Ethiopian Airlines plane crash

[ad hoc]

British Airways don't have any https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...and_deliveries

I too have a friend of friends who was on the plane.

[Sam]

BA franchise out to (I think they're called) Comair for flights in (southern?) Africa, allowing Comair to fly with BA livery on their planes, even though they're not actually BA planes. I think that has to be what G-Man is talking about, because I read this morning that Comair have said they won't be grounding their 737 Max 8s.

Glad to find you're okay, VT – I thought of you as soon as I saw the first headline about this. Hope you and your colleagues are all right (and your wife, G-Man).

[Lang Spoon]

My ire was toward Boeing really G-Man.

[G-Man]

BA franchise out to (I think they're called) Comair for flights in (southern?) Africa, allowing Comair to fly with BA livery on their planes, even though they're not actually BA planes. I think that has to be what G-Man is talking about, because I read this morning that Comair have said they won't be grounding their 737 Max 8s.

Yes. Though I have now learned that the BA flights are Comair in disguise.

South African Airways are using Boeing 737 MAX8s as well. I'm flying with them on Thursday. To my relief, the rouye I use is always with an Airbus 320.

[anton pulisov]

Australia and Singapore have now also banned 737 MAX flights.

The Boeing "fix" after the Lion Air flight was ridiculous: Oh there's a faulty thing that can cause the plane to pitch down when it shouldn't, but don't worry, if that happens you can just flick a circuit breaker switch to disable it. That's all well and dandy at 30 thousand feet, but on final approach or just after takeoff, there's not enough time to figure it out and take action before the ground comes up.

The FAA should be grounding this plane as well, but won't for political reasons. EU is probably worried about retaliation from the orange one.

[ursus arctos]

Wiki has a somewhat useful list of 737 Max orders and deliveries from Boeing sources

I would not be surprised if the FAA is encouraging Southwest and American to ground their planes for "inspections" so as to avoid the need for a politically-difficult ban. I also expect to see those airlines start to experience material cancellations for the flights in question.

[anton pulisov]

Airlines like Ryanair and Southwest have a problem if the 737 series can't be continued indefinitely. All their planes are 737 and they'd have to retrain all of their pilots.

[ursus arctos]

That's true (and a primary reason for operating a single type fleet), though it is worth noting that Ryanair contracts for a significant number of its pilots and could simply change the qualification requirements (as they did in the past when operating a few non-737 aircraft)

[Nefertiti2]

Banned from UK airspace.

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1105459843639492611

[Nefertiti2]

EU too

[URL]https://twitter.com/zekejmiller/status/1105522091993059328?s=21[/URL]

[Antepli Ejderha]

Two Turkish Airlines planes were turned back mid flight. That could have caused more of a problem. Surely they would have checked before taking off.

This plane sounds like a nightmare with experts really slagging it and Boeing off for what they have done. 90 minutes of training on an iPad apparently is one thing. Not explaining how the software works is another.

[San Bernardhinault]

The more I read about this, the worse it sounds for Boeing. It sounds like they created a hacky workaround in order to try and keep the 737 being built, which involved shifting the wing position back in order to accommodate larger engines (which I think are more efficient). But sticking the wings further back meant that there was a chance for the thrust to push the nose up. So in order to fix that they built in some anti-stall software that shoves the nose downwards. Which might be the thing that's put these planes into nosedives because it triggered incorrectly. It's a chain of things that seem to be sustaining what has become a fundamentally non-stable airframe.

[Antepli Ejderha]

The more I read about this, the worse it sounds for Boeing. It sounds like they created a hacky workaround in order to try and keep the 737 being built, which involved shifting the wing position back in order to accommodate larger engines (which I think are more efficient). But sticking the wings further back meant that there was a chance for the thrust to push the nose up. So in order to fix that they built in some anti-stall software that shoves the nose downwards. Which might be the thing that's put these planes into nosedives because it triggered incorrectly. It's a chain of things that seem to be sustaining what has become a fundamentally non-stable airframe.

That's a much better way of putting it. This implies that when the plan starts to nosedive the pilot, who is unaware of the software, overrides this manually causing the crash. That's what I've inferred anyway.

[steveeeeeeeee]

Just checked facebook for the first time in a while and found out about Anne-Katrin being on the flight. I knew her vaguely in Egypt, she arrive about the time I was leaving, but she was very good friends with my very good friends.

[Moonlight Shadow]

Didn't Airbus have a similar issue a few years back, with buggy software that pilot could not overide and it caused a crash in Rumania?

[ursus arctos]

TAROM 371?

That was more than 20 years ago and had a number of things going on.

Investigation of the crash revealed that the faulty auto-throttle reduced the left engine to idle during climb. While this was happening, the Captain suffered a heart attack and passed out, leaving the First Officer overwhelmed and unable to respond properly to the failure. This combination led the aircraft to crash. The investigative committee concluded that the collapse of the pilot followed by mechanical failure as the cause of the crash.

[Nefertiti2]

this is a good article about the Boeing crisis

apparently the warning light to indicate problems with the anti stall software was optional

it also makes the point that

: If it was Southwest and American and not Lion Air and Ethiopian five months apart, the 737 Max fleet would’ve been grounded by Sunday evening.

whilst this piece in the Dallas Morning News says

The News found at least five complaints about the Boeing model in a federal database where pilots can voluntarily report about aviation incidents without fear of repercussions.

The complaints are about the safety mechanism cited in preliminary reports about an October plane crash in Indonesia that killed 189.

The disclosures found by The News reference problems during Boeing 737 Max 8 flights with an autopilot system, and they all occurred while trying to gain altitude during takeoff — many mentioned the plane turning nose down suddenly. While records show these flights occurred during October and November, the information about which airlines the pilots were flying for is redacted from the database.

Records show that a captain who flies the Max 8 complained in November that it was "unconscionable" that the company and federal authorities allowed pilots to fly the planes without adequate training or fully disclosing information about how its systems were different from previous 737 models.

apparently the Turkish Airlines plane was turned back as the British ban was announced with immediate effect

[Antepli Ejderha]

Was the UK ban independent of the EU one or actually the same one? Much of the media has presented it as a UK decision.

[ad hoc]

Was the UK ban independent of the EU one or actually the same one? Much of the media has presented it as a UK decision.

I think the CAA (UK) did it first, and then the EASA (EU) of which the CAA is a member, did it a few hours later. If it had been the other way around, the CAA presumably wouldn't have needed to bother banning them.

[Muukalainen]

this is a good article about the Boeing crisis

apparently the warning light to indicate problems with the anti stall software was optional

Interesting article indeed nef, thanks for the link. The bit that alarms me the most is the way the AOA fault indicator operates. First off, there's no way something as fundamental as this should be an optional extra. More importantly, however, is the way it seems to have been designed to be operated. Assuming that I can understand the article correctly, then when the AOA software understands that it has faulty data, it provides a(n optional) visual signal to the pilots so that they can manually disable the MCAS (the anti-stalling system). This arrangement is so stupid that I'm having difficulty to believe that I do understand it correctly (if anyone can put me right on this, please do so). In other words, the AOA understands that it is providing faulty input to MCAS, yet continues to do so, and MCAS continues to operate normally (but with invalid input information), automatically overriding pilot control input as it sees fit. How about: the AOA understands that it is providing faulty input to MCAS, automatically disables MCAS and informs the pilots (no optional extra) so that they can fly the plane?

[anton pulisov]

From what I understand, it seems to be an inherent problem with the aerodynamics of the plane. It's so unbalanced that Boeing had to build in the MCAS software. In other words, there are actual situations where MCAS needs to supplement the pilots to keep the plane in the sky, so Boeing leave it on all the time, which obviously is problematic when the system malfunctions.

It seems to be like a car that needs traction control switched on at all times, because the car is poorly dimensioned. Which is fine, until such time that the traction control sensors fail and you end up in the ditch. I can't imagine such a car ever being allowed on the road.

[Muukalainen]

From what I understand, it seems to be an inherent problem with the aerodynamics of the plane. It's so unbalanced that Boeing had to build in the MCAS software. In other words, there are actual situations where MCAS needs to supplement the pilots to keep the plane in the sky, so Boeing leave it on all the time, which obviously is problematic when the system malfunctions.

I would agree entirely with your first sentence. For all I know, your second and third sentences may also be true, and if they are then that's the end of the Boeing 737 MAX series. The concept that any aeroplane cannot be flown by pilots alone cannot surely be sustained. Systems -- doesn't matter which, MCAS or anything else -- will malfunction from time to time, and when they do then the pilots must have the ability to disable them (even better, automatically disable themselves) and fly the plane themselves. If a manufacturer cannot demonstrate that then no airworthiness certificate.

[Muukalainen]

Come to think of it ap, your second and third sentences offer a good explanation of why MCAS operation is the way it is. Fucking hell.

[anton pulisov]

It's my understanding of the matter based on my expertise gained from growing up right next to a major international airport. So I could be wrong!

[anton pulisov]

It would appear to be the case. It is required to make the plane fly, even in manual flight.

From France24

MCAS was introduced by Boeing on the 737 Max 8 because its heavier, more fuel-efficient engines changed the aerodynamic qualities of the workhorse aircraft and can cause the plane's nose to pitch up in certain conditions during manual flight.