Boeing 737 Max 8 Ethiopia Airlines Crash

If there was nothing wrong with MCAS ... WHY THE HACK started Boing to make an improvement after the first crash to implement, eh?

 

If MCAS isn't to blame, does that mean that it is perfect?

 

WOW you must watch PBS newshour where per day, they focus on Africa so much I am tired of it.

 

Well, better than constantly hearing about the Middle East.

 

Who says or claims that MCAS is not "to blame"?
n the certification and approval of the aircraft, there may have been serious omissions in my eyes.
The issue goes back in time to 2014/2015, when Boeing was under pressure to develop a medium-haul jet that could compete with the fuel-efficient Airbus 320neo. Instead of constructing the 737 from scratch new ... as happened with the A320neo, Boeing chooses the faster route: The manufacturer modifies the engine mount so that the larger and more fuel-efficient engines from CFM, which also power the A320neo, fit to the comparatively shorter-legged 737 ,

So the 737 Max could simply "inherit" the operating license of the predecessor model and does not have to go through a lengthy approval process of a new plane. Even with it a new design necessary and expensive for the airlines pilot training ("type rating") is omitted by this step. Boeing buys with this a time and money advantage with the installation of Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS). It is intended to compensate for the disadvantages of the new drive design by the engines and ensure that the flight characteristics of the 737 Max does not change.

It may not be new or "unusual" that software control should prevent such things, but it's weird! What is MCAS doing?

With the new engine, the center of gravity of the machine shifts and the bottom flattened housing of the large turbofan engines provide additional buoyancy. Unlike the pilots always praised as good-natured 737 tends the Max in certain situations therefore for nasehochziehen. MCAS counteracts buoyancy by adjusting the tailplane at the rear to automatically lower the nose of the machine. And here comes the first point where it starts to stink:

There is only one "angle of attack sensor" which controls the MCAS here and from which it receives the relevant data. Usually with such things are at least 2 to be double-secured. It may be permissible to install only one sensor ... I do not know ... but it stinks enormously that there is only one, because if that fails, then what?

It really does stink somewhere else:
The Boeing safety analysis for the extension of the existing 737 approval (see above) states that MCAS can only adjust the tail by up to 0.6 degrees. Based on this information, the system was then approved by the FAA and also by the European and other authorities.
Only after the crash of the Lion Air, Boeing has informed the airlines and pilots about MCAS - and suddenly speaks up to 2.5 degrees movement, which can move the tail of MCAS controlled ... and that's not just a huge difference and is in big contrast to the earlier information ... that is also huge in the impact for the pilots!

But the important thing is: These are reported and knwon facts that I tell here ... that neither the FAA, nor NTSB, nor Boing has contradicted so far!

 

I provided a link to help you get it straight. Until I know you've read it I will no longer be replying to your posts. Let's keep this conversation constructive.

 

I have to wonder if the airlines flying the 737 Max reached out to Boeing after the Lion crash? The Lion crash happened 5 months before the latest crash.

 

MCAS is designed to keep the aircraft nose from pitching to far up after takeoff due to the CG shift aft due to the design of the aircraft and the weight of the crew, passengers, cargo and fuel. MCAS is designed to prevent a stall condition. Boeing and the FAA believe this what caused the Lion crash. It's possible if the pilot flying the plane expected MCAS's input they may not have tried to fight it and allowed the system to do it's job. Fighting MCAS may have created a bad situation causing the plane to crash. Yes, I am only speculating on the cause.

 

Thanks for the very informative post Mandelus. I would just like to point out one thing. Since MCAS is a new system to the aviation community most pilots are not expecting to feel resistance when pulling the yoke back at take off. Pilots may not understand why the need for MCAS on the new 737 Max. So they instead fight MCAS for control of the aircraft and pulling the nose up to high in the process only to have MCAS push the nose down again. The radar detected flight path of both the Lion and the Ethiopian flight show this to be a possible cause for both flights. Everyone wants to blame MCAS for the crash of Lion and possible the Ethiopian flight, but nowadays most crashes are caused by pilot error, fact.

 

Also possible according to experts is ...

a) that the only sensor that controls MCAS and was defect and did not work or provided incorrect data and MCAS has activated itself
b) that even here, according to Boing actually only up to 0.6 degrees possible intervention by MCAS took place, but MCAS just up to 2.5 degrees made corrections ... where Boing admitted after the Lion Air rash that that was possible, although before that there was nothing told about!

 

It looks like any complaints went thru the normal system.
I don't know what level kicks off an investigation.
There seems to be two other incidents and one notice of the manual.

https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2...ecord-about-problems-with-the-737-max/584791/

 

What they are not saying is when did the pilot attempt to override MCAS? Could the pilot have caused the unusual input by MCAS considering MCAS is a new system and most pilots are not familiar with what to expect after takeoff and MCAS most likely being enabled by the landing gear retraction and not a pilot controlled switch?

 

The normal system is for pilots to file a complaint with their safety department first. I have to wonder what the safety departments did with the complaint? Did they just file it away or did they use the normal channel to past it along?

 

Good question ... we have to wait until the black boxes are ready investigated etc. for the flight data issues.

 

No one wants to blame dead pilots for the crash. At least not openly. After the final report is out I'm guessing pilots will be thoroughly instructed on how to handle such emergencies and the fix will be an extra sensor and software update. End of story.

 

Usually these things are a group effort, but the investigation will sort it out.

 

Hopefully the investigation will produce constructive solutions. But lets not forget the Airbus 320 has not been completely free of it's accidents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Airbus_A320_family

 

Which includes you, judging by this post of yours:

 

The quote came from a link I posted for you to read dude. Goodbye.

 

If they made a mistake ... so a pilot error, then that is so and must be officially reported as the result of the investigation.
If it was the airline, because they did not pass on important information to the pilots, then the same applies ... and even if the error lies with the manufacturer, that is, Boing.

Just again ... the number of accidents in relation to the flight hours without an accident says nothing.
To call another area. There used to be a manufacturer who had a gas tank installed in one of his cars that could not survive an impact from another car from behind and then tended to burn or even explode. He passed around 1 dozen times with thousands of cars sold countless miles and hours, without what happened ... and alas not something happened from behind with every accident. The blame was clearly the manufacturer and that was in court really expensive for the manufacturer in terms of compensation!

 

To confirm, you mean this link?: https://www.seattletimes.com/busine...f-737-max-crashes-as-faa-details-boeings-fix/

 

I'm not saying that there was nothing wrong with MCAS. I'm saying that just because there was something wrong with it, doesn't mean that it caused these crashes. Wouldn't you agree?

 

Just reported that the pilots carried out the procedure as specified by Boeing guidelines to the letter but still crashed. Perhaps those that claimed that the "Foreign" pilots being inferior which led to the crash will now correct their xenophobic claim?

It was purely by luck that no planes crashed in the US

 

There is a way to turn off MCAS. I wonder how easy is it to do so.

 

The report said that the pilots turned off the MCAS as per the Boeing guidelines but still were not able to regain control so they turned it back on again