OT: Boeing 737 MAX

[saab2000]

Originally Posted by GregL

I suggest waiting a few days before condemning the FAA for not grounding the 737 Max series. In 1979, the FAA took 12 days to ground the DC-10. The root cause of the accident which precipitated the DC-10 grounding turned out to be an unapproved, inappropriate maintenance procedure. It's just too soon to pass judgement on this crash and the aircraft type involved. In the meantime, I'd feel very safe flying on a 737 Max operated by a US airline.

Greg

Amen, brother! We need to wait for more facts. Hysteria serves us poorly.

I have operated the variant in question and I like it.

Facts, not speculation or fear or TV personalities, must drive this investigation.

[sfscott]

Originally Posted by Jaybee

This matches what I’ve read as well, and it makes me think part of the reason that the FAA hasn’t grounded the planes is because SW, American, AirCanada have certified their pilots on the new software, and maybe others haven’t or consider the equipment failure to be sufficient for grounding even if they know their pilots know how to override. That’s total conjecture, and part of the reason I specifically paged Saab2k in the OP - I think he flies 737s, and maybe MAXs.

Even if you can’t disengage the system, there is always a circuit breaker to pull.

And Saab, correct me if I’m wrong but aren’t there auto throttle systems which should cut power during a dive that normally would be running full on climb out?

Something doesn’t add up.

[joosttx]

Originally Posted by saab2000

Amen, brother! We need to wait for more facts. Hysteria serves us poorly.

I have operated the variant in question and I like it.

Facts, not speculation or fear or TV personalities, must drive this investigation.

Saab -Do pilots fly different aircraft routinely or stick to one? Also how much training is involved to learn how fly a new plane when you are a seasoned pilot?

[cloudguy]

Originally Posted by saab2000

Facts, not speculation or fear or TV personalities, must drive this investigation.

facts:https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...ng-737-1266090

A quote from a pilot:
"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."

[saab2000]

Originally Posted by sfscott

Even if you can’t disengage the system, there is always a circuit breaker to pull.

And Saab, correct me if I’m wrong but aren’t there auto throttle systems which should cut power during a dive that normally would be running full on climb out?

Something doesn’t add up.

You CAN disengage the system, with the Stab Trim Disconnect switches. But you have to know they are there and understand their function. They are guarded switches, meaning the confirmation of both pilots is required to actuate them, and then only when following the appropriate checklist.

When flying the airplane manually (by hand) it is normally the procedure to disengage the autothrottle system.

Originally Posted by cloudguy

facts:https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...ng-737-1266090

A quote from a pilot:
"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."

These are not facts related to either incident. Please look for, and read, the preliminary accident report on the Indonesian accident. It's dry and much less sensationalized.
or

Originally Posted by joosttx

Saab -Do pilots fly different aircraft routinely or stick to one? Also how much training is involved to learn how fly a new plane when you are a seasoned pilot?

In the airline world pilots are permitted to operate one "Type Rating" at a time. The Boeing 737 has a single type rating but there are a number of variants. The new MAX version is the latest variant.

It typically takes a minimum of several weeks to transition to a new type. For example, if I were to transition to, say, an Airbus A320 it would probably be a minimum of a 4 to 6 week transition course, including training in A/C systems and procedures and then simulator sessions, lasting probably 10-14 days.



We don't yet know much of anything about the most recent accident. The first accident appears to be related to the trim system, which may have been malfunctioning based on a faulty probe on the exterior of the airplane.

I am not opposed to the FAA grounding this variant out of an abundance of caution until we know more but I caution against fear-based reporting and hysterical overreaction by TV personalities whose job is to make money for their parent company. They are NOT experts on operating a Boeing 737 and as often as not the experts they find have some ulterior motive in speaking negatively.

As I said, before we pass judgement any much of anything we need more facts. If, in the meantime, the FAA grounds the MAX variant (something they could do with immediate effect) nobody will hear me say much of anything negative. But if they don't I'm OK too because my training has been abundantly clear on how to handle an airplane trim emergency, something we only speculate was relevant on the first MAX crash and have no idea if it was related to the second.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by Jaybee

So two (perhaps unrelated) crashes in the last 6 months of this plane. Every country except the US and Canada has grounded this plane until it's airworthiness is assured.

From my reading, something to do with flight control software issue? Dallas Morning News has a good article on pilot complaints.

Thoughts? Especially from saab2k? (I understand if it's not possible for you to comment at this time).

Yup, SAAB will give a definitive answer but I think it's a combo, flight control software issue coupled with pilot training. Yes, maybe a 'black box' issue effecting the computer driven, fly-by-wire system but some pilots lack the trainng to deal with it..My opinion only. Delivery of aircraft doesn't always come with a training program.

So in the Lion Air example, a incorrectly installed sensor caused the auto systems to nose the plane down. On previous flights the crew disabled the auto systems but on the last one the crew could not figure out how to turn it off.

I'd fly in the thing as long as the pilots were US trained..

For SAAB, I understand passenger comfort and all that but do you routinely turn off 'george', along with auto-throttles and just fly the thing? For proficiency? Even after a long cross country in a F-14(one in F-4 never worked), when I turned off george to start the arrival. it took a couple of minutes to get the 'feel' again..

And if not, how does the 'feel' of modern simulators compare to the real jet? F-14 sim was essentially a procedure trainer as it didn't 'feel' anything like the real thing.

[saab2000]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

For SAAB, I understand passenger comfort and all that but do you routinely turn off 'george', along with auto-throttles and just fly the thing? For proficiency? Even after a long cross country in a F-14(one in F-4 never worked), when I turned off george to start the arrival. it took a couple of minutes to get the 'feel' again..

And if not, how does the 'feel' of modern simulators compare to the real jet? F-14 sim was essentially a procedure trainer as it didn't 'feel' anything like the real thing.

I'm not a huge hand flyer. The minimum altitude for autopilot engagement at my carrier is 1000' AGL, so we are at least flying it by hand to that altitude, sometimes more.

On landing the A/P may be used to a much lower altitude but at my current airline we do not use the autoland function. We use an HGS system and always land by hand.

Sometimes we will click it all of when cut loose for a visual approach but my whole career has been one of flying the LOC and G/S but sometimes the situation is appropriate to fly by hand.

At my last airline we had a less sophisticated flight management system and, as an example, all southbound approaches to DCA (Reagan National) and visuals to 31 in New York's LGA (La Guardia) were hand flown. I know how to do it but the airplane is better than I am so normally I manage the automation and let the airplane do its thing, clicking off at about 500' and landing by hand.

[Tony T]

Originally Posted by GregL

I suggest waiting a few days before condemning the FAA for not grounding the 737 Max series. In 1979, the FAA took 12 days to ground the DC-10. The root cause of the accident which precipitated the DC-10 grounding turned out to be an unapproved, inappropriate maintenance procedure. It's just too soon to pass judgement on this crash and the aircraft type involved. In the meantime, I'd feel very safe flying on a 737 Max operated by a US airline.

Greg

The biggest loser on a grounding would be Boeing, and the question (in my mind) is how/if political contributions effect the decision of the FAA.
There are not that many 737Max's in service in the US, so grounding them would not impact air travel. I would not fly an airline flying the 737Max (not choosing a flight not flying the plane is not enough, as the airline could switch aircraft for a variety of reasons before the flight)

The Airlines or Boeing could also ground the 737Max

[verticaldoug]

Originally Posted by Tony T

The biggest loser on a grounding would be Boeing, and the question (in my mind) is how/if political contributions effect the decision of the FAA.
There are not that many 737Max's in service in the US, so grounding them would not impact air travel. I would not fly an airline flying the 737Max (not choosing a flight not flying the plane is not enough, as the airline could switch aircraft for a variety of reasons before the flight)

The Airlines or Boeing could also ground the 737Max

Since the Chinese led the charge to ground the 737Max, the right question to ask is how does this benefit the Chinese politically for:
1. Trying to assume a more global leadership role since the US is retrenching.
2. Trying to find some leverage on the tariff spat.

As for Trump's tweet, its just par for the course. He likes to pretend he has some special insight when there is none. But following the tweet, it did become open season for other countries to blanket ground the plane. I view this as a own goal.

[Bruce K]

No politics, please.

There is enough here to discuss without it.

BK

[vincenz]

If this had happened on a US flight, it would have been grounded already.

Take a look at a few previous reports from US pilots flying the same plane:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/13/w...gtype=Homepage

[verticaldoug]

Originally Posted by Bruce K

No politics, please.

There is enough here to discuss without it.

BK

Yes, it is political but there is a definitive tie between the tweets and groundings.

[echappist]

Originally Posted by verticaldoug

Yes, it is political but there is a definitive tie between the tweets and groundings.

Not to mention the direct phone lobbying effort of its CEO to the POTUS directly.

One could very well say, Boeing is actively trying to do this politically (cf. something procedural)

As an aside, the Boeing CEO is apparently an over(t)ly enthusiastic cyclist (he has bikes in his office), the type who wants people he’s dealing with in non-cycling related contexts to know how fit he is. Narcissist

[benb]

I'm no airline pilot but did take some flight training years ago.. enough to know what a bunch of the systems are and no how to read some of this FAA stuff.

To me this is a big bunch of political hysteria designed to win points against the US... I am not really sure what China's end game is since they don't manufacture their own Airliners and are one of Boeing's biggest customers.. in the case of Europe it is very hard for me to believe that their isn't some political angle here to help Airbus sales at the expense of Boeing.

A very telling facts to me about this, especially when I hear stuff like the Democractic senator from CT yesterday being totally hysterical on the radio is this:

- Two of the most dangerous airlines in the world. I would not fly on any model of plane that either of those two carriers were flying. Lion Air was banned from EU airspace until 2016. Ethiopian Air has been around for a long time and would seemingly be better but they've had 60+ crashes.

- Neither investigation has been finished, one hasn't even really been started

- Ethiopia sounds like they are mostly reliant on another country coming in to assist with the investigation

Most accidents come down to pilot error... I am going to bet this one will come down to that too.

When you hear about some of these countries having Air Force fighter pilots who are not trained well enough to fly at night do you really think their civilian flight crews are as good as US/EU crews?

[GregL]

Originally Posted by cloudguy

facts:https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...ng-737-1266090

A quote from a pilot:
"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."

The quoted statement comes from emotion, not facts. People are very emotional about this issue not only because of the tragic loss of lives, but also because Boeing (before the Lion Air crash AND with the approval of the FAA) did not divulge the existence of the MCAS system. Had the MCAS system been identified in the aircraft manuals and training syllabus, there would likely be much less backlash.

Aircraft have had approved "jury rigging" for generations. These systems provide stability augmentation, prevent departure from controlled flight, and physically assist the pilot. Just a few of the ones I have flown with;

- Stick shakers to warn of impending aerodynamic stall;
- Stick pushers to lower the nose and prevent an aerodynamic stall;
- Yaw dampers to dampen Dutch roll and avoid structural damage;
- Mach trim to prevent Mach tuck as the center of lift moves aft during transonic flight;
- Rudder boost to assist ensure that rudder forces don't exceed pilot strength during loss of an engine and asymmetric thrust situations.

Heck, I've flown aircraft with ALL of the aforementioned "jury rigging." IMO, we need to wait a bit longer for the investigation to progress. It's easy to rush to judgment - it's must more difficult to remain calm and rationally analyze the problem.

Greg