Ethiopian Airlines flight to Nairobi crashes with 'no survivors' of 157 people aboard

Commissario
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
30,828
Location
Panting like a fiend
So they turned off all automated flying systems and didn't know that the one that malfunctioned was still operating anyway. Nice
Yup
It sounds like it.

Boeing's official cross training sounds like it was barely more than you get when buying a new car and the dealer demo's the various functions.

This if true is something that is inexcusable when there were major new systems, combined with the lack of information in the in flight emergency book (if true) and it's a mess that means that they've ignored 30+ years of lessons in regards to training flight crews on new variants of an existing airframe*, and probably 50 years of lessons in regards to safe use of automation in aircraft.

I find it hard to believe (yet it seems true) that Boeing and the FAA thought it was ok to make a change to a passenger aircraft that resulted in a change in it's flight characteristics such that it needed an automated system to maintain stable flight (isn't a default to stable flight a normal requirement for passenger aircraft?), then designed the system so that the default version only used one sensor with no failsafe or possibilities of it warning the pilots of a problem, then didn't cover the change properly in the required flight certification training for the pilots, or in the in flight manual.

I'm not sure where I heard it, but I also heard something about when they rebooted the system it didn't calibrate itself on the position of the trim based on actual trim position, but possibly on the assumption the trim was at zero (I can't believe any company would be stupid enough to do that, especially in the aviation industry but then look at the other issues and you wonder). It would be like having a car with some level of automation that assumed every time you turned the engine on that the steering was set for straight ahead.



*IIRC there was an accident under vaguely similar circumstances in the 80's where it was an Airline (not the manufacturer) who decided that that as the pilots were trained on X aircraft and Y was effectively the same (updated model from memory), they didn't need a full familerisation and training on it - from what I remember the FAA basically said that under such circumstances there should always be training on updated versions that covered the changes.
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Jan 2006
Posts
9,385
Location
Monaco
Yup
It sounds like it.

Boeing's official cross training sounds like it was barely more than you get when buying a new car and the dealer demo's the various functions.

This if true is something that is inexcusable when there were major new systems, combined with the lack of information in the in flight emergency book (if true) and it's a mess that means that they've ignored 30+ years of lessons in regards to training flight crews on new variants of an existing airframe*, and probably 50 years of lessons in regards to safe use of automation in aircraft.

I find it hard to believe (yet it seems true) that Boeing and the FAA thought it was ok to make a change to a passenger aircraft that resulted in a change in it's flight characteristics such that it needed an automated system to maintain stable flight (isn't a default to stable flight a normal requirement for passenger aircraft?), then designed the system so that the default version only used one sensor with no failsafe or possibilities of it warning the pilots of a problem, then didn't cover the change properly in the required flight certification training for the pilots, or in the in flight manual.

I'm not sure where I heard it, but I also heard something about when they rebooted the system it didn't calibrate itself on the position of the trim based on actual trim position, but possibly on the assumption the trim was at zero (I can't believe any company would be stupid enough to do that, especially in the aviation industry but then look at the other issues and you wonder). It would be like having a car with some level of automation that assumed every time you turned the engine on that the steering was set for straight ahead.



*IIRC there was an accident under vaguely similar circumstances in the 80's where it was an Airline (not the manufacturer) who decided that that as the pilots were trained on X aircraft and Y was effectively the same (updated model from memory), they didn't need a full familerisation and training on it - from what I remember the FAA basically said that under such circumstances there should always be training on updated versions that covered the changes.
sounds like a catalogue of errors, seemed to be a bit of desperation coming in when trying to meet the costs, I wonder if it was a corporate choice or an individual at a senior level.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
81,901
sounds like a catalogue of errors, seemed to be a bit of desperation coming in when trying to meet the costs, I wonder if it was a corporate choice or an individual at a senior level.

Probably the culture, partly lead by individuals, in the work place.

That any degree of self-certification was in play in this kind of industry boggles my mind.
 
Capodecina
Soldato
Joined
30 Jul 2006
Posts
12,129
Yup
It sounds like it.
[Followed by harsh criticism of an aircraft manufacturer]
Come, come, everybody makes the occasional mistake; surely we should forgive, forget and move on?
Lessons learned all round . . .

ps
Some of the foregoing is a tad tongue in cheek.
It truly beggars belief that a manufacturer with Boeing's could do anything so dumb.
As it happens, I believe that a relative of Ralph Nader's was one of the victims of Boeing's ("Unsafe in the air") crass stupidity - they had better watch out!​
 
Capodecina
Soldato
Joined
30 Jul 2006
Posts
12,129
There is an interesting article on the Boeing 737 problems HERE.

To summarise, the article suggests that the 737 Max is a 50 year old design, periodically updated but that pressure by Airlines to avoid the need to provide expensive retraining to pilots has meant that it is basically a pretty Heath Robinson, dated aircraft.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Dec 2007
Posts
28,325
Location
Adelaide, South Australia
Secretly recorded audio has emerged of American pilots demanding answers from Boeing after the first fatal incident involving the now notorious 737 Max 'Death Plane.'


Boeing's response 'We didn't tell you because we didn't think it would make any difference, and we're still not going to tell you for the same reason.'

Five months later, another 737 Max crashed.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Dec 2007
Posts
28,325
Location
Adelaide, South Australia
so post number #2 was right then?

Considering that the problem has been identified as design flaws in the MCAS software which Boeing neglected to tell anyone about, the answer to your question is 'Apparently not.'

But in light of the MAX's two fatal crashes, questions were raised about the software's capacity to determine the AOA correctly, as the MCAS system only relies on two AOA sensors.

Critics of this design choice said this made the plane vulnerable to faulty or mismatched readings, and Boeing made a cockpit display alerting mismatched AOA readings to MAX pilots an optional extra.
 
Permabanned
Joined
2 Sep 2017
Posts
10,490
:eek:

Newly released internal emails from Boeing Co. paint a disturbing picture of its 737 Max program, with employees bragging about fooling FAA regulators and ridiculing its safety.

The emails were part of more than 100 pages of documents sent Thursday by Boeing BA, -0.04% to House and Senate committees that have been investigating the aircraft maker in the wake of two crashes in 2018 and 2019 that killed a combined 346 people. The 737 Max family has been grounded for nearly a year, with no return date yet.

The emails were also made public, in three batches: here, here and here.

“This airplane is designed by clowns who in turn are supervised by monkeys,” read one email.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/b...ing-faa-ridiculing-737-maxs-safety-2020-01-09

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/09/business/boeing-documents/index.html


:confused:
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
29,406
Late stage capitalism in full force right there... and people think they can be trusted in a true free market without regulation and oversight.
 
Caporegime
Joined
25 Jul 2005
Posts
28,855
Location
Canada
Good old post #2, took a kicking and now peeping over the parapet with thoughts of rising like a phoenix.
*Cough*

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/qz.com/...-requests-for-737-max-simulator-training/amp/

A new round of emails Boeing shared with the US Federal Aviation Administration in December, and gave to Congress on Thursday, showed its pilots regarded inquiries from airlines and air safety officials with disdain. The internal exchanges show the employees focused on getting Boeing’s commercial and regulatory partners to drop requests for simulator training on the new 737 Max, which ultimately was involved in two deadly crashes that killed nearly 350 people. (The Verge has published a full set of the emails and messages.)

In 2017, shortly after Malaysia’s Malindo Air became the first airline to start flying the 737 Max, a sister airline in the Jakarta-based Lion Air group requested a flight simulator to train pilots on the newly acquired plane, to the irritation of a Boeing technical pilot. Technical pilots are Boeing employees that work with airlines and regulators on training, among other things.


https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.lat...020-01-09/boeing-737-max-simulators?_amp=true
U.S. airlines are struggling to secure flight simulators for the 737 Max after Boeing said extra training will be needed for pilots before the aircraft returns to service.

There are only 34 simulators worldwide for the jet, creating a potential bottleneck as airlines vie to schedule training time for thousands of pilots and causing further delays to its return, even after aviation regulators lift the grounding.

Boeing said for months that pilots would only need to train on a computer in order to qualify to fly the Max, which has been grounded since March following two fatal crashes, only to reverse course earlier this week.

*****


Part of Boeing’s original sales pitch to airlines was that the Max would not require simulator training. It was a factor in Boeing’s decision to update the 737 rather than design a wholly new aircraft, which led to the use of heavier engines and then a flight control system to counteract their effect. That system was later implicated in the crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia which killed 346 people.

Pilot error sure, but equally the manufacturer shoulders a lot of the blame - lack of simulators and the fact they were claiming flight characteristics were virtually unchanged from the previous version. Easy to catch even an experienced 737 pilot out.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
12 Mar 2004
Posts
29,770
Location
England
Are airlines continuing to ground the NG models as well over the massive cracks found in the forks holding the wings onto the planes?

Seems like flying Boeing these days is like playing Russian roulette...
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Feb 2012
Posts
3,033
Location
2

Blimey, people do take being right seriously :p I neither know nor care. I was simply trying to reignite the fun.

I always try and get Airbus, where possible. KL in a couple of weeks via Dubai, all on A388s instead of B773ERs. Better in turbulence and less chance of disappearing without a trace, according to the stats*.

* More silliness, plz don't bother quoting and/or bickering.
 
Soldato
Joined
26 Dec 2011
Posts
5,617
Location
City of London
Are airlines continuing to ground the NG models as well over the massive cracks found in the forks holding the wings onto the planes?

Seems like flying Boeing these days is like playing Russian roulette...
How many hull losses have there been for 737 NG models, it's been flying for about 23 years hasn't it?

Edit: seems pretty safe to me:

"An analysis by Boeing on commercial jet airplane accidents in the period 1959–2017 showed that the Next Generation series had a hull loss rate of 0.17 per million departures compared to 0.71 for the classic series and 1.75 for the original series."
 
Caporegime
Joined
12 Mar 2004
Posts
29,770
Location
England
How many hull losses have there been for 737 NG models, it's been flying for about 23 years hasn't it?

Edit: seems pretty safe to me:

"An analysis by Boeing on commercial jet airplane accidents in the period 1959–2017 showed that the Next Generation series had a hull loss rate of 0.17 per million departures compared to 0.71 for the classic series and 1.75 for the original series."

Yes but the probability of structural failures does not increase in a linear fashion, as a component ages the chances of failure start to increase dramatically for every stress that it incurs.

Hence why in the airworthiness directive that was issued, newer planes had to be inspected within one year whereas older planes has to be inspected within one week.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...c909869e8625848800467eb9/$FILE/2019-20-02.pdf

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. This AD requires repetitive inspections for cracking of the left and right hand side outboard chords of frame fittings and failsafe straps at a certain station, and repair if any cracking is found. This AD was prompted by reports of cracking discovered in this area. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion In September 2019, the FAA received reports of cracking discovered in the left and right hand side outboard chords of the station (STA) 663.75 frame fittings and failsafe straps adjacent to the stringer S-18A straps on multiple Boeing Model 737-800 airplanes during a passenger-to-freighter conversion. The affected airplanes had accumulated between 35,578 and 37,329 total flight cycles. Cracking in the STA 663.75 frame fitting outboard chords and failsafe straps adjacent to the stringer S-18A straps, if not addressed, could result in failure of a Principal Structural Element (PSE) to sustain limit load. This condition could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane and result in loss of control of the airplane.

FAA's Determination The FAA is issuing this AD because the agency evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

This component has been found to be failing after less than 1/3 of it's rated lifespan, if not discovered by this sheer luck we could have been them failing in quick succession like the de Havilland comet as the planes aged.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
31 May 2009
Posts
21,060
Boeing have requested that internal emails form engineers outfitting the plane that stated it was 'designed by clowns overseen by monkeys' are not used in the official reports into the problems with the planes.

HAHA.
I wonder if they'll redesign an 11, and move along, as 5000 outstanding Max orders will have to be fulfilled somehow.
 
Caporegime
Joined
25 Jul 2005
Posts
28,855
Location
Canada
Blimey, people do take being right seriously :p I neither know nor care. I was simply trying to reignite the fun.

I always try and get Airbus, where possible. KL in a couple of weeks via Dubai, all on A388s instead of B773ERs. Better in turbulence and less chance of disappearing without a trace, according to the stats*.

* More silliness, plz don't bother quoting and/or bickering.

Nah, I saw you weren’t being serious, but it was a good hanger for the above articles which were written yesterday. :p

You joke about Airbus, but apparently there is a very different flying ethos between the manufacturers; one being more reliant on pilot skill and “not making errors” and the other one on making the pilot more of an oversight on the planes actions. Airbus’ pilot oversight method seems to be the better option at the moment.
 
Top Bottom