one

a reply to: Blackfinger
You were a bloody sheety, why am I not surprised?

Garuda have just cancelled their deal for 49 max aircraft

a reply to: KansasGirl
Can I elaborate further on Zaphods reply? In civilian terms when a defect arises you have two logs onboard. One is the Cabin/IFE log and the other is the Tech log. Basic cabin defects are written up in the former. If the defect affects the safety of say a seat and cannot be rectified before next flight it may be transferred to the tech log and depending upon what kind of defect will decide how long it can remain open before it will drop dead as a hold item. Hold items are given a letter code of say A, B or C which denote how long a task can be deferred, a Cat C gives you 10 days from date of write up before it either has to be rectified or other action taken, this is the same for tech logs too.

The Tech log deals with problems other than the cabin. So it might be something like a hold item for a brake change that was found on a line station transit check but couldn't be carried out due to time constraints or nil stock on parts. Or during flight the crew saw a fault message pop up on ECAM/EICAS for say a fuel pump fault. When the plane lands, the flight crew may give a verbal handover to the arriving engineers, but it is the responsibility of said engineers to review any and all logs for both new defects as well as to ensure any current hold items are not dropping dead. And then carry out appropriate rectification or trouble shooting as required. If a defect cannot be fixed then consultation may be carried out with an airlines Maintenace Overwatch Centre for guidance and follow up action for any trouble shooting, contacting the manufacturer for help or rectifying the problem at the next available opportunity. Everything is graded according to the systems or components involved based upon criticality for flight safety. A coffee maker doesn't matter so much, but an Air Cycle Machine (ACM, an aircon/pressurization pack) does.

In a nutshell, if the previous crew on that ill fated LionAir Max 8 had been having MCAS or Stab problems and didn't report it they are incompetent and are partly responsible for the deaths for not reporting it. Its part of their basic job and legal responsibility under any national as well as International regulations as per the ICAO Chicago Convention.

a reply to: Woody510
Knowing Garuda they were probably looking for a way out anyway due to financial incompetence. This just gave them an excuse they needed. Those slots will be taken up by someone else you can bet your life on it.

a reply to: thebozeian

Probably right they used to buy up all the old aircraft no one wanted at one point.

a reply to: Hyperboles

Yes, but first you have to know to turn the stab trim to the off position.

a reply to: Azureblue

Because engineers don't build aircraft. You don't have to be a genius to put a plane together. The engineers design it, programmers put the software together, and the people on the line build it. All the guys building it are doing is putting the pieces together and installing the software.

The Max is built in Renton, next to the 737NG, by the same workers. Physically it's almost the same aircraft. So those workers that are skilled enough to build the NG are suddenly too stupid and unskilled to build an almost identical aircraft?

a reply to: 1947boomer

Very few planes I'd be interested in trying to recover from 200° alpha in

originally posted by: Zaphod58
And no one can explain what law was broken to involve the FBI.

Since when does the law have to be broken to involve the FBI? Look at current events.

To me having a single failure point on a system that can cause the loss of a plane is negligence.

I keep hearing something about MCAS only being able to move the elevator 0.6 degrees, but, the jack screws showed a movement of around 2.6 degrees. Any thoughts?

a reply to: JIMC5499

The original design allowed for 0.6 degrees, but it ended up at 2.5. No one told the safety team certifying it according to engineers.

It may be negligence, but does it rise to the level of being criminal. If that's the case, a number of airframers could be in trouble for stupid things they've done.

The biggest problem I see was allowing them to self-certify. I can see the reasoning by the FAA ( "Boeing has a history and is a giant player in aviation. They aren't going to expose themselves to needless liability "), but it should not have been offered, and Boeing should have avoided that like the plague once it was. You're just asking for trouble.

Everyone is talking about how dangerous the Max is, but at the time of the grounding US airlines had flown 100,000 hours using the aircraft without serious incident. They saw situations where the aircraft pitched down, similar to these accidents, turned off the stab trim and kept going.

I agree with this. No serious incidents are coming from Europe, NA, Australia, etc even though I'm sure that represents the majority of flight hours for the MAX.

There is still a question of how well did Boeing communicate this "quirk", and how well did carriers communicate this to their own pilots. Like I said early on, I don't fly a MAX, but even I was aware of the issue and fix after the first incident. Makes you wonder about training and standards in place abroad.

The certification stuff is still going to make shock waves, though. Watchout.

Reuters article Potential investigation issues.

Interesting claims are being made all over. Ethiopian pilots made reports to the FAA that safety was being compromised in the name of profit. Two media outlets have claimed the pilots weren't trained properly on the Max.

originally posted by: charlyv
a reply to: Zaphod58

Wow, that was fairly quick. They must know more than they are telling, I would assume.
Do you think Boing knew that they had a potential design flaw after the Lion crash? The fire does not seem to follow that scenario, but who knows.

Eyewitness reports of inflight fires preceeding a crash should be seriously discounted. I ave been an aircraft accident investigator since 1964. Many eyewitnesses have reported fires that simply never happened. It is more likely if there is a fire resulting from the crash but I have also seen it where there was no fire whatsoever, like the mid air collision between a DC-3 and a Cessna 150, where an eyewitness reported that the Cessna was on fire before the Douglas ran over it. It wasn't.

a reply to: thebozeian
How insulting...Tinbasher thank you :-P

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Everyone is talking about how dangerous the Max is, but at the time of the grounding US airlines had flown 100,000 hours using the aircraft without serious incident. They saw situations where the aircraft pitched down, similar to these accidents, turned off the stab trim and kept going.

So, are you saying it's not a big deal? I would rather not roll the dice and be on a MAX when the aircraft pitches down and there is a crew who hasnt encountered it and/or doesn't know what to do. I'm the rube here and maybe naieve, but it seems like a big deal to me AND it seems like it shouldn't happen at all.