1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

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

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Sankari, 11 Mar 2019.

  1. Werewolf

    Commissario

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 30,167

    Location: Panting like a fiend

    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.
     
  2. Slam62

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 3 Jan 2006

    Posts: 8,550

    Location: Monaco

    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.
     
  3. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 13 Oct 2006

    Posts: 78,414

    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.
     
  4. stockhausen

    Capodecina

    Joined: 30 Jul 2006

    Posts: 12,144

    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!​
     
  5. stockhausen

    Capodecina

    Joined: 30 Jul 2006

    Posts: 12,144

    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.
     
  6. Sankari

    Caporegime

    Joined: 29 Dec 2007

    Posts: 27,292

    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.
     
  7. Sankari

    Caporegime

    Joined: 29 Dec 2007

    Posts: 27,292

    Location: Adelaide, South Australia

  8. Efour

    Caporegime

    Joined: 8 Sep 2005

    Posts: 27,194

    Location: Norrbotten, Sweden.

    so post number #2 was right then?
     
  9. Sankari

    Caporegime

    Joined: 29 Dec 2007

    Posts: 27,292

    Location: Adelaide, South Australia

    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.'

     
  10. 4K8KW10

    Capodecina

    Joined: 2 Sep 2017

    Posts: 10,307

    :eek:

    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:
     
  11. StriderX

    Caporegime

    Joined: 18 Mar 2008

    Posts: 28,354

    Late stage capitalism in full force right there... and people think they can be trusted in a true free market without regulation and oversight.
     
  12. Tuppy_Glossop

    Mobster

    Joined: 15 Feb 2012

    Posts: 2,992

    Location: 2

    Good old post #2, took a kicking and now peeping over the parapet with thoughts of rising like a phoenix.
     
  13. Amp34

    Caporegime

    Joined: 25 Jul 2005

    Posts: 28,855

    Location: Canada

    *Cough*

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


    https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.lat...020-01-09/boeing-737-max-simulators?_amp=true
    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: 11 Jan 2020
  14. Energize

    Caporegime

    Joined: 12 Mar 2004

    Posts: 29,322

    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...
     
  15. Tuppy_Glossop

    Mobster

    Joined: 15 Feb 2012

    Posts: 2,992

    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.
     
  16. Em3bbs

    Soldato

    Joined: 26 Dec 2011

    Posts: 5,481

    Location: City of London

    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."
     
  17. Le Clandestin Brun

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 6 Sep 2007

    Posts: 9,049

    Damn, and the max is on 4 per million. Shorter lifespan but still... wow
     
  18. Energize

    Caporegime

    Joined: 12 Mar 2004

    Posts: 29,322

    Location: England

    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

    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: 11 Jan 2020
  19. Destination

    Capodecina

    Joined: 31 May 2009

    Posts: 20,840

    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.
     
  20. Amp34

    Caporegime

    Joined: 25 Jul 2005

    Posts: 28,855

    Location: Canada

    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.