Air Crash Thread: Boeing MAX and Other Problems

Famine
At last, someone's noticed the real victims of these fatal airliner crashes.
Click to expand...
Precisely. The modern Boeing Company is conceived and operated as a money-making enterprise. Fatal crashes are an annoyance and a (small) drag on the bottom line. They cannot be permitted to continue. :grumpy:
 
TenEightyOne
It makes me wonder where unflyable (or deliberately unbalanced) design ameliorated by "control augmentation" systems ends up.
Click to expand...
Well, fighter jets have been doing it for decades. The B-2 does it. These designs are inherently unstable and can be destabilized as easily as an aerobatic plane. Then again, fighter jets and aerobatic planes crash at a much higher rate than airliners.
 
Dotini
If speculation is permitted, maybe he dragged his tail on takeoff?
Click to expand...

I think the MAX 8 has the same/similar hydraulic tailskid below the tail. Despite the tail/APU housing being slightly longer it would have to be a pretty impressive tailstrike to cause that kind of damage so far forward. Tailstrikes aren't usually a problem (except for maintenance engineers) unless the plane suffers a failure at pressurised altitude or any repairs are badly performed (747s have been lost that way). Pilots will check the pressurisation as they climb as part of the tailstrike procedure.

Keef
Well, fighter jets have been doing it for decades.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, and as you say they crash at a relatively high rate. It's certainly a rate that would be unacceptable for non-ejectable passengers.
 
DALLAS — Pilots repeatedly voiced safety concerns about the Boeing 737 Max 8 to federal authorities, with one captain calling the flight manual “inadequate and almost criminally insufficient” several months before Sunday’s Ethiopian Airlines crash that killed 157 people, an investigation by the Dallas Morning News found.
The Morning News found at least five complaints about the Boeing model in a federal database where pilots can voluntarily report about aviation incidents without fear of repercussions.

RELATED STORIES
The complaints are about the safety mechanism cited in preliminary reports for an October plane crash in Indonesia that killed 189.

The disclosures found by the Morning News reference problems with an autopilot system during takeoff and nose-down situations while trying to gain altitude during flights of Boeing 737 Max 8s. While records show these flights occurred during October and November, information regarding which airlines the pilots were flying for at the time is redacted from the database.

Records show a captain who flies the Max 8 complained in November that it was “unconscionable” that the company and federal authorities allowed pilots to fly the planes without adequate training or fully disclosing information about how its systems differed.

The captain’s complaint was logged after the FAA released an emergency airworthiness directive regarding the Boeing 737 Max 8 in response to the crash of Lion Air Flight 610 in Indonesia.

An FAA spokesman said the reports found by the Morning News were filed directly to NASA, which serves as a neutral third party for reporting purposes.

“The FAA analyzes these reports along with other safety data gathered through programs the FAA administers directly, including the Aviation Safety Action Program, which includes all of the major airlines including Southwest and American,” said Lynn Lunsford, southwest regional spokesman for the FAA.

A federal audit in 2014 said the FAA does not collect and analyze its voluntary disclosure reporting in a way that would effectively identify national safety risks.

U.S. regulators are mandating that Boeing upgrade the plane’s software by April but have so far declined to ground the planes. China, Australia and the European Union have grounded the 737 Max 8, leaving the U.S. and Canada as the only two countries flying a substantial number of the aircraft.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas), who leads a Senate subcommittee overseeing aviation, said in a statement Tuesday that U.S. authorities should ground the planes.

“Further investigation may reveal that mechanical issues were not the cause, but until that time, our first priority must be the safety of the flying public,” Cruz said.



At least 18 carriers — including American Airlines and Southwest Airlines, the two largest U.S. carriers flying the 737 Max 8 — have also declined to ground planes, saying they are confident in the safety and “airworthiness” of their fleets. American and Southwest have 24 and 34 of the aircraft in their fleets, respectively.

“The United States should be leading the world in aviation safety,” said John Samuelsen, the president of a union representing transport workers that called Tuesday for the planes to be grounded. “And yet, because of the lust for profit in the American aviation, we’re still flying planes that dozens of other countries and airlines have now said need to grounded.”

The fifth complaint from the captain who called into question the 737 Max 8’s flight manual ended: “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?”

The Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, or MCAS, was included on the Max 8 model aircraft as a safety mechanism that would automatically correct a plane entering a stall pattern. If the plane loses lift under its wings during takeoff and the nose begins to point far upward, the system kicks in and automatically pushes the nose of the plane down.

A federal audit in 2014 said the FAA does not collect and analyze its voluntary disclosure reporting in a way that would effectively identify national safety risks.

U.S. regulators are mandating that Boeing upgrade the plane’s software by April but have so far declined to ground the planes. China, Australia and the European Union have grounded the 737 Max 8, leaving the U.S. and Canada as the only two countries flying a substantial number of the aircraft.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas), who leads a Senate subcommittee overseeing aviation, said in a statement Tuesday that U.S. authorities should ground the planes.

“Further investigation may reveal that mechanical issues were not the cause, but until that time, our first priority must be the safety of the flying public,” Cruz said.



At least 18 carriers — including American Airlines and Southwest Airlines, the two largest U.S. carriers flying the 737 Max 8 — have also declined to ground planes, saying they are confident in the safety and “airworthiness” of their fleets. American and Southwest have 24 and 34 of the aircraft in their fleets, respectively.

“The United States should be leading the world in aviation safety,” said John Samuelsen, the president of a union representing transport workers that called Tuesday for the planes to be grounded. “And yet, because of the lust for profit in the American aviation, we’re still flying planes that dozens of other countries and airlines have now said need to grounded.”

The fifth complaint from the captain who called into question the 737 Max 8’s flight manual ended: “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?”


The Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, or MCAS, was included on the Max 8 model aircraft as a safety mechanism that would automatically correct a plane entering a stall pattern. If the plane loses lift under its wings during takeoff and the nose begins to point far upward, the system kicks in and automatically pushes the nose of the plane down.


After the Lion Air crash, the FAA’s issued an airworthiness directive that said: “This condition, if not addressed, could cause the flight crew to have difficulty controlling the airplane, and lead to excessive nose-down attitude, significant altitude loss, and possible impact with terrain.”

Officials have not yet determined what caused Ethiopian Airlines 302 to nosedive into the ground on Sunday, but many experts have noted similarities between this week’s crash and the one in Indonesia.

A spokesperson for Southwest Airlines told the Morning News that it hasn’t received any reports of issues with MCAS from its pilots, “nor do any of our thousands of data points from the aircraft indicate any issues with MCAS.”

American Airlines did not respond to questions from the Morning News.

The FAA issued a statement to the Morning News on Tuesday afternoon that said that it is “collecting data and keeping in contact with international civil aviation authorities as information becomes available.”

“The FAA continuously assesses and oversees the safety performance of U.S. commercial aircraft. If we identify an issue that affects safety, the FAA will take immediate and appropriate action.”

Jon Weaks, president of the Southwest Airlines Pilots Association, said in a news release Monday night: “We fully support Southwest Airlines’ decision to continue flying the MAX and the FAA’s findings to date.”

Boeing, which posted a record $101 billion in revenue last year, issued a new statement Tuesday saying that no grounding of planes was necessary. “Based on the information currently available, we do not have any basis to issue new guidance to operators,” the company said.

Samuelsen of the transport workers union said it’s “unconscionable” that the FAA has not yet grounded the planes in the U.S., given the number of deaths that have occurred.

“This pressure should not be on these pilots to overcome an engineering flaw that Boeing themselves acknowledges,” said Samuelsen.
Click to expand...

https://www.philly.com/business/boeing-max-pilots-complained-suspected-safety-flaw-20190312.html
 
Pretty sure the pilots in both cases did not understand they were 'fighting' MCAS.

From somebody on Reddit, which is probably reasonable:

"In a cockpit of confusion where you are getting “stall”, “low speed” and “terrain” warnings blaring? Nah, my bet is, once the data is analyzed (and this IS conjecture) we’ll find that the pilots had no idea they were fighting a trim issue— I’d bet they were yanking back on the yoke of a plane hell bent on ignoring their 88 pounds of force each."

Really good piece 99% invisible did on automation paradox, including discussion of Air France flight 447:
https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/children-of-the-magenta-automation-paradox-pt-1/
 
Last edited:
Not so much about the crash but about the bans, and it may have already been said but...

I would assume the U.S is less likely to ban the plane since its an American company behind it. I wonder if they would do the same if it was Air Bus. Likewise I feel European nations might be more than too happy to shut down some Boeing planes. I feel 1 or the other might be happening here.

By no means do I know though I' just throwing out my layman thoughts.
 
Turbotwin01
Not so much about the crash but about the bans, and it may have already been said but...

I would assume the U.S is less likely to ban the plane since its an American company behind it. I wonder if they would do the same if it was Air Bus. Likewise I feel European nations might be more than too happy to shut down some Boeing planes. I feel 1 or the other might be happening here.

By no means do I know though I' just throwing out my layman thoughts.
Click to expand...
The FAA already issues rules after the first crash back in November. I don't know if other countries did the same, but the FAA is the only one to my knowledge which acted immediately. Boeing has been working on a fix this whole time which will be implemented by the end of the month.
 
Keef
The FAA already issues rules after the first crash back in November. I don't know if other countries did the same, but the FAA is the only one to my knowledge which acted immediately.
Click to expand...

As far as I'm aware the operators in other countries "inherit" that guidance due to the FAA being the regulator in the country of manufacture. They issued an interim Airworthiness Directive forcing Boeing to add two scenarios to the manual within three days (and an extra checklist) in December after a preliminary investigation of the October crash.

Keef
Boeing has been working on a fix this whole time which will be implemented by the end of the month.
Click to expand...

They've accelerated that then as it was originally tabled for mid-April. I imagine the pressure is on them to act.

It seems that a factor in this crash may have been that the AoA panel and the AoA Disagree warning lights are optional. That seems like a bad idea in retrospect. Omitting the procedure for a runaway stabiliser from the manual was also a bad idea.
 
Local paper writes articles balancing Fear and Mammon.

https://www.seattletimes.com/busine...eings-737-max-even-as-most-of-the-world-does/


FAA won’t ground Boeing 737 MAX, resisting calls by overseas regulators, aviation experts
Originally published March 12, 2019 at 4:08 pm Updated March 12, 2019 at 11:24 pm
03122019_boeing-max_161930-780x472.jpg

Boeing’s first 737 MAX lifts off the runway the first time at Renton Municipal Airport on Jan. 29, 2016. The Boeing 737 Max has been grounded in several... (Mike Siegel / The Seattle Times)
Even as U.S. flight attendants and foreign safety regulators called for the 737 MAX to be grounded, the FAA said "thus far, our review shows no systemic performance issues and provides no basis to order grounding the aircraft."

Share story
Dominic Gates and
Paul Roberts
As the sense of crisis at Boeing mounted Tuesday, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) held fast to its position and declined to ground the Boeing 737 MAX, even as most countries in the world moved to do so.

In a statement, the FAA said it continues an urgent and extensive review of all available data on the two recent crashes that killed a total of 346 people.

“Thus far, our review shows no systemic performance issues and provides no basis to order grounding the aircraft,” the FAA said.

Criticism of that stance was building in aviation circles in the U.S.

Most Read Business Stories
Two of the largest unions representing flight attendants joined the chorus of calls to ground the airplane. With flight crews now echoing the concerns of jittery passengers fearful of flying on a MAX, Boeing and the FAA faced intense pressure to justify their divergence from the judgment of safety regulators overseas.

In an interview, Jim Hall, former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), said America’s reputation around the world as a leader in aviation safety “is going to be impacted because of our failure to put safety first and keep the aircraft on the ground until we’re confident we know what went wrong.”

Hall said that “if either one of those accidents, and certainly if both of them, had occurred on U.S. soil, the plane would be grounded.”

He added that Boeing has “put an emphasis on training to make it appear that the Americans are trained well but we can’t train the foreigners. And I think it will leave a bad taste in people’s mouths around the world.”

The concern follows two tragedies only months apart: the Lion Air jet crash in Indonesia that killed 189 people in October and the Ethiopian Airlines crash on Sunday that killed 157.

China, Boeing’s largest 737 customer base, led the world in grounding all MAXs Monday, soon joined by other countries including Indonesia. Then on Tuesday, Europe’s aviation safety regulator, EASA, suspended all Boeing 737 Max operations in Europe as “a precautionary measure” and banned all airlines from flying the MAX in European airspace.

That ban took effect even as some MAXs were in the air, forcing them to divert from their destinations. According to the BBC, a Turkish Airlines flight to Birmingham, England, turned around and returned to Istanbul, and a Norwegian Air flight to Tel Aviv turned back to Stockholm.

The FAA and EASA typically work in tandem. If the FAA issues an airworthiness directive on a Boeing jet, EASA will quickly mirror it with its own. And if EASA issues an airworthiness directive on an Airbus jet, the FAA will follow its lead.


Indian safety regulators later joined EASA in grounding the MAXs. That left the airplane unable to fly in most parts of the world except the U.S. and Canada. Marc Garneau, Canada’s minister of transport, is scheduled to speak to the media about the MAX situation Wednesday morning.

Boeing’s stock price fell again Tuesday in reaction to developments, closing at just over $375, down 11 percent from $423 before the crash in Ethiopia. According to Boeing share data provided by S&P Global IQ, that fall in the stock price has knocked $27 billion off the company’s market value.


A total of 387 Boeing MAX aircraft have been delivered worldwide, and Boeing has a massive order backlog of almost 4,700 more to build, making it the company’s cash cow.

Just after 5 p.m. Pacific on Tuesday, flight tracking website Flightaware showed 113 of the 737 MAXs airborne across the globe. Of those, 85 were flying in the U.S. or Canada.

As the FAA reiterated its position, it reacted defensively to the difference of opinion with aviation regulators around the globe, saying that those foreign authorities have provided no data “to us that would warrant action.”

The FAA statement concluded by promising that it will “take immediate and appropriate action” if it identifies any continued airworthiness issues on the MAX.

Leaders of major flight attendant unions on Tuesday added the voices of U.S. airline professionals to the criticism of the FAA decision.

The Association of Flight Attendants, which represents nearly 50,000 flight attendants at 21 domestic and foreign airlines, called on the FAA to “temporarily ground the 737 MAX fleet in the U.S. out of an abundance of caution … until FAA-identified fixes to the plane can be installed, communicated, and confirmed.”

And Lori Bassani, national president of the Association of Professional Flight Attendants — which represents 25,000 flight attendants at American Airlines, the world’s biggest airline — called on CEO Doug Parker “to strongly consider grounding these planes until a thorough investigation can be performed.”

“While we cannot draw premature conclusions, it is critical to work with manufacturers, regulators and airlines to take steps to address our important safety concerns,” Bassani said.

In contrast, pilot groups in the U.S. backed Boeing and the airline leadership in resisting those calls.

Only three airlines, American, United and Southwest, currently fly the MAX. On Tuesday, Jon Weaks, president of the Southwest Airlines Pilots Association, told Southwest’s pilots that the union is “extremely confident that our entire fleet, including the MAX, is safe.

“Southwest has compiled and analyzed a tremendous amount of data from more than 41,000 flights operated by the 34 MAX aircraft on property, and the data supports Southwest’s continued confidence in the airworthiness and safety of the MAX,” Weaks wrote in his message to pilots.

The FAA’s decision to hold the line came at the end of a day when Boeing Chairman and Chief Executive Dennis Muilenburg called President Donald Trump, after Trump sent out two early morning tweets in which, without directly referencing the 737 MAX crashes, he complained that “airplanes are becoming far too complex to fly.”


Boeing spokesman Dan Curran said Muilenburg “reiterated to the president that the MAX aircraft is safe.”

Curran said Muilenburg was simply responding to the president’s tweets. He declined to provide additional details from the call.






737MAX-timeline-W-1020x2759.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Danoff
It sounded like Boeing released training to pilots for how to handle the scenario where the nose is being dropped inappropriately. My guess (and this is total speculation) is that the Ethiopian Air pilots had not received the training. That would be (and this is total speculation) probably why the plane is still rated as airworthy in the US. There is a known procedure for dealing with the issue.
Click to expand...
That would make sense, but it also highlights how bad it was for Boeing to not include any reference to MCAS initially. Even if the system is not faulty in any way, it could simply be that it causes the plane to behave in a way that pilots just don't expect.

TenEightyOne
Absolutely, and as you say they crash at a relatively high rate. It's certainly a rate that would be unacceptable for non-ejectable passengers.
Click to expand...
The rate has gone down since fighters have moved to be inherently unstable. This is for many more reasons than relaxed stability though. Fighters also probably shouldn't be compared directly to airliners given that they tend to be flown very differently. They're at a higher risk for mid air collisions and ground strikes I'd image.
 
Canada has now grounded the max 8 and 9

US has now grounded them. Took a emergency order instead of a faa order.
 
Last edited:
Slapped
Trump may be the USA's equivalent of the UK's Boris Johnson in that both are utter blundering buffoons, but credit to him he's got this one right.

The last thing needed from everybody's perspective was another one of these going down.
Click to expand...

It's baffling that this wasn't done through the FAA, whether initiated by the President or not. It makes the FAA look really, really bad, especially the day after Sec-Transpo (you know, a member of the executive cabinet) did a demonstration flight on a 737 Max to 'prove' they are safe. If I were to guess, I would say this was a bit of unilateral opportunism for Trump, but that's to be expected at this point.
 
Eunos_Cosmo
It's baffling that this wasn't done through the FAA, whether initiated by the President or not. It makes the FAA look really, really bad, especially the day after Sec-Transpo (you know, a member of the executive cabinet) did a demonstration flight on a 737 Max to 'prove' they are safe. If I were to guess, I would say this was a bit of unilateral opportunism for Trump, but that's to be expected at this point.
Click to expand...

To be honest if the tables were turned and the problem was with Airbus then I'd expect the EASA to be doing the same, especially as the French (Airbus) would be quite loud about being in denial, and it would eventually be for the rest of the EU to give the French a bit of a slap across the face about it, and then encourage the EASA to back down and ground the offending aircraft.
 
Slapped
To be honest if the tables were turned and the problem was with Airbus then I'd expect the EASA to be doing the same, especially as the French (Airbus) would be quite loud about being in denial, and it would eventually be for the rest of the EU to give the French a bit of a slap across the face about it, and then encourage the EASA to back down and ground the offending aircraft.
Click to expand...

That sounds right.
 
MatskiMonk
I see Norwegian at least are looking for compensation from Boeing... what costs more, cancelled flights or dead people?
Click to expand...
The Company realistically stands to lose about $5 billion near term, but of course has very deep pockets. Let us see what the investigations reveal. When I was building 737s in 1967, the airplane was much smaller and old-fashioned, built for and by a different generation for different times. The Company is different than what it was then. 'Nuff said for now.
 
From what I understand, the Boeing 737 Max hasn't been grounded as a precautionary measure, it has been grounded due to new evidence coming to light to both crash investigators and relevant government authorities.

It does seem as though the aeroplane has a fatal flaw that needs immediate correction. It's really sad that it has taken 300+ lives.
 
Liquid
From what I understand, the Boeing 737 Max hasn't been grounded as a precautionary measure, it has been grounded due to new evidence coming to light to both crash investigators and relevant government authorities.

It does seem as though the aeroplane has a fatal flaw that needs immediate correction. It's really sad that it has taken 300+ lives.
Click to expand...

It is still precautionary, the reason for the Ethiopian Air crash still isn't known. New evidence suggests that the Ethiopian Air plane was following an altitude profile that suggests a similar problem for the MAX as before. That's all we know for now (to the best of my knowledge).
 
Latest from CNN
The grounding will remain in effect indefinitely, the FAA said, pending the examination of flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders from Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302.
The black boxes from the Ethiopian Airlines plane were being sent to Paris on Wednesday, a spokesman for the French Bureau of Enquiry and Analysis for Civil Aviation Safety (BEA) said.
France is set to handle the review of the black boxes, which are expected to arrive in the country by Thursday, the spokesman said.
Ethiopian Airlines spokesman Asrat Begashaw had told CNN the "black box" data recorders recovered would "definitely be going to Europe," as Ethiopia does not have the necessary equipment to analyze that data.
Click to expand...

Latest from NY Times

President Trump’s executive order on Wednesday afternoon to ground all Boeing 737 Max 8s was a necessary step. But it is a step that should have been taken directly by the federal agency responsible for aviation safety. That it came from the White House instead speaks to a profound crisis of public confidence in the F.A.A.

The roots of this crisis can be found in a major change the agencyinstituted in its regulatory responsibility in 2005. Rather than naming and supervising its own “designated airworthiness representatives,” the agency decided to allow Boeing and other manufacturers who qualified under the revised procedures to select their own employees to certify the safety of their aircraft. In justifying this change, the agency said at the time that it would save the aviation industry about $25 billion from 2006 to 2015. Therefore, the manufacturer is providing safety oversight of itself. This is a worrying move toward industry self-certification.
Click to expand...

It may be noted in this context that Boeing has abandoned traditional inspection and quality control practices with modern business methods which save much time and money.
 
Last edited:
This i believe is the crux of the issue.


The roots of this crisis can be found in a major change the agency instituted in its regulatory responsibility in 2005. Rather than naming and supervising its own “designated airworthiness representatives,” the agency decided to allow Boeing and other manufacturers who qualified under the revised procedures to select their own employees to certify the safety of their aircraft. In justifying this change, the agency said at the time that it would save the aviation industry about $25 billion from 2006 to 2015. Therefore, the manufacturer is providing safety oversight of itself. This is a worrying move toward industry self-certification.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/13/opinion/boeing-737-grounded.html
 
@Novalee

Sully Sullenberger's post on the issue is interesting. Boeing probably has some work to do on this plane, but there is no way that company brought this plane to market with the intent that it would crash.

 
Danoff
Sully Sullenberger's post on the issue is interesting. Boeing probably has some work to do on this plane, but there is no way that company brought this plane to market with the intent that it would crash.
Click to expand...

I can see the sense in what he's saying - there's a clear inference to be made that design was a factor in the Lion Air crash. There was a new design feature which the pilots were not made aware of and for which no preparatory or real-time checklist was provided, a situation that the FAA ordered to be remedied.

I hadn't realised the FO only had 200 hours - surely that can't be right. Maybe it's 200 hours on type because if it's total passenger jet experience then there's no way he could be placed in command.
 
Novalee
The facts we do know is Boeing was allowed to self certify this jet.
Click to expand...

Presumably that self-certification was a sham, and they knew that it was unsafe, and put it out there in order to make money even though they knew they'd be effectively murdering customers and that it would tank the company stock, harm sales, and damage their brand reputation. And presumably their knowledge that it was unsafe will be discovered during a lawsuit where they will face criminal charges.

Either that or they did their best to produce a safe, cost-effective, efficient, and more capable aircraft and didn't actually want to murder anybody.
 

Latest Posts

Back