Part 8 is appropriate, since it appears Boeing is now referring to it as the 737-8 not MAX8.

An attempt at rebranding, hoping people don't connect the old and the new, I suppose.

I thought that there was talk of rebranding early on and that Boeing stated at that time that it would not happen.
Does anyone remember that or am I mistaken?
I won't say that I will never fly on a Max8.
I have decided that I am willing to pay an extra 10% to 20% or more to fly on another plane.
How much exactly will be determined at ticket time, but at least 10%.
Rather than trying to determine exactly which model is scheduled for a flight it will be safer to avoid all Boeing products as far as possible.
I suspect that I may not be the only person who thinks like this.
Good luck with rebranding, Boeing.

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

Waross, you are absolutely not the only person thinking like that, except flying safely might mean me not flying at all. I also think that paying a premium for the "privilege" of safe flying is certainly not fair to us guinea pigs at this time. I'm thinking more like a 60% DISCOUNT! for at least a full year of fleet operation is in order while they rebuild their reputation and our trust. I for one am not in the mind frame to trust Boeing the FAA, or the CDC, DOJ, USPS, or even Fish and Wildlife Service for that matter, until there is a change of government. That's just how it is now. Fortunately I have alternatives.

Let's see how long it takes the airlines to drop the "-8". I'll bet they will never make any distinction at all.

“What I told you was true ... from a certain point of view.” - Obi-Wan Kenobi, "Return of the Jedi"

Yes, I remember the re-branding discussion a while ago - which circulated primarily in the media and wags like us, not Boeing.
I'm not a marketer, but my guess on the strategy: You don't re-brand while the product is still broken.
You re-brand when (you hope) it's fixed.

www.sparweb.ca

Boeing actually made some sales. To a polish airline, reportedly. Not a large number, but any amount > 0 is "infinitely" better.

www.sparweb.ca

Any sale to a polish airline is a LOT.

*rimshot*

I'll see myself out.

The name 737-8 is actually it's proper certification name.

Max is the series name. So there is 737-7 737-8 737-9 and 737-10 under the max name. But for official purposes they are called those. All the certification paperwork will use those designation. There is another sub type for Ryanair with extra emergency exits to cram more people in. It will have another code when it eventually fly's.

The 10 hasn't been certified yet at all.

It's like the A220 was called the cs100/cs300 but now it's A220. But all the paperwork calls it a BD500 and that hasn't changed.

Seems they are taking the plane to the Canadians for flight tests.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-21...

From what I have gathered, many senior people in Transport Canada developed their own views (ref. 1, 2 below) about the causes and required remedy for this aircraft, quite independently of the FAA and Boeing. Over the year and half of the re-certification process, it seems like both FAA and Boeing have evolved their positions closer and closer to the positions taken by Transport Canada early on. It is encouraging now, that Transport Canada will be able to test their positions on the actual aircraft and confirm.


1 Transport Minister Marc Garneau said on Wednesday that the planes would be grounded “for as long as it takes” and pilots should experience the fixes Boeing is devising in simulators instead of relying only on more basic, computer-based ground training.

2 “MCAS has to go,” a manager at Canada’s aviation regulator said in an email to global peers

www.sparweb.ca

I think Transport Canada also want a method of killing the stick shaker without pulling CB's.

The training is going to be very interesting to see what they come up with. I suspect in EASA land its going to require separate training and checking to the NG.

Also they won't have developed the new QRH yet or procedures until the systems are finalised.

BTW just finished 100 hours on the A220. Nice machine and well thought out human machine interface. Handles lovely.

You're right. Thanks for reminding me. They did ask for added means to reduce the distractions during prolonged emergencies.

Jealous about the A220 time. Are you referring to sim or actual airborne time?

www.sparweb.ca

64 hours of sim for the type rating, And 100 hours flying the real one. I did a Zero flight time rating for the second time in my career.

It fly's like a proper aircraft despite the FBW, thrust levers move when the AT is in charge of them.

The 94% thing above FL290 on the engines is not such a big deal. But that could be because on TP's we were used to doing our own power in the cruise anyway.


Still on the learning curve with energy management in the decent. I have only once managed to do a flight idle from FL400 to landing configuration then power up for Vref +5 on the ILS without the power coming up or having to use speed brakes before than. But its getting more economic and smooth the more approaches I do. Strangely enough I am better at landing it at night than during the day. Still have to remind myself I don't have the Q400's 6 deg pitch tail strike limit or need to keep the power on during touch down anymore.

Only done one auto land on the aircraft which was easy enough and worked and its landings are firmer than mine. Have to get another 50 sectors before I get my restrictions on low viz operations removed but plenty of time before the fog season starts again.

But as an aside and comment on training for aircraft. I did 130 hours ground school training for the A220 and 16 4 hour sim sessions, of which 4 4 hour sessions were in a fixed base procedural trainer, 9 in a full motion sim (well for us it was the same sim but the motion was turned on), 1 session low vis approaches. 1 skills test and 1 session doing circuits for the zero flight time rating. And 20 line training sectors with pax in the back the first 4 were with a TRE to complete the zero flight time rating. It took 3.5 months and I think you lot could see the state of my stress levels through various post beer posts during it. But be warned I have 4 days off coming up day after tomorrow. But my stress levels are now much much lower now everything is completed and signed off. Well for another 5 months when I will be in the sim again when they will expect everything to be a lot more slick.

To note they claim the A220 is memory item free.... its not really but the items could be called normal flying procedures which should be done anyway and some relate to the Autothorttle being out due to this 94% restriction. What it does have though is poo loads of operating restriction numbers you need to remember. Max tailwind for engine start 18knts, cold weather temperature's (already decided -40 deg C and get the book out with them), most of them are to do with the engines with these large fans and inlets. By far the largest amount of any type I have flown.

The ECAS checklist and alerting system is an utter dream to have and use. I haven't had a problem in the air yet to use the none normal checklist side of things in real life, works a treat in the sim though. The MEL is a bit interesting though, and will I suspect it will take a few screwups with it until I get my head round it.

Looks really nice.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9YINZQ-whcY

“What I told you was true ... from a certain point of view.” - Obi-Wan Kenobi, "Return of the Jedi"

You should see the toilet in it!!!! On the Q400 it would need to be an emergency before even contemplating going for a dump on it. Going for a pee had its technical issues for a 6ft bloke. Going for a sit down ran the risk of appearing in the cabin with your trousers down.

Actually the toilet and isolation of air in it. Although not a regulatory requirement has had a lot of thought and engineering go into it. Never mind the artistic merits of what they have done.

Big change in LGW when I was in there last week, its like a grave yard of Easyjet and BA aircraft. No traffic on frequency, tower doing ground and clearance delivery. Only 1 fuel bowser doing the whole of the airport.

Straight in no pissing about from ERING.

Yeah. That's important!!!!
So they really did think of everything.
Great. Enjoy your new office!

“What I told you was true ... from a certain point of view.” - Obi-Wan Kenobi, "Return of the Jedi"

They have even bolted the pilots seats to the same bit of structural metal as the nose gear.

This allows every single light to be felt by your bum.

So in low Viz you know your on the centre line and your speed by your bum jiggle. And you can taxi to the apron without seeing a thing out the window by Braille.

Back to the future, flying by the seat of your pants. I like it up to that last bit. Like the misplaced baggage cart!

“What I told you was true ... from a certain point of view.” - Obi-Wan Kenobi, "Return of the Jedi"

Joking aside they have built a very nice aircraft.

It's real shame that they have stopped doing commercial aircraft.

They have also put a lot of thought about how a pilot interacts with it. They have done the same thing in the cabin for both pax and cabin crew.

The thing just sips fuel to boot.

Fl400 at ceiling weight limit at M0.78 and she was burning 1550 kg an hour at 90% N1. The none geared engines on A320/737-800/emb195 burn in the region of 2600kg an hour but with more pax.

It's a shame the way the Canadian aviation industry was/has been marginalized over the years. A little over 60 years ago they produced a world class air superiority weapon that was unfortunately stillborne.

"Schiefgehen wird, was schiefgehen kann" - das Murphygesetz

Well the guys that have flown all three fbw A320, A220 and emb195

Reckon the A220 is the clear winner from a pilot flying it pov.

Yes it is a shame leaving only two OEM both of which seem intent on keeping all the old gear on life support until they really have to modernize it.

Quote:

Yes it is a shame leaving only two OEM both of which seem intent on keeping all the old gear on life support until they really have to modernize it.

But, the reason it's that way is that it costs a LOT of MONEY to develop a plane; the A320 purportedly cost $3 billion develop, while the 787, developed twenty years later, supposedly cost $32B to develop. Those are non-trivial entry costs. And, it's a huge incentive to milk a design cert for as long as possible. If you assume each plane generates $50M to amortize the development cost, that means that Boeing needed to sell at least 600 787s just to break even on development. Then, they need to turn a profit, and generate enough cash flow to fund the next development or modification.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

I dont think they are using a linear amortisation schedule.

For sure, I was trying to be optimistic. This seems to suggest the amortization is more like $13B per plane, although my $50B per plane is what Boeing was projecting for the last few hundred of the 787 build.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

this cockup with the max has cost 18 billion so far last number i saw and that's not including the development costs prior to that.

The ST article reads pretty much like the A380 timeline.

Although alto of the FBW and composite development costs will be used on future programs so as such they are not lost just paid for by the 787 program.

I suspect the biggest hit was the FBW much like the A320. But the same system on the A320 has been ported onto all types developed since then.

Some good news EASA is going to join the Canadians for the flight tests.

They will do the sim assessment in Gatwick the week before.

And there is also the joint board meeting scheduled.

speaking of the 787.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-finds...

Quite how they found out which ones would be below standard would be interesting to know.

AH,
Since you mentioned autoland in the A220... drifting the thread topic unfortunately... are you using a HUD for that?
If you say you're a tall bloke, how is that on the head space?
I've been in a CRJ with the similar HUD and the projector takes up so much headroom I don't know how anyone 6-feet tall could tolerate it for a 4-hour CRJ flight, let alone whatever range you can do with an A220.

www.sparweb.ca

There seem to be some 787's with a structural joint problem. They haven't said what - could be a lot of things that go into the joining process. Fasteners, adhesives, fixtures, assembly tools, etc. I assume it's a specific incident or error because of the small number of jets affected (eight I think) and the one factory they came from (South Carolina).

www.sparweb.ca

They aren't in the aircraft but are in the SIM.

It isn't bad on the a220. On the q400 ists horrible and has drawn blood out of my head on the gear collapse exercise after landing.

I have used them in the SIM but not in real flights. The a220 cockpit is quiet roomy and plenty of head room.

A220 can take just over 17 tons of fuel at 1800 kg an hour that's 9 hours. They deliver them one hop to Europe.

With a full cabin the max sector is about 6 hours.

Longest I have done so far is 4 there and back and it's comfy enough. Q400 4 hours and you would be punch drunk with the noise and dehydration.

The a220 cabin pressure is 6k at fl410 which makes a huge difference and is much less cockpit noise. Also has foot heaters which makes things more comfortable.

Some more on the 787 and the shims. Also there is issues with composite roughness.

https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/boeing-p...

The rumour I am hearing is that 737 is nearly compliant but not quiet and the FAA is willing to give a temp allowance to allow it to fly again while a 3rd AoA sensor is fitted. EASA is not so keen on letting it fly again on a promise that the 3rd will be fitted and integrated in a time frame. And Canadians also want the stick shaker killer which for some reason Boeing and some in the FAA is dead against. But as I have said before that requirement has history and has been an ongoing argument for some 40-50 years. I have never flown a commercial aircraft without the ability to kill it. So we may yet have it flying in only FAA airspace.

And there is some issues about if a statement of conformity has been issued, which could be because it doesn't conform to the required design standards.

They don't need to touch the current air data analogue system to ADC. They could just stick in a smart probe and only use the AoA feed off it i would have thought. They are self-contained units with digital output. Would make the nose a bit prickly with probes sticking out all over the place I grant you.

just a comparison of the various huds.

Q400 Hud set up which is right over your head.



A220 with out hud



And with hud, you can see the projector is behind the back of the seat so your head can't get near it. Even when its stowed away. The Q400 and CJR i presume the projector and screen are one unit forward of your sitting position. We have head alignment balls which we have to line up for CAT II and CAT III approaches to get the eye line in the right place. And for me if my head is in the right place its close enough that my bald head clips the corner of it when there is a sudden G produced in the sim however tight I have my belt. If you remember SAS had multiple gear collapses due poor maint and they added a gear collapse exercise to the sim program which was always enough to batter my head against it unless I took precautions. After one argument about dropping my seat on approach and the examiner freezing the sim and making me put it back. End result was blood pouring down my face from a gash in my forehead. After that they even started telling tall people to drop the seat in the sim only and CAE put a big bit of foam on the bottom of the housing unless it was booked for hud work.

Ouch. Yeah great work around with the foam. Not!
Lost time injury?

Nah, a trickle of blood down the face after scratching your baldy head is hardly a novelty.

Most aircraft don't have them thankfully. They are a bit of a fiddle to save money on dual flight director cat II maintenance. Autoland CAT III requirements are different and they don't give any benefit. Quite what the different requirements are equipment wise I have no clue. We as crew look after our own qualifications and there is a aircraft qualification on the briefing sheet in the tech log. Which you check when you take over the aircraft. It does change day to day depending on tech status and sometimes we have to requalify it by doing a test autoland in good weather.

OK, Fit the "Any one you can walk away from category".
You are obviously too tall.
Over the design 5'-9 1/2 inches.

I think the baldy head was the reason for the blood. The guys with a full head just got a lump.

But they seemed to have learned and the a220 has more head room.

How about a scrum cap?

"Schiefgehen wird, was schiefgehen kann" - das Murphygesetz

I did think about that.... BUt actually the big lump of foam did the trick and if you put the seat down two notches you missed it as well.

If you look at that first picture there is a silver bit of metal comes down off the bottom, It stays on the bottom when the HUD is swung up away. And there was also a plastic fairing round it. It was that you connected with not the main lump of axle for the reflector.

Anyway don't have to fly it any more and in the real aircraft they didn't have them so its now someone else's problem.

Someone please explain... why rear-projection HUDs instead of up-projection onto the windscreen? Seems like it would get rid of all headway obstructions, as well as being more easily positionable (up/down) for vertically-challenged pilots.

Dan - Owner
http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

Then you're farther back from the window and field of view is more restricted.

Quote (MacGyverS2000)

why rear-projection HUDs instead of up-projection onto the windscreen?

The windscreen is made to a very particular shape, unique to every aircraft type, with materials that already have a very specific purpose.
I don't think it would be easy to make a projector that could project a display onto the complex curvature of a windscreen and maintain an appearance of orthogonality to the pilot's point of view.
Any error in the projector's position, or movement of the pilot's head could break the angle. Change pilot and you can't adjust position of the projector.
Last time I saw an airliner's windshield being replaced, I remember about 1/8" of gasket to allow for mis-match of surface contour with the window frame.
The projector for any other aircraft would need its own lens/software transformation.
And getting the reflection to work... what membrane or coating is applied to that surface?
Do they work at severe angles?
You know that on the other side of the 20mm thick window pane it's -50C outside?

www.sparweb.ca

You have a viewing angle of about +-1 deg on the HUD to be able to see all the information.

Pilot head position/eye line is critical for low viz approach's with or with out a HUD.

The other issue with projecting on the windscreen is that it distorts in flight. Even the 1" thick armoured glass in WWII fighters was found to distort excessively in flight preventing the projection of the gun sight straight onto the windscreen.

Not to mention that the windscreens already consist of multiple layers so they can incorporate a heating layer, impact resistance for bird strike, scratch resistance on the surface, and are carefully designed so you don't have multiple reflections because of all the layers. If you add a reflective layer for a HUD you're likely to end up with a lot of reflections under other lighting conditions where you aren't using the HUD.

The windscreens are already very expensive and I don't think they need any additional issues or they would be unaffordable. At that point they would just replace the windscreen with metal skin and use an AI to fly the plane.

If your interested in the a220 windo looks like close up

Is the diffraction pattern (rainbow) visible to the eye or just your camera that picks it up?

Any thoughts or experience using a wearable EVS (helmet/goggles/visor/variety of types) rather than projected on a HUD?

www.sparweb.ca

Is that not a polarisation effect?

A.

yes you can in certain lighting conditions. And you tend not to see it straight ahead but when you look across the cockpit at the other sides windows.

It also changes with the temperature gradient.

It was a lot more pronounced on the Q400.

I think its due to the heating element grid in the window. Those windows get very hot, a lot hotter than any other type I have flown. Even when its -60 degs outside you wouldn't want to hold your hand on them.

I have no experience of helmets or NVG tye display's, mates that have used them in the military all suffer from neck issues of one form or another due to the weight of them. They also say NGV etc is an extremely perishable skill and takes a fair amount of work to get up to speed on.

Most airlines that use HUD's make it a bit of a fiddle to reduce maint costs. They only get the LH side fitted with them and then don't keep the machine rated for dual flight director low viz approaches.

Most airborne optical windows heaters are only designed to provide sufficient heat to keep from frosting, i.e., to keep the window pane at about 5 C or so, which is still makes it close to freezing temperature. For a jet, the power density is supposed to be around 4.26 W/in^2, but that also depends on what the craft is flying through.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

There are some of them that the window needs to be warm for bird strikes, the Jetstream 31/32 was like that. If it was cold it didn't pass the turkey test fired at it with big air gun. And it was a no fly if it wasn't working.

As I say this thing is running significantly hotter than anything else I have experience with. The reason why its the way it is I have no clue. There is usually a cold area somewhere in the cockpit which you learn not to put your hand near with direct metal connection to the outside of the airframe on most types. The DV window handle on the Jetstream you would stick to if you touched it. I haven't found one yet on this thing. The floor has electrical heaters in them for your feet in front of the rudder pedals. As you rightly say normally they are just enough to stop them frosting up. These things can melt chocolate.

Back to the MAX.

Might be some movement soon.

A load of technicians are getting pulled over to Canada next month for Boeing training on the MAX I presume to do the fixes. I can only presume the trainers will be sitting in Quarantine for two weeks before they start. Or maybe there will be a room of Ipads for them to read

There is still loads of rumours about the 3rd AoA input into the whole setup and if it will be a deferred addition or required for flight outside the USA. Currently the MAX doesn't comply with the 1 in 1 million rule and neither does the NG for its STS system but as they have such a good safety record with it its not being included in the scope ie it's proved by flying more than 1 million hours without a failure. But you can kill it without loosing the electric trim.

Latest?

The FAA said the Joint Operations Evaluation Board for the Boeing 737 MAX will take place at London Gatwick Airport and meet for approximately nine days “to review Boeing’s proposed training for 737 MAX flight crews” and will include civil aviation authorities and airline flight crews from the United States, Canada, Brazil and the European Union.

There are several other key steps to be completed that raise questions about if there will be any 737 MAX commercial flights before 2021.

This week in Vancouver, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency conducted flight tests of the Boeing 737 MAX after Canada conducted its own tests.

Dik

I doubt this will be the last word from congress, perhaps a start?

Press Release
September 16, 2020 After 18-Month Investigation, Chairs DeFazio and Larsen Release Final Committee Report on Boeing 737 MAX
https://transportation.house.gov/news/press-releas...

Link to the report
FINAL COMMITTEE REPORT THE DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT & CERTIFICATION OF THE BOEING 737 MAX SEPTEMBER 2020
PREPARED FOR: CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PETER A. DEFAZIO AND CHAIR OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION RICK LARSEN BY MAJORITY STAFF OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

• https://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=d3c5cdeb-dc5e-4f13-a3c1-e

Getting through the first pages, it's a fairly political report. Maybe that's what's needed, hard to say. If it reflects the view that the certification system would work if Boeing had played by the rules and the FAA had enforced them, then it would support the opinion that has formed in my mind over the year. I hope the style settles down after the bluster is exhausted. It's a long read. Just the executive summary is almost 30 pages long!

www.sparweb.ca

Seems like its a third point of the triangle saying its not our fault its the other two.

And what we put in place shouldn't be changed especially if we have to provide more money for it.

I think I lost count at 7 for these committee report things going and to be honest mainly because I realised they were pretty much toothless and political show boating.

I suspect the only changes will occur when the international bodies decide what the next era's rules are going to be. The FAA and Boeing will have to make a choice of comply or have to certify twice.

The 777x program must be in a right mess just now.

I think the report states only the obvious, while leaving out how the congress usually influences the actions of the regulators in deference to the regulated industry. In the case of a US airline manufacturer, it is the normal course of business for the FAA to impose a ruling that might delay production, then the mfr complains or lobbies their congressional representative, and then that representative talks tough to the FAA's politically appointed leadership, who then backs off the difficult ruling. The report would be more informative if it included details of politicazl interference in its actions.

"...when logic, and proportion, have fallen, sloppy dead..." Grace Slick

Any lobbying and changes of a ruling should be made public.

If there is a ruling and the OEM fixes it then nothing needs to enter into the public domain.

I still say we should put a time limit on type certificates, maybe 20 years (how much production of the original type is happening after 20 years ?)

If you want to continue production then you need to update the certification to the current rules.

It is clear (now) that the critical issue with the B737 is that the wing is too low for these new ultra high by-pass engines (it was designed for a 60s turbot jet). Sure they can fudge it into place … with the previous model they had to flatten the bottom of the nacelle, this time they had to raise the nacelle and had all the collateral issues to deal with. Or they could have up shortening links into the landing gear … a route they knew about and didn't go down.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

i agree and have been putting that view forward since 7 threads ago.

But also refusing to put in a EICAS system for information transfer to the pilots is also a major issue.

Just finished reading it.

The very disappointing thing to me is they even had a test pilot fail to neutralise the situation in under 4 seconds with MCAS problems with multiple triggers. They took over 10 seconds and the session finished in the same way as it did in the two accidents.

The timeline on page 100 is particularly worrying...

I have finished reading the report, and I am sickened... words fail me. What I had reluctantly suspected due to the revelations in all these 8 threads is now emphatically confirmed. I wish Boeing and the FAA the strength to sincerely admit their failures and make a new start.

"Schiefgehen wird, was schiefgehen kann" - das Murphygesetz

FAA has slot on its plate from multiple directions.

It has this certification issue.

It has the drone issue.

And there is major issues with the air traffic control system and setup.

It also has multiple inputs from various political entities. Who control the amount of cash they have to do there job. And who won't hesitate to withhold cash if they don't do things the way they want it done.

Also the entities that they are regulating can bypass any ruling by talking to the political types.

So I really can't see how the FAA can do it job properly. I might bitch about EASA being a bunch of paper pushing lawyers but the financial setup allows a much more independent organisation. Even though they come out with over complicated, over regulated, oppressive nonsense. A mid way between the two would be perfect.

...and no budget...
...and repeated shutdowns...
...and most of them are still working from home...

I'm still picking my way through the report. It seems a lot of it is already known (this is a different take in places) from the NTSB and the JATR reports, plus the synthesis of new reports that Dominic Gates was doing at the Seattle Times. The findings of the JATR were very specific and detailed, and seem to have influenced if not formed the goals being worked on by the certification authorities now.

www.sparweb.ca

Comments are starting to be released.

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/aircraft-pr...

The manual trimming is a feature in a lot of comments but I have heard that because there is no regulation on this then nothing can be enforced. But I suppose they can say it needs to be 1 in 1 000 000 that you would be required to do it.

Quote (From the above:)

ALPA also expressed concern over Boeing’s language on the runaway stabilizer and stabilizer inoperative checklists that says both pilots may need to turn the manual trim wheel simultaneously to generate enough leverage to move the stabilizer.

“ALPA believes that a scenario where both pilots are required to provide manual inputs to a safety-critical flight control system during a non-normal event is not an ideal response to that event,” the association said. “During non-normal events it is commonly trained that one pilot continues to maintain the safe flight of the aircraft while the other pilot conducts the completion of related checklists, such as the [quick-reference handbook]. To interrupt this paradigm by requiring a two-pilot intervention on a safety-critical flight system cannot maintain the same level of safety.”

From the Far Side cartoons...



just couldn't hold myself back...

Dik

Quote (Comments are starting to be released.)

Looks like Boeing and the FAA are trying to fix this using snakeoil lubricant...

Dik

Well I think they are more in need of KY than snake oil. Its not the FAA that's driving this now. Even if they said yes if the rest of the world's regulators say no its a dodo.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/faa-s-own-eng...

AH: as usual, it's political interference...

Dik

The process that going on now they can't really interfere with it away from the FAA. As much as they would like to and Boeing have paid millions if not billions in lobbying over the years to be able to get things setup they way they want it.

The FAA is stuck, unless it gets international certification its a dead product.

The first step is to get the political interference unwound... not likely happen since the key players want to interfere. Legislation has to be in place to prevent government interference with regulatory agencies... FAA, CDC, etc.

Dik

The issue is a lot of the key players are now involved in the 777x program.

So a post challenger Nasa retire or relocate exercise as soon as the shrapnel has gone to ground will be problematic. And it will be the same internally in the FAA.

Its due to enter service next year but I really can't see that happening and most of them are meant to be going to the Middle east 3 and Cathy and I can see them wanting them next year or the one after unless there is a overnight improvement to the aviation scene.

In fact that's a big issue with the MAX delivery's airlines just don't have access to finance anymore to pay for new aircraft.

Airbus has just started the extremely problematic process of making people in France redundant. Yes it has some 7000 orders on the books which would keep things going at full production but a lot of them are going to evaporate in the next 12 months and again there is no finance out there to pay for them.

It really wouldn't surprise me if the MAX ends up with under 2500 units produced and they have already made 1200 of them.

Not likely to ever have the "political interference" to become unwound- that is the heart and soul of western democracies. How exactly does one regulate what happens between executives and elected representatives during a golf game? I recall once visting the headquarters of a large US manufacturer's headquarters, and noticed a large black limousine pull up ( US zip code 12345, no kidding). I asked who was the big shot ,and the reply was he was one of the current US senators, preparing to increase his re-election funds. It is no mistake that the head of the committte that oversees the FAA is the representative for Boeing's factories in washington state. The interesting thing about the term "corruption" is that there is a continuous gradation from honest advocacy of an industry in one's district to outright flagrant gorging at the till, with really no bright line demarking the boundaries. In the case of the 737 Max, it seems that the advocacy came at the cost of 300+ lives.I am sure no one involved is losing any sleep over it, and continues to count their dollars.

It is what it is, and one can either learn to live with it, or one can keep ones eyes closed and continue to believe the fairy tales taught to you in 4th grade.Whatever gets you thru the night, is alright.

"...when logic, and proportion, have fallen, sloppy dead..." Grace Slick

^ How apropos, Schenectady GE. My grandad retired from there, my other granddad worked there a bit too. Senator D'Amato or Schumer, depending on the decade, I guess, Cuomo the Elder or the Younger as governor, with some interruption. Used to be a big light up GE logo above the building, a hundred or so lightbulbs, not sure if it's there anymore.

Seems easa has its boxes ticked as well

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-737max-e...

Errr, this little bit was interesting.

"All but one of the differences has been resolved, Ky said, with EASA, supported by some unions, calling for pilots to be able to manually cut power to a “stick shaker” alarm system suspected of distracting Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines crew."

How much grief could that be?

I thought Canada also wanted this?

But my understanding was that it was almost literally hard wired into the design not to allow it to be disabled??

Then three sensors retrofitted - "Ky said Boeing had agreed to install the computerised third-sensor system on the next version of the plane, the 230-seat 737 MAX 10, followed by retrofits on the rest of the fleet later."

And the microscope on the 777X.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

Canada does,

It's not as easy as you think I am told. It could also be linked into other things. So the effect cascades down multiple other systems.

They also have the issue that they have run out of space on the glare shield for another two buttons each side

This argument has been on going since the late 70's about stick shakers and pushers. Boeing and FAA have been dead against it. And some old types the FAA made them remover the feature. When jar25 came in they sort of called a truce on the subject in both directions.

The only way to kill it on the 737 is to go hunting for the CB that powers the shaker motors but there is two of them one for each side. And there is other safety related stuff powered through the same CB. So if you pull them those systems are gone as well.

I have seen comments that changing it would trigger another 4-6 months system testing and 50-100 hours of test flights. And it would be a fundamental system change and they would loose the common type rating with the NG.

So a pretty fundamental "difference" then.

I suppose it depends on how big they want to dig their heels in over this one.

It does though sound like it could greatly help reduce distractions if it's going off when it shouldn't, like lots of other aircraft if I recall a previous post from you?

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

Well this is spars area but I have a sneaky suspicion that the emergency DC buses are involved. I don't know really the full extent of the repercussions of changing anything attached to them but it ain't going to be a document pack and an earth check like a coffee maker going onto the galley bus which is automatically shed at the start of any electrical checklist. And the only thing that happens is no coffee or hot meals.

Yes all types I have flown have it along with a caution announcator panel CAP. All the new Boeing types have them or an ecas system.

Even the DC3 had a CAP.. no stick shaker though.

In fact I suspect the 737 series's is the last aircraft out there that that doesn't have.

I actually asked a colleague about it today and which buses were involved. He has 12000 hours on 300 thought to 800 Ng and didn't have a clue.

When asked would you go back to the 737 from the A220 he just laughed and said no chance.

Right I am old enough to be her grandad and your old enough to be her dad how we going to sweet talk her into putting a pot of that good coffee on....

It was the most difficult situation we dealt with today. But 25 000 hours of experience between the two of us sorted it.

Btw the coffee maker is bloody dangerous and you can get into so much trouble making a mess in the galley.

The FAA director flew the aircraft a couple of days ago but nothing released about that. Found something now, looks positive.

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/30/918924566/i-like-wh...


This is doing the rounds

https://transportation.house.gov/news/press-releas...

The US pilots think its got absolutely no chance of happening with the current state of political play.

https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/media/afx/...

Draft training requirements out.

Appendix 7 gives the sim requirement. Looks like one session required but it does require a MAX sim for some sections.

The important change is all on the last 2 pages.
This would be easier to read after a "translation"

Quote (FAA)

2. FLIGHT TRAINING
Prior to operating the 737 MAX the following flight training in a 737 MAX Full Flight Simulator is required.
The following bullet points emphasize the objectives of each maneuver. A 737NG Full Flight Simulator may be used for some conditions only where noted below.

2.1 Demonstration of MCAS activation for each pilot.

2.1.1 MCAS activation during an impending stall (or full stall) and recovery demonstration during manual flight in a clean configuration.

2.1.2 Demonstrate MCAS activation stabilizer trim responses:

- Stabilizer trim in the nose down direction when above threshold Angle of Attack for MCAS activation during stall.
- Stabilizer trim in the nose up direction when below threshold Angle of Attack for MCAS activation during recovery.

2.2 A runaway stabilizer condition that requires the pilots to use manual stabilizer trim.

2.2.1 Runaway stabilizer training as described in subparagraph 9.2.2.5 must be completed by each pilot acting as Pilot Flying.

2.2.2 Operation of each manual trim technique (as defined by Boeing) must be completed by each pilot acting as Pilot Flying.

2.2.3 This training can be completed in a 737 MAX or 737NG Full Flight Simulator.

2.3 Use of manual stabilizer trim during approach, go-around, and level off.

2.3.1 Use of manual stabilizer trim as described in subparagraph 9.2.2.4 must be completed by each pilot acting as Pilot Flying.

2.3.2 This training can be completed in a 737 MAX or 737NG Full Flight Simulator.

2.4 A Cross-FCC Trim Monitor activation demonstration accomplished by either pilot acting as Pilot Flying.

2.4.1 Condition must terminate in a landing in order to demonstrate the updated STAB OUT OF TRIM light functionality.

2.5 Erroneous high Angle of Attack on takeoff that leads to an unreliable airspeed condition accomplished by either pilot acting as Pilot Flying.

2.5.1 Demonstrates flight deck effects (i.e. aural, visual, and tactile) associated with the failure.

2.5.2 Fault occurring during the takeoff procedure.

2.5.3 Must include a go-around or missed approach flown with erroneous high Angle of Attack condition.

2.5.3.1 Special emphasis placed on Flight Director behavior biasing out of view upon selecting takeoff/go-around (TO/GA).

This means that pilots can do some of the training on a 737NG simulator provided that it has "full-flight" capabilities. I assume that means details such as force-feedback on the controls and trim wheels, but probably means a whole lot more. But it doesn't seem like all training can be completed without a 737 MAX simulator and it has to be a full-flight level, too. There aren't very many of those FFS sim's to go around. That will create a severe pinch-point in training schedules as the line-up out the door of these sim's will be very very long.

www.sparweb.ca

I can't see it being a pinch point with the current aviation situation world wide.

There will be a fan fair when it first starts flying again with a few token aircraft with the mods done. There is just not the pax numbers to fill a third of a 170 seater never mind the load factor of 70% to start making a profit.

https://www.tsa.gov/coronavirus/passenger-throughp...

Its an extremely grim picture. Europe is if anything worse. The only place it seems to be anything remotely near 2019 levels is China and I can't see it being certified there for a very long time not that they have many on order anyway or for that matter want them.

The next big issue is there is just no finance available to airlines to take delivery of aircraft. And this is having exactly the same effect on Airbus as well.

I suspect that the grounding currently is doing a huge favour for most airlines that have them on order. And as soon as they can fly again the headache over the grounding will just continue on giving but move from the front to the back of the head.

Until the flight volume goes up then the fuel price stays low and the biggest advantage of flying a MAX is just not there. And they will have to try and get pax on the things to boot.

Quote (There will be a fan fair when it first starts flying again with a few token aircraft with the mods done.)

Does everyone have the same confidence that it won't 'fall out of the sky'? Just curious... looks to me like lipstick on a pig.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?
-Dik

Err one of them will but it won't be because of the grounding issues.

It will be sitting on the ground so long and pilots screwing it up.

My personal view:
There was a lot of responsibility for the first crash, for both Boeing and the FAA.
In my idealistic view, allowing the plane to continue flying until the second crash was criminal negligence resulting in death, on the part of both Boeing and the FAA.
There should be prosecutions and jail time, but There probably won't be.

Will the 737 Maxx be safe?
I don't care.
Boeing and the FAA have put thousands of passengers lives at risk by engineering by management decree.
After the first crash, Boeing and the FAA knowingly put the lives of thousands of passengers at risk by their combined denial and coverup of the issues.

To me, it is no longer a matter of safety, it is a matter of trust.
I have no trust in Boeing or the FAA.

I won't say that I will never fly Boeing again.
I will willingly put my money where my mouth is and pay a 10% premium to avoid flying Boeing in the future.
I may go as high as 20% to avoid Boeing, it will depend on the circumstances.

The price in lives lost compared to the price of doing it right wa just not worth it.

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

Quote (There should be prosecutions and jail time, but There probably won't be.)

Just like the Challenger... but, it didn't happen... clear negligence.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?
-Dik

Quote (I am the only one on this thread that can do 4 weeks of training and can be the boss on the machine.)

Things and planes were a lot simpler back then... my dad was a pilot during WWII, and there are numerous times in his log book where he was certified on different aircraft the same day...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?
-Dik

Sorry about that was a bit emotional yesterday. Another one of my old friends has passed on after a very quick bout of cancer. Feeling my age and my mortality and looking at my young family one of the problems being an older dad.

The Single engine piston class you can basically jump in and fly like your dad did between types. But even they now are getting complicated with parachute systems, EFIS instrumentation, fadec engines. I wouldn't have a problem jumping in one of the older types from the cessna C152 period with analogue instruments. But the likes of a cirrus no chance.

Sorry to hear that... my condolences.

-Dik

"There should be prosecutions and jail time, but There probably won't be." The same can be said for many apparent high level crimes, but if you have political connections + a high priced legal team , you are above the law for all intents and purposes.There really does exist 2 different types of law in the US.

"...when logic, and proportion, have fallen, sloppy dead..." Grace Slick

What's your views on Sully trying to getting involved?

My gut feeling is that he should keep out of it and try and influence the next generation of aircraft regulations.

Alistair Heaton-
Agreed.
If his specialty is flying then he should stick to that. If he has some esoteric knowledge or role in the regulation and certification process, then he should do that. Not to say he shouldn't care, but end users, buyers, operators and the like don't usually have input into government regulation/ certification processes. Vocalizing one's criticism is always free.

Brad Waybright

The more you know, the more you know you don't know.

He does have more than most pilots education on Human Performance and checking and testing. And has worked for the NTSB on a few accidents.

He is qualified to test and train people on both the A320 and 737 by the FAA.

I would say he does have suitable experience and qualifications for being involved with the pilot and procedures side of things.

Per say he would be of use in the creation of the next generation of regulations on human and machine interaction.

But to set off on a crusade just now to try and get things changed on aircraft which have been flying for years seems just daft and wasting ammunition for the big fight which is way way more important.

I think we can safely say there will not be another iteration of aircraft model on the 737 type certificate after the 10 gets certified and what ever they are calling the Ryanair special.

Quote (thebard3)

end users, buyers, operators and the like don't usually have input into government regulation/ certification processes

Unfortunately this isn't the case in aviation. Boeing spend millions a year lobbying as do all the major airlines.

And its already been whistle blown that if a FAA Engineer refused to sign off a Boeing design detail then Boeing would just contact someone higher up in the FAA and they would be instructed to sign it off sometimes by a person who had no technical training on the subject at all.

Quote (thebard3)

If his specialty is flying then he should stick to that. If he has some esoteric knowledge or role in the regulation and certification process, then he should do that. Not to say he shouldn't care, but end users, buyers, operators and the like don't usually have input into government regulation/ certification processes. Vocalizing one's criticism is always free.

It can go a lot further than that. The aviation reg's in the USA (and in Canada and Europe etc.) will be put up for public comment every time they are revised. There are amendments open for public comment right now; almost continuously since the systems of regulation are so complex. Many people and groups comment on proposed regulations and changes to regulations at these committee meetings. If you want standing at one of the public review committees to comment, you have to be welcomed, so normally not just anyone can show up to talk, but I believe that if you can show that you have something relevant to say, you can say it. I haven't personally tested this, but at times I have seen the results. Most of the comments seem to come from "mail-in" requests, not appearances at committee meetings. There are times when I'm trying to figure out the meaning or origin of a particular regulation, and the record of the "notice of proposed amendment" can be helpful. It will include the public comments and the FAA's response to them.

Here is an example (fairly random):
https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Librar...
That's a group of amendments that were reviewed in the late 1980's and the final rule included the responses of many commenters. Elsewhere the proposed changes are evaluated in terms of their impact on economics and functionality, not just safety. If pilots like Sullenberger wants to say something at these committees, they are welcome to do so.

I'm less certain of this, but I believe the majority of the US regulations are organized into a "CFR" Code of Federal Regulations and that ALL of them use a similar process of amendment, be they about aviation, food safety, alcohol, transportation, or wildlife protection...

www.sparweb.ca

Here is the EASA comment site if you want to comment on EASA regs.

https://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/

If you go to the document section you can see all the ones that are currently open for comment.

The NPA is the proposed amendment and the CRD contains the comments and the responses. You right click on the regulation name in the 5th column to the Right to get a selection choice.

The runway excursion one is actually quite interesting. Both the problem as defined in the NPA and the comments in CRD. Its worth doing a search for Boeing and Airbus in the CRD doc. And see the difference in reply's.

But to be honest I think they are barking up the wrong tree. Most excursions result after a poorly executed approach, which alot of the time should never have been started in the first place. To have any real reduction they need to get the aircraft away from the ground before the wheels are on the deck.

Link to CFR TITLE 14

Reality used to affect the way we thought. Now we somehow believe that what we think affects reality.

SparWeb-
Thanks for clarifying. Admittedly this is not my field of expertise.

Brad Waybright

The more you know, the more you know you don't know.

its nobody's field of expertise until you get lumbered with it.

But its a billion dollar industry.

They also use it tactically to screw up competitors.

Because Airbus have there systems setup since the 90's to accept info from basically any source with a set format which is common from A320 through to A380 they will say yes and support for system integration that they know fine that will be major effort for Boeing, which will need a clean sheet solution for basically every type cert. Say yes to something and support it and develop one system and have to certify it. V your competitor which needs 6 or 7 systems integrations and possibly 2-3 sub sensor systems certified add on's.

In my workplace and industry, the rules I play by drive a lot of my costs, and can get my customers' planes grounded if I make a mistake; killed if I make a big one.

(correct me if you think I'm oversimplifying) So, it seems that because we live in a democracy, there should be some representation of the people using the rules and/or the airplanes given input into the preparation of those rules. Things would be different if nobody's life depended on the safe operation of an airplane. Or if we didn't live in a democracy, of course. I have absolutely no idea how a country like China could come up with an aviation safety system that protects aircraft crew and passengers, on its own, without the rules from the USA to photocopy (and translate).

www.sparweb.ca

Some good news. EASA boss has indicated that it will be released again soon.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-16...

That's a bit of a relief actually for everyone world wide it does no good only having one producer of aircraft.

Apart from anything else I bought a load of Boeing stock at 148 last month.

From mates that have worked in China the rules are perverted away from the intention. Its a huge blame culture everything revolves around being penalised. And locals disappear sometimes expats just get deported. Doesn't stop them crashing though. And they have the same issues with alcohol that the western world had in the 80/90's with aircrew. Which thankfully is now history. My record was being breathalysed 6 times in one day. Once on the way to work in the car, once at work normal report blow in the meter, then by the Norwegian's after the first sector, had a safa inspection which we also got tested. Had a random drugs test when we finished the duty. And got a random test on the way home as well by the same cop that had tested me at 5:30 am on the way in.

I was really surprised to seek Patrick Ky get ahead of this one. I was privately expecting EASA would wait for the FAA to stick their necks out first. Maybe even seek 3rd place if Canada spoke up soon after the FAA.

www.sparweb.ca

...be interesting if another plane falls out of the sky. Anyone signing off should be held criminally liable... Last month Boeing had no new orders.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?
-Dik

There is no IF about it, its when and for what reason.

Politically its better as the certifier of Airbus that EASA is the first one to come out and give its approval... better to not be seen as the one putting the brakes on especially if its obvious that there is extremely limited ability to improve things much in the short term. Its not as if a lot of them will be flown outside the USA before the 24 months its going to take to develop the 3 AoA. It also adds credence to the FAA re certifying it. And the regulators are just as much under the spot light as Boeing on this one. They need to get the mutual recognition back up and working.


The out come of next months election may also be a factor and the on going sanctions which have been pretty much got round by Airbus over a plane which isn't even made anymore. A lot of the sanctions are on exports from the UK which will be not subject to them in the new year.

So what happened to the kill the stick shaker switch/ action that EASA were apparently asking for a few weeks ago??

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

Hasn't been mentioned again by EASA although it could be a technicality to do with recertification and they can't require it an bit like sorting out the trimming. Maybe it will be required for the MAX 10.

It could be such an ability was technically another 12-18 months to get through and they want to get the plane flying again this year.

From a recent trade journal, "Boeing will cut more jobs as it continues to bleed money and its revenue fades during a pandemic that has smothered demand for new airline planes.

The company said Wednesday that it expects to cut its workforce to about 130,000 people by the end of next year, or 30,000 fewer than it began with in 2020. That is a far deeper cut to its workforce than the 19,000 jobs the company said it planned to trim just three months ago."

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

3 interesting tidbits related to the 787. First, several international airlines refused to accept delivery of 787's if they were built in south carolina, due to QC isssues. Second , Boeing announced it will relocate all 787 production fromn everett washington to south carolina. Third, washington state ballot initiative #35 would prevent the state from adding a $1 billion tax onto boeing ( over 10 yrs) ( the tax was proposed in order to close budget gaps).

My guess is the boeing claim to move to south carolina was a practical protest against the $1 billion tax. If initiative #35 passes and the tax is revoked, then boeing might change their mind, but it would increase the pressure to change the washington constitution to allow income taxes, at least on a county basis.

"...when logic, and proportion, have fallen, sloppy dead..." Grace Slick

Just got this...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

The 737 sim is commonly used for checks when you go for jobs even if its for a turboprop. Its also used for doing a course in Euroland called the Multicrew cooperation course which is about working together as a team and communicating not flying the aircraft type your using the sim of. We do it before the first multicrew type. This is mainly due to the huge numbers of 737 sims and also the availability. So most of us at some point have flown the 737 sim in a very reduced form. As you can see from that pic there is buttons and switches everywhere. But that doesn't give the full picture.

You have the over head panel.



And then the infamous CB panel. This is the main one behind the LHS but there is another smaller one behind the RHS.



There is quite a few QRH procedures that require you to find a CB on those panels using a grid allocation and pull it. Which is what the stick shaker cancellation discussion is all about. One pilot has to get out of there seat to find it and pull it. And as you can see by the cockpit picture there is no space left to put a button.

@dik, artist didn't manage to label the powered trim cutout, did they.

@moon...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

moon there isn't on one in the max apparently there is only a electrical trim motor isolate which covers both flight control mandatory inputs and electrical manual trim control. Unlike the NG.

Once its off your on your own...... if you are inside the +- 10 knot window you can actually physically trim in....if your not you need to turn it on again against the QRH to actually survive.

Fixed that for ya.

www.sparweb.ca

Hehehee...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

Love it spar

Talk in the other thread about flying a plane with a loose elevator and a trim tab reminds me of a friend who had dinghy with a main and jib, a Laser II I think. He misbehaved somehow and his mother hid the rudder so the set the main and steered with the jib.

So that's where they hide the Chemtrails control!

Boeing orders:

Boeing had no orders for new airliners in October, its second consecutive month, and orders for 37 of its Max jets came off the books as the company continues to struggle with the grounding of the Max and a pandemic that has crippled the airline industry.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

United will allow passengers to avoid flying on 737-Frankensteins.
https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/737-max-ret...

I no longer trust the certifiers... I would avoid them...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

15% tariffs just got applied to all delivery in EU.

To be honest I can't see then flying in EU for two years anyway. The biggest owner Norwegian is likely to go tits up soon.

I really don't care how safe the plane is.
I do not trust Boeing.
I will pay a premium to avoid flying on any Boeing aircraft.

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

I wouldn't fly on the max....

The rest of the 737 fleet no problem.

The only other reservations on Boeing types would be to do with etops and engine types. Which isn't really Boeing's fault.

If it's a 747 or 757 proper old school Boeing aircraft go for it.

Now we're talking

It's not just the plane, Alistair.
I have no trust in Boeing's honesty or corporate values.
They screwed up and killed 189 people.
That was bad enough, but instead of taking immediate corrective measures they stonewalled and refused to act in a morally acceptable manner.
As a result of their failure to act, they killed 157 more people.
I try to avoid doing business with people who are so willing to put my live at risk for financial gain.

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

To be honest I wouldn't put any more trust in anyone else in the industry be it the operators or the OEM's

https://canadianaviationnews.wordpress.com/2020/11...

But I suspect its not going to be a boon for the bank balance as they think. I suspect it will force a number of airlines into bankruptcy if they insist delivery on their schedule unless they sink the finance onto Boeings books.

Lets hope to what every deity you prefer that one of them doesn't crash in the next year. The situation is utterly ripe for a none related crash to the certification issues. Aircraft sat on the ground for 18 months plus aircraft really don't like being on the ground. Expect a huge list of gear, electrical and flap issues over the next 6 months. Its nothing to do with the original issues with the MAX just long term storage.

Here's the announcement

https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=93206

The AD runs to 115 pages(!) https://www.faa.gov/foia/electronic_reading_room/b...

I'll let someone better qualified than me digest that.

Talks about adequately separating airplane wiring and has emasculated the MCAS system, so it is now virtually useless as far as I can see (lower stab angle movement, only operates once per flight high AOA and then resets) and can be held against by column movement. Plus all the checking one to the other (5.5 degrees difference it all shuts down)

The AD seems to be addressing all the comments and issues raised by the various parties.

Looks like the stick shaker is still there.

Basically it's all about - we've fixed MCAS from going off so now we don't need to do anything to address the other issues which appeared along the way....

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

LittleInch... I think that Alistair summed it up, "Lets hope to what every deity you prefer that one of them doesn't crash in the next year."

I still won't fly on one and wonder what companies would purchase this somewhat tarnished craft.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

The argument seems to be that yes you need MCAS in order to meet the requirement to have increased force on the controls as you pull back at high AoA when everything is working as it should.

However if MCAS is inoperative ( now for multiple reasons), this is OK as this apparently this single fault does not prevent "continued safe flight and landing" and that the pilot can stop the plane increasing the AoA and therefore potentially going into a stall by pushing forward on the control column(!!).

WOW

There's no particular mention I can find of how they have managed to reduce the amount of nose down trim required from previous to now and still have the same effect.

It seems any deactivation also kills the Speed Trim system. I've never quite worked out what this does, but is that an issue now?

They dismissed the return to the two switch system as now not being required because they've made the system so safe and also dismissed the force needed to manually trim the plane for the same reason. Also they state that they don't believe the manual system can't be used.

So there we have it.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

So, you are saying that if it activates and you don't need it, you can disable it, and you can fly the craft fine without it... have to shake the sawdust out...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

Well, as the news has trumpeted all morning, the AD has been revised with a means of compliance: a series of service bulletin remedies and training requirements to be fulfilled, then the planes can reenter service in the USA. Europe has indicated that they're not far behind, and Canada has sent mixed messages, both acknowledging that the process is nearly complete, but at the same time it's not good enough, yet.

I can't square the circle on the necessity of the trim VS the necessity of the flight control feedback forces, the issue that started it all. Plenty of other issues that have reared up, such as pilot training (in sim's or on the sofa) cockpit advisory confusion, ability to disable items such as the trim and the stick pusher, the stab's range of motion, the might and muscle needed to turn the trim wheels, and the proportional feedback that the yoke is supposed to give the pilots - and that's just off the top of my head (I may have missed some important ones).

At this time, Boeing and their operators have access to the maintenance and upgrade data that defines what changes are required before flight. They don't so much define what needs to be done, but instead they "embody Alert Service Bulletin #####" and so on, which cross-references to a document I don't have. The general public only has the records published so far from the FAA, which don't shed much light, yet. I'm still looking.

Trust Dominic's team in Seattle to get their hands on it soon, and offer us a run-down. It ain't over yet, I bet.

www.sparweb.ca

Dik,

What it means is that if mcas goes off when it shouldn't then the reduced angle it now moves the stab compared to before (I can't find out how much less) can be over identify by pulling the control column alone. This gives the pilots time to figure it out and trim the stab back into the right position.

Then unless the AoA goes back to normal mcas shouldn't keep going off.

But if mcas is disabled and you go into one of these high AoA situations that is now ok as the pilot can stop the plane going into a stall by pushing forward on the control column contrary to the normal requirement about increasing force as the AoA increases.

I presume the fault then needs to be fixed before the plane can fly again

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

new news:

"After nearly two years and a pair of deadly crashes, U.S. Federal Aviation Administration has cleared Boeing’s 737 Max for flight.

The nation’s air safety agency announced the move early Wednesday, saying it was done after a comprehensive and methodical 20-month review process.

Regulators around the world grounded the Max in March 2019, after the crash of an Ethiopian Airlines jet. That happened less than five months after another Max flown by Indonesia’s Lion Air plunged into the Java Sea. A total of 346 passengers and crew members on both planes were killed.

The planes won’t return to the skies for a while. The FAA says it must approve pilot training changes for each U.S. airline and airlines must perform required maintenance on the planes."

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

Quote (What it means is that if mcas goes off when it shouldn't)

Thanks... my mistake... I was trying to be cute...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

Speed trim system was another fudge to correct dodgy aerodynamics as far as I can tell.

They don't have to actually correct all these issues just prove that there is 1 to a very large number that the issue will not cause a fatality. Half the stuff apparently they couldn't force them to change because there is no regulation that requires it to be so. eg the manual trimming and stick shaker stuff.

They are all going to be inspected as well for production debris and also some lightning conductivity stuff By FAA engineers not Boeing. This may throw up other issues.

There is also a rather large wiring mod to be done.

There is apparently legal stuff with law changes currently going on to do with the FAA which might also have had an effect.

Personally I think they had basically hit the end of the road with the changes they could make and not scrap all the aircraft that they have already made.

We shall see what the other regulators com up with. I have a gut feel something may come up when the FAA starts doing airworthiness inspections. But as I have said before its the long term storage issues which concern me the most after it starts flying again. Gear issues, flap issues, fume events, bizarre electrical issues etc.

Do I understand that there just has to be a manual trim system, but there is no regulation saying that it has to be usable when it is really needed?
There are all sorts of justifications and reasons and arguments but at the end of the day, the more you need manual trim, the less likely that it will be possible to use.
Would a usable usable manual trim have significantly lowered the body count.
What would the late Dr. Richard Feynman have said if he had been part of the discussions?
I am sure that he would have asked some questions that could not be answered by the proponents of the existing manual trim system.

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

Waroos,

That's our interpretation of it - it turned out that there was no actual set down requirement for the amount of force required to turn the trim wheel or how many times you need to turn it to get 1 degree of movement. Hence the FAA can't make up a rule so are left with nothing to use to get Boeing to change anything. The diameter of the wheel apparently changed somewhere along the line, possibly into the NG to cope with changes to the cockpit layout which reduced the mechanical advantage. It apparently takes 15 turns of the wheel to make 1 degree of stab change. Now whether there is a requirement for a manual system or just some level of independent back up I don't know. I don't know what the airbus set up is for the stabiliser, but I think it's similar. The 737 apparently had back up motors at one time but they got removed in later versions.

I think the answer to the "Would a .." is most definitely Yes, at least for the second crash. The poor Ethiopian pilots apparently tried to move the stab manually after they disabled the trim motor, but couldn't move it, not helped by their high speed. That's why they turned the trim motors back on and then plummeted into the ground. Only one pilot could try this as the other was holding the plane just about horizontal with both hands. Later on the "roller coaster" method was noted as being removed from the manual which released some of the tension on the stab in a dive before you pulled up and then tried again.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

#3, will be more interesting, with what has happened.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

I am pretty sure but not 100% that the airbus trim is operated by a backup hydraulic system which is powered off an emergency bus.

The main system has 3 electric motors and then the 4th backup system which has multiple electrical power sources. I think the only thing which doesn't have more than three backup methods is the actual main screw jack itself. But as the elevators are hydraulically powered with 3000 psi and there is 3 hydraulic system which power them as well even if the stab becomes locked you can still move the elevator and fly it.

The only way they get away with FBW is by having at least triple of everything that's involved in primary safety. The new generation of FBW goes even further. the A220 has 6 AoA sensors. But I might add we still don't have an AoA indication on the instruments in the cockpit.

The issues is that the 737 is now FBW with computer inputs into the primary flight controls but has none of the required FBW backups. Which is one of the reasons why I think they had a limit of how far they could push them to change things without scrapping every single aircraft that they had already produced.

EASA has released its requirements.

https://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/20-184

They have also set a load of limits to perform low viz and autolands and also coupled RNP approaches . Which may cause Ryanair no end of problems.

But the big thing is the

Quote (EASA)

Foreign AD: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) AD 2020-24-02 dated 20 November 2020,which is not adopted by EASA.

Which is to be honest the most worrying aspect.

Yes, they have a few special features in their proposed new AD that the FAA didn't address.

Looks like the circuit breakers for the stick-shaker need to be found in a hurry, so the normal procedure for this will become "pull the breaker". This is the kind of procedure that systems design has been working AWAY FROM for 50 years. I bet Transport Canada will get on board with this strategy too, given some of the other things they've said in the past few months.

So I have to wonder, now, if the reliability level has been "rounded down" from the required 10^^-9 to... maybe 10^^-8.9. And stay out of the operations where you really depend on both high functionality and reliability at the same time (RNP for example). And everyone is just going to put up with it for now, maybe hoping that a more long-term fix can be finished a year or so from now. Proper DAL is not whipped into black boxes like magic, or overnight.

Does that cover all the holes in the swiss-cheese?

www.sparweb.ca

There are more than a few QRH cards on the 737 that require CB pulls. The question is will this one need 1.5 meter long arms or get out your seat or not.

I don't really understand what the problem is with the RNP stuff. Its all pumped through the same flight director logic as the ILS coupling. The fancy stuff is all done in the box of tricks doing error calculations and using the SBAS to get the high resolution both horizontally and vertically.

But issues like this are not for stick monkeys like me to be worrying about.

And it definitely won't and can't cover all the holes in the swiss cheese. There are still holes there from the initial 1960's design that have never been fixed.

So, after a year of not flying passenger jets, do the skills of the average pilot get a bit rusty?

"...when logic, and proportion, have fallen, sloppy dead..." Grace Slick

Hell yes you can feel it after 2 weeks vacation.

I am feeling rusty flying 30 hours a month.

They will go to the SIM first but you don't get in the groove until your banging in 8-12 approaches a week.

Quote (Alistair Heaton)

I don't really understand what the problem is with the RNP stuff. Its all pumped through the same flight director logic as the ILS coupling. The fancy stuff is all done in the box of tricks doing error calculations and using the SBAS to get the high resolution both horizontally and vertically.

I bet inside that box there is too much reliance on the same AOA vanes that got us into this mess. Sure you can correct it with the GPS but it's a correction of +/- applied to another number that's gone full-scale wacky. If the system still doesn't have the power of voting down the bad data...

www.sparweb.ca

As such it just provides a heading or a vertical speed to the flight director which the autopilot then gives control input instructions to a set of servo's to adjust the relevant controls. It will use the same screjack motor as everything else does to control pitch.

There is no flight envelope protection on that side of things if it try's to do something stupid it will take the aircraft to the stick shaker. Which might be the reason, there was an issue with the stick shaker running and the autopilot not kicking out. Which wouldn't be fun at 100ft and the ground not insight a a go-around would involve the aircraft touching the runway.

Note that American Airlines flew their first 737MAX flight today since the grounding, with albeit non-paying customers, but for the first time, they were not American Airlines people. In this case, it was a group of reporters which were flown from Dallas to Tulsa. It appears that they will soon be making revenue generating flights. Delta and Southwest are expected to follow suit.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

What's your feeling for general feeling about the MAX your side of the pond?

To be honest there is that little flying going on in Europe and Norwegian is utterly screwed. In fact I think the court case with Boeing is due to start soon over several billion dollars. Even if it was released to fly it wouldn't be in the air anyway

I am flying around with loads that would be poor in a Q400 never mind a A220.

I expect that most pax wouldn't know the difference between and Boeing and an airbus and if the safety card didn't mention the model then they wouldn't have a clue what they were on.

Quote (Alistair)

I expect that most pax wouldn't know the difference between and Boeing and an airbus and if the safety card didn't mention the model then they wouldn't have a clue what they were on.

An other possible issue may be rebranding.
Even if Boeing doesn't re-name the Max, there may be a suspicion that some airlines may rename the Max.
Then there is equipment substitution; the craft listed in the booking information may be substituted with a Max without notice.
With that in mind, and with a healthy distrust of Boeing, some of us will be avoiding flying with carriers with Boeing fleets of any flavour.

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

Commercial pressure is starting with Airbus now with the A220 Air France is trying to get Airbus to stretch the A220-300 already and its only been flying for a few years.

They prefer it to the A320 NEO. And to be honest I don't blame them. The airbus FBW is decades old now and clunky compared to the Canadian product.

Seems like Ryanair have ordered another 75 737-MAX-8200 but to my knowledge its not even certified yet for the additional pax numbers which require another emergency exit

Whatever happened to the ryanair proposals to fly with only 1 pilot + 1 stewardess, passengers will have to stand, and pay to use the toilet?

"...when logic, and proportion, have fallen, sloppy dead..." Grace Slick

That's just his normal bluster to get free advertising. He usually comes out with something every 6 months to get social media excited.

I hope they put the video public of the pax evacuation tests with 197 pax trying to get out with only 50% of the doors working and no wing slides in 90 seconds.

At least the new jets won't be stinking of pee and poo after a week flying

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tasneemnashru...

I recall one of the evac tests ( in 1975) where they recruited 197 college athletes to act as the passsengers, priming them for the fast reaction requirements , and of course they passed the 90 sec test. I guess they do not recruit patients from nursing homes to be the test passengers.I wonder how fast the evac is when half the passengers have dogs and miniature horses as their "comfort pets" .

"...when logic, and proportion, have fallen, sloppy dead..." Grace Slick

I'm sure one of the trials / tests they did to re enact a poor real evacuation was to offer cash incentives to the first 50 people off the plane, regardless of where you were sitting to replicate the panic that could ensue in a fire / smoke situation.

They discovered that the narrow gap in the aisle due to the galley caused a log jam of people, but not before there were a few broken bones and sprains as people vaulted over seats and basically forced themselves to the front of the queue. And that was a 737.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

The stuff that used to go on in the 70/880's to get through the certification was utterly horrendous. As you say it was a load of young males who had a bonus if it worked. Broken bones were common.

737 is particularly bad because it doesn't have wing slides. The evacuation drill needs the crew to select flaps to create a slide down to the ground. But that still levels a 6ft drop to the ground. In real life pax try and go back inside because they don't like the drop. If they forget to put the flaps out then its 10ft drop.

But they banned that shenanigans and its now a mix load with some variation in gender and age distribution in the cabin, well it is with EASA anyway.

In real life a lot of the time the under carriage has given way so things are lower. Or there isn't that much of a rush and people can just use the fore and aft doors.

I've never fancied getting out the overwing exits on a 737, but at least now the door hinges upwards so you don't end up with 20kg of door in your lap.

It always looked a rather err exciting way to exit the air plane.

and the 800 and Max have two doors on each wing!

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

I used to struggle with those wing exits during the yearly door training never mind the cabin crew. If you got the angles wrong you pulled a muscle in your back.

I always got the take-away from the pre-flight announcement that;
"We will be flying almost 4 miles high.
There are six exits, two in the rear, two in the front and two over the wings."
I always thought;
"Great.
If anything goes wrong we can get out and walk on the wings."

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

Last year an intern at my company was being shown the cockpit of a Dash 8. Various features were being pointed out and the "guide" pointed to the ceiling that there's an emergency exit hatch there. He actually reached up and pulled the handle. Well the thing dropped into his arms and there was a struggle with the mass of it in a confined area, and his guide trying to regain control of the situation. A very red-faced young man walked out of the plane (the point where I saw that something was up). And he was required to accompany his guide to the maintenance chief to explain what had happened and that the door would have to be reinstalled and checked.

www.sparweb.ca

i got told in no uncertain terms to never touch it unless we were going to exit via it. It has a ventilation possibility which 50% of the time ends up with it dropping out. The guy was lucky he didn't hurt himself...

It's back...

https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2020/12/05/boe...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

And as soon as they have one thing finished then another one turns up.

https://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/AIR-20-19

its a similar issue that airbus had when one went into the woods thinking it was in landing mode and refusing to come out of it apparently.

Alistair - Do you mean AF296? There was a lot of talk about this and I know certain things are disputed, but in that one the pilots really screwed it up and didn't initiate go around fast enough for the engines to spool up given that they were at idle for a long time before that. Or so says airbus and the accident investigators.

But this one sounds not that good....

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

There is loads of disputed over that one

And claims that the back box's had been tampered with. There is alleged to be 4 seconds missing. And if that 4 seconds involves a none responsive command for power. Then history would have been somewhat different.

There were some major changes to the AT logic afterwards and changes to the pilot training.

I think there was a Mayday episode on it.

The main pilot issue is show boating and going below 500ft when not intending to land. The chain of events after that could have been stopped there. Even doing 500ft flyby with pax onboard wouldn't have passed my personal risk assessment of acceptable.

Without going too far off tangent that crash (AF296) was a real balls up from the start.

But it's when you realise that they had the engines on idle for a long time (>30secs) and basically scrubbed off speed and height by gradually lifting the nose until they ran out of air speed then somehow expected the engines to give full power instantly. They lined up initially on the wrong runway, were too high and over confident. The engines were spooling up when they hit the trees but they take a few seconds and with a large bunch of trees at the end of the runway they didn't have those few seconds.

I don't know what happens on a normal landing / go around but I would be surprised if the engines were at complete idle as you glide in or how long the power on from throttle movement to actually doing something takes. In a crash situation time slows down to a remarkable event for the participant to the extent that it is a known issue that people think something isn't happening as fast as they think it should (e.g. engines spooling up) and so either add more force or start doing something else before the machine responds as it should (reportedly moving the throttles back to idle then full power again).

I would imagine the extra training went along the lines of don't fly a large passenger aircraft full of passengers at close to its stall speed 100 ft above the ground ( they actually did it a 30ft(!!) along a grass runway you've never been to before which has a large bunch of trees at the end of it.

And the clear grass bit between the trees is only 1100m long. So at the reported air speed of 120kts, that's 18 seconds max. Realistically probably 12 seconds from when he levelled the plane off. The whole thing was madness. IMHO.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

Its a stabilisation criteria that they are above idle at 1000ft....

No the training was 3 days worth of know your airbus fight modes and how to know which one your in and how to get into climb like an angle mode. There was also a pretty major fight system update 9 months later.

These days the first airbus type rating has nearly double the amount of ground school that other type ratings have. Most of it is avionics and the FBW system. If you then go to other types in the airbus range is barely a week ground school and a couple of sessions in the sim.

That's the thing the pilot said he had put the power on and nothing happened. And something only happened when he moved the levers full travel and then hit TOGA.

There is a smell of the aircraft thought it was landing and went into flare mode so disregarded the power demands. It only kicked out of that mode when they hit TOGA. but by then it was too late with the spool up times.

The main way to avoid this one is not to get involved with this sort of nonsense fly by's in the first place. they have been banned to my knowledge this side of the Atlantic.

The AT system is seen as a major flaw in the airbus system. The power levers don't move and when your in manual they sense the position then send it to the flight controller that then demands the power from the engine. To my knowledge all FBW systems since airbus have the flight controllers sending demands to the power lever servo's which then move and then the engine controllers sense the position from there for demand. So if you over power the servo's then all the engine controller see's is the power levers in the firewall and gives you that.

As i have said a few times in these threads my personal belief is that the airbus system needs requalified with modern standards as well. Its 40 years old now and quiet a few major flaws are being grandfathered and never fixed.

I have been reading that Air France want a stretched version of the A220-300 and the driving force behind that is the fresh sheet FBW and cockpit which I must admit is great and the ex proper airbus pilots say is streets ahead of what they have flown ranging from A320 through to A380 and everything in-between.

He had also disabled a lot of the protection devices, but maybe forgot about that one... As we've seen with MCAS, there can be things written deep into the code that no one really knows about or should be overridden but wasn't. but as said, maybe something was starting to happen but in the growing panic as he's looking a row of trees he didn't know were there that his brain started going faster than normal and the engines didn't keep up.

So in the AB the power changes but the levers don't move?? Oh.

You're probably right that something designed 40 years ago should be re-done and not just continually patched up.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

you normally put them into a gate and then they stay there until you land or decide to go manual power levers.

That feature is pretty much universally hated by the Ab pilots as far as I can tell.

Them moving gives you tactile feedback what the machine power state is even when you can't see them during fumes and smoke. The smoke generator in our sim seems to be some turbo powered zero viz machine. Way more effective than the one in the Q400 sim. I ended up with my mask 10cm away from DU3 and couldn't see the engine instruments last week in the sim doing that exercise. let it do an auto land and basically it looked after itself including speed reduction and the only thing we did was put the flap out and gear down after pointing it at the final approach fix and arming the approach mode.

I am not saying the should be redone just a complete big picture assessment in relation to modern norms. But things that have been highlighted as issues 40 years before shouldn't be allowed to continue. There is stuff on the 737 that has been bitched about and is still a feature on the MAX after 60 years.

Quote (Way more effective than the one in the Q400 sim. I ended up with my mask 10cm away from DU3 and couldn't see the engine instruments last week in the sim doing that exercise)

Sounds like a real fire...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

Good training then.... And not cheap to provide. its a CAE 7000XR sim with CAE Tropos™ 6000XR visual system.

We had it on the ground and evacuated in under 10 mins. The fire and smoke checklist on all types is notorious for taking ages. Once you start it you set things up for ram air and venting as much as possible and then go through a series of tests to try and find out which system is on fire. Which is the various electrical systems then the air conditioning system. It takes about 30-40 mins to do it completely with 3 min pauses to see if the smoke decreases every time a system is isolated. We just got the ventilation going and got it on the ground. Which gave us full autoland capability because all the electrics were still online. But apparently if we had run the checklist until we had got to the 4th power system it would have cleared the smoke but then we would have been doing a manual approach with masks on which is not pleasant at the 25 min point after it started.

It took 15 mins coffee break for the air blowers to clear it ready for the next exercises. All in all a productive 4 hours worth of training. We were doing the new RNP AR procedures for the new curved approaches into the likes of Salzburg. From 18 miles out flying a slalom course down to the runway. Much less stressful than doing a visual circling approach.

If your interested

https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/app/themes/mh_newsd...

A pretty sobering read so far and i have only got to page 13....

https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/FFD...

Quote (First paragraph)

I.Executive SummaryIn April of 2019, weeks after the second of two tragic crashes of Boeing 737 MAX aircraft, U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation staff began receiving information from whistleblowers detailing numerous concerns related to aviation safety. Commerce Committee Chairman Roger Wicker directed staff to begin an oversight investigation. The scope and breadth of the investigation quickly expanded beyond the first allegations inspired by the 737 MAX tragedies. Information received from fifty-seven whistleblowers revealed common themes among the allegations including insufficient training, improper certification, FAA management acting favorably toward operators, and management undermining of frontline inspectors. The investigation revealed that these trends were often accompanied by retaliation against those who report safety violations anda lack of effective oversight, resulting in a failed FAA safety management culture.

It doesn't get any better as far as page 28 out of 102 pages.

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

Just finished it.

Feel quiet sorry for the grunts on the coal face,

Although quiet how you would "fix" it I have no clue. Similar investigations with NASA did change things for while but then history repeated itself years later with the Shuttle.

Its going to need serious amounts of money. And this is only the aircraft certification side of things. I suspect the air traffic part of the FAA has similar issues.

Only silver lining is that for world certification other authorities will now be requiring compliance separately from the FAA.

Quote (Senate report)

VIII.Conclusion
The FAA is responsible for the regulation and oversight of the U.S. aviation industry with
safety as the primary goal. The Committee’s twenty month investigation incorporated
information from fifty-seven whistleblowers, thousands of pages of documents, and numerous
interviews. Committee investigators discovered numerous systemic deficiencies in FAA
oversight. These deficiencies included ineffective or complete lack of oversight, resulting in
unnecessary risk to the flying public. In many cases FAA management appears to be aware, and
in some cases complicit in thwarting the very oversight they are charged with directing and
supervising. In the most alarming cases, whistleblowers have warned of tragedies before they
occur only to be retaliated against by managers. Unfortunately, much of what has been detailed
in this report has been well known and reported on for decades.

Quote (Committee investigators discovered numerous systemic deficiencies in FAA
oversight. These deficiencies included ineffective or complete lack of oversight, resulting in
unnecessary risk to the flying public.)

Speaks volumes...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

...and from the BBC, "The FAA said the Senate Commerce Committee's report contained "a number of unsubstantiated allegations", and that its review of the 737 Max had been thorough. It said it was confident that safety issues with the aircraft had been addressed."

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

The conclusion of the report is really the natural result of having one organization responsible for promotion, and regulation of an industry.

Separating the organization into three entities might be appropriate, as the organizational goal could be aligned with it's function.

Operations - Air Traffic Control
Regulation - Any function related to enforcing or certifying
Promotion - Airport Construction?

The allegations are probably "unsubstantiated" due to the original documents not being appended to the report - all 13000 +/- of them, which would have created a different but equally useless comment about the presentation of supporting information.

Fred

Should have been;

Quote:

"The FAA said the Senate Commerce Committee's report contained "a number of unsubstantiated allegations",

<s>I am so happy for the FAA that enough time has passed that they are able to forget over 300 deaths and move forward with more self serving BS.</s>
The FAA has lost most of its credibility and more denial will not help to rebuild credibility.

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

They left no tern unstoned... "The head of Europe's aviation safety agency, EASA, has told the BBC he is "certain" Boeing's 737 Max is now safe to fly.

Executive Director Patrick Ky said his organisation had "left no stone unturned" in its review of the aircraft and its analysis of design changes made by the manufacturer."

#3 will be more interesting...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

I personally think the only reason why the MAX will be the best is can be (but still fundamentally its a pretty horrible Frankenstein compromised design) is because of Canadian and EASA input and Boeings knowledge that in the world wide scope of things a FAA wet cloth wipe to regain approval was pretty much meaningless.

As for the whole setup of the FAA and its remit. I really don't know. It's not as if EASA doesn't have its big issues.

To be honest I don't know how the Canadians have it setup with funding and defined roles etc.

Nothing has changed, the world still rotates around and around. The FAA ( and all other regulatory agencies) are still owned by the major manufacturers that are supposed to be regulated, and the judges in the appeals courts are still golf and dinner partners with the executives of the industries being sued. Ah, the ecology of corruption. How sweet it is. OOPs, time to watch DWTS.

"...when logic, and proportion, have fallen, sloppy dead..." Grace Slick

EASA certainly isn't owned by either of them. And certainly not Boeing.

The FAA is screwed now for a decade at least. And so is Boeing because they have to get certified by all the other authorities the FAA opinion is basically meaningless as no aircraft will survive with just a USA region certification. FAA has two choices leave as is and basically step back and let the rest of the world do the real certification work or go in harder than the rest to prove a point.

But as Boeing seems to have absolutely nothing in the pipeline for at least the next 10 years apart from the 777x which there is absolutely zero demand for and they are going to have to certify it properly with none FAA regulators they are basically screwed.

I still reckon the MAX will end up with less than 2k units produced.

It will be interesting to see if the coming Biden appointments have any impact on the FAA, either directly or indirectly.

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

Not sure if BBC georestricted?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-5537249...

And EASA approval?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/55366320

Politicians like to panic, they need activity. It is their substitute for achievement.

Ryanair's boss Michael O'Leary talks about the 737-Max.
Except he didn't call it the 737 Max. He repeatedly referred to the "737 8200".
Link
One of the resons but not the only reason that I will pay a premium to avoid Boeing.
"If it's Boeing, I'm not going!"

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

MAX is the marketing name and covers 4 or 5 type certificates.

The 737-8200 is a 737-8 which is certified for 200 pax onboard which is an extra 22 compared to a normal 737-8 to be honest calling it a 737-8200 is more technically correct than calling it a straight MAX

Personally I am going to call it a Frankenstein cattle truck.

Most of the big regulators have now cleared it again. I haven't seen anything about china. But there is notable differences to do with checklists and the training which are different but not yet full specified. There is also requirements that in the next 1-2 years that they fit more AOA sensors or some other synthetic AoA calculation and add it into the mix for the fault logic to the AoA value to trigger MCAS.

Ryanair is a bit funny it has to replace its fleet within a certain period or it goes outside its business model and incurs huge expense if any of the aircraft hit major maint inspections. It also has to stick with Boeing. It also requires inbuilt steps and there is a couple of other features it uses that nobody else does.

A rose by any other name...

Quote:

MAX is the marketing name and covers 4 or 5 type certificates.

Do any of those types NOT have MACS?
I imagine that when a person checks his itinerary, it will list the equipment as "737-8200" rather than a 737-MAX?
That is easy to confuse with a 737-800-NG.
I understand that Boeing is deemphasising the MAX designation.
I don't have your ready familiarization with the various types of Boeing aircraft.
The safest way for me to avoid the MAX and/or MACS is to avoid carriers who fly Boeing equipment whenever I reasonably can.
It's not about safety, it's about trust for Boeing and the FAA.

This is interesting:

Quote:

There is also requirements that in the next 1-2 years that they fit more AOA sensors or some other synthetic AoA calculation

That's a gamble.
If a MAX goes down for any reason in the next two years it could trigger the end of Boeing in the commercial market.

Quote:

They left no tern unstoned... "The head of Europe's aviation safety agency, EASA, has told the BBC he is "certain" Boeing's 737 Max is now safe to fly.
Executive Director Patrick Ky said his organisation had "left no stone unturned" in its review of the aircraft and its analysis of design changes made by the manufacturer."

Now is "The head of Europe's aviation safety agency, EASA," meaning the MAX today, or the MAX two years down the road when the remedies have been completely implemented?
While the odds that we will ever meet IRL are quite small, Alistair, the odds that we will meet sitting side by side on a MAX are non-existent.
Time will tell how things will work out for the carriers who have all Boeing fleets.

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

they all have it, Its the engines which make them need it.

Ryanair pax really won't care what they fly on as long as its cheap.

Actually I am pretty shocking at spotting aircraft types but the MAX is pretty easy because it just looks strange and wrong with these huge engines sticking out way forward of the wing and they also have a corrugated bit on the back of the pod.

They have the 737-7 737-8 and 737-9 certified already and they were grounded. The 737-10 and this ryanair special 737-8200 are not certified yet.

I believe the AoA stuff will have to be implemented before the 737-10 gets its type certificate.

Everything in aviation is a gamble if they weren't allowed to start delivery's again they more than likely would be finished as well. And absolutely nobody wants a Airbus monopoly even Airbus.

The EASA stuff is pretty safe Norwegian are mid process in the courts to make Boeing take the ones they have back and cancel the rest and get their money back. And with the amount of flying going on just now which isn't looking like much will happen next year to improve things. Ryanair can't get theirs until the 737-8200 get a type variation certification. Nobody wants them in Europe apart from RYAnair and the only reason it wants them is to get rid of its old 737-800 NG before D check.

Quote (I understand that Boeing is deemphasising the MAX designation.)

...like putting lipstick on a pig.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

designators for type certification are impossible to change after the type certificate is given

For example the type i fly currently is called the A220 it used to be called C series. All the paperwork calls it a Bd500 and that's how its referenced in my license's.

As you say changing the marketing name in this case is like putting lipstick on a pig.

Especially as it just doesn't look right and unique.

Seems the FAA director has form

https://pullingwingsfrombutterflies.com/karlene-pe...

The bloke that writes this blog took Thomas cook to task over FTL's as well and won...

Some related tidbits:
In a decision dated December 21, 2020, federal Administrative Law Judge Scott R. Morris found Delta Air Lines, Inc. guilty of having used a compulsory psychiatric examination as a “weapon” against Dr. Karlene Petitt after she raised safety issues related to the airline’s flight operations.
Delta selected Dr. David B. Altman as the examiner...
Altman received over $73,000 for his psychiatric report....
Dr. Karlene Petitt was subsequently examined by the Mayo Clinic at her own expense.

During the trial, it emerged that Delta had paid Dr Altman $73,000 to conduct the psychiatric evaluation. Ms Petitt had sought a second opinion at the world-renowned Mayo Clinic. The Mayo clinic totally debunked Altman’s diagnosis.
In way of comparison, it was disclosed that Ms Petitt paid only $3,200 in medical fees. Delta Airlines was unable to explain the financial discrepancy between the two examinations.
Judge Morris quoted findings of Dr. Steinkraus of the Mayo Clinic with respect to the diagnosis of Dr. Petitt:
“This has been a puzzle for our group – the evidence does not support presence of a psychiatric diagnosis but does support an organizational/corporate effort to remove this pilot from the rolls. … years ago in the military, it was not unusual for female pilots and air crew to be the target for such an effort.”

Karma's a bitch.
After taking $73.000 from Delta Airlines to end a pilot's career.........
Dr. Altman agreed to be placed on permanent inactive status as a part of a settlement of an action brought by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation to revoke or suspend his license, or otherwise subject him to discipline.

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

So that's where the expression 'pass the mayo' came from...

just jokin' the Mayo is a world class facility... unlike the new CDC. I don't think real integrity has a price... but something less than that, might... it's very sad.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

I had a run in years ago with an employer about being sent to their approved doctor for drug testing and liver function analysis which I might add wasn't just me and also included the technicians and other pilots.

The doctor was a well known butcher of an aero medical examiner and most of us avoid him even in shops. He was famous for having a dodgy ECG machine and triggering weeks of heart investigations that always concluded nothing wrong probably a dodgy lead on the initial machine.

I said I would happily go to the drugs clinic in town and pay myself for the liver enzyme test. Nope that wasn't good enough it had to be him. In the end I went to my aeromedical examiner and told him about the reasons I didn't want to go near this other doctor. He then contacted the head scab lifter in the CAA and the company got told, the doctor had to get a new ECG machine. I was confirmed not to be on the wacky baccie and I could double my alcohol intake if I so wished by my normal AME. Its always worth avoiding vegan marathon running AME's. Life is less stressful when you have one that's fat, smokes and has a bottle of medicinal whisky in his bottom drawer not that he ever gave me any of it.

I believe it is now in UK regulations and endorsed by the British Medical Association that they can't make you see any particular doctor. And if you state to the doctor you don't want them touching you and you are only there because the company demands it, they can be taken to task by the BMA and if they do touch you can be done for assault. I haven't heard of anyone in the UK being forced to see a company defined medic in years.

A friend of mine was seeing a doctor for a work related condition.
This was in a town so closely linked to the oil industry that any doctor who gave a diagnosis that may cost or inconvenience one of the major oil companies would be blacklisted.
The doctor declared several times that the condition was not work related;
And each time he then whispered forcefully;
"See another doctor."

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

I did several reports for SF insurance (no name)... and they were notorious for denying claims... I would advise the policy holder that even though SF was my client, the the information in my report would essentially be the same if I were acting for my client or the policy holder. With SF, I would also advise them that they could get another engineer to provide them with a report before any changes had occurred to the damage. SF was notorious for not providing copies of their engineering reports. That the client was informed of using a different engineer was part of all my reports.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

Well that didn't take long....

Air Canada had to shut a donk down in flight and declare a pan and divert ferrying a MAX up to start work.

Donk...?
Please elaborate for us uninitiated types...

"Schiefgehen wird, was schiefgehen kann" - das Murphygesetz

Donk short for donkey ie provides motive power. its not aviation to be honest.

They had to shut down an engine down enroute.

This isn't as bad as it sounds and is nothing to do with the work done in regards to being recertified. It more to do with sitting on the ground for getting on for 2 years. There will be multiple other in flight failures not only engines but other systems as well.

Single engine won't cause any issues. Gear issues might end up with gear up landings which is a different level of media attention.

We used to call them 'tugs', same thing?

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

This may be the first of many issues from MAX aircraft sitting unused in storage for over a year. You can perform the standard maintenance list of checks and replacements, but there will be those odd items that will fail from not being used.

^ Be wild if the grounding ended up being more dangerous than MCAS

Individual failures are not much of a problem because the backup systems then get you back onto the ground. Its when you start getting two or more all at the same time it starts becoming dangerous.

With the air canada aircraft it started off as a hydraulic issue.. Not a problem there is 3 systems of them... Checklist came to the point of doing a precautionary shut down of an engine. In fact as they didn't have any pax on they were going to complete the trip...

Then the fuel cross feed valve wouldn't open so they ended up being only able to pull fuel from one wing. This leads very quickly to a fuel imbalance which is dangerous quiet quickly so they got it on the ground ASAP.

Is there only one cross feed valve / connection?

I assume it's normally closed as both engines use similar quantities?

I think there are going to be a few of these as the fleet gets back in the air due to lack of action.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

We are getting into type specific stuff and Frankenstein 1960's design.

A220 has 3 methods of cross feeding.

Yes you normally keep the sides separate and the engines burn about the same and it's used to spot if there maybe a fuel leak.

It's not just the max fleet all fleets short and long haul have been on the ground way more than is healthy.

From CTV News...

"MIAMI -- A Boeing 737 Max departed Miami International Airport with 100 passengers aboard Tuesday for the aircraft's first U.S. commercial flight since faulty sensor readings contributed to two deadly crashes in 2019.

The American Airlines flight is scheduled to land at New York's LaGuardia Airport around 1:30 p.m. Eastern, according to an airline spokeswoman. The airline gave customers the chance to change flights if they were uncomfortable on the Max."

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

Its got the fleet tech pilot FAA approved test pilot onboard. It also has a full no restrictions test pilot on board which nobody can quite work out who is paying for. So if between the two of them they can't sort it the whole program is well screwed.

BTW a no restriction test pilot is a bit of a special beast no type rating required. I have flown with them twice..... Utter lovely blokes and utter gods flying... Chuck Yeager aviation god at handling but utterly shite at working with other people never had it. These gods can do both. When i flew with them they never touched the controls apart from the last 200ft to do the landing because they had never landed the type before.

From CTV news: "CALGARY -- WestJet says it plans to resume flying its fleet of 737 MAX aircraft later this month, pending approval by Transport Canada.

The announcement follows comments by Transport Canada late last year that safety experts had validated the aircraft design changes and outlined requirements for Canadian carriers to bring it a step closer to resuming flights.

The Boeing 737 Max aircraft has been grounded for nearly two years after technical issues led to deadly crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia."

I think that's one airline I'll avoid...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

Just to add to boeings losses.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jan/07/b...

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

"Boeing admitted that two of its technical pilots deceived regulators about the safety of the Max’s MCAS stall prevention software, implicated in both of the fatal crashes."

on their own, or were they 'just following orders'?

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

The $2.5 billion is nothing compared to what it cost them while the 737-MAX was grounded, to say nothing of what the pandemic has cost them. That being said, Boeing has a market cap of over $120 billion and annual sales close to $61 billion. Yes, that will hurt the bottom line, but it's more more like a broken ankle than a broken back.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

LittleInch posted a link to the Guardian article on the charges and $2.5B fine above. Here is the DOJ announcement on their website.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/boeing-charged-737-...

Quote (The Guardian Headline)

US fines Boeing $2.5bn following fraud charges tied to 737 Max crashes

Quote (The Guardian Article)

The settlement includes $2.2bn in compensation to the families of the people killed in the two Max crashes and a $243m fine.

What seems to have happened;
Boeing was fined $243 Million and ordered to pay 2.2 Billion in compensation.
A reporter and/or editor overstated the actual fine by a factor of over 10 to 1 to add emphasis and dramatic appeal.
Is it any wonder that there is widespread distrust of the media?
Is this intentional spin or just a deficient education?

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

Quote:

Is this intentional spin or just a deficient education?

Bear in mind that what passes for news media has been starved of cash and stripped of skilled personnel for 20 years by the internet.
While I also catch myself bemoaning the idiocy that I hear on the mainstream media, I am often reminded that I don't pay each time I read an article from the Guardian, NYT, WP etc.

www.sparweb.ca

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/indonesian-plane-fear...

“The nearly 27-year-old Boeing 737-500 was much older than Boeing's problem-plagued 737 MAX model, one of which crashed off Jakarta in late 2018, killing all 189 people aboard the Lion Air flight. Older 737 models are widely flown and do not have the system implicated in the MAX safety crisis.”

It wasn’t a max... this time.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

Quote (dik)

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/indonesian-plane-fear...

When the FAA said that the MAX has to handle like the older 737s to keep the same type certificate that's how they wanted it accomplished!

The older ones, it seems, appear to be handling like the Max...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

3 things you can no longer believe: test pilots, the FAA, and the media. 3 other things that almost never lie: a young kid, a total drunk, and yoga pants.

"...when logic, and proportion, have fallen, sloppy dead..." Grace Slick

Young kids learn to lie by around age 4. "Who broke the vase?" "I dunno"

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

Catch the related thread...

thread2-477827: New FAA "system safety assessment" ?

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

Wow. I don't know exactly what to make of this, yet:

Quote (Patrick Ky, EASA, https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-and-events/pre...)

"We also pushed the aircraft to its limits during flight tests, assessed the behaviour of the aircraft in failure scenarios, and could confirm that the aircraft is stable and has no tendency to pitch-up even without the MCAS."

Quote (Steve Dickson, FAA, https://theaircurrent.com/aircraft-development/mca...)

"...confirm that the aircraft is stable and has no tendency to pitch-up even without the MCAS"

Then the back-pedaling begins:

Quote (EASA spokesperson https://www.theregister.com/2020/11/25/easa_737_ma...)

"In the case of the MAX: the MCAS is necessary to meet the safety regulation and obtain the necessary safety margins. However, when it is lost (failed and inoperative), an averagely skilled and trained crew is still able to safely fly and land the airplane,"

Quote (FAA spokesperson https://theaircurrent.com/aircraft-development/mca...)

"...determined during a 20-month review that MCAS was a necessary part of the flight control system..."

www.sparweb.ca

Dare I suspect...Politics?

Bill
--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

#3, if it happens, will be a bit more difficult to explain...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

From what I have read so far, is this a reasonable scenario?
Imagine a Max that has had some system failures.
The failure are serious and either directly or indirectly lead to MCAS being turned off or inoperative.
The plane is hard to control but still flyable.
There are lights flashing and alarms ringing.
For some reason a landing is missed and the pilot executes a climbing turn on his go-around.
Without MCAS active, the flight characteristics change.
With the information overload and the "fog of war" the distracted pilot keeps steady pressure on the controls.
Even though the plane has no tendency to pitch up, it has a real ability to mislead the pilot into "pitching up" the aircraft.

I understand that Boeing identified this possibility very early on and MACS was their attempted solution.
So, if MCAS fails, it does not make the plane unstable but does introduce a change in the response to the controls that may easily lead the pilot to inadvertently pitch up and stall the plane.
Given the months of testing and the thousands of pages of reports, it may not have been hard to lose sight of the original issue.

Quote (EASA)

"We also pushed the aircraft to its limits during flight tests, assessed the behaviour of the aircraft in failure scenarios, and could confirm that the aircraft is stable and has no tendency to pitch-up even without the MCAS."

Is this ill advised as a public statement?
It seems to imply that MCAS doesn't matter and the pilots may ignore any MCAS failure.

If it's Boeing..........

Bill
--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

That's careful wording. It is stable, always had been. It had been sold as 'close enough to all the other 737s that it flys the same and minimal conversion training is needed' and also sold as 'meeting regulatory specs on control feel and stability derivatives' which it didn't without MCAS.

Quote (Is this ill advised as a public statement?)

I betcha they didn't run it past their legal department... seems like a really dumb statement.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

My understanding is that it doesn't "pitch up" in the sense that you need to apply negative force to stop it going vertical, but that the control forces reduce as you hit high AoA.

This is contrary to the regulations.

The reason is to prevent stall in a panic mode of operation when the pilot keeps pulling back on the controls.

Good pilots in relatively easy conditions cab catch this. But some may not. Hence MCAS was born.

Happy to be corrected.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

It helps to return to the graph that was posted back in about April 2019.
While I can't find the original source or how the details on it were created, it matches the problem as described by Boeing and repeated oh-so-often in the media as it relates to pitch forces. There are popular graphics still being republished in the press that get this wrong.

The chart plots "Cm,CG" which in the flight-control context means "Coefficient of pitching moment about the Center of Gravity".
It relates to the proportional force on the control column that you need to push/pull to maintain a steady angle of attack, with all other conditions in equilibrium (enough power to maintain constant altitude and speed at the same time).
The desired response of the aircraft is to resist an input force on the control column with a reaction that returns the aircraft to the stable condition, which is called "trim" in aviation. When the reaction is the opposite of the action, the "feedback is negative" so to speak, and that makes the result of the force balance negative. That's why the line passes into the negative region of the curve.

What the regulatory officials said - in these terms - is that "the Cm curve does not cross over the X-axis". If it did, that would be unstable, which means a pull backward on the controls would lead to the nose constantly going up without self-correcting. So what Patrick Ky and Steve Dickson said was that it doesn't go run away from you. They are probably aware that the popular press has exaggerated this often. The regulators probably felt that once they had experienced the control responses for themselves, they could make a statement to counteract the mistakes made by the press.

The spokespeople later had to clarify, because it seemed to undermine the need for MCAS at all. In closer detail, there isn't an instability being addressed by MCAS. However there is the tendency of the restoring force to level off at high angle of attack. That's the solid blue line in the chart below. For the forces to seem relatively constant over a range of angle of attack, even though they are pushing against you as you pull up, they aren't giving you the "feel" of nose pitch up because the force doesn't increase much. The restoring force should increase as you pull more and more away from the trimmed condition. This takes us down to a finer level of subtlety. I would like to know if it is really perceptible by a pilot when MCAS is off, or just measurable with flight test instruments.

www.sparweb.ca

A much better technical explanation. Really is only that last little uptick that looks odd.

So both statements are true but not many will actually understand the difference.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

From that uptick took up at the at the horizontal line.
That is the stall point.

Do I read that graph correctly Spar?
One cycle of MCAS will bring handling characteristics into regulatory compliance out to the stall point?
From that graph, it would seem as if one cycle of MCAS would be all that was ever needed to counteract the uplift.
From the graph it would seem as if any further increase in AoA after one action of MCAS would be due to reasons other than nacelle uplift.

Are there other factors that are not apparent from the graph?

Suppose that these few lines of code had been added to the program.

Is angel of attack past the set point;
If no, no action.
If yes, engage MCAS.
Repeat;
ADD THIS CODE
Is angel of attack past the set point;
If no, no action;
If MCAS flag is set, No action;
If yes, engage MCAS;
Set MCAS flag;
Repeat;

Failure modes:
MCAS fails to activate when it is required.

Quote (EASA)

"We also pushed the aircraft to its limits during flight tests, assessed the behaviour of the aircraft in failure scenarios, and could confirm that the aircraft is stable and has no tendency to pitch-up even without the MCAS."

MCAS activates when it is not required.
Won't happen.

This could also be implemented with a hardware solution, so that the trim is adjusted by other means than turning the jack screw.
A hardware solution would avoid the possibility of a MCAS malfunction leading to a trim runaway.


Bill
--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

We're heeerrrrreeeeee:
Canada said on Monday it will lift a near two-year flight ban on Boeing's 737 Max on Jan. 20, joining other countries like the United States that have brought the aircraft back following two fatal crashes involving the model.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

Quote (LittleInch)

So both statements are true but not many will actually understand the difference.

Sadly so, and even I've fallen victim to the verbal short-hand of mistaking a measured force gradient for the force itself in various conversations. It's like hearing the same lie enough times to believe it. In this case, not a lie, but a mistake misspoken enough times that it confuses the real details. Heck, I should also repeat that I still haven't found the origin of the chart I'm using as an illustration of my argument. As such, there could be other errors or oversimplifications in it that I'm not noticing because I'm not paying attention to anything but the trend on it. So Waross's follow-up questions are no surprise. Actually, the point where the chart passes the point of zero Cm, over 5 degrees, is a bit high. The plane would not have that much nose-up attitude unless it's at max gross weight. Although, on second thought, max GW is a common point of reference for aerodynamic parameters, so maybe not so strange. I think the stuff on that chart is square with reality, I just can't prove it.

www.sparweb.ca

Quote (waross)

This could also be implemented with a hardware solution, so that the trim is adjusted by other means than turning the jack screw.
A hardware solution would avoid the possibility of a MCAS malfunction leading to a trim runaway.

Something close to this was the previous design and why there are two switches to turn off the trim in the cockpit. One motor drive was the STS (Speed Trim System ) and the other was the pilot controlled trim. [edit] If it was still this way then yes, MCAS and STS could share a trim input to the stabilizer and importantly, bet cut off and the pilots would still have powered control of the stabilizer.[/edit] I forget why there was no way to use the old design in the new application.

more news...

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-55751150

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

Hi moon161.
By hardware solution I visualized a part of the linkage that could be extended or retracted by an actuator.
If you need MCAS, the linkage is extended.
If you don't need MACS the linkage is retracted.
Any failure would be limited to either one MCAS operation or no MCAS operation.
The graph shows that one operation restores the control pressure to the stall point.
You should never need more than one action to counteract upthrust.
There are many ways that this could be implemented somewhere in the stab trim linkage.

Bill
--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

Quote (waaross)

You should never need more than one action to counteract upthrust.

I don't know. Maybe it would be proportional to the amount the throttles are moved? Regardless, if I interpreted everything right, then the decision to give MCAS full authority over the elevator (or is it stabilizer?)control was obviously ill-conceived. I think in the end it was really functioning as an anti-stall device, not really associated with movement of the throttle.

Brad Waybright

The more you know, the more you know you don't know.

Quote (dik)

more news...

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-55751150

From the article--
His report draws on material from the official investigations. It claims that both of the crashed aircraft suffered from - what he believes - were production defects, almost from the moment they entered service.

That's an interesting article but if something has a production defect, wouldn't it be there on day one?

Brad Waybright

The more you know, the more you know you don't know.

I don't see how some kind of linkage fix would make it any safer compared to limiting MCAS authority. To me, that actually sounds like a bad idea.

Quote (WAROSS)

Hi moon161.
By hardware solution I visualized a part of the linkage that could be extended or retracted by an actuator.
If you need MCAS, the linkage is extended.
If you don't need MACS the linkage is retracted.
Any failure would be limited to either one MCAS operation or no MCAS operation.
The graph shows that one operation restores the control pressure to the stall point.
You should never need more than one action to counteract upthrust.
There are many ways that this could be implemented somewhere in the stab trim linkage.

Oh hey I like that idea, a series arrangement instead of parallel. This could have safety designed in by limiting the MCAS design stroke to ± something small and the manual trim to the full range of motion required for flying trim.

And mom just called me Andy

The KISS principle, Lionel.
How much software and hardware has it taken to make MCAS safer?
There are a number of possible solutions to an adjustable link that will only move between two positions, and will be reliably restrained between those positions in the event of an actuator failure.
Unfortunately Boeing management never got out of the rabbit hole of a "cheap" software solution.

Bill
--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

A mechanism added into the stabilizer screw still sounds like a very bad idea and besides it would most likely break any possibility of the variant ever being certified to fly.

They could have told the pilots about it and given them a button / switch to disarm it if it ever went wrong.

Now that sounds like it was a good plan that never happened. Possibly linked to this non SIM training rubbish which should have been laughed out of anyones thought pattern. You only have to look at the two cockpits to realise you were looking at something very different never mind this MCAS issue. If there is a lesson learnt anywhere then that really should be it - these really were two different airplanes and trying to pretend it wasn't for the sake of $1M per plane to SWA has proved to be a very false economy.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

I may be wrong but I am under the impression that the 737 at one time had two drive mechanisms on the stab-trim jack screw.
A second drive on the bottom of the jack screw could easily have its movement restricted enough to just counteract the lessening control force.
Just one of a number of possible solutions.
Don't fight the problem.

Bill
--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

The other thing I don't get about MCAS's design is why the "single activation" performance is OK. Why not tune a PID to more closely approximate the desired performance curve (linear up to stall)? That's totally separate from the safety issues, just it seems odd to me to have it working in large discrete steps when an analog circuit with appropriate feedback could do a potentially better job. I expect the answer is that new active circuitry would change the type rating, they needed something that could run on the existing computers with the existing inputs.

Bill, you do understand that MCAS just moves the stabilizer once when it activates? It doesn't move it back later. The processing capabilities of the controls sound like they are too limited to have any such extra smarts added to them. I haven't seen any proof there was once 2 drive motors on the jack screw, but even if you put 2 motors on the screw both would have to be able to rotate with the screw through the full range of travel so the 2nd one could not be travel limited. After MCAS moved the screw, the other motor would need the ability to move it back.

Quote:

Bill, you do understand that MCAS just moves the stabilizer once when it activates? It doesn't move it back later.

That sounds like another engineering failure.

Bill
--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

The idea was that once your AoA went below the limit for activation, it promptly de-activated and moved the stab the other way back to where it was before.

And don't forget the 737s have a Speed trim system which kicks in at different speeds etc to trim the aircraft automatically as thrust and AoA change. Again a set of limits apply as to when and how much it trims the stab. The A/P does the same thing. So it wasn't a surprise to the pilots when the trim wheel keeps spinning around all on its own.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

If I recall correctly, on the original 737s I think there were two motors on the jack screw - one commanded by the A/P etc and one by the pilot via the thumb switches. Hence you could lose or disable one set but use the other. But it was a lot of extra weight and the NG reduced this to one motor but two switches in the cockpit to disable the A/P / STS input. Then the Max just made it two switches in series. So all or nothing / manual. In the mean time they had also reduced the size of the manual trim wheel because the bigger one on the earlier version got in the way of something. And made the stab bigger so it became harder to trim it manually at high speeds.

SO as usual what seems a small individual change which on its own is Ok finally all came together in a bad way. That's the problem with keeping the same type certification over time. It all starts to add up and sometimes that number goes negative.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

More news...

The 737 Max will fly again in Europe, after regulators gave Boeing’s BA, -2.82% bestselling aircraft the all-clear for takeoff following nearly two years on the tarmac.

The plane was grounded by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency, or EASA, in March 2019 after two deadly crashes claimed 346 lives.

Approval from the EASA came with the mandate of a package of software upgrades, electrical work, maintenance checks, operations manual updates, and crew training.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

Quote (LittleInch)

That's the problem with keeping the same type certification over time. It all starts to add up and sometimes that number goes negative.

That wouldn't be a problem if the rule were that the total set of changes has to be evaluated against the original model, and that any newly approved versions must satisfy all current requirements at the time of their approval (rather than the requirements from the time of the original model's approval). If it changes too much to behave like the original, it shouldn't be part of the same type certificate. If the rules are stricter than they originally were, it should comply with the new rules (and keep the original behavior as closely as possible). If it can't do both, it should get a new type certificate.

Of course that would be expensive, so it won't happen.

That's likely the way it should happen if it weren't mired in politics...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

I would caution against stepping onto that slippery slope. Had the MAX required a new type cert, it would have likely doubled or tripled its certification process time. That would make it less likely for companies to create new planes and possible cause stagnation and less innovation. This would result in older fleets and fewer secondary market planes for startup airlines to buy, and possibly, what they could buy would be too old to be practical, so possibly less over competition in the airliner industry.

California's remodeling industry has some parallels; the California remodel pegs tax assessments against the ability to claim that a house has not been so substantially rebuilt that it should assessed as a new house. So, the law is written such that a "California remodel" is considered to be the original house, and tax base, if even a single wall of the original house remains; I was on the verge of making an offer on a house that was originally a 1200-sf ranch-style, that was remodeled into a 5700-sf mansion. There were eventually too many other negatives to move on the deal, so we bought something else. So that's one extreme, but the other extreme would be if someone owned a house for 30 yr and decided to add, say, a single room, and the house required compliance to ADA, full tax reassessment etc., which would require double or triple the cost of single-room addition, in addition to increasing property tax by 7x. That would stifle remodeling of any kind, to avoid that shock to owners that possibly couldn't afford to sustain a 7x property tax payment in perpetuity.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

Quote:

any newly approved versions must satisfy all current requirements at the time of their approval

I'm thinking that would kill the ability to grandfather any changes on any plane designed more than a few years ago.

...maybe not a bad idea, Lionel.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

Quote (ir stuff)

California's remodeling industry has some parallels; the California remodel pegs tax assessments against the ability to claim that a house has not been so substantially rebuilt that it should assessed as a new house. So, the law is written such that a "California remodel" is considered to be the original house, and tax base, if even a single wall of the original house remains;

I've seen a couple buildings in NY state that were either demolished to a framed door that was enclosed by new construction, or the old building was enclosed by a new one, then demolished, to get around a moratorium on new builds in the area.

...unintended consequences

"Schiefgehen wird, was schiefgehen kann" - das Murphygesetz

Common in cottage country in Ontario... get the building inspector to agree that you can construct to the same footprint... then teardown and rebuild... there have been a few instances where the person has demolished the structure only to be prevented for new construction.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

Didn't mean to completely derail the discussion. My point was that asking for a new type cert for every change would be prohibitive and result in much more expensive and rarer occurrences of new planes. That's not particularly desirable. Obviously, the California remodel isn't suitable either.

I'll pull an analogy from a file synchronization program that refuses to automatically synchronize if more that 30% of the files have changed; so we could require a new type cert if the plane changes by more than 20%. How to define the 20% would be the challenge, though; although one can imagine if there were more than 20% new or modified drawings, that would require a new type cert.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

It'd be a terrible idea, unless you wanted to very significantly reduce the number of planes in the sky.

There has to be a mechanism to allow for 'minor' revisions and a complete 'rebuild'. What they have now is unworkable from a safety standard.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

Yep. The current system can't distinguish when a thorough re-evaluation of the whole system is needed vs when a change doesn't cause substantial differences to the overall behavior. I don't want silicon valley style "move fast and break things" "innovation" applied to aircraft. I also don't want all progress to stop.

I still can't believe the manual trim wheels.
As I understand it, you have to have manual trim but manual trim doesn't have to work.
That was my understanding of the answer given when last I asked about the manual trim issue.
In the event of a runaway trim, that cannot be corrected by electrical means, the manual wheels may not be able to be used.
Why not?
There is no regulation that says it has to work?
The organization that sets the rules cannot address the issue because they haven't written a rule?
The FAA may have more serious organizational problems than grandfathering.

Bill
--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

Beyond just satisfying a series of individual regulations, oughtn't there be a system level design assessment by the regulatory body? Along the lines of an engineering student competition where the entrants present their design to the judges, explain the design philosophy especially as it departs from current established practice or the grandfathered design, and provide a comprehensive theory of operation, including system DFMEA? And the regulator would of course have the opportunity to ask questions and probe into areas not clearly explained, or showing potential for serious failure modes not addressed in the DFMEA, or other possible lack of robustness. If such an oversight is already in place, why didn't it work? I guess that would be due to malfeasance and/or negligence on both sides.

"Schiefgehen wird, was schiefgehen kann" - das Murphygesetz

That is all part and parcel to the political parties' desires to "trim the fat" from government agencies, which used to have scads of "subject matter experts" that could have done the job, but it was decided to forego that, and use industry SMEs instead, but the only available industry SMEs were those on the payroll of Boeing itself, particularly since we're also talking about opening the kimono and revealing ostensible proprietary information.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

as a follow up to the above comment on FAA SME's, it was reported that the FAA had 2 senior SME's leave the FAA during the evaluation of the 737 Max. It would be of interest to determine why they had left and where they went; if they were hired by a client of Boeing for a much higher salary then that would suggest Boeing complicity in preventing an FAA expert review of the max.

"...when logic, and proportion, have fallen, sloppy dead..." Grace Slick

waross,

I agree and almost - my understanding was that there were no specified limits on the force required to move the manual trim lever / wheel. It might have been possible to move it if built like Arnie, but not a small pilot / female.

As I understand it the force required is quite variable and gets much higher as speed increases - a kind of squared velocity effect.

Hence why it might be feasible when going slowly, but not at the speed the Ethiopian pilots were going at.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

We are on the same page, LittleInch.
As well, the further out of trim, the greater the force required.
I'm open for correction here, but I understand that the further from the Center of Gravity the engines are, the more need there is for speed trim, and those Leap engines are a long way from the center of gravity.
The placement of the engines may also play a part in the amount of travel of the stabilizers and the forces due to out of trim conditions.

Bill
--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

On the scope of grandfathering.

The 737 MAx is a bit special due to the last version NG. It was certified just before the new grandfathering regulations came into force. If had been certified a year later then I suspect the max would be a completely different beast due to changes that would have been enforced on the NG.

But because the NG managed to get through then they had a window to grandfather through stuff which wouldn't be allowed if it had gone 500 directly to the MAX. But because it had been allowed in the NG and hadn't been changed NG to MAX then they didn't have to recertify it.

There is missing a big picture limitation on grandfathering from the initial full certification. Nobody wants to stop single step or dual step increments. But when it gets to 60 years worth of incremental reg's being avoided and your on the 7th iteration you need a big picture review how its all working together.

Something is happening though.

The 777x has been put back and the 737-10 is also put back. I believe they will be adding more AoA sensors to the 10 then retrofitting them to the 7,8,9

A lecture to the Royal Aeronautical Society on the 737 Max and history.

https://youtu.be/JApoVC6iIIE

Long, but a good link...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

Just watched it twice and utterly excellent. Chris has no formal engineering training. Any of the acronyms used feel free to ask what they mean its even heavy going for me translating them while listening to it.

I have never flown with him but mates that have say he is an extremely knowledgably high IQ person.

So you know the this is the official controlling body for Aero engineers in the UK. I used to hold letters after my name off them. They are the ones that issue CEng status.

Edit to add I don't know how things can move forward from this. The regulator is defective which means the rest of it is nonsense.

I've only seen 15 minutes so far.
A reflection or more appropriate a memory came to mind.
My dear beloved CH always said that a machine is never better than its mechanical design or its tolerances.
Which is also my conviction and experience, that is...
It is not possible to program away "bad mechanics" or tolerances.
Now I do not say that the plane of origin was bad.
But the mechanical changes they made had a negative effect from a control perspective and then they tried to "program" it away.
Never a good idea.
A machine is never better than its mechanics.

Mixing manual and automatic control is as I see it from a "machine" perspective not possible.
I do not know how many times I have tried to explain to technicians and production people that I can not program away the problems they have when they operate the machines manually.
It is impossible to predict in the program when someone will do something to be able to program away the consequences.

Like I said, I've only seen 15 minutes so I hope this ends better than it started.

Best Regards A

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

Quote (I've only seen 15 minutes so I hope this ends better than it started.)

It explained a lot of things I only thought I understood... overall it was good.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

Thanks for the link, Alistair.
I enjoyed the history of the MAX.
The presentation was quietly pro Boeing.

Quote:

All design flaws rectified.

But there were a few issues that were not mentioned.
Apparently Boeing did not consider re-positioning the engines.
Fix the problem, don't cover up the symptoms.

There is no question that the MAX is the most scrutinized aircraft in history.
It is probably the most compliant aircraft in history.
But;
Is it the safest aircraft?
I understand that the manual trim system is still unusable when it is most needed.
Apparently, there is no requirement for a manual trim system to be actually usable.
It appears that Boeing's and the regulator's mindset is more CYA and what can we get away with cheaper than it is on safety.
At this point, another crash due to design flaws may be the end of Boeing's presence in commercial aviation.
That's a lot to bet on a manual trim system that may be unusable when needed the most.

Quote:

Unfortunately, serious questions remain as to whether Boeing and the FAA have fully and correctly learned the lessons from the MAX failures.

Bill
--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

Quote (dik)

It explained a lot of things I only thought I understood... overall it was good.

I didn't refer to the actual online lecture.
But it was such an echo, so at first I thought it was something wrong with my headset.

It was comment to how the Boing and FAA has handled this.

QRH
MMEL
FCOM
I got most of to, it's just this abbreviations that makes it a little fuzzy..
I probably could make a good guess but then Alister would go on me so I better not

I am not shore how many different types (as in different construction) of AoA devices there are or if they all build on the same principle.
Seems hard to make software one, whit what I know about the function.

Best Regards A

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

QRH: is quick reference handbook. Basically its a load of checklists which tell you how to deal with various failures and situations. On the max its a paper book where you have to memorise the important ones that need a quick response and loads of others which you can look up then read and do. The modern system is a thing called ECIAS which combines the system which alerts you to a problem with the procedures list of what your meant to do and then monitors the aircraft settings so you don't change the configuration from what's required.

MMEL: Master minimum equipment list. Its the defects you can carry on a flight with various conditions and changes to the procedures. It also gives a time span to get them fixed. which can range from 1 flight to get you back to maint base no pax eg gear locked down limited to 15000 ft speed 240knts and no icing conditions, through to 120 days for things that are really not important like the logo light on the tail. The next document up which we use daily is called the MEL but it can only be more restrictive than the MMEL.

FCOM: I think it has French origins but we use it to mean Flight Crew Operating Manual. Usually comes in 2 parts, one which details the systems and the Part2 which tells you the procedures. They are both pretty meaty with about 3000 pages in each one.

AOA are either vanes that move with airflow or things that are called smart probes which use pressure differences along a pitot tube to work out the AoA. There are other synthetic methods but : don't know much about them because I have never flown anything fitted with them. Q400 had 2 vane AoA's on it. The A220 has 6 smart probes.

Can you reword the question please about feel different pressure. In aviation they use the word feel and pressure quite a bit across numerous systems and its has a different context depending on the system being talked about.

Can I help?
This is the one that I was wondering about?

Bill
--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

Quote (It was comment to how the Boing and FAA has handled this.)

That's the sound they make when they hit!

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

Feel diff pressure

Its to do with the hydraulic systems and the force feel system on the elevators. There is power assist on the controls, the feel system applies a force onto the controls which varies with the amount of input aerodynamic loads airspeed
and a few other things. So the more you pull the more more force you feel. Faster your going the more force there is for a given deflection.

The feel computer can use either A or B hydraulic system and when there is a big split of pressure between the two sources it illuminates that light. Quiet how that would be triggered by a faulty AoA sensor i really don't know. I suspect its unrelated.

right found out about this Feel diff pressure.

Its a known issue which hasn't been fixed since the feel system was originally certified back in the 60's. But they never bothered fixing it. There is actually a surprising number of "funny's" that have have never been fixed.


https://www.satcom.guru/2018/11/stabilizer-trim.ht...

(Edit) I wrote this before you posted the last link, I had not submited it, became distracted since resewing a phone call.
Will edit it or remove it ones a have read your link.. BR A

I assume that this is done to give you the same feeling as if you where flying an all mechanical system.
Without this feedback system you would not have any sense of the forces that are acting on the plane correct?

I also think that this feedback pressure for the the force feel is a calculated value.
Because you can not get a force feel value back from the hydraulic system that controls the angel of the elevators since it is kept in the same position as you want it regardless of the speed air pressure that it is exposed to.

If the force feel is a calculated value, one way of doing it is to take AoA value and combine it with speed and the angel of the elevator, and from this tree calculate the expected force on the elevator that you would have felt, if it was a all mechanical system.
And then the calculated force is feed back to a the controls.

And if it was as in the first crash that one AoA was wrongly calibrated.
The calculated force on the left (A) and right (B) side would have been different.
When compared that would have lit the FEEL DIFF PRESS lamp..
As explained in the video, the left side AoA was connected to computer 1 and right side AOA was connected to computer 2.

I am not saying that this is how it is done, it's just my theory.

Best Regards A

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

Sounds reasonable.

Just leave it.

This is very type specific stuff. The other big issue which nobody seems to want to deal with is the Christmas tree lights spread around the cockpit which they had to deal with. As that link shows there is a load of things which will light up but it's not obvious that they relate to any one system failure.

Is this the section of the very long linked document that we are looking for?.
Please ignore the first line.
It is actually the last line of the previous topic.

Bill
--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

I was just reading that section..
Haven't found a connection to AoA sensors yet only pitot pressure..
It's a lot to read through.

BR A

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

There is a link from the stall system to the electronic feel shift module EFSM.

I can only presume that when the stall system is triggered by the dodgy AoA reading it does something to the feel system.

This is pure speculation though.

Well as I sad it is a lot to go through.
And it's seems that the link is going through some development faces as well.
Is it so ?
I am just skimming through right now.
This might take some time at least for me to evaluate, since all systems seems to have one or more parts together.

Have a lot of the same things going on at work right now, and it's just chaos.

Best Regards A

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

Your link says this about the force when a stall is thought to be occurring. This says it increase the"feel" by a factor of four....

The elevator feel computer has a feature where it creates four times the forces to pull back on the column than normal.


When the stall identification function is trimming stabilizer nose down...

(with the thinking that this is a stall recover, believing AOA perhaps erroneously, and assuming that engine thrust is going to increase rapidly),

...column feel forces are designed to fight the pilot pulling back on the stick (to encourage the nose dropping), and also to avoid the pilot tripping the column stabilizer override switch if they pull it back far enough.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

Sound sensible LI

So not only did the pilots have it out of trim when the MCAS triggered but they also had x4 feel fighting them pulling the stick back.

I think I have figured out why the FEEL DIFF PRESS lamp was lit..
Haven't found a connection to the AoA yet, have just finished the hydraulic system..
I might finish it to morrow.
Want to look over it one more time.

Best Regards A

PS. It's a crisis at work so I have to sleep now.
2 technicians who have had 4 months to do a procurement on a motor drive and new servos and I have said since New Year that it will not work and yesterday when they where suppose to sign the contract and the supplier got all my questions they also realized that it would not work.
So now I have 24 hours to fix the documentation and what is needed so they can adjust the contract.

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

I wouldn't worry about it Ana. There are so many interconnections between the various systems. I think littleinch has it right.

The problem with all these interconnections is working out what the primary cause is. Because the 737 doesn't have a centralised warning and caution system the pilots have to go searching round to spot all the different indication lights and gauges then take what they see and then work out what the problem is then find the right checklist which may have multiple branches depending what lights are showing.

Modern ECIAS system when something triggers it automatically pulls all the relevant checklists up onto one screen and then on the A220 gives you a white arrow next to the one it suggests as the most important. And it does change depending on your altitude and a few other things.

In my experience you can get 7-8 checklists coming up and then after you have run the suggested checklist then there are 1 or 2 left to run but they are procedure checklist for the new config. Then it automatically changes your normal checklists for any restrictions that are now imposed. If you inadvertently change the configuration away from what's required it then throws the checklist back up and highlights what the required configuration is. Its relatively easy to keep two people monitoring the aircraft while your running the checklists and most of them take seconds. The old paper QRH's you first of all had to get your hands on it then work out what's wrong and then find the right card and start to run it. Once finished you then had to go back and see if there was anything else which required a checklist. If you forget any restrictions or change configuration then human error is the conclusion in the accident report. This can take 10's of minuets.

Realistically the NG should have had this system but they got away with not having it by a margin of a few months. And because the NG doesn't have it then the MAX didn't have it. So its stuck with the same system as the original 1960's 737.

Quote (Alistair)

I wouldn't worry about it Ana.

I do not worry
It's as with most things a problem a mystery that has stuck in my head.
I need to figure it out, before I can let it go.
Gives me something to do while I wait for the corona pandemic to ease.
I might have bought a jigsaw puzzle instead.
Is everything OK with you?
When you sade that you where home alone (quarantine) does that mean that you are not allowed to see your family either ?

Best Regards A

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

I can see them, I keep them on the farm where its less restrictive living in the city.. But they all came down with covid last week one of the kids brought it home from school. I tested negative everyone else positive 5 adults and 4 children in our extended family bubble.

When I go to work though I have to cross a border and then its full quarantine for the period of work for 2 weeks. I am actually disappointed I didn't test positive that would have given me a free pass for the next 3-6 months from quarantine and testing....

I am sorry to hear that I hope they all will get well soon.
That must be hard on you not seeing your family.
I have at least chosen my on quarantine.
C.H the only one I would like to see isn't here anymore so it makes no difference to me.
If you get bored you can always come and discuss some traveling at the hobby forum.
I am almost always on line.

Best Regards and be well Anna

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

Its more the constant changing of rules and procedures by the Government and finding ways to jump through the hoop's to comply with them. If you mess it up its 3000 euro fine.

Inherent in both the Flight Control Computer (FCC) and Stall Management Yaw Damper (SMYD) is the angle of attack sensor, or AOA sensor.
The AOA sensor data is used to determine airplane pitch attitude to set the stall warnings and to calculate performance data.
Amongst the many analog interfaces, the Stall Management Yaw Damper outputs discretes for stick shaker and to activate the elevator feel shift module.
Each Stall Management Yaw Damper activates its on-side stick shaker motor.
When airspeed is close to a stall, the Stall Management Yaw Dampers do the Elevator Feel Shift (ELF) function by operating the Elevator Feel Shift Module EFSM which provides 850 psi (58 bar) hydraulic system A pressure to the elevator feel computer and the dual feel actuator.
This causes the elevator feel force in the feel and centering unit to increase and to counteract or resist elevator up movement at the control column.
Activation of the Elevator Feel Shift Module occurs at an AoA of 8 to 11 degrees depending on flap position.
There are no other flight deck indications when this system operates.

And the reason why the FEEL DIFF PRESS lights up is that since it is only hydraulic system A that provides pressure to the elevator feel shift module and it also provides pressure to only one side (channel) of the elevator feel computer when the SMYD dual coil solenoid valve is turned on the pressure difference between channel A and B in the EFC:n becomes more then 25 bars and then the the FEEL DIFF PRESS lights up after 30 sec.

And one AoA was calibrated wrongly 21 degress the first crash.
And it is enough that one stick shaker motor activates for this to happen.. as I see it..

The only thing I am not shore of, is if both SMYD:s are always turned on or if it is only the one on the side witch is the captain "designated driver" ??



Best Regards A

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

• https://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=1bd077b8-a6e0-4b37-b938-1

From Boeings standard with the rest of the design I suspect it will be only one in the loop with one in back up ready to take over mode. Or one does each side.

But as usual nothing to indicate its fired.... apart from a cryptic hydraulic pressure differential light. And its on the flight control panel which is on the ceiling right at the very back of the overhead panel behind the pilots heads and out of view.

No there is two one for each side left Aoa and SMYD 1 for captain and right AoA and SMYD 2 for O.P ??
What's the other side called ?
I an not shore if both is active all the time.
As fast as one of the stick shakers starts left or right regardless of reason both control columns are "looked" and the light goes on and all the other "Christmas tree lights" as well depending on the problem.
AISI..

Best Regards A

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

Sounds about right but there is usually some logic which has 1 side the master and the other the backup or they run them solo and each side looks after itself with neither side backed up. Depends on the design philosophy. British aerospace always used to run them solo don't have a clue what Boeing does.

Just so you have a reference this is the max cockpit



And this is the flight control panel. Which is located in the top left of the photo above most of it out of shot I think.

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

you think that's bad here is the CB panel. The ones with the collars on them are the ones that need to be pulled in various checklists. I don't have clue where the stick shaker CB will be. But with all of them someone will have to get out of their seat to pull it.

Modern aircraft designs have electronic thermal circuit breakers which automatically alert you that they have tripped and tell you which system they are on and which checklist to run and what you loose all through the 5th screen in the cockpit.

Well I know that new people that come and work at the press shop feels like that when they are going to learn how to drive the presses but there isn't even 1/4 as many buttons on the presses ..

I cant really see anything on the pictures that looks like the SMYD.
I found a reference that says it is located in the E&E bay on the E3-2 shelf.
E&E bay ???
It seems it does not always look the same.




Best Regards A

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

thing is some of those switch's on Boeings come down to turn on and some go up...

Sounds logical and consistent
Have you ever flown one?

BR A

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

Not a max or other flavour in the actual aircraft but Boeing sims are probably the most common sims available, so there is usually open slots for low level course such as multi crew cooperation.

Because they are available when company's for other types are recruiting they tend to use them for doing check flights to makes sure you can fly a procedure and straight and level. So I have been in both a 737 classic and NG sim a few times.

Also sometimes you do someone a favour by being a the second pilot on a course that needs it done quickly but doesn't have a sim partner. But these course are not type specific so you don't need to know teh nitty gritty of the type as you don't go near the emergency procedures apart from knowing how to secure the engine after a failure.

What is noticeable though flying with ex 737 pilots is the amount of rule of thumb they use and additional procedures which they think everyone does on every type and are good airmanship. But in reality are just 737 specific. They absolutely poo themselves when you drop a wing while landing to control side slip in a xwind landing. Its because the 737 has a very small ground clearance from the bottom of the engine so they are petrified they are going to scrape a pod. BUt they try and apply the 737 limitation to other types which you can do 10 deg and then the machine starts bitching "bank angle" and even then you won't scrape the engine pods until 16 deg bank. But the ex 737 pilots will start screaming if you get anywhere near 5 deg.

Sounds a lot like the Pixar short movie Lifted
I think it is hilarious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVLoc6FrLi0

Putting an even bigger motor on the 737 does not seems like a good idea then?

BR A

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

The max is a Frankstien collection of 1960's and modern design. They have changed absolutely nothing over the years unless it was regulated that they had to. There is issues that have been running since the first one left the hanger and they are still present in the MAX.

I was trying to find out if there was any technical changes made to the Max8 before it was approved for flight again, but it's like looking for a needle in a haystack
Someone who knows?
And was the function to increase and to counteract or resist elevator up movement at the control column when airspeed is close to a stall, via SMYD > ELF > EFSM something that came with the MCAS or it is an old function that all 737:s have?

And some "stupid" questions"
I so a video with some captain referring to the 737 Max8 as a she..
Is all airplanes female?
And if so is it because it is a "ship", since all boats also is "female"?
And I am not shore I would like to why.. if that is the case..

And do all commercial aircrafts have the captains seat on the right side?
Are air traffic "left traffic" ?
Is it due to the Romans or the Vikings?
Since most people are right handed it would be more natural to be sited to left since most controls are in the middle..

And finally..
I guess this one is mostly to Alistair, the guy in the video do you know of him and is he Swedish?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePDl1JNqjpM
Am quite shore he must be the way he speaks English.
Since cockpit door is always looked now a days I guess the knowledge conveyed in the video want come in handy but it was a bit educational anyways..

Best Regards A

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

Anna,

Go back in this post to the 18th nov and there are the links to the faa site where its all listed.

The force thing I would think was a standard 737 thing.

Planes and ships seem to be female. Don't know why.

Pretty sure Captain sits on the left, First Officer/ Co pilot on the right.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

LittleInch
Thanks I will have a look at it.

Well the Feel Force Computer probable was, it was needed after making elevators mechanical.
But I not shore about this extra force prohibiting the pilots to counteract the systems when the stall warning comes if that is a old function on that plane or on any other plane?

Pretty sure Captain sits on the left, First Officer/ Co pilot on the right.
Me to but I just wonder why?
That is the same in cars when driving on the wrong side of the road.
Why that is so, in commercial aircrafts I do not know.
In small planes it is usually on the "right" right side.

Best Regards A

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

Fixed wing, Captain sits in the left-hand seat. Rotary, it's the other way round. No idea why.

A.

Where was the rotary generally developed? US or Europe/Asia?

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

https://www.airspacemag.com/need-to-know/why-do-he...

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

thanks LI... great explanation...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

Fixed wing its due to the rules of the road and collision avoidance. Which came from the maritime world.

So the pilot always has the aircraft they are manoeuvring to avoid in view if sitting in the left seat. Don't have a clue in rotary but that article I can see the logic with having a hand that can come off but keep one hand on the cyclic.

In English speaking culture most things in aviation are taken from Maritime to do with naming and ships are always she. I think German its masculine and Russian they always call aircraft he as well.

The UK driving on the left side dates back to Napoleonic times and which hand your sword is in before that and jousting, I was told many years ago in school.

And yes Mentor pilot in that youtube is a Swedish pilot. I have chatted with him online but don't know him. He knows his stuff and has a good way of delivering information.

Back to Engineering though the feel system I believe is common through 737-300 through to the MAX it was one of the systems that missed getting reworked when they went to the NG and beat the new grandfathering rules. They more than likely wanted to use it to do the function of the MCAS. But if they touched it then they would open Pandora's box of it and the stall system which would have triggered additional training requirement and lengthy certification possible completely replacing the stall system.

There is something funny with the stall system with both the FAA and Boeing. They have always been extremely adverse to letting the pilots be able to cancel it. I suspect the original design team basically made it so that its impossible to rework the current system to the modern standards due to this clash of opinion. I am expecting that pulling the CB on the stick shaker like the Canadians and EASA have mandated is going to have a knock on effect which again is not documented. I believe the 737-10 will have some changes which should be retrofitted to the others but what I really don't know. And I suspect there will be huge arguments about them and lengthy delays certifying it.

Thanks Alistair..

What is the modern standards for stall systems?
And did you mean that the "locking" of the column at a stall was original on all 737?

Why I am asking is because the elevator feel computer EFC and the dual feel actuator seems to be able to do there job as they are suppose to, in a good way, which has nothing to do with any "safety", as longs as you do not mix it up with MCAS or Stall warnings etc.

I think it's the Romans they hade swords long before Napoleon, you carry the sword on the left side to be able to pull it with the right hand, then it will be easier to defend yourself if you ride or drive on the left side.
The same thing in a boat, the oar or side rudder is on the right side because most people are right-handed.

In English speaking culture most things in aviation are taken from Maritime to do with naming and ships are always she. I think German its masculine and Russian they always call aircraft he as well.

In Sweden boats are mostly female.
Apparently sailing ships are female but smaller boats can be male or neutrum , tugboats are always male.
And Viking ships, if never so sailing, was he.
The word for them was dragon "drake".
One famous one was "The Long Snake ".

Best Regards A

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

My favorite explanation is that in England the Coach driver sat on the right so as to have more room to swing his whip.
This advantage would also apply to the use of weapons.
The same principle applied in America.
The driver sat on the left so that the shotgun guard had better access to his weapons.

Bill
--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

I don't know what the current certification standard is on stall systems. As such its just a indication system. Its when it gets linked into other things that it explodes in complexity and redundancy.

Napoleon was something to do with driving on the other side I seem to remember. Your right handed explanation is as I remember it.

Napoleon was something to do with driving on the other side I seem to remember.
Do you mean on the right, right side?

Best Regards A

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

I have driven both it makes no difference to me. When you drive a vehicle that's meant for the other side that's when it gets dangerous in both systems.

http://www.b737.org.uk/stallwarningsys.htm

It seems the stall system and feel system is the same since the 1960's 100.

And the stick shaker is in series so both fire if triggered. All other planes its a dual independent system so if you cancel one side the other continues to work.

God morning..
Well I been driving in Ireland no major problem other than when you get to a roundabout and there is no traffic, god so confusing.
Not only that you should drive on the wrong side but then you started to think about whether you should drive through the roundabout counterclockwise or clockwise as well.
With traffic around it is just to go with the flow

Best Regards A

PS. Most roads were so narrow that it was not possible to determine whether you were driving on the right or left side.

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

Quote (Alistair Heaton)

I have driven both it makes no difference to me. When you drive a vehicle that's meant for the other side that's when it gets dangerous in both systems.

I fully agree. Talk about engineering failures and disasters. Don't know if it exists elsewhere, but in St. Croix US Virgin Islands, all the cars seem to be LHD (including rental cars), yet driving is on the left side of the road. Nearly had a crackup on the way to the hotel last summer. In fact, a few minutes earlier, on leaving the airport, I kid you not, I had correctly taken the left side of a two lane road and had a truck bearing down on me on my side until it veered off into a side road, leaving me confused as hell until I reached a road with significant traffic giving me a frame of reference.

"Schiefgehen wird, was schiefgehen kann" - das Murphygesetz

Well after coming back from Ireland I went of the main road one day into the wood to se if I could find some mushrooms, when I was driving out on the main road again where there was no traffic as far as the eye could reach, I thought something felt very strange until I realized that I was driving on the wrong side of the road.

I was with the same thing before Christmas someone had managed to drive off the highway and ended up on the wrong side of the road division there were two lanes going in both directions and came driving towards me in my lane just over a bridge crest it was just undone that it became a frontal collision if they did not turn away.

BR A

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

Lets keep the LHD/RHD thing to a different post eh?

I've asked this before and can't recall the answer, but my understanding is that on the 737, all vintages, the FCC used by MCAS and other functions switches sides after every flight once you power down. And how do you know which one is active?

As in both instances Lion Air and Ethiopian, it seems that in both instances it was the captains side FCC which received bad AoA information and hence everything started going wrong from there on. So on a 50% likelihood this was one of the first holes in the swiss cheese.

Is there / was there a chance to switch FCC in mid flight or is this something that just isn't done or isn't practical? On Airbus because you have three, I presume one with bad data compared to the other two just shuts down and gives you some alarm that it needs fixing later?

Now that the 737 max looks at both FCC or AoA data, to discover an inconsistency does this (only one FCC active) still apply?

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

I had thought the british right hand steering was adopted from the railroad engineers side, which in turn may have been adopted from the boat pilot's preferred side. The early US cars might have chosen the left side due to the difficulty of shifting the early transmissions implied the stronger right hand be used to force the tranny into gear.

"...when logic, and proportion, have fallen, sloppy dead..." Grace Slick

LI, I think the active FCC switched every reboot, though I'm not a primary source on that.

Don't know about Boeing. But there is usually what's call ed a reversion panel which allows you to cycle through the various sensors and data sources.

And it's reasonably easy and we some times swap sides out of choice for nav . You wouldn't normally fiddle with the flight control computers unless told to by a checklist.

Quote (LittleInch)

Now that the 737 max looks at both FCC or AoA data, to discover an inconsistency does this (only one FCC active) still apply?

The way, I understand it, is that both AOA sensors are evaluated for the alert "AoA sensors not ok" but this is just an alarm no function.

It was only the active FCC that used its own AoA sensor (just one for the MCAS function) and then evaluated it together with speed and other things to se if there was a stall and if the MCAS was to bee turned on.

I have also been wondering, if it automatically changes FCC every flight was it then reset before the next flight, since it also got the same problem.
But if it hade not been reset it would not have made such a big difference in the end since, flight 3 would probably had crashed if the second one didn't.
Since they did not understand what the problem was.

Best Regards A

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

Thankfully the pedals are the same for both. That would really screw with my head. With the driving...

Now you see why I call it a Frankenstein design the 737. It works don't get me wrong. But its an organically grown design so you just can't use any presumption or logic with it. Makes trouble shooting extremely difficult.

If it was proper FBW certification which Boeing moved heaven and earth to avoid having to do then it would be covered. But that would have added 2-3 years and they were already 18 months behind the Neo and would have required more than 30 mins on an Ipad of training.

BTW this is tech pilot and examiner level of system knowledge working out how it all interacts that we are doing here in this discussion. The normal line pilot wouldn't normally go near it or if they are so inclined have the opportunity to brainstorm with like minded individuals and work out what's really going on. And remember that this is just a couple of systems out of 20-40 of similar complexity.

The philosophy of system knowledge required has also changed over the years. They really don't want you to be able to get inventive. They just want you to run the checklists. Jetstream theory course went all the way down to how the fuel controller meters fuel and the various modes the prop functioned in. Q400 not a thing. Its an engine the FADEC deals with the prop and the power you demand it and it will provided it. A220 there it is even more weighted to where the various switches are and not what the switches actually do to the big picture.

just for interest

https://uk.yahoo.com/finance/news/boeing-cites-ris...

Personally I can see their point. But do suspect that the 450 orders for them and nothing in development by Boeing may be a factor.

Wrap around fuel tanks eh? What can possibly go wrong?

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

AH-- That's kind of the management style I'm used to after working for 40+ years. You can make yourself look better by making your peers seem worse.

Brad Waybright

The more you know, the more you know you don't know.

The fuel tank stuff is a mess after the accident referred to in the article.

Its again this grandfathering. Boeing stuck with electrical submersed fuel pumps, everyone else went to motive flow pumps 40 years ago...

To be fair it is a valid point although I suspect it might not be as bigger problem to solve as Boeing thinks. The market for them isn't really in FAA airspace anyway.

I suspect its more to do with single type qualification and Boeing having nothing that could even remotely be stretched to do the same job. But it will cut into their wide body markets which already getting hammered for a variety of issues some of which are not Boeings fault.

Being able to send a crew short/medium haul for a number of days and then send them on a ultra long followed by the required days off makes rostering very economical even if it kicks the hell out of the crew. It means the airline can get 20 days work a month out of a crew instead of 10 days doing ULH.

Turns out airbus have already got this feature on other aircraft, And many aircraft before have also had it including MD and Boeing.

They have a fix already for another type which is a Kevlar liner bag.

But to note the forum that the comment was made in is one of these regulator peer review processes. Boeing was completely right to highlight the issue.

Anyway saw this but didn't want to start another thread and thought those that would be interested would see it here.

Its a bit personal for me because I ended up stuck in Vilnius for 6 hours while they sorted it all out. And then saw it everyday I was in Tallinn.

But its a good example of a FBW airbus crew machine interaction accident triggered by a technical issue.

https://youtu.be/bo-S3kAInB8

I guess the 'fat lady hasn't sung', yet. From a recent eMail from Change.Org...

"Dik — Over 346 people lost their lives in two crashes involving the Boeing 737 Max airplane. Years later, experts say that the model is still unsafe for use and countries like China and Norway have banned or are questioning their usage. This petition is calling on the federal government to ban the 737 Max in Canada, and call a public inquiry to find out why the 737 Max was approved in the first place. If you think that the 737 Max should not be used in Canadian airspace, sign today."

Not to worry... the Canadian government doesn't often listen to the people, either...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

I vaguely recall from my first year economics class that monopolies are bad, and duopolies are only less bad. Here we have a de facto duopoly.
Maybe transport aircraft manufacturing needs to become a regulated public utility.

"Schiefgehen wird, was schiefgehen kann" - das Murphygesetz

or maybe just properly regulated...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

Quote:

or maybe just properly regulated...

Isthat a typo?
Did you mean "just poorly regulated?"
No problem with poor regulation.
The agency is already in place.
The FAA.

Bill
--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

then maybe they should do their job then...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

Dominic Gates article https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aeros...

I didn't realise there was an auto throttle issue as well.

I banned 737s from my personal space. Not important to me if govs do, or don't agree with my policy.