B737 Max : CAA bans from UK airspace; Comair aircraft grounded
#16
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Flatland
Programs: AA Lifetime Gold 1MM, BA Gold, UA Peon
Posts: 6,112
I do feel the instructions from Boeing to 737 MAX pilots can be summarised as "Don't screw it up like the Lion Air guys did".
However, part of good aircraft design is making it hard to "hold it the wrong way". Simply ordering pilots to Do It The Right Way is not as safe as making it hard to do it wrong.
So indeed, the question arises whether other (likely better-trained) pilots at Ethiopian also held it the wrong way.
I also have the same too-much-grandfathered feeling about the 737, Boeing gets an easy ride (ahem) with the FAA on this. The door slide design, for example, and the fiction that manual reversion is an acceptable way to fly jet transports in the 21st century if you get a double hydraulic failure.
However, part of good aircraft design is making it hard to "hold it the wrong way". Simply ordering pilots to Do It The Right Way is not as safe as making it hard to do it wrong.
So indeed, the question arises whether other (likely better-trained) pilots at Ethiopian also held it the wrong way.
I also have the same too-much-grandfathered feeling about the 737, Boeing gets an easy ride (ahem) with the FAA on this. The door slide design, for example, and the fiction that manual reversion is an acceptable way to fly jet transports in the 21st century if you get a double hydraulic failure.
#17
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 2,281
I do feel the instructions from Boeing to 737 MAX pilots can be summarised as "Don't screw it up like the Lion Air guys did".
However, part of good aircraft design is making it hard to "hold it the wrong way". Simply ordering pilots to Do It The Right Way is not as safe as making it hard to do it wrong.
So indeed, the question arises whether other (likely better-trained) pilots at Ethiopian also held it the wrong way.
I also have the same too-much-grandfathered feeling about the 737, Boeing gets an easy ride (ahem) with the FAA on this. The door slide design, for example, and the fiction that manual reversion is an acceptable way to fly jet transports in the 21st century if you get a double hydraulic failure.
However, part of good aircraft design is making it hard to "hold it the wrong way". Simply ordering pilots to Do It The Right Way is not as safe as making it hard to do it wrong.
So indeed, the question arises whether other (likely better-trained) pilots at Ethiopian also held it the wrong way.
I also have the same too-much-grandfathered feeling about the 737, Boeing gets an easy ride (ahem) with the FAA on this. The door slide design, for example, and the fiction that manual reversion is an acceptable way to fly jet transports in the 21st century if you get a double hydraulic failure.
#18
Join Date: May 2007
Programs: BA Blue, EI Silver, Honours Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,209
The thing is, the opportunity for them to "screw it up" should be a rare event. Having it happen every couple months (if that turns out to be the case) is poor design and needs to be addressed. Humans are fallible beings, given enough opportunities, human error will occur. So they should be trying to eliminate the chance of human error occurring in the first place, which is done by fixing the underlying issue, not simply saying "train some more, don't screw up".
#19
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: JER
Programs: BA Gold/OWE, several MUCCI, and assorted Pensions!
Posts: 32,146
Extensive discussion on PPRuNe, of course. https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/...wn-africa.html
i won't try to summarise or add speculation to rumour, you can read that thread yourselves, but it certainly sounds as though Boeing have created a bit of a monster with this variant. One little detail, though ... apparently the switches to disconnect the MCAS auto-trim system are the only ones to operate with "Up for Off", unlike every single other switch on Boeing aircraft!
i won't try to summarise or add speculation to rumour, you can read that thread yourselves, but it certainly sounds as though Boeing have created a bit of a monster with this variant. One little detail, though ... apparently the switches to disconnect the MCAS auto-trim system are the only ones to operate with "Up for Off", unlike every single other switch on Boeing aircraft!
#20
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Malta
Programs: BAEC Bronze
Posts: 671
Extensive discussion on PPRuNe, of course. https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/...wn-africa.html
i won't try to summarise or add speculation to rumour, you can read that thread yourselves, but it certainly sounds as though Boeing have created a bit of a monster with this variant. One little detail, though ... apparently the switches to disconnect the MCAS auto-trim system are the only ones to operate with "Up for Off", unlike every single other switch on Boeing aircraft!
i won't try to summarise or add speculation to rumour, you can read that thread yourselves, but it certainly sounds as though Boeing have created a bit of a monster with this variant. One little detail, though ... apparently the switches to disconnect the MCAS auto-trim system are the only ones to operate with "Up for Off", unlike every single other switch on Boeing aircraft!
#21
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: London, UK
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 1,020
It’s one thing when a slightly fly-by-night airline like Lion crash. They damage, bend and send 737s swimming on a fairly regular basis. It’s much easier to believe that such an airline would poorly train their pilots on the small differences between 737NG and MAX. Ethiopian are considered very safe, have a modern fleet of 787/777/A350, high standards and certainly don’t crash regularly. It’s much believable that a 10k hours captain wouldn’t have been aware of the Lion crash, the supposed contribution of aircraft systems and the recovery procedures.
Clearly the causes of this crash are unknown. But it’s harder to blame the crew and airline.
Clearly the causes of this crash are unknown. But it’s harder to blame the crew and airline.
I mean we'll see of course but i wouldn't write off pilot error that quickly and I'm sure Boeing will want to get to the bottom of what happened and if anything does need to be done rather quickly with lots of 737 MAX operators grounding planes.
#22
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: UK
Programs: BAEC Silver
Posts: 153
BBC are reporting several airlines plus Chinese regulator grounding 737 max aircraft.
BBC
Reuters also reporting Norwegian shares down on Max worroese. Could it be the straw the breaks the camels back if these aircraft are grounded.
BBC
Reuters also reporting Norwegian shares down on Max worroese. Could it be the straw the breaks the camels back if these aircraft are grounded.
#23
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 90
I've got a flight booked later this year with a Comair sector. In MMB it shows "Aircraft type: 738". Am I right in thinking that this indicates a 737-800 and that a 737 MAX 8 would be 7M8? Obviously I realise that the actual aircraft could change at the last minute anyway. Not sure how I would react to boarding a 737 MAX at present. I think I would probably choose not to fly in most circumstances.
#24
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: UK
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 2,422
#25
Formerly known as newbie elite
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: YUL
Programs: IHG Diamond Ambassador, Accor Platinum, AC50K
Posts: 2,928
BBC are reporting several airlines plus Chinese regulator grounding 737 max aircraft.
BBC
Reuters also reporting Norwegian shares down on Max worroese. Could it be the straw the breaks the camels back if these aircraft are grounded.
BBC
Reuters also reporting Norwegian shares down on Max worroese. Could it be the straw the breaks the camels back if these aircraft are grounded.
I do share some of the concerns that the original 737 type certification has nothing to do with a current 7M8. Perhaps time to shine a light on this.
#29
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,644
For clarity, it looks it's Comair's single example of the MAX that is being grounded: https://www.iol.co.za/business-repor...7-max-19811120
Surely the remainder of the 737-800 fleet isn't in the least bit affected by this?
Surely the remainder of the 737-800 fleet isn't in the least bit affected by this?
#30
Join Date: Oct 2018
Programs: American Life Time 2 Million Mile Platinum
Posts: 369
My biggest problem with the 737-Max discussion has been that the MCAS auto-trim system is a single fault design flaw. Retired Boeing engineers and others have been quoted as saying that the air input to the system that determines the angle of attack for the MCAS auto-trim system is a single point with no back up. Thus if there is a flaw/failure there the whole system malfunctions.
This should have been picked up at the time of FAA certification but was not (software has gotten so complex that I'm not surprised that this happened, I am surprised that Boeing has not jumped on either a fix or a disconnect of the MCAS auto-trim system.)
Remember, FAA is NOT supposed to allow certification of any aircraft where a single fault would allow disabling of the aircraft. I would think that Boeing would be better served to disable the MCAS auto-trim system and train for the flight characteristics of the 737Max rather than having the pilots fighting the computer, especially if there are times when the computer is being given false information from the angle of attack input to the MCAS auto-trim system.
This should have been picked up at the time of FAA certification but was not (software has gotten so complex that I'm not surprised that this happened, I am surprised that Boeing has not jumped on either a fix or a disconnect of the MCAS auto-trim system.)
Remember, FAA is NOT supposed to allow certification of any aircraft where a single fault would allow disabling of the aircraft. I would think that Boeing would be better served to disable the MCAS auto-trim system and train for the flight characteristics of the 737Max rather than having the pilots fighting the computer, especially if there are times when the computer is being given false information from the angle of attack input to the MCAS auto-trim system.