LiveATC Discussion Forums
Aviation => Aviation Accidents/Incidents => Topic started by: joeyb747 on March 10, 2019, 01:01:50 PM
-
The aircraft involved is ET-AVJ, Boeing 737-860 MAX CN 6245 LN 7243, powered by the CFM LEAP 1A series power plants, was first flown on 10/30/18, and delivered to Ethiopian Airlines on 11/15/18.
"An Ethiopian Boeing 737-8 MAX, registration ET-AVJ performing flight ET-302 from Addis Ababa (Ethiopia) to Nairobi (Kenya) with 149 passengers and 8 crew, departed Addis Ababa's runway 07R and was climbing out of Addis Ababa when the aircraft levelled off at about 9000 feet MSL, radar contact was lost shortly after at 08:44L (05:44Z). No survivors were found."
"In a subsequent press conference on Mar 10th 2019 Ethiopian Airlines reported the crew reported difficulties and requested a return to Addis Ababa. The captain was with Ethiopian Airlines for 9 years and had about 8000 hours of flight experience, a first officer with 200 flight hours assisted, there were 35 nationalities amongst the 149 passengers. The crash site appears to be consistent with a steep dive, the aircraft is right inside the ground. The aircraft had undergone last "rigorous first check maintenance" on Feb 4th 2019. The aircraft had last operated to and from Johannesburg (South Africa) arriving back in Addis Ababa in the morning of Mar 10th 2019 before departing for the accident flight."
From:
http://avherald.com/h?article=4c534c4a&opt=0
-
I would like to hope that this isn't a systemic problem with the 737 Max 8, but the circumstances
seem eerily similar to the Lion Air crash some months ago....
-
It definitely appears that trust in the airframe has been lost. The Chinese Government has grounded the MAX 8 series 737 operated by Air China, China Eastern Airlines, China Southern Airlines and Hainan Airlines. Cayman Airways has grounded its two new 8 MAX aircraft. Ethiopian Airlines has grounded its remaining MAX 8 fleet as well.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ethiopia-airlines-china/chinese-carriers-ethiopian-airlines-suspend-use-of-boeing-737-max-8-aircraft-after-crash-idUSKBN1QS01Z
In a strange twist, Boeing has delayed the rollout of the 777-9, originally scheduled for this Wednesday...
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-to-delay-777x-rollout-after-ethiopian-crash-456497/
-
Indonesia has followed suit...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-11/indonesia-grounds-boeing-max-jets-after-deadly-ethiopian-crash
-
" Dr. Alan Diehl, a former FAA, NTSB and USAF investigator and author of Air Safety Investigators, does see one of the Boeing 737 MAX’s most advanced flight
— the MCAS implicated in the crash of Lion Air 610 — as one of its biggest flaws as well. The system creates “a different flying experience” for pilots, because
you “can’t overpower it with the MAX.”
https://thepointsguy.com/news/is-the-boeing-737-max-safe-to-fly/ Thoughts ??
-
Interesting read...
"The preliminary investigation following Lion Air Flight 610 revealed that prior to the crash, a system called Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System or MCAS had engaged, without the pilots’ knowledge. The MCAS lowers the nose automatically to prevent a stall, or the loss of lift, if it detects that the angle of the plane’s nose is too high relative to the ground. A malfunctioning sensor may have led the MCAS to engage repeatedly, countering the pilots’ maneuvers."
From the same article...
https://thepointsguy.com/news/is-the-boeing-737-max-safe-to-fly/
-
http://newsinflight.com/2019/03/13/us-stand-alone-as-faa-declined-to-ground-737max/?fbclid=IwAR2NqyVqtfS1MZTVgDF97cA_2g5wzyrDvkQGM1URh7CsHXi3keXE8FtgKfU
-
Up-to-date list of airlines and regulators grounding the MAX:
https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/airlines-and-regulators-ground-737-max-in-wake-of-ethiopian-airlines-crash/?fbclid=IwAR0U60Kkv-WYACnmuHVlROgFZ-533Xfc-JDx8S5pUM0ydy0grc1rcmHEzWI
-
I'm not a pilot, or ATC officer, but I am a keen aviation nerd lol
The Boeing 737-860 MAX has been reported to have had two accidents a few months apart
I do not believe (as far as I know & have heard in news reports) that the 737-860 MAX is intrinsically unsafe
Naturally, Boeing have recalled all (or most of) model 737-860 MAX aircraft & certain country's have currently excluded this model in their respective controlled airspace
I have emailed Boeing requesting a copy of their report into this incident on the conclusion of the investigation. I have received the auto reply saying, thankyou for my email & it will be forwarded to the relevant department, for them to reply.
Obviously as this is an ongoing investigation, they are unable to comment. Fair enough; I understand Boeing's situation in this matter
I have also emailed, both the UK's CAA & US's FAA asking their views on the matter. Obviously, as I have said above, this being an ongoing investigation, they are currently unable to comment
So a question to all you commercial pilots out there flying around:
Would you pilot a Boeing 737-860 MAX, despite the current situation, regarding this model of aircraft, manufactured in Boeing's Seattle(?) plant?
If I was a commercial pilot. (which is pretty much out of the question, my being aged 57), I would currently fly a Boeing 737-860 MAX, despite the current situation, as I have said above, I do not believe this model of aircraft is intrinsically unsafe
Do you really believe, a company such as Boeing, a responsible aircraft manufacturer, with global recognition, would manufacture & sell an aircraft that has not been subject to trial test flights? If there was a fault in any aircraft, any responsible company, such as Boeing, would not permit then to be on sale to the general aircraft industry
Thanks
Nick
-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/pilots-have-reported-issues-in-us-with-new-boeing-jet/ar-BBUGJmB?li=BBnb7Kz
-
I'm not a pilot, or ATC officer, but I am a keen aviation nerd lol
The Boeing 737-860 MAX has been reported to have had two accidents a few months apart
I do not believe (as far as I know & have heard in news reports) that the 737-860 MAX is intrinsically unsafe
Naturally, Boeing have recalled all (or most of) model 737-860 MAX aircraft & certain country's have currently excluded this model in their respective controlled airspace
I have emailed Boeing requesting a copy of their report into this incident on the conclusion of the investigation. I have received the auto reply saying, thankyou for my email & it will be forwarded to the relevant department, for them to reply.
Obviously as this is an ongoing investigation, they are unable to comment. Fair enough; I understand Boeing's situation in this matter
I have also emailed, both the UK's CAA & US's FAA asking their views on the matter. Obviously, as I have said above, this being an ongoing investigation, they are currently unable to comment
So a question to all you commercial pilots out there flying around:
Would you pilot a Boeing 737-860 MAX, despite the current situation, regarding this model of aircraft, manufactured in Boeing's Seattle(?) plant?
If I was a commercial pilot. (which is pretty much out of the question, my being aged 57), I would currently fly a Boeing 737-860 MAX, despite the current situation, as I have said above, I do not believe this model of aircraft is intrinsically unsafe
Do you really believe, a company such as Boeing, a responsible aircraft manufacturer, with global recognition, would manufacture & sell an aircraft that has not been subject to trial test flights? If there was a fault in any aircraft, any responsible company, such as Boeing, would not permit then to be on sale to the general aircraft industry
Thanks
Nick
You're missing the point. No-one is doubting the safety or reliability of the B38M. What the problem here is, is that the changes they've made to the engineering and how its systems differ from the other current B737 models B73G, B737, B738, B739) was not disclosed to the pilots who will be operating that aircraft, let alone any training on it. That is a HUGE problem, especially to those coming in with the previous training and certification on that aircraft type and thinking that it will be compatible with previous models.
It's been already reported about how pilots who are currently flying the B38M are already filing complaints at the FAA about it:
https://www.dallasnews.com/business/airlines/2019/03/12/boeing-737-max-8-pilots-complained-feds-months-suspected-safety-flaw
But this pilot really says a lot:
"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. I am left to wonder: what else don't I know?
This, and the fact that still nothing has come out in regards to the changes in the manual or operations and despite there being an AD released about it speaks volumes about it being unsafe to fly. I mean, the Company that mad the Titanic said that "it is the safest ship in the world, and guaranteed to not sink."
We know how that ended.
BL.
-
[/quote]
You're missing the point. No-one is doubting the safety or reliability of the B38M. What the problem here is, is that the changes they've made to the engineering and how its systems differ from the other current B737 models B73G, B737, B738, B739) was not disclosed to the pilots who will be operating that aircraft, let alone any training on it. That is a HUGE problem, especially to those coming in with the previous training and certification on that aircraft type and thinking that it will be compatible with previous models.
It's been already reported about how pilots who are currently flying the B38M are already filing complaints at the FAA about it:
https://www.dallasnews.com/business/airlines/2019/03/12/boeing-737-max-8-pilots-complained-feds-months-suspected-safety-flaw
But this pilot really says a lot:
"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. I am left to wonder: what else don't I know?
This, and the fact that still nothing has come out in regards to the changes in the manual or operations and despite there being an AD released about it speaks volumes about it being unsafe to fly. I mean, the Company that mad the Titanic said that "it is the safest ship in the world, and guaranteed to not sink."
We know how that ended.
BL.
[/quote]
Thanks for your reply Tyketto
So really the fault lies with the software company & the company not supplying manuals about the software & it's ability
One thing comes to mind is self drive cars
If it crashes who's to blame?
The car manufacturer or software provider or the driver not taking over manual control to prevent the up & coming accident?
In aircraft terms, if the software fails, is it such that the pilot can cancel 'George' & take over the aircraft manually?
I'm sure this must be the case, both with aircraft & cars
I often wonder; do commercial pilots prefer manual control of an aircraft or assistance by 'George'?
I suppose with 'George' in control the pilots have chance to relax & eat the dinner brought to them by a stewardess lol
Thanks again Tyketto
Nick
-
]
Thanks for your reply Tyketto
So really the fault lies with the software company & the company not supplying manuals about the software & it's ability
One could possibly indirectly come from Boeing, while the other definitely does come from Boeing. Ultimately, it all comes from Boeing, as it is their product that they are delivering to the customer. If the customer has a problem, they don't deal directly with those in the supply chain; they deal with the supplier directly. In this case, the direct supplier is Boeing. Boeing would then have to go back to their 3rd parties in the supply chain to get that additional information and fixes. Boeing isn't the middle man here being the innocent bystander; they are inline in that chain of where the fault lies.
One thing comes to mind is self drive cars
If it crashes who's to blame?
The car manufacturer or software provider or the driver not taking over manual control to prevent the up & coming accident?
In aircraft terms, if the software fails, is it such that the pilot can cancel 'George' & take over the aircraft manually?
I'm sure this must be the case, both with aircraft & cars
I often wonder; do commercial pilots prefer manual control of an aircraft or assistance by 'George'?
I suppose with 'George' in control the pilots have chance to relax & eat the dinner brought to them by a stewardess lol
Thanks again Tyketto
Nick
Again, not the problem. You're trying to tie this to performance at the time when an incident is imminent. The problem goes much farther back than that. It goes back to the pilots not being supplied the information to properly operate the aircraft, which is something they should have had before the flight began, let alone stepping onto the aircraft to command it.
That is the problem; you're dealing with the cascade effect from that problem.
BL.
-
737-8 and 9 MAX series have been grounded in the United States:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-says-faa-will-ground-boeing-737-max-8-737-max-9-planes-following-deadly-ethiopian-airlines-crash
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/13/boeing-shares-fall-after-report-says-us-expected-to-ground-737-max-fleet.html
-
Thanks Tyketto & Joey
-
My two cents: A) When you have two fatal accidents in 8 months of a new plane under eerily similar circumstances, I don't know why you wouldn't
ground them until you had some idea of what's going on - regardless of ANYTHING. B) If Boeing made ANY changes to ANY systems and didn't make
that abundantly clear to everyone involved in operating the plane ( and I DO NOT know the facts here ), I just don't understand that.
-
I am VERY aware that it is not good to rush to judgement, but this is very disturbing....
" But since the plane wasn’t ever climbing too quickly, the correction would prove highly dangerous. Pilots on both flights would have known this and tried to adjust,
but unless they knew how to manually override MCAS by memory, the pilots would have been locked in a war with the very equipment they were flying on. "
https://uproxx.com/news/angle-of-attack-ethiopian-airlines/
-
The very fact that an airplane might require additional training, for pilots with thousands of hours of experience, in order to take off without crashing, is simply disturbing
-
Flawed Analysis, Failed Oversight: How Boeing And FAA Certified The Suspect 737 MAX Flight Control System
" After the Lion Air Flight 610 crash, Boeing for the first time provided to airlines details about MCAS. Boeing's bulletin to the airlines stated that the limit of
MCAS's command was 2.5 degrees. That number was new to FAA engineers who had seen 0.6 degrees in the safety assessment."
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/failed-certification-faa-missed-safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/
-
These are some responses & possible cause of the crash...
-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/exclusive-lion-air-pilots-scoured-handbook-in-minutes-before-crash-sources/ar-BBUZhaV
-
I think this will go down as a very dark chapter in the history of Boeing. The FIRST crash should have never happened. Why do the pilots of
the Lion Air plane have NO idea what is going on with their aircraft. Then, only after 189 people die, Boeing says, by the way, we added a new
system (MCAS) that you might want to familiarize yourself with. Maybe I'm missing something or I don't know all of the facts, but I don't know why
346 people had to die before people started saying "What the hell is going on ?".
-
The Preliminary is out...
http://avherald.com/h?article=4c534c4a/0023&opt=0
See Also:
http://www.ecaa.gov.et/documents/20435/0/Preliminary+Report+B737-800MAX+%2C%28ET-AVJ%29.pdf/4c65422d-5e4f-4689-9c58-d7af1ee17f3e
-
"On Apr 11th 2019 The Aviation Herald received a full copy of the Flight Operations Manual (FOM), Revision 18B released on Nov 30th 2018, which is currently being used by Ethiopian Airlines (verified in April 2019 to be current). Although Boeing had issued an operator's bulletin on Nov 6th 2018, which was put into Emergency Airworthiness Directive 2018-23-51 dated Nov 7th 2018 requiring the stab trim runaway procedure to be incorporated into the FOM ahead of the sign off of this version of the FOM (the entire document is on file but not available for publishing), there is no trace of such an addition in the entire 699 pages of the FOM."
From:
http://avherald.com/h?article=4c534c4a/0045&opt=0
-
Somebody dropped the ball- BIG TIME.
-
" Whenever it adds a new airplane to a type certificate, the FAA lists where that airplane does or does not differ from other models in the same type. In the case of the 737 Max, the FAA’s list extends to 30 pages, reviewing everything from engine noise to de-icing systems, aluminum fatigue to security doors. Yet this document dedicated to minutiae does not mention MCAS once — not by name, not by description — which is kind of astonishing when you consider that even the seat belts get a mention. "
https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/2/18518176/boeing-737-max-crash-problems-human-error-mcas-faa
346 people died because Boeing made profits their TOP priority. Shameful....
-
Very interesting interview with the CEO of Boeing. I think that if I lost a family member on either of those flights I would want to hear
more than "We made some mistakes...." You think ??
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/boeing-ceo-dennis-muilenburg-737-max-software-implementation-cbs-evening-news-norah-odonnell/
-
Very interesting interview with the CEO of Boeing. I think that if I lost a family member on either of those flights I would want to hear
more than "We made some mistakes...." You think ??
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/boeing-ceo-dennis-muilenburg-737-max-software-implementation-cbs-evening-news-norah-odonnell/
That's exactly what Ralph Nader is thinking as well. He lost a niece on ETH610.
BL.