Indonesia plane crash: All 189 passengers presumed dead in latest aviation disaster (Oct 2018)

Bodhisattva

Hall of Fame
Aug 22, 2001
20,311
104
73
Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida
Government incompetence is simply government employee competence. Its an extreme example of zero accountability coupled with the peter principle
Yes, but that's a symptom (a big symptom) of the government bureaucracy. It is virtually impossible to fire poor employees or properly reward good employees. So, much of the workforce is quite frankly not that impressive. But, also, acquisition regulations often run at cross purposes. Complying with the layers of bureaucratic rules takes months. The systems used are poorly constructed and/or grossly expensive and/or 25 years old. And the solutions always involving adding more inefficiency.
 

Bamaro

Hall of Fame
Oct 19, 2001
21,373
166
73
Jacksonville, Md USA
There is something on Smithsonian channel right now (Air Disasters) with an A330 eerily similar to the Max8


Faulty data received by ADIRU causes a 9 degree pitch down of nose
Bad line of code swaps altitude data with angle of attack data

The line of code was fixed but original cause of invalid data was never found.

The episode is called 'Free Fall' and is season 12, episode 10
 
Last edited:

NationalTitles17

Super Moderator
May 25, 2003
14,204
870
198
Mountainous Northern California
Boeing and the FAA really messed up, to say the least.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/failed-certification-faa-missed-safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/

Dennis Tajer, a spokesman for the Allied Pilots Association at American Airlines, said his training on moving from the old 737 NG model cockpit to the new 737 MAX consisted of little more than a one-hour session on an iPad, with no simulator training.Minimizing MAX pilot transition training was an important cost saving for Boeing’s airline customers, a key selling point for the jet, which has racked up more than 5,000 orders.
The company’s website pitched the jet to airlines with a promise that “as you build your 737 MAX fleet, millions of dollars will be saved because of its commonality with the Next-Generation 737.”
In the aftermath of the crash, officials at the unions for both American and Southwest Airlines pilots criticized Boeing for providing no information about MCAS, or its possible malfunction, in the 737 MAX pilot manuals.
An FAA safety engineer said the lack of prior information could have been crucial in the Lion Air crash.
Boeing’s safety analysis of the system assumed that “the pilots would recognize what was happening as a runaway and cut off the switches,” said the engineer. “The assumptions in here are incorrect. The human factors were not properly evaluated.
 

NationalTitles17

Super Moderator
May 25, 2003
14,204
870
198
Mountainous Northern California
Ruh roh...


https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/18/us-is-scrutinizing-the-development-of-boeings-737-max-aircraft-wsj.html

The Journal reported in an update to the article that a grand jury in Washington issued a broad subpoena one day after the Ethiopian Airlines crash to at least one person involved in the development of the Boeing 737 Max. The subpoena, which reportedly involves a prosecutor from the Justice Department, was said to seek relevant documents, such as emails and other messages.
 

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
44,595
1,340
348
crimsonaudio.net
Good, let's hope this goes somewhere.

I'm not one of these people who walks around suggesting all large corporations are evil, driven solely by profit, etc., but this story reeks of trying to save money and time at the risk of human life.

A friend in the industry wrote this the other day:
"They limited the changes to the design so it wouldn't have to go through extensive re-certification - raise the engines up and put them forward, because if you change the landing gear, it's too much change. But moving the engines that far forward will make it nearly impossible to fly, so they developed a program to make it work..."

If this is the process / reasoning as to why this has happened, some folks belong in prison.
 

CrimsonNagus

All-American
Jun 6, 2007
4,543
59
83
41
Montgomery, Alabama, United States
Why would you design, or modify, a plane by "moving the engines" so far forward that it makes "it nearly impossible to fly"? That seems to go against the basic design requirements for a plane. Oh, but they developed software to "make it work". I'm no engineer but, I would think you would design a plane that is flight worthy without the need to install an app.

Sounds like some engineers need jail time, as well as Boeing executives.



CA, I am one of those people. I don't think all corporations are evil but, they are all driven by profits. Well, mostly market value and shareholders, who are driven by profits.
 

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
44,595
1,340
348
crimsonaudio.net
Why would you design, or modify, a plane by "moving the engines" so far forward that it makes "it nearly impossible to fly"? That seems to go against the basic design requirements for a plane. Oh, but they developed software to "make it work". I'm no engineer but, I would think you would design a plane that is flight worthy without the need to install an app.
It all started in 2011 when they wanted to install new, more efficient engines to match they competing Airbus fuel burn - "the initial reduction was 10–12%; it was later enhanced to 14.5%: the fan was widened from 61 inches to 69.4 inches by raising the nose gear and placing the engine higher and forward, the split winglet added 1–1.5%, a relofted tail cone 1% more and electronically controlling the bleed air system improves efficiency."

The plane was already in service, these were model upgrades to increase efficiency, but they didn't want to go through the long recertification process.

It highlights how silly the system is - you move the landing gear (which would have if you made the gear larger) and you have to rectify - but if you change the engines and move how they are mounted, no lengthy recertification is required.

Failures all over the place on this one, but sadly, this is how airplanes have gotten so safe now - massive loss of life causes enquiries, which lead to changes to all aspects of that system, and the planes are safer.
 

NationalTitles17

Super Moderator
May 25, 2003
14,204
870
198
Mountainous Northern California
Lunch was cut short today so I didn't have a chance to expound:

Boeing was approved for MCAS to move the rear stabilizer 0.6 degrees total but in testing found that 2.5 degrees movement of the stabilizer was needed. The FAA did not know about this some say, but also did not know that after it was disengaged it could engage again and each time move it another 2.5 degrees. It only tilts a total of 5 degrees. IOW, in 2-4 engagements of the MCAS the trim could be set to full downward. It is basically a runaway trim but doesn't behave like the runaway trim that pilots are used to dealing with and so could go missed without training and knowledge - both of which Boeing deliberately avoided in the name of the almighty dollar. Interviewed persons in the FAA were not aware of the change is the limits of the MCAS or that once disengaged it would engage again to the point of full downward motion of the aircraft no matter how hard the pilots fought the system, which they didn't necessarily know existed in the first place.

I hope that if wrongdoing occurred that people are held accountable for their actions.

I saw a documentary - it may have been from down under - where about 7-8 years ago Boeing was covering up deviations from approved type in their manufacturing process and fired several employees over their whistleblowing efforts. So this may be a pattern of behavior by Boeing and the FAA since the FAA was also implicated.

Thankfully the FAA has moved toward a compliance model instead of punishment and hs also finally allowed some innovation - mainly in GA - by making the process for approvals less prescriptive. These are good things and have allowed new and exciting things into the cockpit and elsewhere (Dynon avionics, new avionics from others like Garmen, getting rid of vacuum pumps and gyros that are prone to failure, less expensive ADS-B devices to improve compliance with new requirements, and so on). These are good things.

But this deal with Boeing smells rotten.
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
66,088
1,139
323
Huntsville, AL,USA
Lunch was cut short today so I didn't have a chance to expound:

Boeing was approved for MCAS to move the rear stabilizer 0.6 degrees total but in testing found that 2.5 degrees movement of the stabilizer was needed. The FAA did not know about this some say, but also did not know that after it was disengaged it could engage again and each time move it another 2.5 degrees. It only tilts a total of 5 degrees. IOW, in 2-4 engagements of the MCAS the trim could be set to full downward. It is basically a runaway trim but doesn't behave like the runaway trim that pilots are used to dealing with and so could go missed without training and knowledge - both of which Boeing deliberately avoided in the name of the almighty dollar. Interviewed persons in the FAA were not aware of the change is the limits of the MCAS or that once disengaged it would engage again to the point of full downward motion of the aircraft no matter how hard the pilots fought the system, which they didn't necessarily know existed in the first place.

I hope that if wrongdoing occurred that people are held accountable for their actions.

I saw a documentary - it may have been from down under - where about 7-8 years ago Boeing was covering up deviations from approved type in their manufacturing process and fired several employees over their whistleblowing efforts. So this may be a pattern of behavior by Boeing and the FAA since the FAA was also implicated.

Thankfully the FAA has moved toward a compliance model instead of punishment and hs also finally allowed some innovation - mainly in GA - by making the process for approvals less prescriptive. These are good things and have allowed new and exciting things into the cockpit and elsewhere (Dynon avionics, new avionics from others like Garmen, getting rid of vacuum pumps and gyros that are prone to failure, less expensive ADS-B devices to improve compliance with new requirements, and so on). These are good things.

But this deal with Boeing smells rotten.
I had read the Seattle Times article earlier. It's a long, painful read. The only way to explain it is circular group-think, where erroneous risk-assessment gets passed around until it's accepted dogma. It reminded me of touring Columbia during retooling, while a crew was gluing tiles back on the bottom. I was assured that it was done all the time and it wasn't a big deal. Until it was...
 

Elefantman

All-American
Sep 18, 2007
4,182
17
48
R Can Saw
Boeing 737 Type RatingThe Boeing 737 family currently consists of the B737 Classic (-300/400/500), B737NG (-600/700/ 800/900) and the B737 Max which is slated for delivery in 2017. With 9,600 + airframes delivered and another 4,500 on order, the B737 is the most popular jetliner ever conceived. According to Boeing, more than 342 airlines in 111 countries fly B737. As of 2012 there were 4,000 B737NGs delivered and by one estimate there are two B737s departing or landing somewhere every five seconds. Considering that a single type rating is valid across all series, the B737 Type Rating is one of the most flexible ratings a pilot can hold.If you are looking for a marketable type rating, the Boeing 737 is it.
LINK

This is where the problem started. Boeing has done everything it can to minimize additional training for each new variation of the 737 over the years. But take a look at the following photos. Do these planes look anything alike?





The 737 name should have ended with the 500 series. After that it should have been a new name and type rating. And the 737 max should have required additional sim training due to it's unique flight characteristics.
 

Elefantman

All-American
Sep 18, 2007
4,182
17
48
R Can Saw
Lion Air pilots struggle to find answers

The pilots of a doomed Lion Air Boeing 737 MAX scoured a handbook as they struggled to understand why the jet was lurching downwards, but ran out of time before it hit the water, three people with knowledge of the cockpit voice recorder contents said.
For the next nine minutes, the jet warned pilots it was in a stall and pushed the nose down in response, the report showed. A stall is when the airflow over a plane’s wings is too weak to generate lift and keep it flying.The captain fought to climb, but the computer, still incorrectly sensing a stall, continued to push the nose down using the plane’s trim system. Normally, trim adjusts an aircraft’s control surfaces to ensure it flies straight and level.
A different crew on the same plane the evening before encountered the same problem but solved it after running through three checklists, according to the November report.
 

CrimsonNagus

All-American
Jun 6, 2007
4,543
59
83
41
Montgomery, Alabama, United States
I don’t know about anyone else but, all this is causing me to lose all faith in the airline industry. To have such little regard for the lives of your customers just to save time and money is disgusting.

People better end up in jail over this negligence. Also, the FAA should strip the Max 8 of its certification, forcing Boeing to enjoy the long and expensive recertification process. Only seems fair at this point.
 

Latest threads