FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   American Airlines | AAdvantage (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/american-airlines-aadvantage-733/)
-   -   Boeing 737 MAX 8 crashes and effects on AA 737 MAX 8s (NOT reaccommodation) (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/american-airlines-aadvantage/1939333-boeing-737-max-8-crashes-effects-aa-737-max-8s-not-reaccommodation.html)

dblumenhoff Oct 30, 19 1:16 am


Originally Posted by nmpls (Post 31678062)
Grounded plane hasn't crashed. Amazing success.
While I agree that pilot training re:hand flying could be better, it is also important to design a plane that won't crash twice in quick succession with average pilots.

These were well below average pilots. The PIC had the flu and was called in as a replacement at 4 am. The FO had repeatedly failed checkrides because, among other things, he couldn't find checklists, and on the fateful flight he...wait for it...couldn't find the checklist. The investigation found that had he actually run the full checklist, everyone would have been safe. I believe that the MAX 8 in its previous configuration wouldn't have crashed twice in quick succession with average pilots - it crashed (at least one of the times) with underqualified pilots. In the new configuration it will likely be one of the safest airliners in the sky.

moondog Oct 30, 19 1:29 am


Originally Posted by dblumenhoff (Post 31680752)
These were well below average pilots. The PIC had the flu and was called in as a replacement at 4 am. The FO had repeatedly failed checkrides because, among other things, he couldn't find checklists, and on the fateful flight he...wait for it...couldn't find the checklist. The investigation found that had he actually run the full checklist, everyone would have been safe. I believe that the MAX 8 in its previous configuration wouldn't have crashed twice in quick succession with average pilots - it crashed (at least one of the times) with underqualified pilots. In the new configuration it will likely be one of the safest airliners in the sky.

Which investigation was this?

dblumenhoff Oct 30, 19 1:36 am


Originally Posted by moondog (Post 31680771)
Which investigation was this?

The Lion Air crash investigation.

nancypants Oct 30, 19 1:42 am


Originally Posted by AAdamE (Post 31677798)
MCAS was not in the flight manual. 350+ people died because of negligence, lets not waste time normalizing that and blaming pilots, when it's clear Boeing dropped the ball, and deliberately tried to cover it up. It's not a pilots job to overcome that.

the NTSC report is out and identified 9 causes, including MCAS, a faulty sensor, inadequate maintenance, poor pilot training, failure to heed lessons from previous incidents, pilot error, errors by lion air management, etc etc

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50177788

http://knkt.dephub.go.id/knkt/ntsc_a...l%20Report.pdf

FlyMeToTheLooneyBin Oct 30, 19 6:26 pm


Originally Posted by rbAA (Post 31676828)
When they stop falling out of the sky.

They didn't just fall; they nosed downwards and accelerated into the ground.


Originally Posted by UKtravelbear (Post 31679511)
And don't assume that just because the FAA re-certifies it that the rest of the world will accept that and allow it to fly in their airspace

FAA basically trashed it's international reputation with other regulators over the MAX and it will take a heck of a long time to get it back.

So true. We can talk about how everything is safer and better regulated here in the US, but have we forgotten that the FAA allowed Boeing to do their own checks.

cmd320 Oct 30, 19 8:28 pm


Originally Posted by dblumenhoff (Post 31680752)
These were well below average pilots. The PIC had the flu and was called in as a replacement at 4 am. The FO had repeatedly failed checkrides because, among other things, he couldn't find checklists, and on the fateful flight he...wait for it...couldn't find the checklist. The investigation found that had he actually run the full checklist, everyone would have been safe. I believe that the MAX 8 in its previous configuration wouldn't have crashed twice in quick succession with average pilots - it crashed (at least one of the times) with underqualified pilots. In the new configuration it will likely be one of the safest airliners in the sky.

So, in order for this to have not been a catastrophe, the FO would have had to find and run a full checklist in about 5 seconds? Sounds like a design flaw to me...

clubord Oct 31, 19 10:58 am


Originally Posted by cmd320 (Post 31684226)
So, in order for this to have not been a catastrophe, the FO would have had to find and run a full checklist in about 5 seconds? Sounds like a design flaw to me...

Runaway Trim is initially a MEMORY ITEM with essentially three items that can be performed instantaneously. After these items are done, only then do you refer to a checklist.

AUTOPILOT - OFF
AUTO THROTTLE - OFF
STAB TRIM CUTOUT SWITCH(s) - CUTOUT

It is most definitely not a design flaw. Nearly every transport category aircraft has some version of RUNAWAY TRIM/TRIM CUTOUT procedure.

Unfortunately, in both crashes the flight crews didn’t properly follow this procedure.

cmd320 Oct 31, 19 11:04 am


Originally Posted by clubord (Post 31686213)
Runaway Trim is initially a MEMORY ITEM with essentially three items that can be performed instantaneously. After these items are done, only then do you refer to a checklist.

AUTOPILOT - OFF
AUTO THROTTLE - OFF
STAB TRIM CUTOUT SWITCH(s) - CUTOUT

It is most definitely not a design flaw. Nearly every transport category aircraft has some version of RUNAWAY TRIM/TRIM CUTOUT procedure.

That's great, but at the end of the day, without an MCAS system neither aircraft that did would have crashed as neither event would have occurred. Design flaw.

dblumenhoff Oct 31, 19 11:32 am


Originally Posted by cmd320 (Post 31684226)
So, in order for this to have not been a catastrophe, the FO would have had to find and run a full checklist in about 5 seconds? Sounds like a design flaw to me...

Where are you getting 5 seconds from?
https://www.businessinsider.com/lion-air-crash-timeline-boeing-737-max-disaster-killed-189-2019-10
The first signs of trouble are at 6:20, first MCAS activation is at 6:25 am, and the plane crashes at 6:31. Plenty of time to run a checklist.


Originally Posted by cmd320 (Post 31686233)
That's great, but at the end of the day, without an MCAS system neither aircraft that did would have crashed as neither event would have occurred. Design flaw.

No one is trying to argue that Boeing is completely blameless here. It was a really poor design to have a single point of failure for the MCAS system by having it linked to only one AoA sensor. However, on the question of "would you be willing to fly a 737 MAX" when recertified, my answer is that with a mainline US carrier with qualified pilots, I would have flown it even without the repair. MCAS has activated multiple times before on US flights, and it doesn't make the news because pilots knew what to do.

bscooter26 Oct 31, 19 11:38 am


Originally Posted by dblumenhoff (Post 31686364)
Where are you getting 5 seconds from?
https://www.businessinsider.com/lion-air-crash-timeline-boeing-737-max-disaster-killed-189-2019-10
The first signs of trouble are at 6:20, first MCAS activation is at 6:25 am, and the plane crashes at 6:31. Plenty of time to run a checklist.



No one is trying to argue that Boeing is completely blameless here. It was a really poor design to have a single point of failure for the MCAS system by having it linked to only one AoA sensor. However, on the question of "would you be willing to fly a 737 MAX" when recertified, my answer is that with a mainline US carrier with qualified pilots, I would have flown it even without the repair. MCAS has activated multiple times before on US flights, and it doesn't make the news because pilots knew what to do.

I'm no pilot or expert here (and apologies for being pedantic), but I'm willing to bet that with a plane that big there was a point of no return somewhere between 6:25am and 6:31am

cmd320 Oct 31, 19 11:52 am


Originally Posted by dblumenhoff (Post 31686364)
Where are you getting 5 seconds from?

The interval between repeated MCAS activations.


Originally Posted by dblumenhoff (Post 31686364)
However, on the question of "would you be willing to fly a 737 MAX" when recertified, my answer is that with a mainline US carrier with qualified pilots, I would have flown it even without the repair. MCAS has activated multiple times before on US flights, and it doesn't make the news because pilots knew what to do.

Personally, I am of the opinion that any pilot of any experience level could make a mistake. I would prefer it if the aircraft they were flying were designed in such a manner that if a pilot takes a few extra seconds to identify and correct a problem, the aircraft does not fly itself into the ground.

dblumenhoff Oct 31, 19 11:54 am


Originally Posted by bscooter26 (Post 31686387)
I'm no pilot or expert here (and apologies for being pedantic), but I'm willing to bet that with a plane that big there was a point of no return somewhere between 6:25am and 6:31am

Based on my read, the last time the plane descends for good it is at 6:31:31 and it crashes at 6:31:53. I'm not a pilot either, but it seems as long as they are more or less maintaining altitude, there is a possibility of recovery if you know what to do. It seems to me the point of no return is 6:31:31.
(I also acknowledge there is a typo in the article and shows this happening at 6:33:31, after the plane has crashed)

dblumenhoff Oct 31, 19 6:05 pm


Originally Posted by cmd320 (Post 31686456)
The interval between repeated MCAS activations.

There is nothing to stop them from manually trimming the plane even during an MCAS activation, so the time between is not the only time they could have taken action. They had either 6 or 11 minutes to identify and solve the problem depending on where you count from. The 5 seconds is a red herring.


Personally, I am of the opinion that any pilot of any experience level could make a mistake. I would prefer it if the aircraft they were flying were designed in such a manner that if a pilot takes a few extra seconds to identify and correct a problem, the aircraft does not fly itself into the ground.
Yes, pilots make mistakes. That's why airplanes have checklists - they've saved countless lives. An engine failure is also potentially life-threatening, and yet they happen all the time and people are safe, because pilots use their checklists and either restart the engine or land the plane. And I'm not saying that Boeing is innocent here - had they been more transparent about this issue, pilots could have practiced this in a simulator just like they practice engine failures and they would more quickly recognize it as a very specific issue rather than running a checklist about runaway trim more generally. All I'm saying is:
1) An ATP holding pilot who passed all checkrides and who was healthy and on FAA minimum rest could have recovered
2) Once the problem was identified, pilots could recognize the issue and respond appropriately (even the flu and whatever situation) and the plane would be plenty safe given that
3) Once they make these repairs, it will likely not have any false activations anyway
4) Even if none of the above were the case, my back of the hand calculation suggests that if the MAX kept up its existing safety record up until the point of the crash, it is STILL SAFER THAN DRIVING. So if you are saying you would never fly a MAX, you shouldn't be getting in any cars either.

clubord Oct 31, 19 8:11 pm


Originally Posted by cmd320 (Post 31686233)
That's great, but at the end of the day, without an MCAS system neither aircraft that did would have crashed as neither event would have occurred. Design flaw.

Pilots not properly following procedures is definitely not a design flaw.

cmd320 Oct 31, 19 8:20 pm


Originally Posted by clubord (Post 31688201)
Pilots not properly following procedures is definitely not a design flaw.

It is when the need for the response is because of a faulty system.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 9:16 pm.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.