Ethiopian Airlines 737 Max crashes killing 157

[Pasken 1309]

31 minutes ago, RPM said:

McDonnell Douglas FTW (except for that pesky hydraulic design flaw).

And the cargo door that explodes outward.

[Wally Fairway 5517]

7 hours ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

Pics of the DC-10 show it bent to hell as it was overstressed in the attack. 

http://aenlogistics.com/general-interest/remembering-fedex-flight-705/

According to this article that DC-10 is still in service, tail number N306FE; and flightaware shows that it is Guadalajara having flown in from Memphis this morning. I'm guessing it will head back tonight.
She still gets around https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N306FE#flightPageActivityLog

[DallasGatr 216]

I have not seen the documentary on this incident but I do know the backstory. The original crew went illegal for the flight (8 block hours in 24.) So instead of the 3 STUD Naval Aviators (I think the F/O was a Marine.) The flight was scheduled with a very close to retirement Capt, a female F/O and Calloway himself as the FE.

When they went illegal, Calloway jump seated instead of working the flight. I’m thinking the final result would have been a bit different. (Thank God)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bobby_Batronic 1994]

16 hours ago, Wally Fairway said:

http://aenlogistics.com/general-interest/remembering-fedex-flight-705/

According to this article that DC-10 is still in service, tail number N306FE; and flightaware shows that it is Guadalajara having flown in from Memphis this morning. I'm guessing it will head back tonight.
She still gets around https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N306FE#flightPageActivityLog

 

12 hours ago, DallasGatr said:

I have not seen the documentary on this incident but I do know the backstory. The original crew went illegal for the flight (8 block hours in 24.) So instead of the 3 STUD Naval Aviators (I think the F/O was a Marine.) The flight was scheduled with a very close to retirement Capt, a female F/O and Calloway himself as the FE.

When they went illegal, Calloway jump seated instead of working the flight. I’m thinking the final result would have been a bit different. (Thank God)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I had a book or magazine article on this when I was younger, and it had pictures clearly showing the plane was bent.  I don't mean an L in the fuselage, but the engine pylons and a few other things were clearly wrong.  I'll have to look and see if I can find it.

[C-Man 27029]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Express_Flight_705
Fed Ex flight 705 episode needs to be made a movie. Nick Cage needs to be in it. 
Incredible story. 

That’s wild. But the craziest for me will always be the British Airways Flight where the pilot was sucked out the cockpit window but was held in by crew while landing safely and surviving.

[RPM 26208]

18 hours ago, DallasGatr said:

I have not seen the documentary on this incident but I do know the backstory. The original crew went illegal for the flight (8 block hours in 24.)

In the doc they said the crew went over by 1 minute.

[Nueces River Rat 5529]

On 3/22/2019 at 8:13 PM, Wally Fairway said:

http://aenlogistics.com/general-interest/remembering-fedex-flight-705/

According to this article that DC-10 is still in service, tail number N306FE; and flightaware shows that it is Guadalajara having flown in from Memphis this morning. I'm guessing it will head back tonight.
She still gets around https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N306FE#flightPageActivityLog

I flew in a 90's version American Airlines MD-80 a few weeks back.   I mean this plane looked like a flashback machine and the seats were uncomfortable as heck.   When I landed at DFW, I noticed the other MD-80's at the gates had the same old paint scheme vs the others which have the newer look.   I was curious why American was keeping these planes and looked it up and they are due to be retired this summer and the Airbus will be taking over these medium haul routes.     But I tell you what.  Both trips were pretty darn smooth compared to some I've had in 737's and other smaller regional jets.   Save the above discomfort from the seat on one trip as it felt like a cheap hotel mattress.  

[Hanrahan 1306]

That’s wild. But the craziest for me will always be the British Airways Flight where the pilot was sucked out the cockpit window but was held in by crew while landing safely and surviving.

You read about the Gimli glider?

[HiggyBaby 2513]

I flew in a 90's version American Airlines MD-80 a few weeks back.   I mean this plane looked like a flashback machine and the seats were uncomfortable as heck.   When I landed at DFW, I noticed the other MD-80's at the gates had the same old paint scheme vs the others which have the newer look.   I was curious why American was keeping these planes and looked it up and they are due to be retired this summer and the Airbus will be taking over these medium haul routes.     But I tell you what.  Both trips were pretty darn smooth compared to some I've had in 737's and other smaller regional jets.   Save the above discomfort from the seat on one trip as it felt like a cheap hotel mattress.  

They were meant to be replaced years ago by the 73 which is why they never got painted. Fuel got stupid cheap and since the planes were paid for and they had the pilots, they got extended. But not painted.

[RPM 26208]

MD-80 is by far the most uncomfortable plane I've flown on. Got stuck in a middle seat from MIA-DFW. Sardines have more room. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

12 minutes ago, RPM said:

MD-80 is by far the most uncomfortable plane I've flown on. Got stuck in a middle seat from MIA-DFW. Sardines have more room. 

Plus they're coated with yummy mustard and olive oil.......................The sardines, not the planes.

Edited March 24, 2019 by Onboard 2.0

[XYZ 2154]

Where do you get sardines coated with mustard???

[Pato del Muerto 52336]

2 minutes ago, XYZ said:

Where do you get sardines coated with mustard???

Take it to food and travel!

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, XYZ said:

Where do you get sardines coated with mustard???

Beachcliff brand.

[RPM 26208]

1 hour ago, XYZ said:

Where do you get sardines coated with mustard???

Walmart?

[Homercles 10205]

MD-80 is by far the most uncomfortable plane I've flown on. Got stuck in a middle seat from MIA-DFW. Sardines have more room. 

Three things...

1). They were my ride, every time, from AUS to the international legs out of LAX or ORD when I was flying to the Phils or India...and up front they are exceptionally quiet.

2). When in the back, having the ability to fly as a couple without anyone else sitting next to you is really nice.

3). It’s built like a tank

[RPM 26208]

1 minute ago, Homercles said:

2). When in the back, having the ability to fly as a couple without anyone else sitting next to you is really nice.

Except when it's a 3-2 seating and you're on the 3 side.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

7 minutes ago, RPM said:

Walmart?

Could be.  Kroger for us.

[Surly Bevo 24692]

Yea I never minded the MD80 and I am 6'6''.  The only part there that sucked is if you got stuck in one of the very back rows for whatever reason.  Then you had engines right outside your window and the shitter right over your shoulder.  

[Bobby_Batronic 1994]

21A was my jam. Reclining exit row window on the two seat side. And yeah, you can’t even hear the motors in first class. I always hated being in the last few rows with nothing to look at but the engine cowl and listen to the wah-wah’s for an hour or two. 

[Nueces River Rat 5529]

20 hours ago, HiggyBaby said:

 

They were meant to be replaced years ago by the 73 which is why they never got painted. Fuel got stupid cheap and since the planes were paid for and they had the pilots, they got extended. But not painted.

 

Yes that is what some of the stuff I read pointed too. 

One of the routes I travel on American is DFW to JAX (FL) and the MD-80 is almost exclusively used between the two.  I was just taken a back when I got on the plane on the my first trip and it was the MD-80.  I hadn't flown on one in years (most of my travel is on Southwest) and thought for the most part they had been mothballed already.   

I've check dates for later this summer into the fall and it looks like most if not all the flights between DFW and JAX will either be 737's or Airbus 321's/319's.

[Gucci_Suit 2610]

I fly around 140k miles per year on AA/Oneworld and have done so for years. Up until about 2 years ago most of the connections I’d make to AUS from DFW or ORD were on the mad dogs, and I really loved them.

From the MCE rows forward to F cabin, you can’t hear the engines at all and you have plenty of space. Key is to sit on the left side of the aircraft if in Y class.Seats are indeed very hard, so I would use the blanket as a cushion. Works great. 

The mad dogs even have their own smell- kind of like a burning electronics smell (maybe that should be concerning) and somehow this is comforting to me. Anyway, there is not a smoother narrow body aircraft in the sky and I’ll be sad to see them all go. They are beasts. Long live the Super-80!

[Anastasis 23390]

737 Max being ferried to Florida by SWA makes emergency landing as result of engine problems.  Only crew on board.

[Bobby_Batronic 1994]

They’re ferrying their planes to Victorville for long term storage.

[Gil Bang 25894]

Fucking Victorville. What a shithole

[happyfunball 481]

Oh, hai

If just a simple fix and pilot error, why are they still grounded?

[Trey3216 15325]

2 minutes ago, happyfunball said:

Oh, hai

If just a simple fix and pilot error, why are they still grounded?

Interesting post a week later.   May take some time to upload and train for a few thousand planes.   

[Your Mom 4791]

Because after Boeing decided on the fix it needs approval from the FAA.  Still waiting on that.  

The fix is a comparison of two AOA sensors instead of just one, a limit of one MCAS activation per event (override it once and it will not reactivate), and a limit on the MCAS stab trim that ensures the elevator retains authority. 

The airlines are currently awaiting the FAA to approve that software and the accompanying manuals for it  

Then tens of thousands of pilots need to complete the training. Southwest has the MAX off the schedules through the end of May and is expecting to have them back online by then. 

[bschoolprof 6232]

from wsj.  

Quote

Pilots at the controls of the Boeing Co. 737 MAX that crashed in March in Ethiopia initially followed emergency procedures laid out by the plane maker but still failed to recover control of the jet, according to people briefed on the probe’s preliminary findings.

After turning off a flight-control system that was automatically pushing down the plane’s nose shortly after takeoff March 10, these people said, the crew couldn’t get the aircraft to climb and ended up turning it back on and relying on other steps before the final plunge killed all 157 people on board.

The sequence of events, still subject to further evaluation by investigators, calls into question assertions by Boeing and the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration over the past five months that by simply following established procedures to turn off the suspect stall-prevention feature, called MCAS, pilots could overcome a misfire of the system and avoid ending in a crash.

The pilots on Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 initially reacted to the emergency by shutting off power to electric motors driven by the automated system, these people said, but then appear to have re-engaged the system to cope with a persistent steep nose-down angle. It wasn’t immediately clear why the pilots turned the automated system back on instead of continuing to follow Boeing’s standard emergency checklist, but government and industry officials said the likely reason would have been because manual controls to raise the nose didn’t achieve the desired results.

After first cranking a manual wheel in the cockpit that controls the same movable surfaces on the plane’s tail that MCAS had affected, the pilots turned electric power back on, one of these people said. They began to use electric switches to try to raise the plane’s nose, according to these people. But the electric power also reactivated MCAS, allowing it to continue its strong downward commands, the people said.

The same automated system, also implicated in a 737 MAX crash in Indonesia in late October, has become the focus of various congressional and federal investigations, including a Justice Department criminal probe.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ethiopian-airlines-pilots-initially-followed-boeings-required-emergency-steps-to-disable-737-max-system-11554263276?mod=hp_lead_pos1

[Wally Fairway 5517]

Turn off the MCAS HAL

 

[bschoolprof 6232]

 @DaysOff and @Bobby_Batronic

Are the procedure described above in the WSJ quote what you guys were talking about upthread? I recall something about stab switches or something.  Isn't it all ball bearings these days?

 

[ShaggyBevo RIP 3868]

12 hours ago, happyfunball said:

Oh, hai

If just a simple fix and pilot error, why are they still grounded?

Because it isn't a simple fix. Boeing engineers got overridden by the bean counters for developing a new fuselage to accompany the 737Max engines and had to adapt the fuselage that has been around for decades. The engine has too much power, and has a poor weight distribution location, for the old fuselage so they came up with the sensor and software to fix the nose going up unexpectedly and that combo causes the nosedive when it is faulty.

This is going to be a business school case study for decades to come.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2019/04/02/mit-expert-highlights-divergent-condition-caused-by-737-max-engine-placement/#214d5cb640aa

https://www.thedailybeast.com/boeing-737-max-8-scandal-cost-cutting-addiction-squeezed-every-dollar-out-of-jet-until-disaster-struck

Edited April 3, 2019 by ShaggyBevo RIP

[Your Mom 4791]

57 minutes ago, bschoolprof said:

 @DaysOff and @Bobby_Batronic

Are the procedure described above in the WSJ quote what you guys were talking about upthread? I recall something about stab switches or something.  Isn't it all ball bearings these days?

 

Sounds like they started with the right procedure but then abandoned it when they didn't get immediate results.  I'm guessing that turning off the Stab Trim Cut Out switches stopped the advancement of more nose-down trim but they still had the initial amount of trim in there.  You have to manually hand crank the trim wheel to get it back to neutral and that takes a while.  The electric motors spin that wheel a lot faster than you can hand crank it.  But they didn't stick with that and instead turned the stab trim system back on.  Nowhere in the procedure does it tell you to turn it back on instead of hand-cranking the wheel.  

The media is trying to make this sound like they followed the right procedure.  They didn't.  Turning back on the Stab Trim Cut Out switches is absolutely not in the procedure. 

[Wally Fairway 5517]

25 minutes ago, ShaggyBevo RIP said:

Because it isn't a simple fix. Boeing engineers got overridden by the bean counters for developing a new fuselage to accompany the 737Max engines and had to adapt the fuselage that has been around for decades. The engine has too much power, and has a poor weight distribution location, for the old fuselage so they came up with the sensor and software to fix the nose going up unexpectedly and that combo causes the nosedive when it is faulty.

This is going to be a business school case study for decades to come.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2019/04/02/mit-expert-highlights-divergent-condition-caused-by-737-max-engine-placement/#214d5cb640aa

https://www.thedailybeast.com/boeing-737-max-8-scandal-cost-cutting-addiction-squeezed-every-dollar-out-of-jet-until-disaster-struck

As a bean counter I'm slightly offended by your oversimplification of the root cause of putting new engines on an old chassis, because what I've read is that Boeing didn't want to have to have a new airframe certified, and I think that goes a bit beyond bean counting. I'm sure that ROI plays a part of that, but the biggest problem was that the time it would take to get an entire new plane certified would have defeated the purpose of being able to quickly compete with the newer & more efficient single aisle (Sc)Airbus product.

[ShaggyBevo RIP 3868]

20 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

As a bean counter I'm slightly offended by your oversimplification of the root cause of putting new engines on an old chassis, because what I've read is that Boeing didn't want to have to have a new airframe certified, and I think that goes a bit beyond bean counting. I'm sure that ROI plays a part of that, but the biggest problem was that the time it would take to get an entire new plane certified would have defeated the purpose of being able to quickly compete with the newer & more efficient single aisle (Sc)Airbus product.

In that rush they put plane into service that has a serious flaw, which has killed 350 people so far,  and will end up costing Boeing far more than taking a few more years to get a new airframe into production. 

Yes, someone in engineering should have spoken up and said we can't get this engine and airframe to function properly together and are using electronic nannies to control its flaws.

Edited April 3, 2019 by ShaggyBevo RIP

[Your Mom 4791]

The engine and airframe work fine together.  There is a slight tendency to nose up a tiny bit more than in other 737 models but it's very slight and not even noticeable.  I've flown the MAX a dozen or so of times and it flies and handles beautifully.  Never even noticed the smallest bit of excessive nose up in any attitude, at any power setting, in any phase of flight.  All airplanes nose up a bit when you add power, this one feels no different.  The engineers say it's increased so it's increased, but it's slight.  It wasn't worth the trouble of this MCAS system and the MCAS is definitely a flawed design so far.  But that doesn't mean this fuselage doesn't work with these engines.  

It will not end up costing Boeing more than the years it would have taken to design a new fuselage.  MCAS will get fixed, the costs of that fix and the costs from these terrible accidents will pale in comparison to future MAX sales.  The MAX remains the future of 737s.  It's not the first airplane to stumble with early design flaws.  They will get it fixed and will set records with sales of it.

Edited April 3, 2019 by Your Mom

[Bobby_Batronic 1994]

3 hours ago, bschoolprof said:

 @DaysOff and @Bobby_Batronic

Are the procedure described above in the WSJ quote what you guys were talking about upthread? I recall something about stab switches or something.  Isn't it all ball bearings these days?

 

Your Mom is correct. It sounds like they might have made it if they had used the electric trim to get the control forces light enough to to revert back to manual trim, but they didn’t. They turned it back on, and it killed them. 

[Bobby_Batronic 1994]

1 hour ago, ShaggyBevo RIP said:

In that rush they put plane into service that has a serious flaw, which has killed 350 people so far,  and will end up costing Boeing far more than taking a few more years to get a new airframe into production. 

Yes, someone in engineering should have spoken up and said we can't get this engine and airframe to function properly together and are using electronic nannies to control its flaws.

That’s really not it at all. The Airbus, for example, is nothing but electronic nannies, and you have to get into the fourth level of redundancy to remove a computer interface standing between the pilot and the controls. 

It will behave exactly as the Max does, as has been said ad nauseam, and also has things that must be turned off in the event of erroneous AOA information. Pilots are even cautioned to slowly advance the thrust levers in the event of a stall as the third step in the procedure to prevent a nose up tendency. In other words, this is all hype being used to create mass panic in an ill informed public by an equally ill informed media, and heightened by agencies grandstanding to cover their asses. There absolutley were mistakes made at every step in the process, but in the end the plane behaves no differently than its competitors. 

[Dahobbs 17420]

1 hour ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

Your Mom is correct. It sounds like they might have made it if they had used the electric trim to get the control forces light enough to to revert back to manual trim, but they didn’t. They turned it back on, and it killed them. 

I've seen comments from an Ars Technica article on this issue that were interesting, I'd like to get the perspective of some from here. 

Essentially, Boeing determined that it might be physically difficult to re-trim the aircraft after runaway MCAS using manual trim and advised pilots to use electric trim to do so. The post Lion Air guidelines, despite framing itself as a “reminder” to follow “existing procedures,” Boeing actually introduced an additional step outside of the runaway stabilizer checklist. Since activating the stab trim cutout will also disable the electric trim switches on the MAX, Boeing recommended using electric trim controls to achieve neutral trim before activating the cutout. https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/boeing-nearing-737-max-fleet-bulletin-on-aoa-warning-after-lion-air-crash/ ("Initially, higher control forces may be needed to overcome stabilizer nose down trim already applied. Electric stabilizer trim can be used to neutralize control column pitch forces before moving the STAB TRIM CUTOUT switches to CUTOUT.")

Unfortunately, the thumb trim controls didn't always work, in one of the apparently many changes:

"U.S. and European regulators knew at least two years before a Lion Air crash that the usual method for controlling the Boeing 737 MAX’s nose angle might not work in conditions similar to those in two recent disasters, a document shows.

The European Aviation and Space Agency (EASA) certified the plane as safe in part because it said additional procedures and training would “clearly explain” to pilots the “unusual” situations in which they would need to manipulate a rarely used manual wheel to control, or “trim,” the plane’s angle.

Those situations, however, were not listed in the flight manual, according to a copy from American Airlines seen by Reuters.

The undated EASA certification document, available online, was issued in February 2016, an agency spokesman said.

It specifically noted that at speeds greater than 230 knots (265mph, 425kph) with flaps retracted, pilots might have to use the wheel in the cockpit’s center console rather than an electric thumb switch on the control yoke.

EASA and the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ultimately determined that set-up was safe enough for the plane to be certified, with the European agency citing training plans and the relative rarity of conditions requiring the trim wheel." https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ethiopia-airplane-regulator-insight/regulators-knew-before-crashes-that-737-max-trim-control-was-confusing-in-some-conditions-document-idUSKCN1RA0DP

The promised training never occurred, so the pilots didn’t know about the undocumented limits on the electric trim controls. So they might have tried to do what the post-Lion Air bulletin said (using electric controls first), and gotten killed by it. The other thing to note, apparently the manual wheel takes 250 turns for full up and can be physically difficult to manipulate, particularly I assume when the plane starts nosing down right after take off.  

[DaysOff 7843]

MCAS isn't even needed or planned for MAX10. Scrap the stupid thing and get on with flying.

[tucker 238]

Quote

Ethiopian Air Pilots Followed Protocol on 737 Max Flight, Source Say

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-03/ethiopian-air-pilots-said-to-follow-protocol-on-737-max-flight

[bschoolprof 6232]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

I've seen comments from an Ars Technica article on this issue that were interesting, I'd like to get the perspective of some from here. 

Essentially, Boeing determined that it might be physically difficult to re-trim the aircraft after runaway MCAS using manual trim and advised pilots to use electric trim to do so. The post Lion Air guidelines, despite framing itself as a “reminder” to follow “existing procedures,” Boeing actually introduced an additional step outside of the runaway stabilizer checklist. Since activating the stab trim cutout will also disable the electric trim switches on the MAX, Boeing recommended using electric trim controls to achieve neutral trim before activating the cutout. https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/boeing-nearing-737-max-fleet-bulletin-on-aoa-warning-after-lion-air-crash/ ("Initially, higher control forces may be needed to overcome stabilizer nose down trim already applied. Electric stabilizer trim can be used to neutralize control column pitch forces before moving the STAB TRIM CUTOUT switches to CUTOUT.")

Unfortunately, the thumb trim controls didn't always work, in one of the apparently many changes:

"U.S. and European regulators knew at least two years before a Lion Air crash that the usual method for controlling the Boeing 737 MAX’s nose angle might not work in conditions similar to those in two recent disasters, a document shows.

The European Aviation and Space Agency (EASA) certified the plane as safe in part because it said additional procedures and training would “clearly explain” to pilots the “unusual” situations in which they would need to manipulate a rarely used manual wheel to control, or “trim,” the plane’s angle.

Those situations, however, were not listed in the flight manual, according to a copy from American Airlines seen by Reuters.

The undated EASA certification document, available online, was issued in February 2016, an agency spokesman said.

It specifically noted that at speeds greater than 230 knots (265mph, 425kph) with flaps retracted, pilots might have to use the wheel in the cockpit’s center console rather than an electric thumb switch on the control yoke.

EASA and the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ultimately determined that set-up was safe enough for the plane to be certified, with the European agency citing training plans and the relative rarity of conditions requiring the trim wheel." https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ethiopia-airplane-regulator-insight/regulators-knew-before-crashes-that-737-max-trim-control-was-confusing-in-some-conditions-document-idUSKCN1RA0DP

The promised training never occurred, so the pilots didn’t know about the undocumented limits on the electric trim controls. So they might have tried to do what the post-Lion Air bulletin said (using electric controls first), and gotten killed by it. The other thing to note, apparently the manual wheel takes 250 turns for full up and can be physically difficult to manipulate, particularly I assume when the plane starts nosing down right after take off.  

Not a pilot or an engineer (obviously), but this all sounds needlessly complex for a human trying to fix an issue that could kill you and your passengers in about 60 seconds or so.  Why not have a fix like "if this thing doesn't work, press this shiny red button."  Just spitballing here.  

Edited April 3, 2019 by bschoolprof

[RPM 26208]

This is all on the beancounters heads. Save money on certifying a new airframe, computer tweak the flight controls to counteract the unstable modified airframe, charge extra for warning indicators, don't implement training they promised. Look at all the money we saved!

Edited April 3, 2019 by RPM

[retread 2951]

58 minutes ago, bschoolprof said:

Not a pilot or an engineer (obviously), but this all sounds needlessly complex for a human trying to fix an issue that could kill you and your passengers in about 60 seconds or so.  Why not have a fix like "if this thing doesn't work, press this shiny red button."  Just spitballing here.  

For the pilots here, how fast does the electronic trim switch on the yoke move the stabilizer compared to MCAS' action?

Edited April 3, 2019 by retread

[Bobby_Batronic 1994]

36 minutes ago, retread said:

For the pilots here, how fast does the electronic trim switch on the yoke move the stabilizer compared to MCAS' action?

I don’t know, but 2.5 degrees of movement over 10 seconds isn’t a lot. I would imagine that the electric trim switches move the stab considerably faster. Those wheels spin like a mofo. 

[XYZ 2154]

3 hours ago, RPM said:

This is all on the beancounters heads. Save money on certifying a new airframe, computer tweak the flight controls to counteract the unstable modified airframe, charge extra for warning indicators, don't implement training they promised. Look at all the money we saved!

Read what the surly pilots posted. The modified airframe is not unstable. It would have been just fine without MCAS.

[Dahobbs 17420]

36 minutes ago, XYZ said:

Read what the surly pilots posted. The modified airframe is not unstable. It would have been just fine without MCAS.

I've read elsewhere where, while technically flyable, the modified airframe without MCAS may not have satisfied regulatory requirements on stability (either by the FAA or European authorities). I'll have to go look that up to get the details. 

[RPM 26208]

6 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I've read elsewhere where, while technically flyable, the modified airframe without MCAS may not have satisfied regulatory requirements on stability (either by the FAA or European authorities). I'll have to go look that up to get the details. 

I read the same thing. EASA would not approve the airframe without MCAS. Boeing was supposed to train all pilots on the new system and that was what got the approval. Boeing never did their part and essentially blew off the EASA required training. This does not surprise me. I know a couple guys that work at Boeing and they (Boeing management) think their shit don't stink. Guess when you have no competition you can act that way.

Edited April 3, 2019 by RPM

[elfenix 34169]

ABC news reporting the AoA sensor may have been damaged on take off

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/damaged-sensor-ethiopian-airlines-737-max-triggered-fatal/story?id=62139860

[JimmyJames 12271]

On 3/12/2019 at 10:18 PM, 4th and 5 said:

My brother flies for AA, he says it is pilot error, won’t hesitate to fly the MAX. 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/03/africa/ethiopian-airlines-emergency-procedures-intl/index.html