Post by Velar Fricative on Mar 13, 2019 11:43:58 GMT -5
What's killing me is that I could buy that we may have two very separate causes for both crashes. However, there have been media reports for years indicating that flying is safer than ever. Accidents have happened, but not to the extent that they have before, and that's great (never mind our idiot president tweeting about the good ol' days when airplanes didn't have to rely on all these MIT-engineered computers). But here we are with two crashes of two identical, new planes and we're not supposed to at least ground these planes everywhere until we figure out what the issue is? These are crazy unusual circumstances, and while that can support an argument that there's no need to ground the rest of the planes *because* this is crazy unusual and thus could be coincidental, OTOH, the optics are terrible and the FAA needs to do the right thing here.
Sidenote - I have to go read when I have more time but I am wondering if the creation and installation of this software came about as a result of Air France 447, just out of curiosity.
What's killing me is that I could buy that we may have two very separate causes for both crashes. However, there have been media reports for years indicating that flying is safer than ever. Accidents have happened, but not to the extent that they have before, and that's great (never mind our idiot president tweeting about the good ol' days when airplanes didn't have to rely on all these MIT-engineered computers). But here we are with two crashes of two identical, new planes and we're not supposed to at least ground these planes everywhere until we figure out what the issue is? These are crazy unusual circumstances, and while that can support an argument that there's no need to ground the rest of the planes *because* this is crazy unusual and thus could be coincidental, OTOH, the optics are terrible and the FAA needs to do the right thing here.
Sidenote - I have to go read when I have more time but I am wondering if the creation and installation of this software came about as a result of Air France 447, just out of curiosity.
Let's be honest- can you IMAGINE all of the delays, complaints, bullshit that comes with grounding a plane? Come on, that effects thousands of flights and it isn't that easy to just take a plane out of service. We all bitch about flights even without delays. It is a nightmare.
With that said, I have no idea what NTSB investigators have found. I know Boeing is freaking out as they do with any crash but just like during 911 all flights were grounded for the first time ever, taken a plane out of service which affects multiple airlines is a huge deal. I have no idea what the right answer is and there probably isn't one but if it is a Boeing issue it needs to be fixed.
What's killing me is that I could buy that we may have two very separate causes for both crashes. However, there have been media reports for years indicating that flying is safer than ever. Accidents have happened, but not to the extent that they have before, and that's great (never mind our idiot president tweeting about the good ol' days when airplanes didn't have to rely on all these MIT-engineered computers). But here we are with two crashes of two identical, new planes and we're not supposed to at least ground these planes everywhere until we figure out what the issue is? These are crazy unusual circumstances, and while that can support an argument that there's no need to ground the rest of the planes *because* this is crazy unusual and thus could be coincidental, OTOH, the optics are terrible and the FAA needs to do the right thing here.
Sidenote - I have to go read when I have more time but I am wondering if the creation and installation of this software came about as a result of Air France 447, just out of curiosity.
Let's be honest- can you IMAGINE all of the delays, complaints, bullshit that comes with grounding a plane? Come on, that effects thousands of flights and it isn't that easy to just take a plane out of service. We all bitch about flights even without delays. It is a nightmare.
With that said, I have no idea what NTSB investigators have found. I know Boeing is freaking out as they do with any crash but just like during 911 all flights were grounded for the first time ever, taken a plane out of service which affects multiple airlines is a huge deal. I have no idea what the right answer is and there probably isn't one but if it is a Boeing issue it needs to be fixed.
Of course. That's why I'm not mad that they didn't immediately halt all flights, but I felt like the tide was turning now and the optics are way worse. This is going to be awful for air travelers and crews and everyone else that gets impacted by this.
Grounding them in the US! Good decision. Fly safely friends.
I am so relieved. I really think DH was going to skip out on our trip next week. He was coming with me to a work conference and we were staring to get really nervous about both of us flying on a Max8.
Grounding them in the US! Good decision. Fly safely friends.
I am so relieved. I really think DH was going to skip out on our trip next week. He was coming with me to a work conference and we were staring to get really nervous about both of us flying on a Max8.
I am glad for you. We flew Monday with the kids and I was panicked researching the plane. I am already the worst most stressed flier so I totally get it.
NYT alert just came through that Trump announced a halt of Max 8s.
I am glad. I was reading an article a couple hours ago that was talking about how even U.S. pilots had -- prior to the Ethiopian crash -- filed complaints about problems they had controlling the Max8 and how they hadn't been adequately informed/trained about the sensor/autocorrect issue.
Let's be honest- can you IMAGINE all of the delays, complaints, bullshit that comes with grounding a plane? Come on, that effects thousands of flights and it isn't that easy to just take a plane out of service. We all bitch about flights even without delays. It is a nightmare.
With that said, I have no idea what NTSB investigators have found. I know Boeing is freaking out as they do with any crash but just like during 911 all flights were grounded for the first time ever, taken a plane out of service which affects multiple airlines is a huge deal. I have no idea what the right answer is and there probably isn't one but if it is a Boeing issue it needs to be fixed.
Of course. That's why I'm not mad that they didn't immediately halt all flights, but I felt like the tide was turning now and the optics are way worse. This is going to be awful for air travelers and crews and everyone else that gets impacted by this.
I quoted you but my response wasn't directed at you. I agree with you.
And I read other pilots, in the US, submitted reports about the nose tipping suddenly after engaging the autopilot after taking off, but were able to recover and turning the autopilot off. So, to me, the risk is higher or at least very much real.
the reason this happens with this plane is because in order to reduce fuel consumption (competing with an Airbus that is similar but was getting better fuel mileage) they shifted the wings either back or forward, but this can cause the nose to dip. So, they put that program in to correct it, but then never tell the pilots. the last part is what gets me so, so, so angry. because this could be looked at as pilot error, but they have been set up to fail if they are not informed and then trained in what to do should it happen.
There are accounts like this, but all the ones I've seen come after the Lion Air crash, when people were thinking about this issue - unexplained nose down before Lion Air and the explanation would be most telling, I think.
Also my understanding is that the MCAS nose down specifically requires that Autopilot is OFF, not ON. That's part of what makes this operation so strange and out of the norm for pilots. As you mentioned, several of these reports happened when AP was on - which means they wouldn't have been the same issue as Lion Air... at least if everything is working the way it is designed to (which i guess is an if) and if the pilots making the reports are accurate in their descriptions.
You touch on this in your post, but basically the reason this happened is Boeing needed to make a fuel efficient competitor to Airbus, so they put a more efficient (and larger) engine on an existing approved 737 frame. What is nice about that, is you don't have to totally redesign the plane ($$$ for design, approvals, testing, etc.) and you can also sell it to airlines like Southwest as "you already have all your pilots certified on this plane - they can just go to a 2 hour training and be set, as opposed to going through a whole new certification like it's a new plane."
The problem is that bigger engine sits in a different spot on the wing, which creates a potential to tip up dangerously at certain parts of flight. But instead of reworking the aerodynamics and having a new plane, new approvals, new training, etc. they just wrote some software to automatically correct the tip, thus saving all that money and time, and preserving the "this is an easy migration for your pilots" pitch.
Looks like Canada just grounded them too...
Yes. I spoke with a mom at school, who is a former air force jet pilot and now a commercial air line pilot. She said they have been trained what to do in this situation, but it seems to not be working which could be something else in the system. She said, given that these planes are only a fraction of the fleet, she is surprised that they are now grounding them until further review. It was interesting getting her take on the matter.
There are accounts like this, but all the ones I've seen come after the Lion Air crash, when people were thinking about this issue - unexplained nose down before Lion Air and the explanation would be most telling, I think.
Also my understanding is that the MCAS nose down specifically requires that Autopilot is OFF, not ON. That's part of what makes this operation so strange and out of the norm for pilots. As you mentioned, several of these reports happened when AP was on - which means they wouldn't have been the same issue as Lion Air... at least if everything is working the way it is designed to (which i guess is an if) and if the pilots making the reports are accurate in their descriptions.
You touch on this in your post, but basically the reason this happened is Boeing needed to make a fuel efficient competitor to Airbus, so they put a more efficient (and larger) engine on an existing approved 737 frame. What is nice about that, is you don't have to totally redesign the plane ($$$ for design, approvals, testing, etc.) and you can also sell it to airlines like Southwest as "you already have all your pilots certified on this plane - they can just go to a 2 hour training and be set, as opposed to going through a whole new certification like it's a new plane."
The problem is that bigger engine sits in a different spot on the wing, which creates a potential to tip up dangerously at certain parts of flight. But instead of reworking the aerodynamics and having a new plane, new approvals, new training, etc. they just wrote some software to automatically correct the tip, thus saving all that money and time, and preserving the "this is an easy migration for your pilots" pitch.
Looks like Canada just grounded them too...
Yes. I spoke with a mom at school, who is a former air force jet pilot and now a commercial air line pilot. She said they have been trained what to do in this situation, but it seems to not be working which could be something else in the system. She said, given that these planes are only a fraction of the fleet, she is surprised that they are now grounding them until further review. It was interesting getting her take on the matter.
She is surprised at this because they are only a fraction of the fleet? I don't follow.
Yes. I spoke with a mom at school, who is a former air force jet pilot and now a commercial air line pilot. She said they have been trained what to do in this situation, but it seems to not be working which could be something else in the system. She said, given that these planes are only a fraction of the fleet, she is surprised that they are now grounding them until further review. It was interesting getting her take on the matter.
She is surprised at this because they are only a fraction of the fleet? I don't follow.
She meant in some cases they are a smaller number in the fleet, so they would be able to operate while grounding them. Not saying it will not cause issues, but that was her point.
She is surprised at this because they are only a fraction of the fleet? I don't follow.
She meant in some cases they are a smaller number in the fleet, so they would be able to operate while grounding them. Not saying it will not cause issues, but that was her point.
Was that meant to say she was surprised they were *not* grounding the whole fleet given how small it is proportionally?
She meant in some cases they are a smaller number in the fleet, so they would be able to operate while grounding them. Not saying it will not cause issues, but that was her point.
Was that meant to say she was surprised they were *not* grounding the whole fleet given how small it is proportionally?
Because yeah me too!
Yes, sorry. I think I am fried today and clearly it is showing. lol
What's killing me is that I could buy that we may have two very separate causes for both crashes. However, there have been media reports for years indicating that flying is safer than ever. Accidents have happened, but not to the extent that they have before, and that's great (never mind our idiot president tweeting about the good ol' days when airplanes didn't have to rely on all these MIT-engineered computers). But here we are with two crashes of two identical, new planes and we're not supposed to at least ground these planes everywhere until we figure out what the issue is? These are crazy unusual circumstances, and while that can support an argument that there's no need to ground the rest of the planes *because* this is crazy unusual and thus could be coincidental, OTOH, the optics are terrible and the FAA needs to do the right thing here.
Sidenote - I have to go read when I have more time but I am wondering if the creation and installation of this software came about as a result of Air France 447, just out of curiosity.
I won't fly Air France because of that crash. The details are horrifying to me. I expect more of pilots so senior they are flying an A330 from GIG to CDG.
For anyone else morbidly fascinated by this (which may just be me) - this piece from the NYT *from before the EA crash* does an incredible job of breaking down the MCAS system, why it was there, and what impact it likely had on the Lion Air flight based on the data (even more relevant now that regulators seem to be admitting that the EA data available so far looks awfully similar).
I just discovered it, and it would have saved me hours of reading pilot forums...
What's killing me is that I could buy that we may have two very separate causes for both crashes. However, there have been media reports for years indicating that flying is safer than ever. Accidents have happened, but not to the extent that they have before, and that's great (never mind our idiot president tweeting about the good ol' days when airplanes didn't have to rely on all these MIT-engineered computers). But here we are with two crashes of two identical, new planes and we're not supposed to at least ground these planes everywhere until we figure out what the issue is? These are crazy unusual circumstances, and while that can support an argument that there's no need to ground the rest of the planes *because* this is crazy unusual and thus could be coincidental, OTOH, the optics are terrible and the FAA needs to do the right thing here.
Sidenote - I have to go read when I have more time but I am wondering if the creation and installation of this software came about as a result of Air France 447, just out of curiosity.
I won't fly Air France because of that crash. The details are horrifying to me. I expect more of pilots so senior they are flying an A330 from GIG to CDG.
I just read the wiki page of it. It sounds like the copilots massively mishandled the situation and if the pilot wasn't on rest break, it is unlikely that the crash would have happened.
Was there any finding regarding insufficient training with Air France?
I won't fly Air France because of that crash. The details are horrifying to me. I expect more of pilots so senior they are flying an A330 from GIG to CDG.
I just read the wiki page of it. It sounds like the copilots massively mishandled the situation and if the pilot wasn't on rest break, it is unlikely that the crash would have happened.
Was there any finding regarding insufficient training with Air France?
NOPE! But I find insufficient training/judgement whatever if you are listening to a goddamn plane yelling STALL STALL STALL and Junior FO pulling back on the joystick making the airplanes nose go up. OMG! Meanwhile the senior FO doesn't take control from the junior??? The iced over sensors actually corrected themselves while the chaos was happening in the cockpit. I can't fly AirFrance.
I just read the wiki page of it. It sounds like the copilots massively mishandled the situation and if the pilot wasn't on rest break, it is unlikely that the crash would have happened.
Was there any finding regarding insufficient training with Air France?
NOPE! But I find insufficient training/judgement whatever if you are listening to a goddamn plane yelling STALL STALL STALL and Junior FO pulling back on the joystick making the airplanes nose go up. OMG! Meanwhile the senior FO doesn't take control from the junior??? The iced over sensors actually corrected themselves while the chaos was happening in the cockpit. I can't fly AirFrance.
I was following a pilot’s column on a travel blog at the time, and he actually requested that they put the same situation somewhere in his next recertification simulation. While he was able to recover, he said that even as a senior pilot the situation was incredibly hard to diagnose. But if I recall, AirBus made an update to the pitot tube sensors to try to improve the misleading cockpit readings.
That said, I was flying regularly from Europe to GIG at the time, and I actively avoided Air France for a while. Since the crash happened around the intertropical convergence zone, there is nearly always some pretty sharp turbulence around that time in the flight. It was incredibly nerve-wracking for years. (When I eventually did have to fly Air France CDG-GIG, I was a tiny bit relieved to see they’d put a 747 on the route.)
We have a flight coming up next month with Norwegian from providence RI and I just checked their site. They are grounding the max 8s, which gives me peace of mind. I was worried because I know they fly this plane on their providence to Ireland routes. They’re offering full refund or rebooking for canceled flights
FYI they are bussing PVD pax to NY to then take a larger plane to Europe.
Post by dancingirl21 on Mar 17, 2019 19:30:38 GMT -5
@@@@
I was supposed to fly for spring break next Saturday on an AA flight, direct from Chicago to Denver, middle of the day. Earlier today they rebooked me on a flight leaving Chicago at 6:25pm going to Charlotte, then Charlotte to Denver, landing at 12:06am. So I called for other options, because I will be flying with my 2 year old and was told there really aren’t any options. I cancelled the flight and we are driving instead. My DH and older son were already driving so it isn’t much of a hardship, other than my 2 year old hating the car.
I also booked through Chase with our points so they are the middleman trying to deal with all of this. My agent sounded super stressed and said they have been dealing with this all day - American is bumping people off confirmed flights to get the Max 8 passengers reassigned.
I’m frustrated but also not because I’m happy all the Max 8s have been grounded. It’s just causing quite a cluster.
I won't fly Air France because of that crash. The details are horrifying to me. I expect more of pilots so senior they are flying an A330 from GIG to CDG.
I just read the wiki page of it. It sounds like the copilots massively mishandled the situation and if the pilot wasn't on rest break, it is unlikely that the crash would have happened.
Was there any finding regarding insufficient training with Air France?
As someone who hates to fly more than just about anything else...wtf did I read this?! Thinking about the plane rolling makes me so ill. We flew home today and just the plane banking a turn makes my stomach flip flop. . Those poor poor people.
1. Why did the jumpseat pilot know about the error and how to fix it but the other two didn't?
2. It appears it was the same Lion plane, which later passed inspection, and the following day and those two pilots were unaware of the fix which lead to the crash.
3. The FAA and Boeing sent out a bulletin to all airlines after Lion Air relaying the potential issue and how to correct and disengage it.
Boeing definitely has some culpability along with the FAA who was aware of the issue. But I think the airlines may have a larger part in this than Boeing if the information wasn't disseminated appropriately. Also, it is my understanding that if there is an emergency, the airplane also immediate contacts their companies' maintenance for help. It is most likely possible they didn't have time or were unable to be on the radio but Lion Air knew the issue, on that same plane, and knew how to disengage it yet these pilots seemingly knew nothing as the Black box reveals them going through the Manuels.
I only know things because a lot of my family work and worked at Boeing as engineers and investigators since we are in Philly. Of course they won't tell me shit even if they know but I do know what normal protocols are when there are issues. There is no doubt a lot of blame to go around and these unfortunate souls paid the ultimate price
"The pilots of the doomed plane pored over a handbook trying to determine why the jet was lurching downward in the desperate moments before the crash, according to multiple media reports"
I can't get this image out of my head. Talk about a nightmare scenario.
The Bloomberg article (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-19/how-an-extra-man-in-cockpit-saved-a-737-max-that-later-crashed?srnd=premium) said: "The so-called dead-head pilot on the earlier flight from Bali to Jakarta told the crew to cut power to the motor driving the nose down, according to the people familiar, part of a checklist that all pilots are required to memorize."
But yeah, definitely raises major questions on training. I read something else saying that training for pilots who were already certified on the 737 (non Max) was basically a digital one hour course plus some written material.
The Bloomberg article (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-19/how-an-extra-man-in-cockpit-saved-a-737-max-that-later-crashed?srnd=premium) said: "The so-called dead-head pilot on the earlier flight from Bali to Jakarta told the crew to cut power to the motor driving the nose down, according to the people familiar, part of a checklist that all pilots are required to memorize."
But yeah, definitely raises major questions on training. I read something else saying that training for pilots who were already certified on the 737 (non Max) was basically a digital one hour course plus some written material.
Why did he know and the others not? Why wasn't it relied to the pilots of the Lion crash two days later on how to disable it? So many fucking questions.
And still, after the Lion crash bulletins were posted to every airline about the issue and how to handle and disarm it. The pilots in March should have known but didn't. Why not? It is really sad that it could have been avoided by the airlines, Boeing and the counterpart of the FAA. Just horrible.
The Bloomberg article (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-19/how-an-extra-man-in-cockpit-saved-a-737-max-that-later-crashed?srnd=premium) said: "The so-called dead-head pilot on the earlier flight from Bali to Jakarta told the crew to cut power to the motor driving the nose down, according to the people familiar, part of a checklist that all pilots are required to memorize."
But yeah, definitely raises major questions on training. I read something else saying that training for pilots who were already certified on the 737 (non Max) was basically a digital one hour course plus some written material.
Why did he know and the others not? Why wasn't it relied to the pilots of the Lion crash two days later on how to disable it? So many fucking questions.
And still, after the Lion crash bulletins were posted to every airline about the issue and how to handle and disarm it. The pilots in March should have known but didn't. Why not? It is really sad that it could have been avoided by the airlines, Boeing and the counterpart of the FAA. Just horrible.
It truly is horrible. And it's very unsettling to me as an engineer, in a way that hard to articulate, even though I don't work on anything life-critical. But just thinking about the design choices that I've made, the bureaucracy/politics with how stuff gets passed up the chain and info delivered to customers... I can definitely see how this stuff happens but there is [and should be] a higher standard for something like this. IDK. Again, horrible.
There’s been a lot of discussion on pilot forums that the difference may have been just having the third set of hands (and third brain). By all accounts, the cockpit in this situation is extremely loud and distracting—its a busy phase of flight anyway and the issue sets off conflicting audio and tactile alerts, some of which may conflict. Fighting the nose down motion takes two hands and serious physical strength, and at least in a takeoff phase, if you don’t catch it quickly you don’t have much altitude to recover.