Ethiopian plane crash

[red_slr]

surveyor said:

red_slr said:

Sounds like the CVR or FDR has been found. Wonder what state its in, I would be impressed if its survived that impact.

I suspect we might see the 737 Max grounded for a few days whilst they look at the data...

That's what they are built to do...

I agree but still, impressive given it looks like almost none of the airframe survived and the engines are literally just down to their cores.

[CrutyRammers]

alangla said:

Wonder if TUI will be grounding theirs - AFAIK, they're the only UK operator with them and should have enough spare capacity with it being the winter season.
Norwegian, Turkish, Air Canada, Icelandair etc operate them in & out of the UK though.

We flew on one about a month ago, the pilot was proudly announcing how new it was

[snotrag]

red_slr said:

I agree but still, impressive given it looks like almost none of the airframe survived and the engines are literally just down to their cores.

The recorders will be fine. They are designed to manage massive impacts, crushing force etc.

[Munter]

snotrag said:

red_slr said:

I agree but still, impressive given it looks like almost none of the airframe survived and the engines are literally just down to their cores.

The recorders will be fine. They are designed to manage massive impacts, crushing force etc.

This has to be item no1 on the list of events they want the boxes to survive.

1. What if it nosedives into the ground at it's terminal velocity?
2. Same but into the sea.
3. Somehow ends up in a burning pool of jet fuel equivalent to the max fuel capacity of the jet

etc

[anonymous-user]

snotrag said:

red_slr said:

I agree but still, impressive given it looks like almost none of the airframe survived and the engines are literally just down to their cores.

The recorders will be fine. They are designed to manage massive impacts, crushing force etc.

A few incidents where the black box or CVR or FDR have been destroyed (plus some where they weren’t found) here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unrecovere...

[jbswagger]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-47534292

Boeing 737: Singapore bars entry and exit of 737 Max planes

[snake_oil]

jbswagger said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-47534292

Boeing 737: Singapore bars entry and exit of 737 Max planes

As does Australia.

https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2019/0312/1035823-et...

FAA: Nothing to see here please move on. Btw software update coming end of April. Errrrrr....

[Testaburger]

snake_oil said:

As does Australia.

https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2019/0312/1035823-et...

FAA: Nothing to see here please move on. Btw software update coming end of April. Errrrrr....

Software update is exactly that, too. Doesn’t alter the fact that MCAS is getting only one data source - the sad irony being that unreliable airspeed checklists ALWAYS essentially call for a pitch and power setting to get to a safe altitude, before deciphering which data source is erroneous, so you can then use the other(s).

MCAS just shoots from the hip essentially on it’s gut feeling. I’d wager by the time the pilots notice the hard nose down command, the stabiliser is already in position; bearing in mind they have (in both MAX) crashes been presented with an unreliable airspeed indication and will have taken a moment or two to decipher the info before them.

It sounds like a hideously nasty piece of kit to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.

[captain_cynic]

Testaburger said:

Software update is exactly that, too. Doesn’t alter the fact that MCAS is getting only one data source - the sad irony being that unreliable airspeed checklists ALWAYS essentially call for a pitch and power setting to get to a safe altitude, before deciphering which data source is erroneous, so you can then use the other(s).

MCAS just shoots from the hip essentially on it’s gut feeling. I’d wager by the time the pilots notice the hard nose down command, the stabiliser is already in position; bearing in mind they have (in both MAX) crashes been presented with an unreliable airspeed indication and will have taken a moment or two to decipher the info before them.

It sounds like a hideously nasty piece of kit to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.

Yep, how many 737NG's have been lost due to stalls that the MCAS could have prevented? We've lost two 737 Max's to the MCAS in 5 months.

Ironically, isn't this the kind of thing Boeing's marketers used to use to try to scare customers away from Airbus? That the fallible computers are in charge and the pilot can't do anything? A320 NEO's are configured with similar CFM LEAP engines and aren't having stalling issues and have had them for a good 8 months longer than Boeing.

Surely the correct thing to do here is to bypass or remove the faulty MCAS system, rather than rush out a patch.

[Eric Mc]

All the experts I've heard in the media talking about the 737 Max have said that the engines are further forward of the leading edge of the wing and positioned higher. This has altered the weight and balance of the aircraft compared to the previous versions (737-700/800/900) and that is why this anti-stalling software was installed.

[saaby93]

Eric Mc said:

All the experts I've heard in the media talking about the 737 Max have said that the engines are further forward of the leading edge of the wing and positioned higher. This has altered the weight and balance of the aircraft compared to the previous versions (737-700/800/900) and that is why this anti-stalling software was installed.

Probably why they didnt go for broke and install the engines on top of the wings
They could have raised the wings and mounted them at the top of the fuselage

[anonymous-user]

saaby93 said:

Probably why they didnt go for broke and install the engines on top of the wings
They could have raised the wings and mounted them at the top of the fuselage

To avoid centre of gravity problems on this 737 they should have built it with wings on top of the fuselage or put the engines on top of the wings?

Aren’t you describing a completely new aircraft?

[Ayahuasca]

The assumption is that the anti-stall software malfunctioned to put the aircraft into a nose down attitude.

But what if it functioned as designed and the aircraft would have stalled without it?

I might make sure my affairs are in order before my next flight in a 737 Max.

Mine will be in a Max 9 - although they haven't crashed yet I guess they have the same system fitted?

[captain_cynic]

saaby93 said:

Eric Mc said:

All the experts I've heard in the media talking about the 737 Max have said that the engines are further forward of the leading edge of the wing and positioned higher. This has altered the weight and balance of the aircraft compared to the previous versions (737-700/800/900) and that is why this anti-stalling software was installed.

Probably why they didnt go for broke and install the engines on top of the wings
They could have raised the wings and mounted them at the top of the fuselage

Like a BAe 146? if so, that introduces problems further down the plane by requiring a T tail. They have their angle of attack limited due to the wings blocking airflow over the elevators. IIRC, T tails are good for smaller regional airliners where the advantages of getting the engines off the ground outweigh the disadvantages of a T tail but not so good for larger aircraft.

If what Eric Mc says is true, then it could easily be a design flaw that causes the type to be withdrawn.

[anonymous-user]

captain_cynic said:

If what Eric Mc says is true, then it could easily be a design flaw that causes the type to be withdrawn.

Withdrawn?

What like they just all get scrapped?

[Munter]

captain_cynic said:

Ironically, isn't this the kind of thing Boeing's marketers used to use to try to scare customers away from Airbus?

I wonder how people would create this rhyme now: "If it's not Boeing I'm not..."

[Munter]

El stovey said:

captain_cynic said:

If what Eric Mc says is true, then it could easily be a design flaw that causes the type to be withdrawn.

Withdrawn?

What like they just all get scrapped?

I'd think they can engineer the flaw out. Clearly the thing usually flies. So once they know positively the route cause, then they can come up with a solution. Perhaps it's more/better speed sensors. Perhaps there's a great big "fk off computer just follow my controls I know what I'm doing" button. Or the software patch might be enough. Perhaps it's a complete rewrite of the software to solve the issues a different way. Who knows. But given the thing does fly most of the time", there must be a solution to be found.

[Eric Mc]

captain_cynic said:

Like a BAe 146? if so, that introduces problems further down the plane by requiring a T tail. They have their angle of attack limited due to the wings blocking airflow over the elevators. IIRC, T tails are good for smaller regional airliners where the advantages of getting the engines off the ground outweigh the disadvantages of a T tail but not so good for larger aircraft.

If what Eric Mc says is true, then it could easily be a design flaw that causes the type to be withdrawn.

It's not a design flaw as far as the way the aircraft is designed. It seems that the flaw is in the software solution to one undesirable aerodynamic feature and also a flaw in the poor instruction given to pilots converting from earlier versions of the 737 to the Max.

Mo aeroplane design is perfect. All aircraft have areas of their flight envelope that it is best to avoid. The important thing is that if the aircraft does go into one of these undesirable areas, both the flight systems and the crew recognise what is going on and know what the appropriate action is to get them out of the situation.

.

[J4CKO]

Munter said:

captain_cynic said:

Ironically, isn't this the kind of thing Boeing's marketers used to use to try to scare customers away from Airbus?

I wonder how people would create this rhyme now: "If it's not Boeing I'm not..."

I hate that phrase, I wonder if anyone has stopped at a gate and refused to get on and uttered it ?

Makes you wonder how, if it is MCAS how it got through flight testing ?

I am guessing they cant just inhibit it as the aircraft doesnt fly level without it, makes you wonder whether they will inhibit it and produce a workaround using manual trim to allow the Max fleet to fly again ?

I totally get how planes are flown by software to keep the plane in its envelope, it is intrinsic to all airliners now but this sounds to my laymans ears like a bodge plonked on top that isnt fully integrated with all the rest of the flght computer systems.

I suspect they will find the circumstances, be able to repeat it in a simulator and identify the issue, scary thought for the engineers and developers who put that in and signed it off, even more scary for Boeing.

Its funny how before, a 737 Max seemed like a new aircraft but doing a bit of reading you realise its a sixties aircraft that has had a lot of nips, tucks and botox. I thought people were getting a bit hysterical reading comments, calling it the "Death plane", but two of them crashing in a short period does make you think.

Just when aviation is getting safer and safer you get this, tragic.

[anonymous-user]

As I said above, the 737 should have ended years ago and Boeing should have made the 797 by now.

The problem is they got caught out by the airbus neo and this was the reaction. Also the problems with 787 production initially caused them to step back for a bit before developing another new type.

The 737 replacement is actually due now sometime after 2030. With the next Boeing to be a 757 replacement.

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 12th March 12:51