Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: B737- What really happened.

  1. #1
    Registered User NoOtPilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    1,932
    Level
    100
    Points: 68,033, Level: 100
    Overall activity: 99.6%
    Achievements:
    OverdriveSocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    DownloadsPosting Award
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 137/37
    Given: 0/0

    Ignore User
    “I always tell the truth. Even when I lie.”

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    558
    Level
    63
    Points: 8,946, Level: 63
    Overall activity: 24.0%
    Achievements:
    VeteranOverdrive5000 Experience Points
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 18/0
    Given: 6/1

    Ignore User

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Perfect storm of adding on to an existing design to the point where the flying characteristics were changed considerably, and inexperienced pilots with a lack of basic stick and rudder skills were put behind the wheel.
    Just my opinion.

  3. #3
    Registered User ardvark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    4,791
    Level
    99
    Points: 28,775, Level: 99
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 570/36
    Given: 589/14

    Ignore User

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Everyone knew the 737 had reached its limit.

  4. #4
    Super Moderator Cujo665's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Company
    A great one
    Base
    Home Based
    Job
    Pilot
    A/C Flown
    SF340, E145, B767
    Posts
    2,017
    Level
    100
    Points: 31,280, Level: 100
    Overall activity: 32.0%
    Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteran25000 Experience PointsSocial
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 370/50
    Given: 75/9

    Ignore User

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by ardvark View Post
    Everyone knew the 737 had reached its limit.
    Except Southwest.

    shoulda stopped 73 production and kept the 75 going.
    __________________________________________________ __

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    2,668
    Level
    68
    Points: 10,709, Level: 68
    Overall activity: 99.8%
    Achievements:
    VeteranOverdrive10000 Experience Points
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 209/18
    Given: 66/145

    Ignore User

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    I would expect the various carriers would get partial or maybe full compensation from Boeing on financial loses while the aircraft is grounded and out of service. That may not show up until another financial quarter though. Of course, the bigger conundrum for a Boeing is rehabilitation of the Max’s reputation once the fix is implemented. Some passengers may still book away from it considering the beatings Boeing is taking in the media. Boeing really screwed the pooch on this whole mess and it demonstrates the risks when you go cheap.

    Any revenue losses from reputation avoidance I think would not likely be compensated though. Too bad AAG hasn’t learned the risks of going too cheap. Same mistakes over and over.

  6. #6
    Registered User ardvark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    4,791
    Level
    99
    Points: 28,775, Level: 99
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 570/36
    Given: 589/14

    Ignore User

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    yeap, they like reinventing the wheel just so it breaks at the same spot.
    Sir, can I have another.

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    2,668
    Level
    68
    Points: 10,709, Level: 68
    Overall activity: 99.8%
    Achievements:
    VeteranOverdrive10000 Experience Points
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 209/18
    Given: 66/145

    Ignore User

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Out of the picture at AA now until at least mid-June. Even more lost revenue for an already financially stumbling AA. Depends on how much $$$ Boeing pays out to AA though. Poor Boeing...………...what a colossal blunder.

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Company
    Eagle
    Base
    ORD
    A/C Flown
    Jungle Jet
    Posts
    514
    Level
    73
    Points: 12,687, Level: 73
    Overall activity: 8.0%
    Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteran10000 Experience Points
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 41/6
    Given: 5/1

    Ignore User

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Report At Odds With Claim That Ethiopian Pilots Followed Boeing Guidance

    By Paul Bertorelli April 5, 2019

    According to a preliminary accident report, the pilots of an Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737 MAX that crashed on March 10th, were unable to manually counter significant nose-down trim before losing control of the airplane in a dive that reached 500 knots. The report, released by the Ethiopian government Thursday, confirms that the MAX 8’s MCAS subsystem, a stall-protection add-on, rolled in nearly maximum nose-down trim in response to a faulty angle-of-attack sensor.

    But the report, which draws no final conclusions, is unclear on whether the crew simply didn’t know how to use mechanical manual trim or if trim input was inhibited because the airplane was flying at such high speed. The pilots retained takeoff power throughout the accident sequence. Ethiopian Airlines said that following the crash of a Lion Air MAX 8 last October in Indonesia, the crew was briefed on Boeing-provided information on how to disable MCAS. And although some mainstream news organizations have reported that the Ethiopian pilots followed Boeing’s checklist, the detail in the report suggests they departed from it in one key detail: After initially disabling electric trim to isolate MCAS, they re-engaged it later, allowing the malfunctioning system to trim the airplane nearly full nose-down.

    MCAS—Maneuvering Characteristic Augmentation System—was added to the MAX series because the engines are heavier and mounted further forward than on previous 737 models. As a result, in flight test, the airplane demonstrated a pitch-up tendency at high angles of attack and/or high load factors. To counter this, MCAS automatically adds nose-down trim at high angles of attack when the airplane is hand flown with the flaps up. Boeing has described it as a stall-protection system, but it also increases perceived pitch force before stall angle of attack is reached.

    MCAS is fed by a single AoA sensor and in both crashes, the sensor furnished inaccurate information to the flight computer. The Ethiopian report said that the left-side AoA indicated 74.5 degrees less than a minute after takeoff, while the right side indicated 15.3 degrees. This activated the left-side stick shaker and MCAS eventually responded by rolling-in nose-down trim. It also gave the crew airspeed and altitude disagree alerts between the left and right side displays.

    Following Lion Air, Boeing’s guidance for this situation—published in the Ethiopian preliminary report--called for several steps that combine its existing standard runaway trim with the MCAS’s peculiarities. Specifically, the checklist calls for disengaging the autopilot and autothrottles and, if the runaway continues, setting electric trim to the cutout position, disabling electric trim. Boeing said it should remain off for the remainder of the flight. The checklist advises to trim manually with the mechanical wheel and to “anticipate trim requirements.” Following Lion Air, Boeing also said that a significant out-of-trim condition caused by a runaway could first be corrected with manual electric trim before the cutouts are used. Flight data appears to show that the Ethiopian crew didn’t do this.

    At 5:38:58, the captain, who was flying, called for the first officer to engage the autopilot, opposite of Boeing’s guidance. At that point, the crew had a left side stick shaker, some of the fault warnings and a master caution light Boeing listed,

    including airspeed and altitude disagree. It’s unclear if that this had any bearing on the accident scenario, since MCAS is disabled when the autopilot is engaged.

    (The autopilot disengaged 33 seconds later.)

    Shortly after the autopilot disengaged, the FDR showed that automatic nose-down trim activated for nine seconds, confirming that MCAS was reacting to and trying to resolve the erroneous AoA indication. The captain countered this with electric trim with his yoke thumb switch and later asked the first officer to “trim up with him.” The aircraft began a series of pitch and altitude excursions, but the power was never reduced below the takeoff value; 94% N1.

    After struggling against the automatic pitch trim and excursions for several seconds, at 5:40:35—about two and half minutes after takeoff—the first officer called “stab trim cutout” twice. The captain concurred and the report indicates the cutouts were used. The 737’s trim system is operated by an electric motor/jackscrew arrangement which trims by moving the entire horizontal stabilizer. In the event of a trim runaway, the cutout switches on the lower pedestal disable the electric motor. But the 737 still has manual mechanical trim wheels on either side of the pedestal that are accessible to both pilots.

    Six seconds later, the FDR showed that more automatic nose-down trim was commanded, indicating that MCAS was still sensing high AoA. However, the data showed the stabilizer didn’t respond to this command, confirming that the cutout switches were engaged. MCAS can only move the stabilizer if electric trim is active.

    The report indicates that shortly after the cutouts were used, the trim gradually moved nose-down from 2.3 to 2.1 units. It’s unclear why this happened, since electric trim was disabled. At this point, according to the report, both pilots were exerting pitch-up force on the control columns, after the captain asked the FO to assist him.

    At 5:41:46—a little over four-and-half-minutes after takeoff—the captain asks the FO “if the trim is functional.” The FO replied that it wasn’t and asked the captain if he could trim manually. What’s unclear is if the FO meant trim manually with his yoke-mounted electric trim switch or the 737’s mechanical wheel. The data indicates the stabilizer was never moved manually mechanically. However, 32 seconds before the crash, the FDR trace revealed two momentary manual electric trim inputs commanding nose-up from 2.1 to 2.3 units.

    This indicates that counter to Boeing’s guidance, the crew re-engaged electric trim, allowing MCAS to once again regain control of the stabilizer. In five seconds, it moved the trim nose down from 2.3 to 1.0 units, a value that’s nearly maximum nose-down in the 737, according to sources AVweb contacted for this story. The aircraft reached 40 degrees pitch down before impacting at 500 knots, according to the FO’s data. According to the report, power was never reduced from the takeoff value.

    Ethiopian Airlines said that its pilots did follow the Boeing guidance and in a press statement, the airline said ”we are very proud of our pilots' compliances to follow the emergency procedures and high level of professional performances in such extremely difficult situations."

    For its part, Boeing continues work on a new software package for the 737 MAX, but it’s not known when it will be available. For the time being, more than 370 MAX series 737s remain grounded throughout the world.

    In a press statement, Boeing said, “The preliminary report contains flight data recorder information indicating the airplane had an erroneous angle-of-attack sensor input that activated the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) function during the flight, as it had during the Lion Air 610 flight.

    "To ensure unintended MCAS activation will not occur again, Boeing has developed and is planning to release a software update to MCAS and an associated comprehensive pilot training and supplementary education program for the 737 MAX.

    "As previously announced, the update adds additional layers of protection and will prevent erroneous data from causing MCAS activation. Flight crews will always have the ability to override MCAS and manually control the airplane."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •