Ethiopian B38M Crash
 

An Ethiopian B737-8 MAX has crashed six minutes after taking off from Ethiopia’s capital, Addis Ababa, on a flight to Nairobi.
There were 149 passengers and a crew of 8

From The Aviation Herald:
http://avherald.com/h?article=4c534c4a&opt=0

An update, there are no survivors

B38 MAX awful co-incidence?
 

Crashing shortly after take-off is not a welcome trend after two high profile 737-800 MAX events.

It is obviously too early to form any conclusions but two is too many and there does need to be some focus on what Boeing did to create the MAX that may be an underlying factor in these crashes.

The parallels with Lion Air 610 are too much of a co-incidence to ignore.
:(

Latest news incl "New Flight Control Features"

https://www.news.com.au/travel/trave...d63c57bcee657f

Due to the Ethiopia Airlines B737 MAX 8 crash, Boeing postpones the launch of the 777X which was due to take place later this week.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/10/b...ned/index.html

I would not say anything on news.com is actually news, after all their latest article states “aussies upmost confidence in Boeing” complete with a picture of an A330.......

I do not want to draw any conclusion however, as you mentioned:

"The parallels with Lion Air 610 are too much of a co-incidence to ignore."

I thought about some possible short term measures to regain the passengers' confidence on this type of aircraft without grounding them all:

1. Immediately disable MCAS on all B737 Max series jets.
2. Where possible, disable autopilot for all B737 Max Jets whilst airborne.

The MCAS system is required for type certification so it's unlikely that will be "disabled"

As for No 2 - MCAS was an issue in Lion Air with the autopilot already disengaged. So it's not an autopilot problem.

There was an excellent NYT article on the topic last month: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/03/w...sh-pilots.html

The solution to that is simple, unfortunately: Suspend the type certificate.

I just don't understand how the airlines can actually CHOOSE to continue to fly the type, let alone being allowed to, as long as there is such a doubt over such a critical system.

Are these the same airlines that like saying "Safety always comes first"?

Wasn't the world fleet of 787s grounded for a while, during the battery fire issues? Why should the 737 MAX fleet be any different?
And it is better to do that now, while the fleet is still fairly small (relatively speaking).

I know that I as a passenger is now making conscious choices not to fly on the MAX series until the root cause has not just been identified but also confirmed fixed.
That is the same choice I made about the 787 back in the day.

Boeing to modify MCAS software
 

So there you have it, from the horse's mouth

Singapore have now stopped Max ops, which affects the Silk Air operations into Oz.

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapo...ay-morning-sia

ABC News published an article a few minutes ago saying CASA has suspended all MAX8 operations in Australia (in practice only affecting Fiji Airways as other MAX operators were already affected by their own countries’ regulators).

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-...ralia/10894426

Further to Rowan’s post,

Heard on 2GB this morning, Fiji’s 737-MAX will be allowed to fly out of Sydney but with no passengers

The UK have banned the 737-MAX flying in and out of the UK forcing two Turkish Airline flights to turn around and return to their point of departure.

The EU is also suspending all operations of the 737-MAX in Europe

https://edition.cnn.com/world/live-n...ash/index.html

Pleased to hear FJ will be allowed to ferry theirs out of SYD - lousy timing for the announcement by CASA, which could have been prevented with a simple check of what two aircraft were scheduled to do.

In addition to the UK and Europe overnight, India has also banned the MAX. As most of the bans appear to include overflight, it seems like the MAX fleet will be restricted to flying within North America (although FJ might still be able to find things to do with theirs - NZ and Hawaii, for example).

Will play devil's advocate, I wonder if the White House has any input into the FAA decision.

NZ are now banning Max flights, so that option has pretty much gone.

The United States and Canada have now grounded all 737-MAX aircraft. President Trump has issued the executive order. Any aircraft currenent in flight will be allowed to go to its destination but then will be grounded.

https://www.news.com.au/travel/trave...4c6053f4b55bea

Boeing itself now supports grounding of all MAX variants
 

Just issued:

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/news-re...ts?item=130404

Worth reading in conjunction with this one from last Monday:

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/news-re...ts?item=130402

Dire prognosis for Boeing
 

Simon Gunson has published a dire prognostication: the end of Boeing!

https://www.quora.com/profile/Simon-Gunson

Basically he claims that the entire internal communications protocol of the MAX is flawed because it is inherently susceptible to voltage fluctuations which cause data corruption in vital avionics components. From that he concludes that it is not economically feasible for Boeing to rectify the problem!

Who is this Simon Gunston ? , and how is he qualified to make statements regarding the digital architecture of the 737 Max aircraft .
His disclosures are full of mays, could, should , if and might. There absolutely nothing indicative in what he says . If he’s such an expert , then Boeing should snap him up , he obviously knows all the answers . There’s also no credit given or sources for his information , and on top of all this , he’s seem privy to the Boeing financial status . There certainly no shortage of armchair avionics experts and air crash investigators out there .

LOL, quoting a random on the internet as an expert.

What expert?
 

I certainly didn't cite Gunson as an expert. I was holding his prognostication up to ridicule, as indicated by the exclamation marks!!!!

Philip ,there’s certainly no intent in my post to suggest you did cite Gunson as some kind of expert , which obviously he isn’t . No offence intended .

FR24 has a listing of where all 737MAX are currently parked up.

Ethiopia's Boeing 737 MAX 8 black box data 'shows clear similarities' with Lion Air crash

Analysis of the data from the black boxes of an Ethiopian Airlines plane that crashed, killing all 157 people on board, showed "clear similarities" with an earlier crash of the same jet model, a spokesperson for the Ethiopian Transport Ministry has confirmed.

However, US officials have told Reuters they had not yet validated the data, emphasising "the investigation remains in the very early stages".

In October, a Lion Air crash killed all 189 people onboard, after pilots fought against the jet's automated nose dive.

Both planes were Boeing's top-selling jet model, the 737 MAX 8, and pilots in both crashes reported flight control problems during take-off.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-...crash/10910460

close call

https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-a...17-p514w0.html

Food for thought people.....

https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...iwr7R6oPKFFXl0

Sure is. Those bullet points, assuming there’s any truth to them, are worrying.

I’m not convinced by Boeing’s proposed software fix. Admittedly I’m neither a pilot nor an avionics engineer, but I don’t understand how simply having both AOA sensors provide data to the MCAS resolves the problem, particularly as an AOA sensor fault is being discussed in terms of Lion Air...

I, personally, was siding with “it’s safe but a grounding is the most appropriate course of action” until the last few days. Now, I’m beginning to think the sign off for the MAX to return to service needs to come from EASA or TC, or another similarly independent regulator. I think the industry and the public, and confidence in this aircraft type, would be better served by not allowing Boeing and the FAA to have that level of authority.

Both the EASA and Transport Canada have said they will conduct their own independent certification process on the MAX prior to return to service in their jurisdictions, rather than relying on the FAA process again. Reportedly both the Inspector General and the Department of Justice will review the FAA/Boeing certification processes.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47633085

Boeing to preview "fix"
 

Here's the latest: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/27/boei...aboolainternal

On the midday news, ET crew reported followed SOP (from Boeing) for MCAS issue.

Bad software
 

As I understand it, MCAS was limited to 2.5 degrees of horizontal stabiliser deflection, which in theory could be overcome by manual nose-up input from the pilots. However, Boeing's SOP, which recommended deactivating the MCAS, did not explain that such a procedure just reset it rather than disabled it. If the same faulty AOA input recurred MCAS would then deflect the stabiliser up to 2.5 degrees. But here's the fatal flaw: it had no "memory" of previous deflections after each reset, and it had no provision for checking the current deflection, so each activation of MCAS ADDED ANOTHER 2.5 DEGREES of nose-down!!

That explains why both Lion Air and EA appeared to porpoise - manually regaining climb after the first deactivation but increasingly unable to do so as the jackscrew added each incremental 2.5 degrees of MCAS-commanded nose-down to its existing setting until the horizontal stabiliser was beyond the pilots' ability to counter with elevator nose-up commands. What is shocking is both the flaw in the software and Boeing's deliberate decision to withhold full information about MCAS so that they could market MAX as a no-conversion option for existing B738 pilots. As is now apparent, no B738 simulator incorporated MCAS and no pilot was aware how to fully disable MCAS to avoid it continually re-activating, assuming they would even appreciate the need to do so given the limits of the SOP Boeing had provided.

If my theory is confirmed by the investigation team Boeing's civil liability may be the least of its problems ... :(

EA preliminary report just released
 

http://www.ecaa.gov.et/documents/204...8-d7af1ee17f3e

The key finding from the FDR, is that this occurred AFTER the electric stabiliser trim cutout switches had been pulled:

So automatic nose down trim commands were issued by MCAS and honoured despite the stabiliser trim cutout switches having been pulled. Boeing's only suggestion in that situation is to manually grab the trim wheel to stop it from rotating. Obviously if it's already at 40 degrees nose down grabbing the trim wheel is not going to help much.

Didn't they turn the trim switches back on?

Happy to stand corrected, but the way I understand it was that they were unable to exert enough force on the manual trim wheel (due to the airspeed) and reactivated the trim cutout switches.

So that indicates with the switches in the cutout position, MCAS continues to operate but cannot move the stabiliser as the cutout switches de-energise the motor?

I assume the FO is confirming the manual electric trim is not functioning, consistent with the switches being in cutout, so tries the manual trim wheel without success (Due to aerodynamic forces of the aircraft being above VMO??)

Then;
So at some point between 05:41:54 and 05:43:11 the trim cutout switches must have been reactivated for the manual electric trim inputs to move the stab in the ANU direction - which explains why MCAS suddenly had the ability to command AND movements again?

Interesting comment on the investigations to date:

https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/3...se-pilot-error

Pilot error claim objectively unfair
 

The fact is that Boeing promoted the MAX as requiring little to no conversion training from a 737-800 - an hour on an iPad was one quote I saw. In that context any inability of crew to cope with differences with which they were not familiar, and which had never been incorporated into any simulator, cannot be the principal cause of either event. Pilot error based on informed hindsight has no place here.

Having said that, yes, I have speculated more than I should have about the role of MCAS, but the inferences are there to be drawn.

Looks like Boeing have decided to put the accidents back on the pilots:

Boeing CEO Points at pilot error

Primitive inputs need more redundancy and resilience
 

However sophisticated the avionics, the old adage of garbage in garbage out applies. Primitive physical sources like pitot tubes and AofA sensors need redundancy and resilience before they are taken as trusted sources for sophisticated avionics. Taking a single sensor as a trusted source was objectively poor risk management in the implementation of MCAS.

There have been too many examples of erroneous data from pitot tubes and AofA sensors causing adverse avionics responses. This needs much more focus going forward IMHO.

Blaming pilots is hardly helpful - human error needs to be anticipated in system design. It's no use if the cure is worse than the complaint. Pilots know what to do when the stick shakes. MCAS is not necessarily the best solution to the MAX propensity to stall!

:(

As I was saying ...
 

How dare they blame the pilots!

Now this: https://airlinerwatch.com/boeing-nev...sources-claim/

My case rests ...