Lion Air crash: Jakarta Boeing 737 'had prior instrument error'

[G7PSK]

Surely the point here is not that when the car or plane was first manufactured it complied with the relevant regulations then but that when subsequent models are made they comply with the regulations now pertaining, if you go with what Boing have apparently been doing Ford could lable all their cars Model T and forget about all modern regulations.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Since when does "the community" pay the insurance bills?

Most Europeans pay taxes that pay for healthcare, a greater number of car accidents mean more hospital visits and greater costs.

Bollocks. If you have an accident in your "Model T", it's your insurance company that pays the ambulance/hospital/medical care bills, not the NHS.

Air pollution & climate change also effect everyone.

And the polar bears.

[djacobow]

I'm not a pilot and have only rudimentary knowledge about this. Hopefully not too much of a noob question.... but if a Pitot tube or aircraft speed sensor was blocked or malfunctioning, it would tell the pilot the aircraft is going too slow? So wouldn't they speed up the airplane? Wouldn't speeding up help keep it flying in the air? I would imagine the reverse would be worse, where the sensor is telling you that you are going fast and you slow down and stall.

It's a bit more complicated than that. There is a static port and a pitot port. Speed is reported based on the pressure differential between the two.

If the pitot tube is blocked, it will just report the speed it was reporting at the time it became blocked. Unless you descend, in which case it will start to show lower airspeeds, or if you ascend, in which case it will show higher airspeeds -- none of this having anything to do with your actual airspeed.

If the static port is blocked, but the pitot tube is clear, then you will get a indication of air speed, but as you ascend the speed indicated will be lower than your actual airspeed, etc.

It's a lot of "fun" to reason through when you are literally concerned that your pitot system is malfunctioning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitot-static_system#Blocked_static_port

[sokoloff]

That does not mean I think the shoulder belt or dual circuit braking or reverse lights requirements are bad laws, just that they don’t apply retroactively to machines certified or built before they were introduced.

This doesn't, shouldn't and has never applied to the aviation industry. As soon as anything is deemed unsafe or outdated, it needs to be changed.

"Has never applied"? This absolutely does apply to the aviation industry. Today.

The airplane I fly was certificated under CAR-3, which was updated to Part 23 in 1965. My airplane was built in 1997 under a CAR-3 type certificate and the design did not need to be updated to any Part 23 rule changes. On transport jets, the same principle applies. 707s still flying need to meet the 707 type certificate, not any subsequent changes to certification (unless those are made mandatory by special FAR or airworthiness directive.) New 707s could still be built if there was economic demand for them.

Would you let yourself or your loved ones fly on a "no worries mate, she'll be right"-airline?

I don't let us fly on certain foreign carriers with a poor training record. I don't have any issue with any EU flag, Swiss, or CA/US/MX flag carrier and would readily let my family fly on any of those. I made an exception once on vacation for a day VMC flight on a carrier that I would not have been willing to use for a night or IMC flight.

Airline travel is almost incomprehensibly safe, even with the fact that airliners are not required to be continually changed and updated as certification rules evolve.

If they were made to be so, there would be pressure to not make incremental improvements to the certification rules (owing to the economic impact on airlines). It's not particularly different from evolving building codes or vehicle codes. We don't seize or make economically unviable people's old buildings or cars; we also don't do the same to airplanes.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

We don't seize or make economically unviable people's old buildings or cars; we also don't do the same to airplanes.

Hear, hear !!

[SilverSolder]

[...] My 1965 Mustang doesn’t meet many current federal safety standards. Nevertheless, I can still drive it on the road.[...]

Awesome car!

...The 2020 Mustang does obey 2020 regulations, though, and Ford does not pass it off as an extended 1965 model...

Is it not true that planes do get updated from time to time, if there are significant improvements that can be retrofitted?  I seem to recall winglets being added to older planes at some point, for example.

It is pretty rare that cars get updated for current regulations (but it can happen - e.g. lead free gas required updating the older cars in some cases).

[tom66]

Bollocks. If you have an accident in your "Model T", it's your insurance company that pays the ambulance/hospital/medical care bills, not the NHS.

Up to a point in the UK, but only about £300 for emergency treatment and £400 per day in hospital up to £10k maximum. Source: Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act.

That certainly doesn't even begin to cover the cost of specialist emergency care, prosthetics, dental rework, corrective plastic surgery etc.

[sokoloff]

Is it not true that planes do get updated from time to time, if there are significant improvements that can be retrofitted?  I seem to recall winglets being added to older planes at some point, for example.

Yes. There is a generally optional process to modify airplanes such that they differ from their original type certificate. These are “Supplemental Type Certificates” (STCs) and can range from wing mods, avionics, lighting packages, engine modifications or replacements, gross weight increases, or basically anything.

My A36 has several: added turbo, increased gross weight, glass panel PFD/MFD, touch screen WAAS navigators, built-in O2, and probably a few others that I’m forgetting. (Edit to add: tip tanks for 40 gals more fuel and TKS [glycol] anti-ice system)

[StillTrying]

UK Channel 4 9pm tonight.
Boeing's Killer Plane: What Went Wrong?
This documentary unravels the events that led to two modern passenger jets falling out of the sky, and investigates how the fastest-selling aircraft in Boeing's history ended in tragedy
https://www.channel4.com/programmes/boeings-killer-plane-what-went-wrong

[Gyro]

UK Channel 4 9pm tonight.
Boeing's Killer Plane: What Went Wrong?
This documentary unravels the events that led to two modern passenger jets falling out of the sky, and investigates how the fastest-selling aircraft in Boeing's history ended in tragedy
https://www.channel4.com/programmes/boeings-killer-plane-what-went-wrong

Interesting - although of course limited in what it could cover accessibly from a cold start in an hour.

A couple of takeaways that I hadn't heard...

- The AOA sensor vane was apparently taken off by a suspected bird strike before the second crash (not heard that one before!)

- Boeing engineers anticipated that Pilots would recognise an MCAS (trim?) runaway and hit the cutoff switches within 4 seconds in order to be able to manually re-trim the plane in a timely manner (at the specific altitude of the second flight? [EDIT: or just to still be able to overcome the mechanical resistance on the trim wheels?]). Too short given the number of distracting alarms, stick shakers etc.

- In a filmed simulator run of the second crash with a pair of instructors, it was physically impossible for the copilot to mechanically re-trim the plane due to aerodynamic forces on the elevator. The re-engaging of the cutoff switches appeared to be a last ditch dice throw once they were unable to mechanically unable to manually re-trim the plane and were heading into the ground anyway.

As I say, taken from the documentary, but based on the flight recorder data and Sim.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

[sokoloff]

It seems that Canadians are keeping a cool head and suggesting to sudo rm -rf MCAS

There are some (including me) who find that the exact opposite of keeping a cool head and acting fully rationally on facts and data. Maybe there’s no way for MCAS to be safe, but given the long successful history on Boeing aerial refueling tankers, I suspect there is a way. To close your mind to that possibility seems unusual and suboptimal, if not outright improper, for a regulator.

[Marco]

I wonder how many months of grounding are equivalent to the cost 737 Max saved on pilot training by introducing MCAS as a hidden feature in the first place.

PS. was MCAS a documented feature on the military planes?

[chickenHeadKnob]

I wonder how many months of grounding are equivalent to the cost 737 Max saved on pilot training by introducing MCAS as a hidden feature in the first place.

PS. was MCAS a documented feature on the military planes?

Both Boeing and the carriers affected  must be in deep negative territory at this point when compared to the upfront spreadsheet savings management calculated when they made the sales pitch to American Airlines.

[BradC]

Maybe there’s no way for MCAS to be safe, but given the long successful history on Boeing aerial refueling tankers, I suspect there is a way.

While I agree with you in principle, my emotive side says "Yeah, but would you ever trust it?". Remember you are trusting both the system to "do the right thing" and the guys in the big hats up the front to recognise when it's "not doing the right thing" and knobling it before it (to mis-use a Billy Connolly quote) "sends it into the ground like a fucking dart".

Both of those elements have failed simultaneously twice now. They may (mostly) fix the first one, but given the poor training dished out in some of these schools/airlines I'm not sure I can be confident of the second.

[KL27x]

I could be wrong.

1. The MCAS used in some military planes is not broken/flawed the way the one on the MAX was.
    IIRC, the MCAS on the refuelling tanker plane relies on multiple AOA sensors.
2. Military planes have a different level of acceptable risk/redundancy
3. MAX trim adjustment system was not designed to handle the aerodynamics produces by the engine change. The MAX pushes the limits of what the plane's control system can achieve at its extreme limits and and still fly straight. This is very serious, because it means a loss of redundancy. If MAX is wrong, the pilots may not be able to undo the result of this faulty MAX by using the redudant/backup trim adjustment system.
4. Regarding the Canadian official comment, about removing MAX, completely; Sokoloff has stated that the MAX is likely not certifiable, at all, without MCAS, no matter how much additional training is provided to the pilots.

This last bit is curious. The American media has since the beginning made it out to sound like MCAS was a convenience item to make the plane more like the previous plane to reduce pilot workload, or something to that effect. To reduce training costs. This may have essentially been spin doctoring or damage control.

Considering the flight record of the MAX to date, it is conceivable that some tweaks to MCAS will make the plane statistically fine. But the reputation problem may be too big to overcome. The FAA was also exposed by these disasters, so there's no one left to say "safe now" and be taken seriously. This MAX will perhaps have to go through multiagency endorsement. The regulatory bodies in EU for instance may not like MCAS  and they may be loathe to put their endorsement on it, but they also feel the pressure of getting these planes back in the air rather than turning into a gigantic IOU from Boeing that may never get paid.

Could Boeing go bankrupt?

[Nusa]

I could be wrong.

... stuff  I applied the previous statement to ...

Could Boeing go bankrupt?

We are in agreement.

COULD (point at any business) go bankrupt? The answer is YES. Not my fault you asked a silly question. Is it likely to? Different question.

Remember bankruptcy in a business the size of Boeing is usually more of a cash-flow crisis, and is almost never an actual going-out-of-business situation. The results of which range from "never mind" (after having frozen things in legal limbo for a while) to making partial payments to creditors in the interest of maintaining the industry and/or getting bailed out by the government. In any case, since it's the stockholders that usually get screwed the most in the latter case, you can use wall street to judge the odds of it happening in the first place.

[sokoloff]

4. Regarding the Canadian official comment, about removing MAX, completely; Sokoloff has stated that the MAX is likely not certifiable, at all, without MCAS, no matter how much additional training is provided to the pilots.

I am not a Boeing insider, but I believe that Boeing took the MCAS route by virtue of the unmodified airplane being unable to meet the requirements of FAR §25.173. I don't see any reason to think that a properly implemented/modified MCAS would not be certifiable.

This not a requirement that you can waive by pilot training. MCAS was not just a convenience / similarity to other airframes feature.

[KL27x]

Blanco Lirio channel from Aug30

If you start the vid at 3:25, it seems this is circular logic to prevent calling a spade a spade. If you have time, just listen from 3:25 onward for about a minute or 3. It's quite impressive.

"MCAS is ONLY there to make the plane behave like previous models. The plane is stable, because it meets FAR 25. FAR 25 is important so that the plane will behave predictably. The MAX does not behave correctly in two spots which are pretty important; namely high speed stall and low speed stall. So basically anywhere that the feel of the controls is especially important. So MCAS is added to fix this. Only to make the MAX behave like other 737's, not because it doesn't meet stability requirements of FAR 25. Now are you 100% confident?"

It seems like regulatory body red tape and doublespeak is replacing engineering either for legal reasons or an attempt to avoid public scare from key buzz words. It would be more reassuring if the industry PR's kept to logic. 

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
I've been mixed up a few times, before. But my current understanding, to date:
It sounds like Boeing added MCAS to make the control feedback feel right at normal cruising speed. Then they increased it 3-4 fold after finding out that at lower speed you need even more angle for the controls to feel right. Basically, that stunt that Airbus pulled with one of their planes, by doing the "low and slow" in front of a live press audience? If the plane were a 737 Max without MCAS, it wouldn't necessarily have crashed. But the pilot may have declined to perform it in the first place, not feeling it was safe to do on purpose. Esp so low, forcing him to distribute his attention across multiple variables while having less than ideal feedback on the control column.    I hope this is right. And no it doesn't sound terrible, as long as this part of the AOA envelope is fairly extreme and unlikely to ever be utilized in the course of duty, and even if, probably not intended to remain in this state for long. 

[sokoloff]

"MCAS is ONLY there to make the plane behave like previous models. The plane is stable, because it meets FAR 25. FAR 25 is important so that the plane will behave predictably. The MAX does not behave correctly in two spots which are pretty important; namely high speed stall and low speed stall. So basically anywhere that the feel of the controls is especially important. So MCAS is added to fix this. Only to make the MAX behave like other 737's, not because it doesn't meet stability requirements of FAR 25. Now are you 100% confident?"

Your quotation/transcription is sufficiently inaccurate as to be misleading, IMO.
"We also want to clear up some common misconceptions that were initially promulgated by the mainstream media and spread through social media like wildfire by folks that really don't understand some of the basics about aircraft stability in aviation. Those basic misconceptions are this. One, the MCAS is an anti-stall system. I see/hear this all the time on media reports. The MCAS is not an anti-stall system. The pilots of Boeing designed aircraft are the ultimate anti-stall system. MCAS is a means to provide the pilots the control feel inputs that they need to recognize an impending stall and recover from it. The other common misconception is that the 737 is an inherently unstable aircraft because of the design change, the bigger engines. No, the 737 is not an unstable aircraft; it cannot be an unstable aircraft as per the FAR FAA design requirements for basic transport category aircraft stability. MCAS is not installed in the 737 Max to meet the requirements of FAR Part 25.171 ("Aircraft Stability")."

I think that everything he said there is correct.

Right after that though, he starts to wade into territory where he's saying things that are not backed by facts and range from opinion to likely misleading/false statements.
"Again, what MCAS is all about is an effort to get the new 737 Max to handle and feel like previous iterations of the 737 so that all of these aircraft can be operated on a single type certificate [sic] rating."

Confusing a type certificate with a type rating and opining about whether this is all about control feel and money without acknowledging that though the aircraft meets 25.171, it fails something in 25.173 or 25.175 is also misleading, IMO.

[sokoloff]

I also think that's just some flight instructor with a YouTube channel, not a Boeing spokesperson to my knowledge. (No way does counsel let him talk gibberish like the second part of that if he's in an official capacity.)

[KL27x]

^Yeah, but he is a commercial pilot. Like Mentour Pilot. If these guys waded very far from their employers' agendas, they would probably hear about it.

I completely understand everything he said. Taken individually, each statement can be interpreted in a way that it is true, by itself. It just doesn't connect the way he suggests. It's like a big circular non sequitur, and it offends my brain to consider this video logical or illuminating. It's skirting around important legal issues, which is perfectly reasonable. There's no way these guys are going to put their jobs and reputations on the line to go there and make statements that could be used to point blame. But it's... disingenuous. That's the word. Or maybe you could call it PR or lawyer speak.

[Nusa]

I also think that's just some flight instructor with a YouTube channel, not a Boeing spokesperson to my knowledge. (No way does counsel let him talk gibberish like the second part of that if he's in an official capacity.)

He's never claimed to be a spokesman for anyone, just a citizen reporter. He occasionally goes through his aviation history in videos, but I'm not going to hunt one down for you. Short story is he flew for the military, mostly large transport aircraft, then transitioned to civilian airline pilot decades ago. He identifies his employer as a large major airline in videos (open secret that it's American Airlines, however), and has many thousands of hours and type ratings in many of the aircraft they fly or flew, including the 737. His current gig is in the 777. Bottom line, he's far more qualified to opine than 99.9% of the people in this thread, including those of us who are some kind of pilot. Here's a short video from his day job that was easy to find. The caption in the youtube description is:
HKG-LAX 35,000. '84 Mach
A short clip from my day job...

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

"Boeing considers suspending or halting 737 Max production"

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/dec/16/boeing-737-max-production-faa

On Thursday, Boeing abandoned its goal of winning approval this month to unground the 737 Max after its chief executive, Dennis Muilenburg, met FAA administrator Steve Dickson. Dickson said on Wednesday he would not clear the plane to fly before 2020 and disclosed the agency had an ongoing investigation into 737 production issues in Renton, Washington.

Dickson said there were nearly a dozen milestones that must be completed before the Max returns to service. Approval is not likely until at least February and could be delayed until March, US officials told Reuters last week.

[SiliconWizard]

This was to be expected.

That's gotten really bad for Boeing. How are they going to get out of this?