Boeing 737 Max again, it would be nice if the windows [door plugs] stayed in!

[Analog Kid]

They started doing go-around after the bird strike during landing. However it looks like pilots soon realized they won't be able to do it properly due to losing thrust in both engines and did a rapid shortcut from opposite direction instead. If they had continued the initial landing attempt after the bird strike, very likely they'll be fine.

Hmm; just going by that diagram (dunno how accurate it is, but it must be at least somewhat representative), two things:

1. They must have had engine thrust to be able to complete the go-around, which involved a climb as well as a turn.
2. How could they have completed the initial landing attempt when they were already at the end of the runway?

(Definitely not an aviation expert here)

[wraper]

1. They must have had engine thrust to be able to complete the go-around, which involved a climb as well as a turn.

You don't need thrust to climb. You can climb by losing speed.

2. How could they have completed the initial landing attempt when they were already at the end of the runway?

Runways work in both directions, duh. IIRC initial landing direction is runway 1, direction where plane crashed is called runway 19.

[Analog Kid]

2. How could they have completed the initial landing attempt when they were already at the end of the runway?

Runways work in both directions, duh. IIRC initial landing direction is runway 1, direction where plane crashed is called runway 19.

Yabbut, what do you mean, "duh"?
According to that illustration they were almost at the end of the runway on the first approach. What, they're going to turn on a dime?

[tszaboo]

Re. the recent accident, I wonder why the aircraft landed without the landing gear down and without any flaps deployed. Very odd.

Hydraulic failure. By recent accident which one do you mean, there was like 4 just in the past week. If you don't count the russians shooting down a commercial plane yet again then 3.

Unlikely cause. On the Boeing 737, the landing gear can be manually extended by pulling manual levers in the event of complete hydraulic failure. This system relies on gravity and free-fall - pulling manual extension levers engages cables that unlock the landing gear uplocks, allowing the gear to drop into place under its own weight.

https://nypost.com/2024/12/29/world-news/klm-royal-dutch-airlines-boeing-flight-skids-off-runway-in-norway-after-hydraulic-failure/

"due to a hydraulic failure"
What are the chances that two planes has the same sort of failures the same day? Apparently quite high. Probably wasn't an isolated incident, probably once again, many things went wrong with a Boeing at the same time. Again. Maybe if they assassinate more ex-quality managers, the situation will improve.

[MT]

3 years ago. Boeing’s 737 Max Software Outsourced to $9-an-Hour Engineers.
https://archive.ph/vdg9S

That number gets quoted like it should alarm people. The full quote is "workers making as little as $9 an hour to develop and test software", so its the starting point. Its not that far below minimum wage in some European countries, and there are plenty of people with entry level software jobs getting little more than minimum wage. The real question is what level of expertise did the senior people on these projects bring to the table?

9usd a hour expertise? Do you write better code if you are paid 99 usd an hour instead? Will the senior expertise be better if paid 999usd an hour?

[bdunham7]

According to that illustration they were almost at the end of the runway on the first approach. What, they're going to turn on a dime?

The illustration is "not to scale", meaning wildly inaccurate.  According to the last known data IIRC they were at an altitude of 500ft on a more or less normal approach profile.  It looks to me like they decided to go around and then things went to hell, probably because more damage to the airplane became apparent as systems failed. 

[floobydust]

It's money. You wouldn't find competent software engineers for $9/hr here, maybe not even farther east in the former USSR.

So I wonder where those $9 guys may have been from (well, I actually don't, everybody knows the answer )

What happens is they have fake training programs to mass produce instant credentials to put on your resume. Qualifying you to write flight control software despite never having been on an airplane. New graduates welcome!
We talk about how merit-based hiring has been tossed out with DEI, but the fake skills mill is another big problem.

How I deal with it is pretty easy - candidates get a 10 question test to complete, simple questions using Ohm's Law or common EE knowledge. No phone or google assistance, just you and your head, and plenty of time.
Another company I know gives a multimeter and dud machine to troubleshoot. Why is this dead/won't start etc.? The candidate is even paid for their time doing this test.
In both instances, the results are quite saddening. Very few can achieve a basic outcome. All the resume hype gets shattered.
Unless you spend more, offer a higher wage to the experienced people- noobs are not suitable for safety and high performance tech work.

Do you think the Indians in Boeing India are easily fooled by credential mills? That's something that happens when you are thousands of kilometres from the "institution" and have no idea what is might really be. HR in India are really tight about checking things like that. Big companies there only hire from well known colleges.

Uh, wrong direction I think - it's (to) HR in North America that is clueless about the unaccredited colleges, the candidate's fake creds.
When I asked about it - checking references or education of someone from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran etc. or India (which is scammer central) - HR didn't do it. You need a translator and even then the cred mills are not known. Does Tesla or Boeing have HR in India?

[Analog Kid]

Well, suppose that's the case and some Indian fraudster manages to fool (Boeing, whoever) into hiring them as a tech of some kind.

How long until they discover that he's incompetent and useless at his job and boot his ass out?
It's not as if they'll be able to "fake it until they make it" at a job where you have to know what you're doing.
These companies still have this thing called "supervision", so far as I know.

[krish2487]

Counterpoint to your argument, Apple iphone manufacturing is entirely done in China - they make good money on it AND dont compromise in quality..

"Designed by Apple in California, assembled in China" is how it went

lol!!! The point still stands... if the design is world class but manufacturing is touch and go.. it wouldnt still sell so much would it..
My point is that QC has to be present in all stages of the PLM, not just design.. It is still a failure if it fails in any one stage in the chain..

Now you and I can argue that its not the build quality or the features or the price (shudder) that makes apple sell so many iphones... but lets shelve that discussion for another day. 

[vad]

Re. the recent accident, I wonder why the aircraft landed without the landing gear down and without any flaps deployed. Very odd.

Hydraulic failure. By recent accident which one do you mean, there was like 4 just in the past week. If you don't count the russians shooting down a commercial plane yet again then 3.

Unlikely cause. On the Boeing 737, the landing gear can be manually extended by pulling manual levers in the event of complete hydraulic failure. This system relies on gravity and free-fall - pulling manual extension levers engages cables that unlock the landing gear uplocks, allowing the gear to drop into place under its own weight.

https://nypost.com/2024/12/29/world-news/klm-royal-dutch-airlines-boeing-flight-skids-off-runway-in-norway-after-hydraulic-failure/

"due to a hydraulic failure"
What are the chances that two planes has the same sort of failures the same day? Apparently quite high. Probably wasn't an isolated incident, probably once again, many things went wrong with a Boeing at the same time. Again. Maybe if they assassinate more ex-quality managers, the situation will improve.

I understand your way of thinking now, but I have a better theory. A few days prior to that, the Russians shot down a passenger plane with a surface-to-air missile. What are the chances that North Korea, Russia’s closest ally in its war in Europe, has also shot down another passenger plane using a SAM? Apparently, they’re quite high. The two planes share many similarities: both have exactly two turbofan engines, both are operated by two pilots, and both carry passengers. This likely wasn’t an isolated incident - many things seem to be going wrong in the world lately.

[coppice]

Do you think the Indians in Boeing India are easily fooled by credential mills? That's something that happens when you are thousands of kilometres from the "institution" and have no idea what is might really be. HR in India are really tight about checking things like that. Big companies there only hire from well known colleges.

Uh, wrong direction I think - it's (to) HR in North America that is clueless about the unaccredited colleges, the candidate's fake creds.
When I asked about it - checking references or education of someone from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran etc. or India (which is scammer central) - HR didn't do it. You need a translator and even then the cred mills are not known. Does Tesla or Boeing have HR in India?

Why would Indians hiring Indians to work in Boeing's Indian operations involve North American HR? In my experience American companies leave locals to deal with local issues. They don't understand local employment laws or practices, and they are realistic about that. Indians try hard to be thorough vetting the people they hire. I have been involved in recruiting engineers in India, but only vetting on a technical basis. Local HR has always been careful to verify claims of education and work experience.

[tszaboo]

I understand your way of thinking now, but I have a better theory. A few days prior to that, the Russians shot down a passenger plane with a surface-to-air missile. What are the chances that North Korea, Russia’s closest ally in its war in Europe, has also shot down another passenger plane using a SAM? Apparently, they’re quite high. The two planes share many similarities: both have exactly two turbofan engines, both are operated by two pilots, and both carry passengers. This likely wasn’t an isolated incident - many things seem to be going wrong in the world lately.

Sure, and NK managed to only hit the wheels.
Or maybe "No flaps, no gear" is a clear indication of hydraulic failure, something that's driven by the same  hydraulic system, and which seems to fail the same way.

[tggzzz]

I understand your way of thinking now, but I have a better theory. A few days prior to that, the Russians shot down a passenger plane with a surface-to-air missile. What are the chances that North Korea, Russia’s closest ally in its war in Europe, has also shot down another passenger plane using a SAM? Apparently, they’re quite high. The two planes share many similarities: both have exactly two turbofan engines, both are operated by two pilots, and both carry passengers. This likely wasn’t an isolated incident - many things seem to be going wrong in the world lately.

Sure, and NK managed to only hit the wheels.
Or maybe "No flaps, no gear" is a clear indication of hydraulic failure, something that's driven by the same  hydraulic system, and which seems to fail the same way.

It is entirely possible to have two aircraft suffer hydraulic (or electric or propulsion) within a short period. Since those systems are complex, distributed and redundant, such time-coincident failures mean very little. What would mean something is if the same component failed. Unless you have evidence that the same component failed, noticing that two hydraulic failure occurred would be spurious hypothesis. (Analogy: three people die of heart failure means nothing; one was a congenital malformation, one a heart attack, one a valve failure. Nothing to see there!)

Since hydraulic systems are flight critical, there are more than one independent hydraulic systems.

I am aware of one airliner that suffered catastrophic failure of all three independent hydraulic systems: ua232. There the dicy10's central rear engine spewed turbine blades, and cut all three systems in the tail section. The only working controls were the two wing engine thrust controls, and the plane could only turn right. Stunningly the three pilots (one deadheading) managed to hit an airfield. In later simulations nobody else managed that.

The ua232 saga is well worth understanding. Ignore the Hollywood film, concentrate on "The Crash of United Flight 232 by Capt. Al Haynes"  http://www.iamcraig.com/files/2010/11/al_haynes_united_232.pdf I first read that over 30 years ago on usenet, and my hair stood on end. It still does whenever I reread it. By comparison Sullenberger's ditching into the Hudson was very very boring!

[CatalinaWOW]

It is easy to speculate.  Another theory.  The pilots didn't respond well to a flight emergency near ground.  And initiate a cascade of events that resulted in no gear.


Before anyone is crucified it would be good to wait for the data from the flight recorders, and better yet the investigation report.

The only thing I would conclude at this time is that it is very dangerous to have an over run at this airport and possibly at other Korean airports.

[floobydust]

Do you think the Indians in Boeing India are easily fooled by credential mills? That's something that happens when you are thousands of kilometres from the "institution" and have no idea what is might really be. HR in India are really tight about checking things like that. Big companies there only hire from well known colleges.

Uh, wrong direction I think - it's (to) HR in North America that is clueless about the unaccredited colleges, the candidate's fake creds.
When I asked about it - checking references or education of someone from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran etc. or India (which is scammer central) - HR didn't do it. You need a translator and even then the cred mills are not known. Does Tesla or Boeing have HR in India?

Why would Indians hiring Indians to work in Boeing's Indian operations involve North American HR? In my experience American companies leave locals to deal with local issues. They don't understand local employment laws or practices, and they are realistic about that. Indians try hard to be thorough vetting the people they hire. I have been involved in recruiting engineers in India, but only vetting on a technical basis. Local HR has always been careful to verify claims of education and work experience.

We don't know exactly how Boeing outsourced MCAS software. There's not a peep how they did it or any criminal charges or fines etc. just a company mentioned. They probably (and successfully) laundered the trail of responsibility. I thought Boeing USA dealt with the consultants, with Boeing India not involved because they don't make planes there. How can you claim flight control experience or get it done there? This is why I'm not sure who's HR failed to qualify the workers.

Contrast this with Volkswagen who outsourced Dieselgate ECU S/W to Bosch. Despite the Bosch disclaimer "for test only" I thought they ended up fined and had criminal charges against some of their people.

[tggzzz]

It is easy to speculate.  Another theory.  The pilots didn't respond well to a flight emergency near ground.  And initiate a cascade of events that resulted in no gear.

Yeah. Been there, done that, thought the ground run was unusually short. No emergency, but my pride took a battering.

[hans]

It is easy to speculate.  Another theory.  The pilots didn't respond well to a flight emergency near ground.  And initiate a cascade of events that resulted in no gear.


Before anyone is crucified it would be good to wait for the data from the flight recorders, and better yet the investigation report.

The only thing I would conclude at this time is that it is very dangerous to have an over run at this airport and possibly at other Korean airports.

Yep.
And both could make the cascade of events be completely reasonable but tragic, or very bad. We just don't know right now.

E.g. the landing on the Hudson river was also "unnecessary" in the sense that the aircraft could have reached a nearby runway. But only if they would have made a split second decision on what to do, would have turned around immedetiately, get clearance from ATC on their mayday proceedings, etc.
And in hindsight, only to save the jet. Luckily everyone walked away from that flight.

If the Jeju made a single engine approach with this as a result, that would be quite poor. Single engine failures are part of regular sim training and shouldn't result in panic.
If they made this approach without any engines, then it needs to be seen why the landing gear failed. But it would be one of those split second decisions to land on water or land, which could work out well or it cannot.. 

[tom66]

I am aware of one airliner that suffered catastrophic failure of all three independent hydraulic systems: ua232. There the dicy10's central rear engine spewed turbine blades, and cut all three systems in the tail section. The only working controls were the two wing engine thrust controls, and the plane could only turn right. Stunningly the three pilots (one deadheading) managed to hit an airfield. In later simulations nobody else managed that.

The ua232 saga is well worth understanding. Ignore the Hollywood film, concentrate on "The Crash of United Flight 232 by Capt. Al Haynes"  http://www.iamcraig.com/files/2010/11/al_haynes_united_232.pdf I first read that over 30 years ago on usenet, and my hair stood on end. It still does whenever I reread it. By comparison Sullenberger's ditching into the Hudson was very very boring!

In my humble opinion, DHL Baghdad is even more impressive, though no passengers were onboard:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Baghdad_DHL_attempted_shootdown_incident

A surface to air missile struck the left wing fuel tank of the A300, severing all three hydraulic systems.  Fortunately as the tank was full no explosion occurred.  The crew managed to figure out how to fly the jet with differential thrust, maintaining level and stable flight and eventually landing the jet.  The landing was nominally successful, the jet sustained some damage during the landing, but all three crew survived and cargo was recoverable.  The jet was however never flown again - the wing damage was considered too severe to repair for revenue service.

[tggzzz]

I am aware of one airliner that suffered catastrophic failure of all three independent hydraulic systems: ua232. There the dicy10's central rear engine spewed turbine blades, and cut all three systems in the tail section. The only working controls were the two wing engine thrust controls, and the plane could only turn right. Stunningly the three pilots (one deadheading) managed to hit an airfield. In later simulations nobody else managed that.

The ua232 saga is well worth understanding. Ignore the Hollywood film, concentrate on "The Crash of United Flight 232 by Capt. Al Haynes"  http://www.iamcraig.com/files/2010/11/al_haynes_united_232.pdf I first read that over 30 years ago on usenet, and my hair stood on end. It still does whenever I reread it. By comparison Sullenberger's ditching into the Hudson was very very boring!

In my humble opinion, DHL Baghdad is even more impressive, though no passengers were onboard:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Baghdad_DHL_attempted_shootdown_incident

A surface to air missile struck the left wing fuel tank of the A300, severing all three hydraulic systems.  Fortunately as the tank was full no explosion occurred.  The crew managed to figure out how to fly the jet with differential thrust, maintaining level and stable flight and eventually landing the jet.  The landing was nominally successful, the jet sustained some damage during the landing, but all three crew survived and cargo was recoverable.  The jet was however never flown again - the wing damage was considered too severe to repair for revenue service.

First I've heard of that onw. Impressive indeed! I wonder if the ua323 experience gave them hints as to what to do.

The other significant wing damage I can think of is the Israeli F15 that collided with an A4 and lost one wing, all of it. Made a successful very hot landing. Video on yootoob, an example of a topic that is brief an needs the moving pictures.

[m k]

"Only when McDonnell Douglas later went to analyze it, they said, OK, the F-15 has a very wide [lifting] body; you fly fast enough and you're like a rocket. You don't need wings."

Landing gears must have max. landing speed.
Maybe they thought they are better off without.

[tggzzz]

"Only when McDonnell Douglas later went to analyze it, they said, OK, the F-15 has a very wide [lifting] body; you fly fast enough and you're like a rocket. You don't need wings."

Old joke: with enough thrust, you can make a brick fly.

The F15 would have had rather asymmetric lift, which might have caused it to rifle through the air like a bullet.

[Monkeh]

I am aware of one airliner that suffered catastrophic failure of all three independent hydraulic systems: ua232. There the dicy10's central rear engine spewed turbine blades, and cut all three systems in the tail section. The only working controls were the two wing engine thrust controls, and the plane could only turn right. Stunningly the three pilots (one deadheading) managed to hit an airfield. In later simulations nobody else managed that.

Japan Air 123 suffered failure of all four hydraulic systems after a rear pressure bulkhead repair (done quite incorrectly) failed and caused the loss of the vertical stabilizer (in which all four systems converge).

[tggzzz]

I am aware of one airliner that suffered catastrophic failure of all three independent hydraulic systems: ua232. There the dicy10's central rear engine spewed turbine blades, and cut all three systems in the tail section. The only working controls were the two wing engine thrust controls, and the plane could only turn right. Stunningly the three pilots (one deadheading) managed to hit an airfield. In later simulations nobody else managed that.

Japan Air 123 suffered failure of all four hydraulic systems after a rear pressure bulkhead repair (done quite incorrectly) failed and caused the loss of the vertical stabilizer (in which all four systems converge).

Useful pointer

[vk6zgo]

I am aware of one airliner that suffered catastrophic failure of all three independent hydraulic systems: ua232. There the dicy10's central rear engine spewed turbine blades, and cut all three systems in the tail section. The only working controls were the two wing engine thrust controls, and the plane could only turn right. Stunningly the three pilots (one deadheading) managed to hit an airfield. In later simulations nobody else managed that.

The ua232 saga is well worth understanding. Ignore the Hollywood film, concentrate on "The Crash of United Flight 232 by Capt. Al Haynes"  http://www.iamcraig.com/files/2010/11/al_haynes_united_232.pdf I first read that over 30 years ago on usenet, and my hair stood on end. It still does whenever I reread it. By comparison Sullenberger's ditching into the Hudson was very very boring!

In my humble opinion, DHL Baghdad is even more impressive, though no passengers were onboard:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Baghdad_DHL_attempted_shootdown_incident

A surface to air missile struck the left wing fuel tank of the A300, severing all three hydraulic systems.  Fortunately as the tank was full no explosion occurred.  The crew managed to figure out how to fly the jet with differential thrust, maintaining level and stable flight and eventually landing the jet.  The landing was nominally successful, the jet sustained some damage during the landing, but all three crew survived and cargo was recoverable.  The jet was however never flown again - the wing damage was considered too severe to repair for revenue service.

First I've heard of that onw. Impressive indeed! I wonder if the ua323 experience gave them hints as to what to do.

The other significant wing damage I can think of is the Israeli F15 that collided with an A4 and lost one wing, all of it. Made a successful very hot landing. Video on yootoob, an example of a topic that is brief an needs the moving pictures.

OK, but what happened to the A4?
I know they are tough, but that sounds a bit extreme.

[Monkeh]

OK, but what happened to the A4?
I know they are tough, but that sounds a bit extreme.

The parts in close formation exited formation.