Author Topic: Lion Air crash: Jakarta Boeing 737 'had prior instrument error'  (Read 63880 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Gyro

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4781
  • Country: gb
Re: Lion Air crash: Jakarta Boeing 737 'had prior instrument error'
« Reply #425 on: March 18, 2019, 12:35:15 pm »
It can take off like a Vulcan bomber:

Now that really was something to experience! I remember an airshow at RAF Finningley when I was a kid, back when they were still fully operational. One gently cruised in at low level and then, half way along the runway, just sat on its tail and went up almost vertically. The feeling of my chest being forcibly compressed completely overwhelmed the indescribable roar.

It left a lasting impression even after all these years, I've never experienced anything like it again. That level of noise exposure would never be allowed these days of course.

Sorry, OT.

P.S. I saw its last airshow at Yeovilton. Sadly, they were very gentle on the airframe and engines, they did deploy the parachute though.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2019, 12:55:06 pm by Gyro »
Chris

"Victor Meldrew, the Crimson Avenger!"
 
The following users thanked this post: SeanB

Offline nfmax

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 854
  • Country: gb
Re: Lion Air crash: Jakarta Boeing 737 'had prior instrument error'
« Reply #426 on: March 18, 2019, 01:30:49 pm »
Standard airshow stuff for new planes. Light fuel load and a completely empty cabin. Even the passenger seats and cabin trim may be missing. Much bigger power to weight ratio than a normal commercial takeoff.
A long time ago, I flew in a British Midland 747 from San Diego to LHR. The aircraft had flown from LHR to LAX, then the little hop down to San Diego to drop off the last few passengers. It took off with about 30 passengers on board, and hardly any fuel. Whoosh....
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki

Offline LapTop006

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 455
  • Country: au
Re: Lion Air crash: Jakarta Boeing 737 'had prior instrument error'
« Reply #427 on: March 18, 2019, 02:34:47 pm »
Standard airshow stuff for new planes. Light fuel load and a completely empty cabin. Even the passenger seats and cabin trim may be missing. Much bigger power to weight ratio than a normal commercial takeoff.
A long time ago, I flew in a British Midland 747 from San Diego to LHR. The aircraft had flown from LHR to LAX, then the little hop down to San Diego to drop off the last few passengers. It took off with about 30 passengers on board, and hardly any fuel. Whoosh....

Qantas used to fly LAX->AKL->MEL, one day by chance I happened to hop on the AKL->MEL leg, after the vast majority of passengers & cargo had left, along with the light fuel load for such a short hop it took off like the proverbial bat out of hell.

One of my favourite flying memories.
 

Offline MT

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1166
  • Country: fo
Re: Lion Air crash: Jakarta Boeing 737 'had prior instrument error'
« Reply #428 on: March 18, 2019, 02:48:38 pm »
^The US Airforce did experiments with reverse raked wings. This was inherently instable and required active electronic management of some of the control surfaces. This is kind of along the lines of what I am thinking that MCAS was actually made to do... to make faster than human adjustments to reduce the effects of inherent instability. Unlike the reverse wing fighter jets, which had complete runaway instability, perhaps the change in engines created some undesired oscillations between 2 or 3 points of shared stability which were not fatal (until incorrectly MCAS'd) but uncomfortable.
Seams both US X29 and Sovjets SU47 got raked wing concept from Junkers Ju287 which all of them suffered from warping wings at certain flight conditions which a MCAS would not fix i presume.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2019, 03:04:45 pm by MT »
 

Offline boffin

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 884
  • Country: ca
Re: Lion Air crash: Jakarta Boeing 737 'had prior instrument error'
« Reply #429 on: March 18, 2019, 03:22:28 pm »
But, because these sticks are not coupled and do not have any force feedback, the pilots did not know what the other one was doing.

This is something that has always struck me as an absolutely stupid design. If the plane has two sticks, they should absolutely be mechanically linked together, or only one set of controls should be active at a time, with a very obvious indication of which is active. I never liked the sidestick arrangement anyway, it just looks wrong, and seems like it would be awkward.

Actually in most modern passenger aircraft the left controls are connected to the left elevator, the right controls, right elevator and there's a sheer pin that can be broken (on purpose) if there's a jam, so that each side independently controls elevators; everything from roughly Dash-8 and bigger.  Egypt Air 990 was a case where this was highlighted in what appears to be pilot v pilot fight for  the aircraft.
 

Online Gyro

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4781
  • Country: gb
Re: Lion Air crash: Jakarta Boeing 737 'had prior instrument error'
« Reply #430 on: March 18, 2019, 04:26:48 pm »
Standard airshow stuff for new planes. Light fuel load and a completely empty cabin. Even the passenger seats and cabin trim may be missing. Much bigger power to weight ratio than a normal commercial takeoff.
A long time ago, I flew in a British Midland 747 from San Diego to LHR. The aircraft had flown from LHR to LAX, then the little hop down to San Diego to drop off the last few passengers. It took off with about 30 passengers on board, and hardly any fuel. Whoosh....

I used to do a fairly regular trip to Cork airport from LHR. Cork is a small airport built on the top of a hill (you can't see one end of the runway from the other, subject to low cloud too). On days with unfavourable wind direction and speed (frequent) taking of from Cork used to involve bringing the tanker out, taking fuel off the plane (737) and using the short cross runway... Taxi right to the very end, turn without going onto the grass, full brakes, full throttle and release. As you say, "Whoosh...."

The plane would then fly to Shannon (much bigger, international flights), to fill up with sufficient fuel to fly back to LHR. I kid you not!

This was back in the '80s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cork_Airport
« Last Edit: March 18, 2019, 04:31:25 pm by Gyro »
Chris

"Victor Meldrew, the Crimson Avenger!"
 

Offline djacobow

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1049
  • Country: us
  • takin' it apart since the 70's
Re: Lion Air crash: Jakarta Boeing 737 'had prior instrument error'
« Reply #431 on: March 18, 2019, 04:47:41 pm »
It sounds like the MAX is inherently more prone to getting away from the pilot and stalling at high AOA maneuvers, and it harder to recover from, requiring much greater input to the elevator and less ability to add useful thrust?

Yes, I think this is basically true, but the caveat is that it gets unstable once you've already gotten it into a high AOA situation, which in normal ops should not happen. You might say that a pilot's #1 one job flying and airplane is keeping the wing flying, so this defect -- that the plane is a problematic performer at high AOA -- is perhaps less of an operational defect than it seems.

Essentially, without electronic help, the MAX has less maneuverability.

Again, this is not an airshow stuntplane, it's maneuverability at high AOA isn't generally that important, because it's not supposed to be there. And indications so far from these accidents is that the plan did not have high AOA when the problem kicked in. A faulty sensor made it *think* it was experiencing high AOA.


If a pilot is pushing a passenger jet carrying 200 people to the utmost limit, you'd think he has a really, really good and really, really imminent reason... like to avoid hitting something (including the ground).

History has shown it both ways. Sometimes a pilot correctly pushes a plane beyond its safe envelope because of good reason that requires it, sometimes pilots have caused accidents by doing so.

 

Offline djacobow

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1049
  • Country: us
  • takin' it apart since the 70's
Re: Lion Air crash: Jakarta Boeing 737 'had prior instrument error'
« Reply #432 on: March 18, 2019, 04:50:10 pm »
The problem in 737Max case is that MCAS kicks in and starts quietly adding downward trim before the stick shaker angle of attack. And as far as I know this only this happens in manual flight mode. This was poorly explained to the pilots who's first reaction would be to countermand that input with opposite trim with the trim hat on the yoke. That apparently is not the way you disable MCAS and it keeps on fighting your inputs.

I'm not quite certain of this, but I believe in the Lionair case, the published data show that the stick shaker was going on one side. I haven't seen the ET data yet. I'd be surprised if MCAS before the stick shaker kicks in, but there's a lot surprising in these accidents.
 

Offline G7PSK

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3644
  • Country: gb
  • It is hot until proved not.
Re: Lion Air crash: Jakarta Boeing 737 'had prior instrument error'
« Reply #433 on: March 18, 2019, 05:47:52 pm »
It can take off like a Vulcan bomber:

Now that really was something to experience! I remember an airshow at RAF Finningley when I was a kid, back when they were still fully operational. One gently cruised in at low level and then, half way along the runway, just sat on its tail and went up almost vertically. The feeling of my chest being forcibly compressed completely overwhelmed the indescribable roar.

It left a lasting impression even after all these years, I've never experienced anything like it again. That level of noise exposure would never be allowed these days of course.

Sorry, OT.

P.S. I saw its last airshow at Yeovilton. Sadly, they were very gentle on the airframe and engines, they did deploy the parachute though.
I used to have workshop 400 meters from the main runway at RAF Marha,Marham Norfolk, all the air shows by the Vulcan bomber as the ground control officer was based there so I used to see the vulcan doing it's thing several times a year over about a 15 year period. Also saw and heard the Victor tankers taking off at all times of the day and night as with the Canberra's reconosance and the Tornado's, The noise level was so graet at times that it caused mortar to run down the walls, the engine run up area was less than 50 meters from my workshop. The only good side was the neighbors did complain about any noise I made at any time of day or night in the workshop.
 
The following users thanked this post: SeanB, Gyro

Offline floobydust

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2957
  • Country: ca
Re: Lion Air crash: Jakarta Boeing 737 'had prior instrument error'
« Reply #434 on: March 18, 2019, 08:05:51 pm »
It's terrible to see engineers forced to either roll out unsafe shit, or lose their job.

The managers, executives etc. suffer little for their corruption, even when caught. One or two people might get fined or some jail time, despite hundreds killed.

Further proof is the way Boeing is handling things, as a "software upgrade" which doesn't even cover the AOA sensors having poor reliability in the first place.
 

Online GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1973
  • Country: pl
Re: Lion Air crash: Jakarta Boeing 737 'had prior instrument error'
« Reply #435 on: March 18, 2019, 08:11:57 pm »
Further proof is the way Boeing is handling things, as a "software upgrade" which doesn't even cover the AOA sensors having poor reliability in the first place.

Wait, wait... perhaps it's not the sensors' fault, but a software bug.
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken.
 

Online Gyro

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4781
  • Country: gb
Re: Lion Air crash: Jakarta Boeing 737 'had prior instrument error'
« Reply #436 on: March 18, 2019, 08:30:55 pm »
A storm is slowly but surely approaching Boeing, (https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/18/18270910/boeing-faa-investigation-max-8-mcas-trump)

...

Every time politicians, MBAs and managers meddle with technical issues something fails.

"... participated in phone conversations with top Boeing executives and other stakeholders, offering his thoughts on the aviation industry. But since then, he has faced criticism that his over-involvement stymied the FAA from acting sooner. "

Nooooooh!   :palm:
Chris

"Victor Meldrew, the Crimson Avenger!"
 

Offline floobydust

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2957
  • Country: ca
Re: Lion Air crash: Jakarta Boeing 737 'had prior instrument error'
« Reply #437 on: March 18, 2019, 08:49:44 pm »
Further proof is the way Boeing is handling things, as a "software upgrade" which doesn't even cover the AOA sensors having poor reliability in the first place.

Wait, wait... perhaps it's not the sensors' fault, but a software bug.

The AOA sensor is first in the chain of events, it triggers the MCAS software. Unless the flight control software has huge bugs...

MCAS I thought only activates in manual mode, and the prior complaints by two pilots had problems when autopilot was engaged, when MCAS should be disabled then.
Also, autothrottle did not work in one instance. This implies there's some other problem.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/sensor-cited-as-potential-factor-in-boeing-crashes-draws-scrutiny/2019/03/17/5ecf0b0e-4682-11e9-aaf8-4512a6fe3439_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.271f3763b148
 
The following users thanked this post: GeorgeOfTheJungle

Online KL27x

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3504
  • Country: us
Re: Lion Air crash: Jakarta Boeing 737 'had prior instrument error'
« Reply #438 on: March 19, 2019, 02:01:09 am »
Even if there's no software bug, even if the AOA sensor is the most reliable sensor on the plane, there is an error in the design/implementation. If software bugs are also discovered, oh boy. Not that the engineers are the fault. Mistakes happen, and that is why the approval process (normally) takes as long as it does.

Quote
A storm is slowly but surely approaching Boeing, (https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/18/18270910/boeing-faa-investigation-max-8-mcas-trump)
Sure, Boeing is going to be "Shenzu Air" after Chinese investors buy it. J/K. They'll get a government bailout, if it comes to that. Maybe one scapegoat goes to jail for 2 years. But what about the FAA? Surely a bunch of those guys can be liberated from the federal payroll and offered some time behind bars for endangerment of human life if not bribery. And who knows how high up this goes into the government? Does it even end at the FAA?
« Last Edit: March 19, 2019, 02:09:35 am by KL27x »
 

Offline djacobow

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1049
  • Country: us
  • takin' it apart since the 70's
Re: Lion Air crash: Jakarta Boeing 737 'had prior instrument error'
« Reply #439 on: March 19, 2019, 02:14:56 am »
Even if there's no software bug, even if the AOA sensor is the most reliable sensor on the plane, there is an error in the design/implementation. If software bugs are also discovered, oh boy. Not that the engineers are the fault. Mistakes happen, and that is why the approval process (normally) takes as long as it does.

Quote
A storm is slowly but surely approaching Boeing, (https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/18/18270910/boeing-faa-investigation-max-8-mcas-trump)
Sure, Boeing is going to be "Shenzu Air" after Chinese investors buy it. J/K. They'll get a government bailout, if it comes to that. Maybe one scapegoat goes to jail for 2 years. But what about the FAA? Surely a bunch of those guys can be liberated from the federal payroll and offered some time behind bars for endangerment of human life if not bribery. And who knows how high up this goes into the government? Does it even end at the FAA?

You guys seem awfully sure that Boeing and the FAA worked together to sell an airplane they knew was unsafe. I'll agree, I think that if that is proven, the punishment should be very severe. But I think you do not need that kind of behavior to produce a bad outcome. I think it's interesting that so many people do. What incentive do either of those organizations have to certify a passenger killing machine?
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki

Online imo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1933
  • Country: 00
Re: Lion Air crash: Jakarta Boeing 737 'had prior instrument error'
« Reply #440 on: March 19, 2019, 12:29:51 pm »
Quote
Airlines want safety, but with margins so slim, they are forced to worry about their bottom line. And the FAA wants safety, but needs to weigh the Cost-Benefit of each new advance. So in the end, it is often Tombstone Technology and accidents -- that drive the industry forward.
 

Online Marco

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4410
  • Country: nl
Re: Lion Air crash: Jakarta Boeing 737 'had prior instrument error'
« Reply #441 on: March 19, 2019, 02:10:15 pm »
Can there be a 737 Max pilot that does not know about MCAS and how to respond when it acts up anywhere in the world at this point?

Did Boeing actually send out mandatory to read information to airlines explaining the MCAS system after the first accident? Or would those pilots have to have followed the news, with all its inaccuracies?

If Boeing continued to pretend that pilots really didn't need to know there was an automatic control in a plane where pilots very much expect there not to be one, that's still on them.
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3581
  • Country: us
Re: Lion Air crash: Jakarta Boeing 737 'had prior instrument error'
« Reply #442 on: March 19, 2019, 03:00:50 pm »
Uh hu..

The 737 MAX Saga Is a Total Disgrace for Boeing and the FAA

Quote
This whole affair seems like a perfect microcosm for our twisted and broken modern U.S. economy and culture in general. Greed, regulatory capture and death — it has it all.
 

Offline MT

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1166
  • Country: fo
Re: Lion Air crash: Jakarta Boeing 737 'had prior instrument error'
« Reply #443 on: March 19, 2019, 03:07:55 pm »
Even if there's no software bug, even if the AOA sensor is the most reliable sensor on the plane, there is an error in the design/implementation. If software bugs are also discovered, oh boy. Not that the engineers are the fault. Mistakes happen, and that is why the approval process (normally) takes as long as it does.

Quote
A storm is slowly but surely approaching Boeing, (https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/18/18270910/boeing-faa-investigation-max-8-mcas-trump)
Sure, Boeing is going to be "Shenzu Air" after Chinese investors buy it. J/K. They'll get a government bailout, if it comes to that. Maybe one scapegoat goes to jail for 2 years. But what about the FAA? Surely a bunch of those guys can be liberated from the federal payroll and offered some time behind bars for endangerment of human life if not bribery. And who knows how high up this goes into the government? Does it even end at the FAA?
Mmkaay, now FBI with special counsel Miiuulleeerr and DOJ is setting up a investigation to Russian collusion as they suspect Piutin has caused the MCAS software bug. 2 years later no collusion was found and Miiuulleer refuses to release clown report while Dumpf having tea and cakes with Boing CEO..
« Last Edit: March 19, 2019, 03:10:24 pm by MT »
 
The following users thanked this post: mtdoc

Online Kjelt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5694
  • Country: nl
Re: Lion Air crash: Jakarta Boeing 737 'had prior instrument error'
« Reply #444 on: March 19, 2019, 03:36:54 pm »
 

Online Marco

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4410
  • Country: nl
Re: Lion Air crash: Jakarta Boeing 737 'had prior instrument error'
« Reply #445 on: March 19, 2019, 04:43:03 pm »
The Hudson river landing was a good example of why pilots need an internalized model of the flight system and why arcane rote procedures to deal with failures are not enough.
 

Offline SeanB

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 15122
  • Country: za
Re: Lion Air crash: Jakarta Boeing 737 'had prior instrument error'
« Reply #446 on: March 19, 2019, 04:53:14 pm »
I used to have workshop 400 meters from the main runway at RAF Marha,Marham Norfolk, all the air shows by the Vulcan bomber as the ground control officer was based there so I used to see the vulcan doing it's thing several times a year over about a 15 year period. Also saw and heard the Victor tankers taking off at all times of the day and night as with the Canberra's reconosance and the Tornado's, The noise level was so graet at times that it caused mortar to run down the walls, the engine run up area was less than 50 meters from my workshop. The only good side was the neighbors did complain about any noise I made at any time of day or night in the workshop.

OHS came around one day where I was, to measure sound levels. Coincidentally there was an Atar 09k50 in the test bed being given an after service check. Started, run till warm then the full power with full afterburner test while they were measuring sound pressure levels in the complex. 130dB plus, a half kilometer away from the test bed, and nobody noticed it as it was normal.

Now scary was when I accidentally got a flight in an aircraft that officially did not exist, and we needed all 4km of runway, plus a little more, to take off. Was a very interesting flight, but again, no cameras were allowed.
 

Offline djacobow

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1049
  • Country: us
  • takin' it apart since the 70's
Re: Lion Air crash: Jakarta Boeing 737 'had prior instrument error'
« Reply #447 on: March 19, 2019, 05:21:45 pm »
The Hudson river landing was a good example of why pilots need an internalized model of the flight system and why arcane rote procedures to deal with failures are not enough.

This, I think is the first good argument I've heard for why 737 pilots need to know about MCAS.

As it happens, during the USAir 1549 landing, the A320's control systems did not let Sullenberger flare the way he had wanted to. The outcome was fine, but if the system had been more aggressive in "protecting the envelope" maybe it would not have been. At least he knew what the system would do.



But the thing is that flight manuals do not provide internalized models of how an airplane really flies. You have to get that from operating the machine. And furthermore, if you operate it carefully, within normal parameters associated with passenger flight, you won't get exposed to the extreme flight regimes where this knowledge is actually useful and important. So you can have 10,000 hours in a plane and still not know what it will do in an unusual situation. This *is* something you can learn in a simulator, if it is sufficiently faithful, and I think that is one learning that I think experts can already agree on regarding the MAX: the pilots should have gotten more sim time, including time that exposes them to the behavior of the aircraft in unusual scenarios that are specific to that model.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2019, 05:28:12 pm by djacobow »
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9521
  • Country: us
Re: Lion Air crash: Jakarta Boeing 737 'had prior instrument error'
« Reply #448 on: March 19, 2019, 06:26:22 pm »
But, because these sticks are not coupled and do not have any force feedback, the pilots did not know what the other one was doing.

This is something that has always struck me as an absolutely stupid design. If the plane has two sticks, they should absolutely be mechanically linked together, or only one set of controls should be active at a time, with a very obvious indication of which is active. I never liked the sidestick arrangement anyway, it just looks wrong, and seems like it would be awkward.

Actually in most modern passenger aircraft the left controls are connected to the left elevator, the right controls, right elevator and there's a sheer pin that can be broken (on purpose) if there's a jam, so that each side independently controls elevators; everything from roughly Dash-8 and bigger.  Egypt Air 990 was a case where this was highlighted in what appears to be pilot v pilot fight for  the aircraft.


You're not likely to break that shear pin without knowing it though. On the Airbus planes the two sticks are not mechanically linked in any way at all, if one pilot is pulling back or pushing forward hard on their stick you wouldn't know by holding yours.
 

Online KL27x

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3504
  • Country: us
Re: Lion Air crash: Jakarta Boeing 737 'had prior instrument error'
« Reply #449 on: March 19, 2019, 07:17:07 pm »
Quote
Mmkaay, now FBI with special counsel Miiuulleeerr and DOJ is setting up a investigation to Russian collusion as they suspect Piutin has caused the MCAS software bug. 2 years later no collusion was found and Miiuulleer refuses to release clown report while Dumpf having tea and cakes with Boing CEO..

I like my tinfoil hats, so fair enough. But wait and see. FAA was fasttracking these approvals because someone was poking/pressuring them and or there was some major personal interest or incentive. Maybe Boeing hires retired FAA officials as consultants, and that is enough. Maybe there's more inbreeding and impropriety than that, even. I imagine Boeing is a very important company to our country's military and government.* And somehow many people were actively not doing their jobs and looking the other way.

*Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao even rode in a 737 MAX two days after the latest crash.

« Last Edit: March 19, 2019, 07:45:13 pm by KL27x »
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf