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

Soldato
Joined
2 Aug 2012
Posts
7,810
Except they did know, ships had round ones :D

And the potential problems regarding alloy fatigue were well understood...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Highway_in_the_Sky

And the best castles have rounded corners, not square edges.

Well that was more to make them resistant to undermining (As were Moats)

Once Guns became the thing (and particularly cannon) star layouts became more common.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastion_fort

:p
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Feb 2015
Posts
9,620
You sure? I thought they modified the window design by putting rounded edges in and it resumed service.

I think they stayed removed, comet 2 was introduced tho a newer model.

The comet 1 had other flaws aside from the windows.
 
Caporegime
Joined
25 Nov 2004
Posts
25,220
Location
On the road....
This whole thing, about the grounding of all 737 Max 8, aircraft, yes is sad, and RIP to the people whom lost their lives. However, one slight thing, that people have forgotten, x2 737 Max 8 Aircraft have crashed. How many 707's crashed, How many Avro Comet's Crashed, and they did not ban them.
It was de Havilland (of Mosquito fame) who designed and built the first Comet not Avro (Lancaster, Vulcan to name their most famous two birds)

Once the design flaws were fixed the basic design was very long lived, the Nimrod for example (which left service in 2011) was based upon the revised Comet design.

Edit: missed Orionaut’s post above.
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Aug 2009
Posts
6,596
After the problems were resolved, Comet went on to be a very successful aircraft range. Dan-air continued to use them well into the 1970's

Hah that they did. I actually flew in a couple of them as a kid. Totally irrelevant to the tragedy at hand but that did bring back some memories.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Jul 2007
Posts
6,730
Location
Norfolk.
Having done a bit of reading into this, I honestly can't remember in recent memory when an aircraft's "control laws" have been under-cut so badly by relying on a single sensor with no/minimal cross-check ability or sensor reliability check being carried out (which is what the new patch adds).

How this made it past QA/Safety/FAA is amazing!
 
Don
Joined
7 Aug 2003
Posts
43,119
Location
Aberdeenshire
Having done a bit of reading into this, I honestly can't remember in recent memory when an aircraft's "control laws" have been under-cut so badly by relying on a single sensor with no/minimal cross-check ability or sensor reliability check being carried out (which is what the new patch adds).

How this made it past QA/Safety/FAA is amazing!
Does seem amazing that a single sensor failure not only removes a safety function, but seems to actively cause the aircraft to crash in some circumstances.
 
Commissario
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
30,973
Location
Panting like a fiend
Just read, the first officer only had 200 flying hours under his belt! :eek: :eek: :eek:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ly-low-number-pilot-training-hours-crash.html

:confused:
I suspect somewhere the reported 200 hours has bee mistranslated, as I doubt that is his total flying hours (IIRC most countries require more than that just in training in prop aircraft, which you typically do before jet training), it could be 200 hours of flying commercial jets or in the 737 series which wouldn't be unusual for a pilot who is new to them.
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Aug 2012
Posts
7,810
I suspect somewhere the reported 200 hours has bee mistranslated, as I doubt that is his total flying hours (IIRC most countries require more than that just in training in prop aircraft, which you typically do before jet training), it could be 200 hours of flying commercial jets or in the 737 series which wouldn't be unusual for a pilot who is new to them.


I wondered about that, though on the face of it I would have thought the Pilot (Miracle on the Hudson guy) would know what he was talking about before posting his comment.

Nevertheless, it is astonishing and really rather disturbing if proven to be true!
 
Permabanned
Joined
2 Apr 2007
Posts
1,038
The business case for the plane becomes weaker if the pilots need additional training. The software is supposed to trim the aircraft when the flaps are up because it is inherently unstable with the larger engines and different CoG.

Wouldn't surprise me if see some serious class actions from this, sounds like shortcuts were made in the interests of marketing.
 
Associate
Joined
24 Oct 2013
Posts
211
Having done a bit of reading into this, I honestly can't remember in recent memory when an aircraft's "control laws" have been under-cut so badly by relying on a single sensor with no/minimal cross-check ability or sensor reliability check being carried out (which is what the new patch adds).

How this made it past QA/Safety/FAA is amazing!

I'm not an expert on the certification of aircraft but I believe the following to be true.

It used to be that individual states would certify an aircraft so an aircraft to be flown in the US would be certified by the FAA. In the UK the CAA would certify the aircraft for registration under a UK mark, the same for France etc etc.

In order to save money, it was decided that the state of aircraft manufacture would certify the aircraft and other states would accept this certification, without duplicating the work.

Then, in order to save more money, the FAA decided it was acceptable for the aircraft maker (in this case Boeing) to certify their own aircraft.

What could possibly go wrong......

RE 200 hour pilots, this is common in aviation. It is entirely possible for someone with 200 hours to be released to the line, to act as a first officer on a B737 (or any commercial transport aircraft). To be honest, I had approximately 200 hours when I was initally recruited as an FO on the B737.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
12,177
Location
5 degrees starboard
What a daft ******* species we are.

Much of the CE marking system is by self certification. I discovered this while undertaking stability calculations for an Italian piling rig that the company I worked for had purchased some time ago. I had to use an Italian / English dictionary as they would not issue documentation in English for me.
 
Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2009
Posts
428
Just read, the first officer only had 200 flying hours under his belt! :eek: :eek: :eek:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ly-low-number-pilot-training-hours-crash.html

:confused:

My sympathy goes out the victims and their families and friends.

Thats pretty bad even for the DM, that number is probably 'type hours' not total flying hours. Which, considering the 737-Max is fairly new isn't at all surprising. I don't no however how similar the avionics are to previous versions or to other boeing types.

I am surprised how long it took the US and boeing to ground the fleet though considering most of the rest of the world acted fairly quickly. But i guess as usual they are thinking of the costs and possible legal implications.
 
Associate
Joined
24 Oct 2013
Posts
211
I know its the daily mail, but even the daily mail can be right sometimes....

If you read the article, most of it is taken up with Sully's opinion - that 200 hours is absurdly low to be at the controls of a 737. He doesn't dispute the fact the FO had 200 hours.

To put it another way:

Integrated ATPL, leading to the issue of a airline transport pilots license : Aprox 140 flight hours
Base training (6 take offs and landings in a B737): 1 flight hour.
Line Training : 40 sectors as a FO under training on the actual aircraft at approx 1.5 hours per sector : 60 flight hours.

Total : 201 flight hours.

There will be considerable time in a simulator in addition to the times above, but this does not count towards actual flight time. And from the start of the line training the FO is flying passengers.

So it is entirely possible.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Jul 2007
Posts
6,730
Location
Norfolk.
I am surprised how long it took the US and boeing to ground the fleet though considering most of the rest of the world acted fairly quickly. But i guess as usual they are thinking of the costs and possible legal implications.

The US carriers paid for extra AOA displays (integrated into the two existing PFD's), additional AOA/MCAS software and extra "sensor reliability" checking software all of which prevent the MCAS being so badly effected as that fitted to most other fleets. That is why the US was much slower, their fleets have an even lower chance of this happening due to all that extra kit.
 
Associate
Joined
24 Oct 2013
Posts
211
Actually I think the reason the US was much slower is the uncomfortably close relationship between big companies like Boeing and the US government.

The 'additional AOA/MCAS software and extra "sensor reliability" checking software' does not yet exist on current fleets - it will form the basis of the software patch yet to be implemented. Most of the US fleet of Max's do have an addition AoA readout however - this is a standard option for Boeing aircraft, but you have to pay for it. And it's debatable whether or not this readout would have prevented the crashes.
 
Commissario
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
30,973
Location
Panting like a fiend
Actually I think the reason the US was much slower is the uncomfortably close relationship between big companies like Boeing and the US government.

The 'additional AOA/MCAS software and extra "sensor reliability" checking software' does not yet exist on current fleets - it will form the basis of the software patch yet to be implemented. Most of the US fleet of Max's do have an addition AoA readout however - this is a standard option for Boeing aircraft, but you have to pay for it. And it's debatable whether or not this readout would have prevented the crashes.

From what I've read of the MCAS system it sounds like to reset it back would take a lot of time (I'm sure I saw that the manual trim control needs something like 200 turns to offset what MCAS can set it to).

I'm amazed that it seems Boeing thought that a single sensor with no easy over ride would be a good idea given the number of incidents caused by faulty sensors in the past and what I understand of the normal rule of thumb that the autopilot etc should be taking readings from multiple sensors to help reduce the chance of a single fault causing a crash.
 
Top Bottom