Ah yes. The old "lets datamine someones post history". Always a great response in a discussion.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Airlines beginning to ground Boeing 737-Max following Ethiopian Airline crash [UP: Trump orders grounding of fleet in the US]
- Thread starter OtherWorldly
- Start date
Ah yes. The old "lets datamine someones post history". Always a great response in a discussion.
CBC News Alerts
✔@CBCAlerts
Update: Air Canada cancelling all flights on Boeing 737 Max fleet for the next 3 weeks.
More @cbcnews Expect flight disruptions to last — Air Canada says its 737 Max jets will be grounded 3 weeks at least. CBC News has just learned Air Canada has cancelled 52 Max flights today. http://cbc.ca/1.5056402
5:15 PM - Mar 14, 2019
✔@CBCAlerts
Update: Air Canada cancelling all flights on Boeing 737 Max fleet for the next 3 weeks.
More @cbcnews Expect flight disruptions to last — Air Canada says its 737 Max jets will be grounded 3 weeks at least. CBC News has just learned Air Canada has cancelled 52 Max flights today. http://cbc.ca/1.5056402
5:15 PM - Mar 14, 2019
Reuters with a report that suggests Boeing understated the amount of power MCAS had.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ethiopia-airplane-boeing-idUSKCN1QY0Q9
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ethiopia-airplane-boeing-idUSKCN1QY0Q9
The Seattle Times article this report references has a lot more detail: https://www.seattletimes.com/busine...-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/
Excerpt:
That's pretty bad. But I'm sure it was just these untrained Indonesian and Ethiopian pilots who didn't do the correct things who are at fault here.
Last edited:
Thanks for the additional info. That looks fuckin terrible.
But yeah must be the clearly inferior pilots...
The thing is, in theory, there is the possibility to hit a cutoff switch in case a stabilizer runaway happens. So yes, that's technically correct. The only problem with that (which is why I added the third quote) is that what actually happened didn't look like a stabilizer runaway at all to the pilots. Thus, they probably didn't know what caused this behaviour they'd never seen (or heard of) before because Boeing didn't want to mention it in the flight manual.
Right, from my understanding, MCAS was not disclosed at all until at least after the LionAir crash?
Yea, have to agree with a lot of posters. Ton's of victim blaming and siding with a corporation like Boeing that wants to lay blame on the pilots rather than their technology. Totally a company you would want to get behind....smh
Posted this in the other thread but: the planes in question have three different indicators telling pilots if there is a disagreement between the two AoA sensors, all of which are optional at an extra cost, and Lion Air had none of them. Apparently this is not mandated by the FAA as something that is required to be included.
Boeing / FAA pls.
Boeing / FAA pls.
Some beancounter needs to answer for the decision to push this plane forward as an analogue to the 737.
Something tells me boeing may "gift" these addons to many of the low-cost air carriers worldwide when they install mcas 1.01.
It's weird how the more information we get, the more this story looks...exactly like how it always looked. Negligence and shortcuts in order for Boeing to cut costs and save time and be competitive with Airbus.
If it turned out that they sacrificed safety to push out the plane, I think the people responsible should be criminally charged.
This is what I originally feared, that the MCAS runaway trim isn't readily identifiable by the pilots.
OP
OP
Apparently this has been an issue across Airbus and Boeing models for years
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...512a6fe3439_story.html?utm_term=.1b1add9e4972
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...512a6fe3439_story.html?utm_term=.1b1add9e4972
Corner cutting, underbaked risk assessments, regulatory capture. This case has it all.
Sounds like FUD here to be honest, I'm fairly sure all A320s have three AoA sensors with voting by default.
Not saying these planes are perfect and that this would never happen, but on this particular instance there wouldn't be any correlation.
Per the WaPo article, they point out it was the same combination of AoA sensor(s) going bad and autocontrols
WSJ:
Canada's transport minister, Marc Garneau, said Monday the government would conduct its own certification of Boeing's promised software modification to the stall-prevention system, even if it is certified by the FAA.
Mr. Garneau also said Canada is reviewing its original decision in 2017 to allow 737 MAX jets to fly in that country's airspace, effectively replicating the FAA's safety approval. Canada last week grounded the plane shortly before it was idled in the U.S.
"We're going to review the validation that we did at that time," Mr. Garneau said in Ottawa. "We may not change anything but we've decided that it's a good idea for us to review" the decision.
Such a move is highly unusual, especially for a close U.S. air-safety partner such as Canada, because governments world-wide almost always accept the decision of the country where an aircraft is manufactured. But as in the unilateral grounding of 737 MAX jets earlier this month by a host of regulators overseas, the FAA's influence regarding the MAX fleet has been waning.
Looks like both Boeing and the FAA will be chewing on this one for quite some time... Well done.
I have to agree with Marin-Lune here. This sounds like grasping for straws to fuel some sort of "both sides" argument.
The Airbus incidents were caused by faulty sensors built by 3rd parties, as the article points out. The ways those incidents played out were vastly different. And apparently not threatening/common enough to ground every single a319 on the planet.
Yet, in the MAX cases, the culprit so far appears to be the software, made by Boeing, as those sensors appear to be optional - which in itself is questionable at best.
I assume this is in response to those reports stating that the FAA basically let boeing self-certify their stuff and they just put a stamp on it to make it official
see: https://arstechnica.com/information...e-risks-self-certified-much-of-planes-safety/
A friend of mine did some software work at Airbus Helicopter many years ago. He said, there was someone sat behind him 100% of the time basically questioning every line of code he wrote. Nothing would come close to deployment without many eyes checking the functionality and robustness. Not to mention countless hours of virtual testing with HIL/SIL/MIL.
I wouldn't worry about it as an end consumer, but would also hate to have that responsibility. :p
Um,
The sensors are made by the same company (subsidiary of UTAS). That's why the article points it out. The on-plane software does the same thing on both planes (auto-trim). The sensors malfunctioned on both planes. The biggest difference is that one happened at 31k feet (and has way more time to recover) and the other one happened near the ground. Also, the sensors are not optional. (All planed would be falling out of the sky if it were lol). There's an option on the MAX for a 3rd sensor as well as an option for an extra light telling you when the sensors are disagreeing with each other. (Both which won't be optional much longer I suspect).
Last edited:
NYT: Doomed Boeing Jets Lacked 2 Safety Features That Company Sold Only as Extras
As the pilots of the doomed Boeing jets in Ethiopia and Indonesia fought to control their planes, they lacked two notable safety features in their cockpits.
One reason: Boeing charged extra for them.
For Boeing and other aircraft manufacturers, the practice of charging to upgrade a standard plane can be lucrative. Top airlines around the world must pay handsomely to have the jets they order fitted with customized add-ons.
Sometimes these optional features involve aesthetics or comfort, like premium seating, fancy lighting or extra bathrooms. But other features involve communication, navigation or safety systems, and are more fundamental to the plane's operations.
Many airlines, especially low-cost carriers like Indonesia's Lion Air, have opted not to buy them — and regulators don't require them.
Now, in the wake of the two deadly crashes involving the same jet model, Boeing will make one of those safety features standard as part of a fix to get the planes in the air again.
It is not yet known what caused the crashes of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 on March 10 and Lion Air Flight 610 five months earlier, both after erratic takeoffs. But investigators are looking at whether a new software system added to avoid stalls in Boeing's 737 Max series may have been partly to blame. Faulty data from sensors on the Lion Air plane may have caused the system, known as MCAS, to malfunction, authorities investigating that crash suspect.
That software system takes readings from two vanelike devices called angle of attack sensors that determine how much the plane's nose is pointing up or down relative to oncoming air. When MCAS detects that the plane is pointing up at a dangerous angle, it can automatically push down the nose of the plane in an effort to prevent the plane from stalling.
Boeing's optional safety features, in part, could have helped the pilots detect any erroneous readings. One of the optional upgrades, the angle of attack indicator, displays the readings of the two sensors. The other, called a disagree light, is activated if those sensors are at odds with one another.
Boeing will soon update the MCAS software, and will also make the disagree light standard on all new 737 Max planes, according to a person familiar with the changes, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they have not been made public. The angle of attack indicator will remain an option that airlines can buy.
Neither feature was mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration. All 737 Max jets have been grounded.
"They're critical, and cost almost nothing for the airlines to install," said Bjorn Fehrm, an analyst at the aviation consultancy Leeham. "Boeing charges for them because it can. But they're vital for safety."
Earlier this week, Dennis A. Muilenburg, Boeing's chief executive, said the company was working to make the 737 Max safer.
"As part of our standard practice following any accident, we examine our aircraft design and operation, and when appropriate, institute product updates to further improve safety," he said in a statement.
More in the link.
Holy shit what. How do you make safety features for passenger planes an extra option?!?!! What?!?! This makes no sense to me.
Either way I can see the posters not...it's not Boeing's fault. It's the pilots for not making their airlines purchase the feature /s.
That will be the most expensive lawsuit of all time, all responsible managers should rot in prison. RIP to the victims.
Yeah who is the exec who decided to turn safety features into an a microtransction? Forget getting fired these fuckers should be prosecuted.
Same. Probably still 100% the pilots' fault on both flights.
Boeing's optional safety features, in part, could have helped the pilots detect any erroneous readings. One of the optional upgrades, the angle of attack indicator, displays the readings of the two sensors. The other, called a disagree light, is activated if those sensors are at odds with one another.
How is that optional? What's the point of doubling the sensors if they can disagree without consequences?
How is that optional? What's the point of doubling the sensors if they can disagree without consequences?
"In US we accept as pilots only people good enough that they can read the sensors with their mind and don't need an indicator"
OP
OP
So Boeing didn't warn lion air and Ethiopian air because they didn't pay for upgrades ? I smell billion dollar plus lawsuits and Boeing going the way of Enron
Boeing is not going to disappear guys what the fuck lmao
That being said, fuck them and I hope more strict regulation is passed. Security featured DLCs, smfh
That being said, fuck them and I hope more strict regulation is passed. Security featured DLCs, smfh
Last edited: