Boeing 737 Max8 Aircraft Crashes and Investigations [Part 8] 24

[Sparweb]

This post is the continuation from this series of previous threads:

thread815-445840
thread815-450258
thread815-452000
thread815-454283
thread815-457125
thread815-461989
thread815-466401

This topic is broken into multiple threads due to the length to be scrolled, and images to load, creating long load times for some users and devices.
If you are NEW to this discussion, please read the above threads prior to posting, to avoid rehashing old discussions.

Thank you everyone for your interest! I have learned a lot from the discussion, too.

Some key references:
Ethiopian CAA preliminary report (Link from Ethiopia is now broken. See link from NTSB Investigations below)

Indonesian National Transportation Safety Committee preliminary report

NTSB Investigations

NTSB Safety Recommendation Report: Assumptions Used in the Safety Assessment Process and the
Effects of Multiple Alerts and Indications on Pilot Performance

A Boeing 737 Technical Site

Washington Post: When Will Boeing 737 Max Fly Again and More Questions

BBC: Boeing to temporarily halt 737 Max production in January

Pulitzer Prize, For groundbreaking stories that exposed design flaws in the Boeing 737 MAX that led to two deadly crashes and revealed failures in government oversight.

http://www.sparweb.ca

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

I actually asked a colleague about it today and which buses were involved. He has 12000 hours on 300 thought to 800 Ng and didn't have a clue.

When asked would you go back to the 737 from the A220 he just laughed and said no chance.

Right I am old enough to be her grandad and your old enough to be her dad how we going to sweet talk her into putting a pot of that good coffee on....

It was the most difficult situation we dealt with today. But 25 000 hours of experience between the two of us sorted it.

Btw the coffee maker is bloody dangerous and you can get into so much trouble making a mess in the galley.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

The FAA director flew the aircraft a couple of days ago but nothing released about that. Found something now, looks positive.

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/30/9189...lies-737-max-but-not-ready-to-recertify-plane

This is doing the rounds

https://transportation.house.gov/ne...o-deadly-crashes-involving-the-boeing-737-max

The US pilots think its got absolutely no chance of happening with the current state of political play.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/media/afx/FSBR_B737_Rev_17_Draft.pdf

Draft training requirements out.

Appendix 7 gives the sim requirement. Looks like one session required but it does require a MAX sim for some sections.

 

[Sparweb]

The important change is all on the last 2 pages.
This would be easier to read after a "translation"

2. FLIGHT TRAINING
Prior to operating the 737 MAX the following flight training in a 737 MAX Full Flight Simulator is required.
The following bullet points emphasize the objectives of each maneuver. A 737NG Full Flight Simulator may be used for some conditions only where noted below.

2.1 Demonstration of MCAS activation for each pilot.

2.1.1 MCAS activation during an impending stall (or full stall) and recovery demonstration during manual flight in a clean configuration.

2.1.2 Demonstrate MCAS activation stabilizer trim responses:

- Stabilizer trim in the nose down direction when above threshold Angle of Attack for MCAS activation during stall.
- Stabilizer trim in the nose up direction when below threshold Angle of Attack for MCAS activation during recovery.

2.2 A runaway stabilizer condition that requires the pilots to use manual stabilizer trim.

2.2.1 Runaway stabilizer training as described in subparagraph 9.2.2.5 must be completed by each pilot acting as Pilot Flying.

2.2.2 Operation of each manual trim technique (as defined by Boeing) must be completed by each pilot acting as Pilot Flying.

2.2.3 This training can be completed in a 737 MAX or 737NG Full Flight Simulator.

2.3 Use of manual stabilizer trim during approach, go-around, and level off.

2.3.1 Use of manual stabilizer trim as described in subparagraph 9.2.2.4 must be completed by each pilot acting as Pilot Flying.

2.3.2 This training can be completed in a 737 MAX or 737NG Full Flight Simulator.

2.4 A Cross-FCC Trim Monitor activation demonstration accomplished by either pilot acting as Pilot Flying.

2.4.1 Condition must terminate in a landing in order to demonstrate the updated STAB OUT OF TRIM light functionality.

2.5 Erroneous high Angle of Attack on takeoff that leads to an unreliable airspeed condition accomplished by either pilot acting as Pilot Flying.

2.5.1 Demonstrates flight deck effects (i.e. aural, visual, and tactile) associated with the failure.

2.5.2 Fault occurring during the takeoff procedure.

2.5.3 Must include a go-around or missed approach flown with erroneous high Angle of Attack condition.

2.5.3.1 Special emphasis placed on Flight Director behavior biasing out of view upon selecting takeoff/go-around (TO/GA).

This means that pilots can do some of the training on a 737NG simulator provided that it has "full-flight" capabilities. I assume that means details such as force-feedback on the controls and trim wheels, but probably means a whole lot more. But it doesn't seem like all training can be completed without a 737 MAX simulator and it has to be a full-flight level, too. There aren't very many of those FFS sim's to go around. That will create a severe pinch-point in training schedules as the line-up out the door of these sim's will be very very long.

http://www.sparweb.ca

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

I can't see it being a pinch point with the current aviation situation world wide.

There will be a fan fair when it first starts flying again with a few token aircraft with the mods done. There is just not the pax numbers to fill a third of a 170 seater never mind the load factor of 70% to start making a profit.

https://www.tsa.gov/coronavirus/passenger-throughput

Its an extremely grim picture. Europe is if anything worse. The only place it seems to be anything remotely near 2019 levels is China and I can't see it being certified there for a very long time not that they have many on order anyway or for that matter want them.

The next big issue is there is just no finance available to airlines to take delivery of aircraft. And this is having exactly the same effect on Airbus as well.

I suspect that the grounding currently is doing a huge favour for most airlines that have them on order. And as soon as they can fly again the headache over the grounding will just continue on giving but move from the front to the back of the head.

Until the flight volume goes up then the fuel price stays low and the biggest advantage of flying a MAX is just not there. And they will have to try and get pax on the things to boot.

 

[dik]

Does everyone have the same confidence that it won't 'fall out of the sky'? Just curious... looks to me like lipstick on a pig.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?
-Dik

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

Err one of them will but it won't be because of the grounding issues.

It will be sitting on the ground so long and pilots screwing it up.

 

[waross]

My personal view:
There was a lot of responsibility for the first crash, for both Boeing and the FAA.
In my idealistic view, allowing the plane to continue flying until the second crash was criminal negligence resulting in death, on the part of both Boeing and the FAA.
There should be prosecutions and jail time, but There probably won't be.

Will the 737 Maxx be safe?
I don't care.
Boeing and the FAA have put thousands of passengers lives at risk by engineering by management decree.
After the first crash, Boeing and the FAA knowingly put the lives of thousands of passengers at risk by their combined denial and coverup of the issues.

To me, it is no longer a matter of safety, it is a matter of trust.
I have no trust in Boeing or the FAA.

I won't say that I will never fly Boeing again.
I will willingly put my money where my mouth is and pay a 10% premium to avoid flying Boeing in the future.
I may go as high as 20% to avoid Boeing, it will depend on the circumstances.

The price in lives lost compared to the price of doing it right wa just not worth it.

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

 

[dik]

Just like the Challenger... but, it didn't happen... clear negligence.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?
-Dik

 

[dik]

Things and planes were a lot simpler back then... my dad was a pilot during WWII, and there are numerous times in his log book where he was certified on different aircraft the same day...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?
-Dik

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

Sorry about that was a bit emotional yesterday. Another one of my old friends has passed on after a very quick bout of cancer. Feeling my age and my mortality and looking at my young family one of the problems being an older dad.

The Single engine piston class you can basically jump in and fly like your dad did between types. But even they now are getting complicated with parachute systems, EFIS instrumentation, fadec engines. I wouldn't have a problem jumping in one of the older types from the cessna C152 period with analogue instruments. But the likes of a cirrus no chance.

 

[dik]

Sorry to hear that... my condolences.

-Dik

 

[davefitz]

"There should be prosecutions and jail time, but There probably won't be." The same can be said for many apparent high level crimes, but if you have political connections + a high priced legal team , you are above the law for all intents and purposes.There really does exist 2 different types of law in the US.

"...when logic, and proportion, have fallen, sloppy dead..." Grace Slick

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

What's your views on Sully trying to getting involved?

My gut feeling is that he should keep out of it and try and influence the next generation of aircraft regulations.

 

[thebard3]

Alistair Heaton-
Agreed.
If his specialty is flying then he should stick to that. If he has some esoteric knowledge or role in the regulation and certification process, then he should do that. Not to say he shouldn't care, but end users, buyers, operators and the like don't usually have input into government regulation/ certification processes. Vocalizing one's criticism is always free.

Brad Waybright

The more you know, the more you know you don't know.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

He does have more than most pilots education on Human Performance and checking and testing. And has worked for the NTSB on a few accidents.

He is qualified to test and train people on both the A320 and 737 by the FAA.

I would say he does have suitable experience and qualifications for being involved with the pilot and procedures side of things.

Per say he would be of use in the creation of the next generation of regulations on human and machine interaction.

But to set off on a crusade just now to try and get things changed on aircraft which have been flying for years seems just daft and wasting ammunition for the big fight which is way way more important.

I think we can safely say there will not be another iteration of aircraft model on the 737 type certificate after the 10 gets certified and what ever they are calling the Ryanair special.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

end users, buyers, operators and the like don't usually have input into government regulation/ certification processes

Unfortunately this isn't the case in aviation. Boeing spend millions a year lobbying as do all the major airlines.

And its already been whistle blown that if a FAA Engineer refused to sign off a Boeing design detail then Boeing would just contact someone higher up in the FAA and they would be instructed to sign it off sometimes by a person who had no technical training on the subject at all.

 

[Sparweb]

If his specialty is flying then he should stick to that. If he has some esoteric knowledge or role in the regulation and certification process, then he should do that. Not to say he shouldn't care, but end users, buyers, operators and the like don't usually have input into government regulation/ certification processes. Vocalizing one's criticism is always free.

It can go a lot further than that. The aviation reg's in the USA (and in Canada and Europe etc.) will be put up for public comment every time they are revised. There are amendments open for public comment right now; almost continuously since the systems of regulation are so complex. Many people and groups comment on proposed regulations and changes to regulations at these committee meetings. If you want standing at one of the public review committees to comment, you have to be welcomed, so normally not just anyone can show up to talk, but I believe that if you can show that you have something relevant to say, you can say it. I haven't personally tested this, but at times I have seen the results. Most of the comments seem to come from "mail-in" requests, not appearances at committee meetings. There are times when I'm trying to figure out the meaning or origin of a particular regulation, and the record of the "notice of proposed amendment" can be helpful. It will include the public comments and the FAA's response to them.

Here is an example (fairly random):

https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_...4a343bc864b3899c86256903004f343a!OpenDocument

That's a group of amendments that were reviewed in the late 1980's and the final rule included the responses of many commenters. Elsewhere the proposed changes are evaluated in terms of their impact on economics and functionality, not just safety. If pilots like Sullenberger wants to say something at these committees, they are welcome to do so.

I'm less certain of this, but I believe the majority of the US regulations are organized into a "CFR" Code of Federal Regulations and that ALL of them use a similar process of amendment, be they about aviation, food safety, alcohol, transportation, or wildlife protection...

http://www.sparweb.ca

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

Here is the EASA comment site if you want to comment on EASA regs.

https://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/

If you go to the document section you can see all the ones that are currently open for comment.

The NPA is the proposed amendment and the CRD contains the comments and the responses. You right click on the regulation name in the 5th column to the Right to get a selection choice.

The runway excursion one is actually quite interesting. Both the problem as defined in the NPA and the comments in CRD. Its worth doing a search for Boeing and Airbus in the CRD doc. And see the difference in reply's.

But to be honest I think they are barking up the wrong tree. Most excursions result after a poorly executed approach, which alot of the time should never have been started in the first place. To have any real reduction they need to get the aircraft away from the ground before the wheels are on the deck.

 

[1503-44]

Link to CFR TITLE 14

Reality used to affect the way we thought. Now we somehow believe that what we think affects reality.