Page 96 of 170 FirstFirst ... 4686888990919293949596979899100101102103104106146 ... LastLast
Results 2,376 to 2,400 of 4244

Thread: Airline News

  1. #2376
    Thailand Expat OhOh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Online
    Today @ 12:07 PM
    Location
    Where troubles melt like lemon drops
    Posts
    25,222
    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    they had the ATC recordings before they even found the FDR. It's common procedure.
    Publish them.




    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    How the fuck can Boeing scrub Indonesian ATC comms? Let alone it being "per usual"
    Of course not 'arry, who would do such a thing, ah, your scary Asians.

    ameristanis have previous in selling sloppy stories. Or what is that phrase they use, "misspeaking" comes to mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    If you can't offer anything useful to the conversation, STFU with your stupid waffling.
    Useful to whom? Take your head out of your arse, smell the roses and look around you.
    A tray full of GOLD is not worth a moment in time.

  2. #2377
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    96,561
    Quote Originally Posted by OhOh View Post
    Publish them.

    I didn't say *I* had them, you utter idiot.

    • 31 OCTOBER, 2018
    • SOURCE: FLIGHT DASHBOARD
    • BY: FIRDAUS HASHIM
    • SINGAPORE

    Investigators from Indonesia's National Transport Safety Committee (NTSC) have obtained audio recordings of a Lion Air Boeing 737 Max 8 that crashed on 29 October from air navigation service provider AirNav Indonesia.

    Deputy chief Haryo Satmiko told the media that it was able to obtain audio recordings between the air traffic controller and the Lion pilots, but has yet to locate the flight data and cockpit voice recorders of the 737 registered PK-LQP.



    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...rashed-453162/
    Which pretty well shows up the rest of your stupid post as the fucking nonsense it is.

    You're the one living in a fantasy world, you whackjob.

  3. #2378
    Thailand Expat OhOh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Online
    Today @ 12:07 PM
    Location
    Where troubles melt like lemon drops
    Posts
    25,222
    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    Which pretty well shows up the rest of your stupid post as the fucking nonsense it is.
    As some have suggested, the cockpit recordings catch much more than the ATC conversations and likely are more useful, 'arry.

    But keep up your offensive outbursts, they amplify your weak position to all at TD.

  4. #2379
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    96,561
    Quote Originally Posted by OhOh View Post
    As some have suggested, the cockpit recordings catch much more than the ATC conversations and likely are more useful, 'arry.

    But keep up your offensive outbursts, they amplify your weak position to all at TD.

    Why don't you change the subject again Ohoh? That way no-one will notice the idiotic comments you made earlier.

  5. #2380
    Thailand Expat
    aging one's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    22,636
    Quote Originally Posted by OhOh View Post
    But keep up your offensive outbursts, they amplify your weak position to all at TD.
    STFU, most dont even bother to read your drivel. If you are the last poster on a thread I dont bother to open it..

  6. #2381
    Thailand Expat OhOh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Online
    Today @ 12:07 PM
    Location
    Where troubles melt like lemon drops
    Posts
    25,222
    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    Why don't you change the subject again
    Quote Originally Posted by aging one View Post
    STFU,
    Ah, another button pressed, more puerile diversions attempted.

    But let's not discuss the subject at hand. What a pathetic pair.

  7. #2382
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    96,561

    Originally Posted by OhOh (Airline News)
    Were there no ATC comms with the plane after they requested an emergency landing. Or have these all been scrubbed,per usual it seams.
    As some have suggested, the cockpit recordings catch much more than the ATC conversations and likely are more useful, 'arry.

    Quote Originally Posted by OhOh View Post
    more puerile diversions attempted.
    Yes, but you're not very good at it.

  8. #2383
    Thailand Expat OhOh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Online
    Today @ 12:07 PM
    Location
    Where troubles melt like lemon drops
    Posts
    25,222
    Boeing Kept Pilots in the Dark About Hazards of 737 Model's Feature - Reports

    "An investigation is still underway into the malfunctioning of the Lion Air jet, which crashed into the sea off the Indonesian coast in late October, killing all 189 people on board.

    According to a fresh report in The Wall Street Journal, Boeing appeared to have withheld information about suspected malfunctions with a new flight-control feature, which are believed to have played a role in the deadly Indonesian Lion Air jet crash. The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) officials and safety experts leading the investigation into the crash told the WSJ that the automatic stall-prevention feature introduced recently to Boeing models, including the 737 MAX 8 and MAX 9, may abruptly thrust a plane into a steep dive despite pilots’ efforts to continue flying it.

    Investigating experts are still looking into the matter, trying to find out whether this was the case in last month’s accident, when the Lion Air flight en route from Jakarta dove into the Java Sea on October 29.

    Boeing reportedly warned airlines about the newly introduced feature and risks it hypothetically carries in a safety bulletin issued days after the tragedy, which points to the fact that pilots couldn't have been aware of the new computer mechanism and risks connected with flight control at the moment of the crash, shortly before and even immediately after it.

    “It’s pretty asinine for them to put a system on an airplane and not tell the pilots who are operating the airplane, especially when it deals with flight controls,” the WSJ cited one of the officials, Captain Mike Michaelis, chairman of the Safety Committee for the Allied Pilots Association, as saying. Boeing hasn’t yet officially commented on the reports.

    In a parallel move, the newspaper quoted an unnamed high-profile Boeing representative as saying that the company had decided to leave out some details about the new models of aircraft so as to not feed pilots with excessive information. Meanwhile, the airline is conducting a probe into the accident, which left a staggering 189 people dead late last month, stressing that it is “taking every measure” to understand the root cause of it."

    https://sputniknews.com/asia/2018111...re-steep-dive/

    PRESS DIGEST - Wall Street Journal - Nov 13

    Boeing Co. (NYSE: BA) had information about problems with the 737 like the one which crashed in Indonesia. According to The Wall Street Journal:

    Boeing Co. withheld information about potential hazards associated with a new flight-control feature suspected of playing a role in last month’s fatal Lion Air jet crash, according to safety experts involved in the investigation, as well as midlevel FAA officials and airline pilots.

    The automated stall-prevention system on Boeing 737 MAX 8 and MAX 9 models—intended to help cockpit crews avoid mistakenly raising a plane’s nose dangerously high—under unusual conditions can push it down unexpectedly and so strongly that flight crews can’t pull it back up. Such a scenario, Boeing told airlines in a world-wide safety bulletin roughly a week after the accident, can result in a steep dive or crash—even if pilots are manually flying the jetliner and don’t expect flight-control computers to kick in."
    https://www.reuters.com/article/pres...-idUSL4N1XO2KX

    Boeing Withheld Information on 737 Model, According to Safety Experts and Others


    "withheld information about potential hazards associated with a new flight-control feature suspected of playing a role in last month’s fatal Lion Air jet crash, according to safety experts involved in the investigation, as well as midlevel FAA officials and airline pilots. The automated stall-prevention system on Boeing 737 MAX 8 and MAX 9 models—intended to help cockpit crews avoid mistakenly raising a plane’s nose dangerously high—under unusual conditions can push it down unexpectedly and so strongly that flight crews can’t pull it back up. Such a scenario, Boeing told airlines in a world-wide safety bulletin roughly a week after the accident, can result in a steep dive or crash—even if pilots are manually flying the jetliner and don’t expect flight-control computers to kick in.

    That warning came as a surprise to many pilots who fly the latest models for U.S carriers. Safety experts involved in and tracking the investigation said that at U.S. carriers, neither airline managers nor pilots had been told such a system had been added to the latest 737 variant—and therefore aviators typically weren’t prepared to cope with the possible risks.

    “It’s pretty asinine for them to put a system on an airplane and not tell the pilots who are operating the airplane, especially when it deals with flight controls,” said Capt. Mike Michaelis, chairman of the safety committee for the Allied Pilots Association, which represents about 15,000pilots. “Why weren’t they trained on it?”

    One Federal Aviation Administration manager familiar with the details said the new flight-control systems weren’t highlighted in any training materials or during lengthy discussions between carriers and regulators about phasing in the latest 737 derivatives.

    Boeing declined to immediately answer specific questions Monday. “We are taking every measure to fully understand all aspects of this incident, working closely with the investigating team and all regulatory authorities involved,” the company said in a statement. “We are confident in the safety of the 737 MAX.”

    On Monday, an FAA statement reiterated that the agency had mandated flight manual changes to emphasize proper pilot responses to the new flight-control systems. “The FAA will take further action if findings from the accident investigation warrant,” the statement noted, but declined to comment further.

    Boeing marketed the MAX 8 partly by telling customers it wouldn’t need pilots to undergo additional simulator training beyond that already required for older versions, according to industry and government officials. One high-ranking Boeing official said the company had decided against disclosing more details to cockpit crews due to concerns about inundating average pilots with too much information—and significantly more technical data—than they needed or could digest"

    https://atlantareports.com/2018/11/1...ts-and-others/


    If true, Boeing have some problems. If true, the regulators have some problems.

    Boeing introduce a new plane but don't tell the pilots of a new "feature" which may take control and have caused the deaths of hundreds of innocent passengers. Boeing informs the airelines will not have to spend time and money in training their pilots and can get them into service quicker.

    The FAA and other regulators, have listened to Boeing and deemed the plane safe with no extra training and continue to allow them into the air.

    When will the worlds airline regulators pull the plug?

    Or shall we take 'arrys view and just accept it has always been like this or in some way it is a "diversion" from 'arrys viewpoint on the plane crash.
    Last edited by OhOh; 13-11-2018 at 08:42 PM.

  9. #2384
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    96,561
    Quote Originally Posted by OhOh View Post
    When will the worlds airline regulators pull the plug?

    Or shall we take 'arrys view and just accept it has always been like this or in some way it is a "diversion" from 'arrys viewpoint on the plane crash.
    The FAA doesn't even have a permanent administrator. It has been in the manufacturer and airlines pocket for years.

    Which you would have known if you'd read my comments about the DC-10 cargo door.

    And Boeing will probably get away with this one too. As I said, it's not going to cost them a lot in Indonesia.

    The phrase:

    the airline is conducting a probe into the accident, which left a staggering 189 people dead late last month, stressing that it is “taking every measure” to understand the root cause of it."
    should probably read

    the airline is conducting a probe into the accident, which left a staggering 189 people dead late last month, stressing that it is “taking every measure” to wriggle the fuck out of as much blame as possible."

  10. #2385
    Thailand Expat
    aging one's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    22,636
    Quote Originally Posted by OhOh View Post
    Boeing introduce a new plane but don't tell the pilots of a new "feature" which may take control and have caused the deaths of hundreds of innocent passengers. Boeing informs the airelines will not have to spend time and money in training their pilots and can get them into service quicker.

    Did you read it? Nowhere is anything like your conjecture said..

  11. #2386
    Thailand Expat
    Troy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Online
    Today @ 12:17 PM
    Location
    In the EU
    Posts
    12,214
    #2380: You could be accused of advocating the 'blame culture' for that post. Very pertinent to the aircraft industry in that cockpit CRM is all about removing that culture and allowing the FO to speak out when they see Herr Kapitan making a fuckwit of himself...

    ...just saying...

  12. #2387
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    96,561
    Quote Originally Posted by Troy View Post
    #2380: You could be accused of advocating the 'blame culture' for that post. Very pertinent to the aircraft industry in that cockpit CRM is all about removing that culture and allowing the FO to speak out when they see Herr Kapitan making a fuckwit of himself...

    ...just saying...
    In fairness, if you had to spend hours in a cockpit listening to OhOh's drivel, you'd probably be very tempted to lock him out and fly into a mountain.

  13. #2388
    Thailand Expat OhOh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Online
    Today @ 12:07 PM
    Location
    Where troubles melt like lemon drops
    Posts
    25,222
    Quote Originally Posted by aging one View Post
    Did you read it? Nowhere is anything like your conjecture said..
    My take, if the article is true.

    I will highlight in purple the text which led me to that conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by OhOh View Post
    Boeing introduce a new plane but don't tell the pilots of a new "feature" which may take control and have caused the deaths of hundreds of innocent passengers. Boeing informs the airlines will not have to spend time and money in training their pilots and can get them into service quicker.
    Quote Originally Posted by OhOh View Post
    Boeing marketed the MAX 8 partly by telling customers it wouldn’t need pilots to undergo additional simulator training beyond that already required for older versions, according to industry and government officials. One high-ranking Boeing official said the company had decided against disclosing more details to cockpit crews due to concerns about inundating average pilots with too much information—and significantly more technical data—than they needed or could digest"

    Boeing,the planes manufacturer, hoodwinked/lied to the Indonesian Airline and other airlines. They stated no additional simulator training, which would lead to additional costs in pilots down time and unavailability to fly planes with fare paying passengers, as opposed to rival planes.

    Boeing did not inform or train the planes pilots and accepted any faults in its new plane would be blamed on the pilots, who allegedly did not know of this new flight control system and the methods of turning it off.

    To try and push the blame, on what has been published so far, to the airline and/or the pilots as some have done here is premature.

    Boeing may allow dodgy software and systems all they like, but to expect two, untrained in the new system pilots, to debug an unknown problem in the air, responsible for peoples lives and under extreme pressure is unacceptable.

    IMHO

  14. #2389
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    96,561
    To summarise OhOh's torrent of data:

    Initial data from the investigation of the crash of Lion Air Flight 610 indicates that the AOA sensor was providing "erroneous input," according to a Boeing statement. The aircraft had recently had an AOA sensor replaced, and had experienced additional unidentified issues; a maintenance technician was aboard at the time of the crash, but not because of the AOA sensor.

    The Operational Manual Bulletin sent out by Boeing on November 6 provides procedures for dealing with that sort of situation, but no prior training provided by Boeing ever mentioned the automated system.
    So they will be on the naughty step and they will no doubt pay off all the families and probably the airline, and then carry on as if nothing had happened.

    https://arstechnica.com/information-...erent-told-of/

  15. #2390
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    96,561
    I particularly like the bit where the stupid drunk bitch says "You can't prove anything I say".





    Plod contacted her on arrival for a little chat.

    https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...w/66612595.cms

  16. #2391
    Thailand Expat OhOh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Online
    Today @ 12:07 PM
    Location
    Where troubles melt like lemon drops
    Posts
    25,222
    At the posh end as well.

  17. #2392
    Thailand Expat misskit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    48,105
    Fuel price spike, lower Chinese traffic put Nok Air in red

    Bangkok, November 14, 2018 - Nok Air posted a loss in the third quarter of this year due largely to fuel price hike and depressed revenues caused by slowdown in Chinese traffic.


    The SET-listed low-cost carrier lost 974 million baht in July-September compared to 689 million baht in the same period last year.


    Revenue dropped by 12% in the quarter to 2.86 billion baht as the result of the 40% jump in fuel prices, fierece fare competition and low-season travel effects, according to Nok Airlines acting chief executive Pravej Ongartsittigul.



    "We should have been able to announce better financial result for the quarter if those uncontrollable negative impacts, which were common among most Thai airlines, did not emerge," he pointed out.


    Nok Airlines' fuel bills soared 29.03% to 1.13 billion baht as the average jet price in the quarter rose to US$88.90 per barrel versus $63.56 a year ago.


    However, the airline was able to cut expense by 3% to 3.84 billion baht with costs related aircraft maintenance reduced.


    The decline in Chinese tourists and intense market contest affected passenger revenue by 13% while service income grew by 8%. But it managed to raise the cabin factor by 2.55 percentage points to record 87% in the quarter.


    Mr Pravej noted that Nok Airlines' plan to turn its balance sheet around, mainly by cost reduction and revenue improvement, is in progress.


    In the October 2018 rating, OAG.com, the global flight data provider, put Nok Airlines as one of the top-ten airlines in Asian region for good on-time performance with a 85.3% scores.


    Skytrax, the UK-based aviation consultancy which runs an airline and airport reviews, also crowned Nok Airlines as Thailand's #1 low-cost carrier as part of its 2018 World Airline Awards.


    NokAirlines's network covers 24 destinations in Thailand and 12 in this region.




    Fuel price spike, lower Chinese traffic put Nok Air in red

  18. #2393
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    96,561
    Thai and Thai Air Asia, too.

    According to a November 12 article in the Bangkok Post, 28.5 million overseas tourists visited Thailand between January and September, an increase of 8.7 per cent year on year. Chinese arrivals grew over the period, but dropped 8.8 per cent in the third quarter. Phuket, Chiang Mai and Pattaya have seen slumps of up to 50 per cent in Chinese visitors, according to Thai news website The Thaiger, which also maintains that the downturn is worse than official figures suggest.


    On November 10, Thai AirAsia reported a net loss of 358 million baht for the third quarter, compared with a 260 million baht profit for the same period last year. Straits were even more dire at flagship carrier Thai Airways, which operated at a loss of 3.7 billion baht, double that of the third quarter in 2017.
    https://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-...inese-tourists

  19. #2394
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Online
    09-05-2021 @ 03:25 AM
    Posts
    33,644
    ^ worrying which cuts are gonna take place

  20. #2395
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    96,561
    Airline News-max-737-sensor-w-jpg


    The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said Wednesday it’s evaluating whether to require Boeing to fix a possible flaw in its design of a new automated flight control system introduced for the 737 MAX jet.


    It’s also looking into whether the technical data and training provided to pilots transitioning to the new jet model was adequate. Flight control experts believe that lack of information about the new system likely confused the pilots flying the Lion Air jet that crashed Oct. 29 in Indonesia, killing all 189 people on board.


    The air safety agency said Wednesday that “the FAA and Boeing continue to evaluate the need for software and/or other design changes to the aircraft, including operating procedures and training.”



    The accident investigation has already established that false readings from a sensor that measures the plane’s angle of attack (AOA) — the angle between the wing and the oncoming air flow — could have
    triggered a flight control system new on the MAX that relentlessly pushed the nose of the aircraft downward.

    FAA spokesman Greg Martin said “the angle of attack values used by several systems, including the air data, the fight controls, the stall warning, etcetera, the safety analysis for each of these systems are currently being reviewed.”


    Flight control experts say the new system kicking in would have changed the feel of the plane’s control yoke from what the pilots had experienced training on simulators, possibly sowing confusion aboard Flight JT610.



    Boeing insists the plane is safe to fly. Appearing Tuesday on the Fox Business Network, Chief Executive Dennis Muilenburg called the MAX “very safe” and said Boeing provides “all of the information that’s needed to safely fly our airplanes.”


    Even the pilots at American Airlines and Southwest, who on Monday expressed concern that they had not been given prior information about the new flight control system, continue to fly the plane. They’ve been assured that a standard procedure Boeing highlighted after the Lion Air crash will turn off the system if it goes awry in the future and quickly return the jet to normal flight.

    Still, even though it may be no more than one element in a string of events that led to the Lion Air catastrophe, the new MAX flight control system has become a subject of intense controversy.


    Three former Boeing flight control experts were startled by the FAA’s description last week of the new MAX system. In an airworthiness directive, the FAA cited an analysis by Boeing that “if an erroneously high single angle of attack (AOA) sensor input is received by the flight control system, there is a potential for repeated nose-down trim commands” that will swivel the plane’s horizontal tail to pitch the nose downward.



    The fact that the plane’s nose could be automatically and repeatedly pushed down due to one false signal shocked Peter Lemme, a former Boeing flight controls engineer, who said it looks like a design flaw.


    “To contemplate commanding the (horizontal tail to pitch the jet) nose down clearly is a major concern. For it to have been triggered by something as small as a sensor error is staggering,” Lemme said. “It means somebody didn’t do their job. There’s going to be hell to pay for that.”


    Likewise, Dwight Schaeffer, a former Boeing electronics engineer and senior manager who oversaw development of systems, including the 737’s stall management computer, said the brief description in the FAA’s airworthiness directive “blows me away.”

    “Usually you never have a single fault that can put you in danger,” said Schaeffer. “I’ve never seen any such system.”


    A former Boeing vice president who started as an avionics engineer — who asked for anonymity, because as a former executive he said he worries about being sued by the company for public criticism — said he is also surprised at the suggestion in the FAA wording of “a single point of failure” that could bring down an aircraft.


    But he added that he wouldn’t necessarily call it a design flaw in itself, provided flight crews have the ability to recognize what’s happening and have training to deal with it.


    Yet this too is a point of controversy.


    Boeing rushed out a bulletin last week to inform pilots all over the world about the new flight control system and exactly what to do to shut it down if it goes haywire. But the Lion Air crew didn’t have that information and may have been confused by a key handling difference that the system could have caused during the flight.


    New flight controls


    Bjorn Ferhm, a former jet-fighter pilot and an aeronautical engineer who is now an analyst with Leeham.net, said the technical description of the new 737 MAX flight control system — called MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) — that Boeing released to airlines last weekend makes clear that it is designed to kick in only in extreme situations, when the plane is doing steep turns that put high stress on the airframe or when it’s flying at speeds so low it’s about to stall.


    Management at Southwest Airlines told its pilots that Boeing did not include any description of MCAS in the flight manual because a pilot “should never see the operation of MCAS” in normal flying.


    But in the extreme circumstances where it does activate, when the angle of attack hits the range of 10 to 12 degrees, the system rotates the horizontal tail so as to pitch the nose down. And if the high angle of attack persists, the system repeats the command every 10 seconds.


    Ferhm said Boeing must have added this system on the MAX because when the angle of attack is high this model is less stable compared to prior 737 variants. That’s because the MAX has bigger, heavier engines that are also cantilevered further forward on the wing to provide more ground clearance. That changes the center of gravity.


    The scenario feared in the Lion Air case is that the AOA sensor sent false signals that fooled the computer into thinking the plane was in a dangerous stall position, and so MCAS was triggered.


    What happened next is crucial.

    Any pilot’s natural reaction when a plane’s nose begins to tilt down uncommanded is to pull back on the yoke and raise the nose. In normal flight mode, that would work, because pulling back on the yoke triggers breakout switches that stop any automatic tail movement tending to move the nose of the plane down.


    But with the MCAS activated, said Ferhm, those breakout switches wouldn’t work. MCAS assumes the yoke is already aggressively pulled back and won’t allow further pullback to counter its action, which is to hold the nose down.


    Fehrm’s analysis is confirmed in the instructions Boeing sent to pilots last weekend. The bulletin sent to American Airlines pilots emphasizes that pulling back the control column will not stop the action.


    Ferhm said that the Lion Air pilots would have trained on 737 simulators and would have learned over many years of experience that pulling back on the yoke stops any automatic tail maneuvers pushing the nose down.


    “It fits in your feel memory,” said Fehrm of this physical way of learning. But on the Lion Air flight, if MCAS was active because of a faulty sensor, the pilots would have pulled back and found the downward nose movement didn’t stop.


    Fehrm is convinced this led to confusion in the cockpit that contributed to the loss of control. There is a standard procedure to shut off any automatic pitch control, but somehow the pilots didn’t recognize that’s what was happening.


    “MCAS had the wrong information and they reacted to that.,” he said. “MCAS is to blame.”


    However, he cautions that there’s not enough information yet to know that the single AOA sensor failure triggered everything that happened, and that the entire sequence of events that led to the disaster won’t be clear until the investigation is completed. “It may not be as simple as a single sensor,” he said.


    Heartfelt at Boeing


    In the meantime, Fehrm said that the worldwide notification to pilots about MCAS and the re-emphasizing of the procedure to follow if the nose trim goes wrong, means that the MAX is today perfectly safe to fly.


    “Boeing is correct. If you follow this drill, you are fine,” he said. “Pilots will hit those cut-off switches faster than you can blink.”


    In Seattle this week, about 400 aviation professionals from around the world gathered for the annual International Air Safety Summit organized by the Flight Safety Foundation (FSF).


    When FSF board chairman John Hamilton, who is vice president of engineering at Boeing Commercial Airplanes and formerly chief project engineer for the 737, gave an opening address Monday, he recalled his own personal experience of deep dread over a plane accident and used it to emphasize how people at Boeing react.


    Hamilton’s wife is an Alaska Airlines flight attendant who on Jan. 31, 2000, was flying out of Puerto Vallarta in Mexico. When Hamilton heard that
    Flight 261 out of that city and bound for Seattle had crashed, he feared she was among the 88 killed. He found out later she was on a different flight.

    But after his personal relief, he said he saw how that accident
    reverberated through Seattle and the aviation community.

    “What we do every day matters. The work we do touches so many lives,” said Hamilton. “Everybody at Boeing … is deeply saddened by the loss of Lion Air Flight 610.”


    He recalled that when he headed engineering on the 737 program, “I was the one person ultimately responsible for the safety of that product,” he said. “Every decision I made, I had to think through carefully and deliberately, since so many lives are dependent on that outcome.”


    He said that Boeing together with safety regulators will investigate the Lion Air crash minutely and “learn what we can do to make sure it never happens again.”

    https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...ion-air-crash/
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Airline News-max-737-sensor-w-jpg  

  21. #2396
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    96,561
    Interesting development. No doubt Boeing will be doing their level best to get this case dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction.

    I hope they fail. There will be a fucking queue then!

    The family of a passenger killed when a Lion Air flight crashed into the sea near Indonesia are suing Boeing over an alleged fault with the jet's design.


    The lawsuit accuses the US aircraft manufacturer of failing to inform pilots and airlines of a feature with its new 737 Max plane system that could "push the nose down unexpectedly".

    Investigators have been looking into reported technical issues.


    Boeing maintains that it is "confident in the safety of the 737 Max".


    Lion Air flight JT 610 was carrying 189 people when it crashed on 29 October.


    It plummeted into the Java Sea following a request from the pilot for permission to turn back to the airport just moments after taking off from Jakarta.


    It was later established that the aircraft had had an airspeed indicator problem on its final four flights.

    What does the lawsuit say?


    On Thursday, a complaint was filed by a Florida-based law firm on behalf of the parents of Rio Nanda Pratama, who was on board the ill-fated flight JT 610.


    The lawsuit focuses on the 737 Max's new automated flight control system
    , which it says was designed to help prevent pilots from raising the aircraft's nose "dangerously high".

    However, the lawsuit adds: "Under certain conditions [the system] can push the nose down unexpectedly and so strongly that the pilot cannot pull it back up in time to avoid a crash.


    "This automated feature can be triggered even if pilots are manually flying the aircraft and don't expect flight-control computers to kick in.


    "It is particularly surprising to hear from safety experts and the heads of pilots' unions that Boeing failed to warn its customers and the pilots of its new 737 Max aircraft about this significant change in the flight-control systems."


    Boeing, meanwhile, has said that it is not able to "discuss specifics of an ongoing investigation".

    Mr Pratama was a passenger on flight JT 610 travelling home to marry his fiancée, Intan Syari.

    Ms Syari, who said she wanted to fulfil his last wish, appeared alone
    wearing her white gown and wedding ring in photos posted to her Instagram account earlier this week.

    What went wrong with the flight?


    There is as yet no indication of what caused the crash but the plane had experienced technical problems related to airspeed and altitude readings.

    Indonesia's National Transportation Safety Committee said an "angle-of-attack" sensor had been changed the day before the crash.


    One of the black box recorders from the flight has been retrieved but authorities say it could take months to analyse the data from it.


    The plane was making a one-hour journey to the western city of Pangkal Pinang when it went down. No survivors were found.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46230496

  22. #2397
    Thailand Expat OhOh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Online
    Today @ 12:07 PM
    Location
    Where troubles melt like lemon drops
    Posts
    25,222
    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    Boeing maintains that it is "confident in the safety of the 737 Max".
    I am sure it is a very safe plane when flown by an experienced and fully type trained pilot.

    Unfortunately Boeing failed mention the extra training would be required, in fact deliberately hid it. To hoodwink the airlines that purchased the plane and the unsuspecting pilots. Who were asked to risk their own on a daily basis and the fare paying passengers lives, without being fully type trained. It has been suggested that the pilots that already had 737 clearance did not require further time consuming and costly additional training. Thus reducing overall costs of purchase.

    All because of Boeing's sales avarice and marketing bullshit.

    But as you have said, possibly they are all at it.

    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    The lawsuit focuses on the 737 Max's new automated flight control system, which it says was designed to help prevent pilots from raising the aircraft's nose "dangerously high".
    Has this new system been fitted on any other Boeing planes which the pilots know nothing about?

    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    Indonesia's National Transportation Safety Committee said an "angle-of-attack" sensor had been changed the day before the crash
    Which may have been done erroneously. As the fault may have been in a deeper system.

    One wonders, if when there is a reported problem, whether there is a question list completed prior to inspection/repairs asking the reporting pilot if he is aware of the "hidden" system and what actions to take, buttons to press, switches to disable etc., when the "problem" presents itself during a flight?

    I assume all these are covered in a pilots flight manual available in the cockpit. The flight crew do have lots of checklists they complete prior and presumably during, every flight. I suspect Boeing will be furiously printing new 737 Max, "What to do if this shit happens", cockpit manuals.

    I suppose a new warning message could be added to the cabin help voice "FAQ/Helpful Hints" loop:

    "If you are diving towards the ground at 500mph, try the "Disconnect the XXX system" option, it may be beneficial to your and your passenger's health.

    Details may be found on [page number yet to be determined] in the Flying a Boeing 737 Max in a Safe Manner - (FAB737MIASM)" manual in the [position yet to be determined] Essential Documents Rack (EDR) [number yet to be determined] slot, behind your seat."

    Probably not.

    Having been in a position where questions were asked regarding technical details, I always found that a reply followed by, "I will also check with the development team and send you the full answer", was always acceptable. Unfortunately not available whilst heading for imminent death, at 500mph.
    Last edited by OhOh; 16-11-2018 at 07:10 PM.

  23. #2398
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    96,561
    Quote Originally Posted by OhOh View Post
    Has this new system been fitted on any other Boeing planes which the pilots know nothing about?
    No, it seems it was added to the 737 Max because the new, larger engines changed the aerodynamics.

  24. #2399
    Thailand Expat OhOh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Online
    Today @ 12:07 PM
    Location
    Where troubles melt like lemon drops
    Posts
    25,222
    An update on the Boeing 737 MAX crash:

    Boeing’s automatic trim for the 737 MAX was not disclosed to the Pilots

    Airline News-lion_air_boeing_737-max8-jpg

    November 14, 2018, © Leeham News.:


    The automatic trim Boeing introduced on the 737 MAX, called MCAS, was news to us last week. Graver, it was news to the Pilots flying the MAX since 18 months as well.

    Boeing and its oversight, the FAA, decided the Airlines and their Pilots had no need to know. The Lion Air accident can prove otherwise.


    The background to Boeing’s 737 MAX automatic trim

    The automatic trim we described last week has a name, MCAS, or Maneuvering Characteristics Automation System.

    It’s unique to the MAX because the 737 MAX no longer has the docile pitch characteristics of the 737NG at high Angles Of Attack (AOA). This is caused by the larger engine nacelles covering the higher bypass LEAP-1B engines.

    The nacelles for the MAX are larger and placed higher and further forward of the wing, Figure 1.

    Airline News-737ng-vs-max-nacelles-jpg

    Figure 1. Boeing 737NG (left) and MAX (right) nacelles compared. Source: Boeing 737 MAX brochure.


    By placing the nacelle further forward of the wing, it could be placed higher. Combined with a higher nose landing gear, which raises the nacelle further, the same ground clearance could be achieved for the nacelle as for the 737NG.

    The drawback of a larger nacelle, placed further forward, is it destabilizes the aircraft in pitch. All objects on an aircraft placed ahead of the Center of Gravity (the line in Figure 2, around which the aircraft moves in pitch) will contribute to destabilize the aircraft in pitch.

    Airline News-737ng-vs-max-planform-1349x1200-jpg

    Figure 2. The 737-800 (yellow) overlaid on the 737 MAX 8 (purple), with the line denoting the CG in pitch. Source: Leeham Co. and 737 ACAP.

    The 737 is a classical flight control aircraft. It relies on a naturally stable base aircraft for its flight control design, augmented in selected areas. Once such area is the artificial yaw damping, present on virtually all larger aircraft (to stop passengers getting sick from the aircraft’s natural tendency to Dutch Roll = Wagging its tail).

    Until the MAX, there was no need for artificial aids in pitch. Once the aircraft entered a stall, there were several actions described last week which assisted the pilot to exit the stall. But not in normal flight.

    The larger nacelles, called for by the higher bypass LEAP-1B engines, changed this. When flying at normal angles of attack (3° at cruise and say 5° in a turn) the destabilizing effect of the larger engines are not felt.

    The nacelles are designed to not generate lift in normal flight. It would generate unnecessary drag as the aspect ratio of an engine nacelle is lousy. The aircraft designer focuses the lift to the high aspect ratio wings.

    But if the pilot for whatever reason manoeuvres the aircraft hard, generating an angle of attack close to the stall angle of around 14°, the previously neutral engine nacelle generates lift. A lift which is felt by the aircraft as a pitch up moment (as its ahead of the CG line), now stronger than on the 737NG. This destabilizes the MAX in pitch at higher Angles Of Attack (AOA). The most difficult situation is when the manoeuvre has a high pitch ratio. The aircraft’s inertia can then provoke an over-swing into stall AOA.

    To counter the MAX’s lower stability margins at high AOA, Boeing introduced MCAS. Dependent on AOA value and rate, altitude (air density) and Mach (changed flow conditions) the MCAS, which is a software loop in the Flight Control computer, initiates a nose down trim above a threshold AOA.

    It can be stopped by the Pilot counter-trimming on the Yoke or by him hitting the CUTOUT switches on the center pedestal. It’s not stopped by the Pilot pulling the Yoke, which for normal trim from the autopilot or runaway manual trim triggers trim hold sensors. This would negate why MCAS was implemented, the Pilot pulling so hard on the Yoke that the aircraft is flying close to stall.

    It’s probably this counterintuitive characteristic, which goes against what has been trained many times in the simulator for unwanted autopilot trim or manual trim runaway, which has confused the pilots of JT610. They learned that holding against the trim stopped the nose down, and then they could take action, like counter-trimming or outright CUTOUT the trim servo. But it didn’t. After a 10 second trim to a 2.5° nose down stabilizer position, the trimming started again despite the Pilots pulling against it. The faulty high AOA signal was still present.

    How should they know that pulling on the Yoke didn’t stop the trim? It was described nowhere; neither in the aircraft’s manual, the AFM, nor in the Pilot’s manual, the FCOM. This has created strong reactions from airlines with the 737 MAX on the flight line and their Pilots. They have learned the NG and the MAX flies the same. They fly them interchangeably during the week.

    They do fly the same as long as no fault appears. Then there are differences, and the Pilots should have been informed about the differences.


    https://leehamnews.com/2018/11/14/bo...ts/#more-28629
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Airline News-lion_air_boeing_737-max8-jpg   Airline News-737ng-vs-max-nacelles-jpg   Airline News-737ng-vs-max-planform-1349x1200-jpg  

  25. #2400
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    96,561
    the Pilots should have been informed about the differences.
    And if that Florida lawsuit goes ahead, Boeing are going to find how just how important this is.

Page 96 of 170 FirstFirst ... 4686888990919293949596979899100101102103104106146 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •