Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

mysfit

And another 737 MAX8 goes down

By mysfit, in Non-Sports items

Recommended Posts

mysfit

mysfit

Posted
Posted

In Ethiopa.

Again, just after take off.

And again, a recently delivered plane.

Like Lion Air.

 

Early to say but frankly I'd think twice about flying that type. With those engines moved forward it seems to be a tad finicky.

One of the Final Five..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Joe from WY

Joe from WY

Posted
Posted

I'd just be skeptical of flying 3rd World Airlines in general, honestly. 

That said, it is worrisome. Boeing should really ground the type worldwide/recall them, and see what the issue is. Something's +++++ed up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mysfit

mysfit

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Ethiopa airlines has a fairly good record.

The airport is at altitude and it only climbed about 1400 in that time.

In this case also the crew radioed they were having trouble and requested to return. Same as LA.

It doesn't look like this crew was fighting the MCAS the way the LA crew did. However those big honking engines too far forward, which required the SW fix, are still there. Maybe they're a bigger problem than Boeing thought they would be.

 

Too early to say much however this is 2 crashes in 6 months of a new configuration, early in flight, both reporting issues and requesting to turn around and going down at high speed before they could turn back.

One of the Final Five..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sactowndog

sactowndog

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Joe from WY said:

I'd just be skeptical of flying 3rd World Airlines in general, honestly. 

That said, it is worrisome. Boeing should really ground the type worldwide/recall them, and see what the issue is. Something's +++++ed up. 

Ethiopia Air has a very good safety record.       The problem appears in the autopilot MCAS system which thinks the nose of the plane is at too high an angle and tries to force the plane down.   Southwest has a lot of them and not sure I want to get on a Southwest flight. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FlyingLobo

FlyingLobo

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, mysfit said:

Ethiopa airlines has a fairly good record.

The airport is at altitude and it only climbed about 1400 in that time.

In this case also the crew radioed they were having trouble and requested to return. Same as LA.

It doesn't look like this crew was fighting the MCAS the way the LA crew did. However those big honking engines too far forward, which required the SW fix, are still there. Maybe they're a bigger problem than Boeing thought they would be.

 

Too early to say much however this is 2 crashes in 6 months of a new configuration, early in flight, both reporting issues and requesting to turn around and going down at high speed before they could turn back.

The flightradar24 data for this flight ends about three minutes before radio contact is reported to have been lost, and the reported crash site is well south of where the track ends. There may be clues, for example the altitude profile to me resembles the profile flown if an engine fails on departure, but I don’t think there is enough information to rule out much at this time. 

I’m sure 737MAX operators worldwide are feeling some heartburn this morning and will be watching this investigation VERY carefully. Ethiopian Airlines is arguably the most respected airline on the entire continent. They’re not an amateurish operation run on a shoestring budget. Their reputation is worlds apart from Lion Air. 

The story so far:

In the beginning the Universe was created.

This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Joe from WY

Joe from WY

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, sactowndog said:

Ethiopia Air has a very good safety record.       The problem appears in the autopilot MCAS system which thinks the nose of the plane is at too high an angle and tries to force the plane down.   Southwest has a lot of them and not sure I want to get on a Southwest flight. 

I was half joking. I've flown them before. I really enjoyed it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BSUTOP25

BSUTOP25

Posted
Posted

This article indicates the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) might be the cause for the crashes:

https://www.philly.com/business/boeing-max-pilots-complained-suspected-safety-flaw-20190312.html 

Quote

The Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, or MCAS, was included on the Max 8 model aircraft as a safety mechanism that would automatically correct a plane entering a stall pattern. If the plane loses lift under its wings during takeoff and the nose begins to point far upward, the system kicks in and automatically pushes the nose of the plane down.

After the Lion Air crash, the FAA’s issued an airworthiness directive that said: “This condition, if not addressed, could cause the flight crew to have difficulty controlling the airplane, and lead to excessive nose-down attitude, significant altitude loss, and possible impact with terrain.”

Officials have not yet determined what caused Ethiopian Airlines 302 to nosedive into the ground on Sunday, but many experts have noted similarities between this week’s crash and the one in Indonesia.

 

Also this:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/03/13/boeing-737-max-8-pilots-voiced-safety-concerns-before-ethiopia-crash/3145393002/ 

Quote

Flight data recovered from the Indonesia crash indicated pilots repeatedly tried to get the plane’s nose up before impact. After the crash, Boeing issued a service bulletin warning pilots that erroneous flight data fed into the MCAS could force the aircraft into a dive for up to 10 seconds.

 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NVBlueNeck

NVBlueNeck

Posted
Posted
On 3/10/2019 at 1:30 AM, Joe from WY said:

I'd just be skeptical of flying 3rd World Airlines in general, honestly. 

That said, it is worrisome. Boeing should really ground the type worldwide/recall them, and see what the issue is. Something's +++++ed up. 

Thing is, these planes are almost brand new. So, it's either incompetent flight crew(but if so, then why aren't other types crashing as well), or there is a major problem with the avionics or fly by wire systems in the max 8

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mysfit

mysfit

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Trump's a moron.

 

Tech has exponentially INCREASED safety. The problem is fewer and fewer pilots have a feel for flying and are reluctant to over ride the tech. They also have less familiarity with the basics. 

 

So it's a bit of a conundrum between tech and safety but paying top dollar for pilots who can quickly handle something going belly up. 

One of the Final Five..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites
easybronc

easybronc

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, mysfit said:

Trump's a moron.

 

Tech has exponentially INCREASED safety. The problem is fewer and fewer pilots have a feel for flying and are reluctant to over ride the tech. They also have less familiarity with the basics. 

 

So it's a bit of a conundrum between tech and safety but paying top dollar for pilots who can quickly handle something going belly up. 

It doesn't take a stick and rudder guy to know he needs to pull back on the yoke when the plane is in a nosedive.  Any of the cockpit crew can hand fly the airplane if they need to.

       

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
easybronc

easybronc

Posted
Posted

Holy shet.  Naturally, any pilot input - pressure on the yoke - is supposed to disengage these systems.  These are hair raising accusations.  

The safety analysis:

  • Understated the power of the new flight control system, which was designed to swivel the horizontal tail to push the nose of the plane down to avert a stall. When the planes later entered service, MCAS was capable of moving the tail more than four times farther than was stated in the initial safety analysis document.
  • Failed to account for how the system could reset itself each time a pilot responded, thereby missing the potential impact of the system repeatedly pushing the airplane’s nose downward.
  • Assessed a failure of the system as one level below “catastrophic.” But even that “hazardous” danger level should have precluded activation of the system based on input from a single sensor — and yet that’s how it was designed..

       

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...