Another 737 MAX-8 down

a reply to: KansasGirl

Yes.

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: Zaphod58
On another note, pilots from Southwest, American, United, and two non-US customers were in Renton for a meeting with Boeing, that included testing the software upgrade. Pilots were put in the simulator, into a situation similar to JT610, with the updated software. According to a source, all of the pilots landed safely.

CNN

Do you think the source was truthful? Any possibility they were trying to do some behind-the-scenes PR damage control?

Do you think the pilots who need to repeatedly strap into what you have heavily implied is a defective death trap for a week would be lying in order to get back in the air and put their own and others' life in jeopardy? What motive are we assigning them? Suicidal tendencies? They found a handful of pilots with severe depression and a death wish to greenlight the death traps?

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: Zaphod58
On another note, pilots from Southwest, American, United, and two non-US customers were in Renton for a meeting with Boeing, that included testing the software upgrade. Pilots were put in the simulator, into a situation similar to JT610, with the updated software. According to a source, all of the pilots landed safely.

CNN

Do you think the source was truthful? Any possibility they were trying to do some behind-the-scenes PR damage control?

Do you think the pilots who need to repeatedly strap into what you have heavily implied is a defective death trap for a week would be lying in order to get back in the air and put their own and others' life in jeopardy? What motive are we assigning them? Suicidal tendencies? They found a handful of pilots with severe depression and a death wish to greenlight the death traps?

No, not the pilots, but the people perhaps who messed with the certification process to get the thing through faster in the first place. Zaphod didn't specify that his source was a pilot. As I understand it, pilots have been complaining about issues with the aircraft for a while, on forums, and I don't think it was the pilots who had anything to do with how the thing was rolled out.

And if you read my long response to Zaphod, you wouldn't have accused me of "heavily implying" the MAX is a "death trap.". Brush up on your reading comprehension and get off your condescending high horse.

So they lied and the pilots don't exist? Or they lied and the pilots could not land safely in the simulator? What exactly should I not accept at facevalue in the story?

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: F4guy

I'll listen to you. When did you fly Phantoms?

1969-1971 from Udorn RTAFB.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Salander

I've read several explanations of the system.

And no one can explain what law was broken to involve the FBI.

I don't work for the government, so you will have to ask somebody else.

Some sources within MSM are reporting that the FBI is in on it.

a reply to: RadioRobert

No, the pilots didn't lie. In fact, here's what one had to say about the 737 MAX...

While the FAA had issued an emergency directive on Nov. 7, 2018, to help pilots understand how to handle problems with the anti-stall technology, "it does nothing to address the systems issues," the pilot wrote.

Which has been my point throughout this thread.

The pilot further noted that the flight manuals had yet to be updated with that information at that time. "I think it is unconscionable that a manufacturer, the FAA, and the airlines would have pilots flying an airplane without adequately training, or even providing available resources and sufficient documentation to understand the highly complex systems that differentiate this aircraft from prior models," the pilot wrote. "The fact that this airplane requires such jury rigging to fly is a red flag. Now we know the systems employed are error prone — even if the pilots aren't sure what those systems are, what redundancies are in place, and failure modes."

Yes, to Zaphod's point about training, but it would seem this training hasn't been as forthcoming as alleged by Boeing among others. And then there's that part about having to 'jury rig' a brand new airplane in order to fly it safely.

The pilot added: "I am left to wonder: what else don't I know? The Flight Manual is inadequate and almost criminally insufficient. All airlines that operate the MAX must insist that Boeing incorporate ALL systems in their manuals."

Wouldn't you agree, that first part is pretty disconcerting?


Link

(emphasis added by me to highlight direct pilot quotes)

Bottom line IMO - There is a serious and design flaw in this airplane, one Boeing, the FAA and the airlines are hesitant to acknowledge. And this, not training, is the root cause of these crashes.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Is what concerning, exactly?

a reply to: RadioRobert

A pilot lamenting the lack of confidence in his aircraft and wondering what other secrets it keeps (i.e. 'what else he doesn't know).

Yeah, it's concerning that pilot is allowed to fly if he has "no confidence ". It's why I avoid flying commercial. On the flip side, you found one pilot of the 100,000+ commercial pilots licensed who says he doesn't know what he's doing in relation to this system, and who despite saying he has no confidence, apparently straps himself in and takes responsibility for a hundred other lives and his own regardless.

How consistent do you find that? If you had no confidence in your car's safety and that it would inherently steer itself into high-speed accidents, would you get behind the wheel and then pick up passengers? Strap in everyday and gripe about Audi not telling you enough about how the throttle linkage works?

Boeing Unveils 737 Max Software Fixes

Among the notable changes to the MAX flight controls:

• The plane's Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, or MCAS, automated flight control system, will now receive data from both "angle of attack" sensors, instead of just one.
  
  
• If those disagree by more than 5.5 degrees, the MCAS system will be disabled and will not push the nose of the plane lower.
  
  
• Boeing will be adding an indicator to the flight control display so pilots are aware of when the angle of attack sensors disagree.
  
  
• There will also be enhanced training required for all 737 pilots so they are more fully aware of how the MCAS system works and how to disable it if they encounter an issue.

a reply to: roadgravel

See????, so no system "design" problem there, rignt???? No, NOT! (not directed at you)

- Two sensors now, instead of one.

- Systemic decision making and negotiation to check one sensor against another and validate control response.

- Alarm to indicate system control takeover.

I can't believe people here on ATS have been going on for pages and pages about lack of "training"! This is, and always was, a "system design flaw"! Period!

Game, set and match!

But, just to save face, Boeing throws in a little shot about training at the end, to make the paragraph longer, to deflect a little bit of blame and to lend credence to their previous statements...errrm...lies.

ETA - BTW (for those denier's), this isn't just a "software" fix. It's a full-on "hardware AND software" fix! Don't be fooled folks! This is a MAJOR F# UP on Boeing's part!

If I was a victim's family member, I'd say it was Criminal Negligence on behalf of Boeing!

ETA 2 - So let me make sure I've got this right...Boeing is going to require additional training to ensure that pilots of the 737 MAX know how to turn OFF an automated system which is REQUIRED (by the FAA so the defective design is even allowed to fly at all) to make them SAFE????? How absolutely absurd!! This is even more idiotic than the democrat vs. republican debate. I mean, seriously, C'mon!

You seem to be confusing deficiencies with defects. And you've taken a deficiency to mean the plane is an obvious death trap.

I said way early in this thread or another Boeing has an interest in making their airplane as idiot-proof as possible, and it doesn't sound like MCAS does this. That relying on a stick shaker would be preferable. That is a design deficiency. One I would correct if I were managing the project. But the people making decisions (customers and leadership) do not always care to address deficiencies.

That doesn't make Boeing responsible for incidents, particularly the second one after an advisory notice to carriers, unless you can show they didn't address any of the issues. Assuming the system works as designed and indicated, the problem is operator error. That's born out by the number of unrecoverable incidents happening in 1st world countries with adequate training policies (that number is zero).


Every plane flying has design deficiencies. They are ranked in order of importance to flight safety. This would probably be in the second most serious category. It does not directly affect airworthiness.

The DC-3/C-47 was perhaps the most successful and prolific transport aircraft of all time. When evaluated by pilots at the Navy's TPS in the 90's, it was found to have something like 27 deficiencies. From memory, 12 were of the sort that modern certification and military evaluation would not have allowed to be delivered without being addressed. The C-47 was a perfectly safe airplane with design deficiencies.

Similarly, there is nothing inherently unsafe with the design deficiencies reported thus far in the MAX. MCAS behaviour and the single-sensor configuration is at worst a contributing factor when combined with another serious deficiencies in training and standards by carriers.

For Zap.
aviationdaily.news... tg2WNhUGL93Eoz9LZNwkaVr6GW94Cg

a reply to: JIMC5499

What's kind of funny to me is MCAS was itself introduced to address a deficiency (excessive pitch up in certain flight regimes). If the low hour pilots didn't recognize the pitch up and found themselves quickly in trouble, leading to a stall, being outside the envelope of controlled flight, loss of altitude, possible crash as the issue (finding one self at high AOA) is mostly observed on climbout or approach, then we'd be hearing "Why didn't they do something to fix the issue? They know pitch up occurs! Why don't the flight control laws automatically push the nose down when it recognizes the pitchup is set to occur? It's a drath trap!"

a reply to: JIMC5499

a reply to: Zaphod58

I thought you would like that.

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: Zaphod58
On another note, pilots from Southwest, American, United, and two non-US customers were in Renton for a meeting with Boeing, that included testing the software upgrade. Pilots were put in the simulator, into a situation similar to JT610, with the updated software. According to a source, all of the pilots landed safely.

CNN

Do you think the source was truthful? Any possibility they were trying to do some behind-the-scenes PR damage control?

Do you think the pilots who need to repeatedly strap into what you have heavily implied is a defective death trap for a week would be lying in order to get back in the air and put their own and others' life in jeopardy? What motive are we assigning them? Suicidal tendencies? They found a handful of pilots with severe depression and a death wish to greenlight the death traps?

No, not the pilots, but the people perhaps who messed with the certification process to get the thing through faster in the first place. Zaphod didn't specify that his source was a pilot. As I understand it, pilots have been complaining about issues with the aircraft for a while, on forums, and I don't think it was the pilots who had anything to do with how the thing was rolled out.

And if you read my long response to Zaphod, you wouldn't have accused me of "heavily implying" the MAX is a "death trap.". Brush up on your reading comprehension and get off your condescending high horse.

I think it was NBC News within the last week or so that showed and discussed 4 or 5 reports from NASA's program ASRS, Aviation Safety Reporting System. That allows anonymous safety reports to NASA. I have participated in the system myself, once, years ago.

It turns out that a handful of pilots DID report the downward pitching activities of the Max. Fortunately the crew had the airplane back under control by turning off the guarded Pitch Stabilizer switches.

But the failure WAS reported, and nothing was done by NASA or FAA. Makes you wonder why they even have the system if they don't pay attention to what is reported.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: JIMC5499

What's kind of funny to me is MCAS was itself introduced to address a deficiency (excessive pitch up in certain flight regimes). If the low hour pilots didn't recognize the pitch up and found themselves quickly in trouble, leading to a stall, being outside the envelope of controlled flight, loss of altitude, possible crash as the issue (finding one self at high AOA) is mostly observed on climbout or approach, then we'd be hearing "Why didn't they do something to fix the issue? They know pitch up occurs! Why don't the flight control laws automatically push the nose down when it recognizes the pitchup is set to occur? It's a drath trap!"

If Boeing had been honest and professional and responsible, it would have done a complete flight test program on the new ship and discovered the problem and corrected it before it started carrying passengers.

Boeing was none of the above.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Where in that quote that FCD presented does it say that he pilot still flies the MAX? It doesn't.