Ethiopian Airlines 737 crashes on way to Kenya 157 onboard.

[editor]

Scathing piece here The Boeing scandal is an indictment of Trump’s corporate America | Will Hutton

 

[HAL9000]

We will have to wait for the final analysis, but I suspect the root cause of the accident is a lack of deaths and complacency. The last fatal US airline crash was a decade ago

The last fatal US airline crash was a decade ago. Here's why our skies are safer​

MCAS software failure does appear to have some similarities with Therac-25 failure,

The Therac-25 was a radiation therapy machine made by Atomic Energy Canada Limited

Between June 1985 and January 1987, the Therac-25 was involved in 6 known accidents, several of them fatal, and even the non-fatal ones having gruesome side effects, like skin falling off, and shoulders and hips becoming completely immobilized.

Previous models had hardware interlocks to prevent such faults, but the Therac-25 had removed them, depending instead on software checks for safety.

Therac-25 - Wikipedia

So the earlier versions of these radiation therapy machines were safe because of the hardware interlocks. With the interlocks removed, patients were exposed to dangerous software bugs.

Nancy Leveson was tasked with investigating the software... (Nancy Leveson's Home Page at MIT)

Leveson notes that a lesson to be drawn from the incident is to not assume that reused software is safe: "A naive assumption is often made that reusing software or using commercial off-the-shelf software will increase safety because the software will have been exercised extensively. Reusing software modules does not guarantee safety in the new system to which they are transferred..."

MCAS appears to be working safely on 767 planes, but the same system on a different plane, 737 max, different outcome. With pressue to deliver 737 max quickly was safety the top priority?

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Class action by Boeing shareholders stating that Boeing kept the share price high by hiding the safety concerns.

Could see some execs suffering some sleepless nights.

 

[mauvais]

As opposed to what, being transparent and tanking the share price? Hard to see what the relative damages would be with that one.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

As opposed to what, being transparent and tanking the share price? Hard to see what the relative damages would be with that one.

It’s quite a serious crime in the US.

 

[mauvais]

It’s quite a serious crime in the US.

Yes, but only short sellers would have a sensible claim. Longs would have lost out regardless of whether it was made public sooner or later.

 

[hipipol]

If they had delayed the introduction of the aircraft, markets would have accepted that pretty easy - cant actually recall a major new airplane being delivered on time so I suspect no great disappointment - several execs may have lost bonus mind, but still a handleable option......Plunging planes, loads o dead peeps, production slowed, piling up of unsaleable inventory, with a lower price every day there is no proper fix.
All bad
Allowing what turned out to be really dangerous software on board and telling every airline that their pilots only need 40 odd mins on an iPad to get up to speed, given that they had been warned of the problems over a year ago and also that the most dangerous time for any aircraft is the takeoff/landing cycle with so little height, and thus time to play with...hubris. Like any good Greek tragedy there are several strange twists and much, much blood and treasure destroyed

 

[2hats]

Someone close to the investigation has indicated that detailed FDR analysis appears to highlight the failure of one of the angle of attack sensors around six seconds after take off. The fact that the stick shaker triggered immediately along with clear AOA data divergence (from the other sensor) points to a sensor having sheared off, quite possibly due to a bird strike. That person also indicates that contrary to reports from the airline, the crew did not follow all the steps for the correct procedure for a runaway stabiliser, to counter erroneous MCAS action, likely overwhelmed by the high workload the time.
Source: Aviation Week.

 

[weltweit]

Someone close to the investigation has indicated that detailed FDR analysis appears to highlight the failure of one of the angle of attack sensors around six seconds after take off. The fact that the stick shaker triggered immediately along with clear AOA data divergence (from the other sensor) points to a sensor having sheared off, quite possibly due to a bird strike. That person also indicates that contrary to reports from the airline, the crew did not follow all the steps for the correct procedure for a runaway stabiliser, to counter erroneous MCAS action, likely overwhelmed by the high workload the time.
Source: Aviation Week.

Does it not suggest a vulnerability that the loss of one sensor could cause an out of control nose dive into the ground?

 

[mauvais]

We will have to wait for the final analysis, but I suspect the root cause of the accident is a lack of deaths and complacency. The last fatal US airline crash was a decade ago

That's only true with very specific wording, by the way.

Someone died here, no 'crash' as such: Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 - Wikipedia

And then there have been fatal incidents in the US: Asiana Airlines Flight 214 - Wikipedia

The very, very low fatality rate is not magic and it's not a product of complacency; a lot of work has gone into it.

 

[HAL9000]

That's only true with very specific wording, by the way.

Someone died here, no 'crash' as such: Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 - Wikipedia

And then there have been fatal incidents in the US: Asiana Airlines Flight 214 - Wikipedia

The very, very low fatality rate is not magic and it's not a product of complacency; a lot of work has gone into it.

I agree a lot of work has gone into making air travel extremely safe,

I suspect complacency on the part of Boeing if the story in seattletimes is correct

Flawed analysis, failed oversight: How Boeing, FAA certified the suspect 737 MAX flight control system

System Safety Analysis on MCAS, just one piece of the mountain of documents needed for certification, was delegated to Boeing.

The original Boeing document provided to the FAA included a description specifying a limit to how much the system could move the horizontal tail — a limit of 0.6 degrees
....

....
That limit was later increased after flight tests showed that a more powerful movement of the tail was required to avert a high-speed stall, when the plane is in danger of losing lift and spiraling down.
.....
.....
After the Lion Air Flight 610 crash, Boeing for the first time provided to airlines details about MCAS. Boeing’s bulletin to the airlines stated that the limit of MCAS’s command was 2.5 degrees.

That number was new to FAA engineers who had seen 0.6 degrees in the safety assessment.

“The FAA believed the airplane was designed to the 0.6 limit, and that’s what the foreign regulatory authorities thought, too,” said an FAA engineer. “It makes a difference in your assessment of the hazard involved.”

The article goes on to talk about using a single sensor for MCAS, this was viewed as safe IF the horizontal tail could only move by 0.6 degrees. Is MCAS safe with a 2.5 degree tail movement? Have to wait and see what comes from accident reports and if the regulators are happy with Boeing's planned changes to MCAS detailed here...


Boeing details changes to MCAS for 737 Max

 

[HAL9000]

The FAA tells CNN it received the four hotline submissions on April 5, and it may be opening up an entirely new investigative angle into what went wrong in the crashes of two Boeing 737 Max commercial airliners -- Lion Air flight 620 in October and Ethiopian Air flight 302 in March.
Among the complaints is a previously unreported issue involving damage to the wiring of the angle of attack sensor by a foreign object, according to the source.
Boeing has reportedly had previous issues with foreign object debris in its manufacturing process; The New York Times reported metal shavings were found near wiring of Boeing 787 Dreamliner planes, and the Air Force stopped deliveries of the Boeing KC-46 tanker after foreign object debris was found in some of the planes coming off the production line.
Other reports by the whistleblowers involve concerns about the MCAS control cut-out switches, which disengage the MCAS software, according to the source.

Even if the above reports have nothing to do with the two 737 max crashes, its another issue Boeing will have to address with regulators to convince them that 737 max is safe to fly again.

Boeing whistleblowers report 737 Max problems to FAA, source says - CNNPolitics

 

[T & P]

And yet more malpractice issues revealed today. Incredibly (criminally surely), it turns out Boeing secretly switched off an already built-in warning system that would alert the pilots if the AoA sensor was malfunctioning. Southwest not happy...

Boeing waited until after Lion Air crash to tell Southwest safety alert was turned off on 737 Max

I mean, why even??? What was the objective?

 

[Lancman]

And yet more malpractice issues revealed today. Incredibly (criminally surely), it turns out Boeing secretly switched off an already built-in warning system that would alert the pilots if the AoA sensor was malfunctioning. Southwest not happy...

Boeing waited until after Lion Air crash to tell Southwest safety alert was turned off on 737 Max

I mean, why even??? What was the objective?

It makes economic sense for a manufacturer to produce identical aircraft on a production line and these planes will all have built-in “nice to have” features as well as the “must have” essentials. Things like a fitting that makes a wheel change quicker or the wiring for a better in flight entertainment system and these features can be “switched on” or left inactive when the finished airframe is allocated to a specific airline and the paint job starts to go on and the interior fittings go in. The buyer then makes an extra payment to have their selection of these goodies activated or left inoperative. And this is when the bean counters step in.

Now I’m only speculating but it’s possible that Southwest Airlines decided to save money by not activating the “nice to have” two pilots’ angle of attack indicators activated but didn’t realise that this rendered the angle of attack disagreement lights inoperative as well. The sort of mistake that any accountant could make.

Just sayin’.

 

[planetgeli]

Boeing CEO says 737 Max was designed properly and pilots did not 'completely' follow procedure - CNN

Boeing CEO grovels to shareholders. Is a cunt.

 

[Don Troooomp]

Boeing CEO says 737 Max was designed properly and pilots did not 'completely' follow procedure - CNN

Boeing CEO grovels to shareholders. Is a cunt.

Yes, a cunt indeed.
Add everyone else in the company that knew the sensor needed back up to be safe, and they knew because they offered the option.

 

[Chz]

Wow, and no-one on the board told him to stop digging. Surely when you can't see daylight any more, it's time to put the shovel down.

 

[planetgeli]

Erm, yeah, we might have known but it wasn’t that dangerous.

Boeing knew of earlier 737 Max problem

We inadvertently made it optional. Anyone could have made the same mistake.

 

[HAL9000]

Airbus had problems with airspeed data, the designed used by airbus requires 3 sensors where as 737max uses 2.

Its a long article, here's the summary

EASA = European Union Aviation Safety Agency

There are crucial differences between the events that occurred on the Airbus jets and those preceding the 737 Max accidents, argues EASA.

“While the Airbus events were caused by multiple failures of the angle-of-attack system, the 737 Max issue seems to be caused by just one only faulty sensor, thus presenting a higher probability risk,” it says.

“The crew of the Airbus aircraft were able to recover control of the aircraft by switching to an alternate flight-control mode and the aircraft landed in a normal way.”

EASA points out that, although the 737 has evolved over five decades, the 737 Max is “still a young aircraft model” with relatively time since service entry in 2017.

“Before these [Airbus] events occurred, the Airbus aircraft models had accumulated a significant number of flight hours without any such issue, allowing certification authorities to perform a comprehensive and robust continued airworthiness review,” it adds.

ANALYSIS: How Airbus fought its own pitch battle

 

[Don Troooomp]

Erm, yeah, we might have known but it wasn’t that dangerous.

Boeing knew of earlier 737 Max problem

We inadvertently made it optional. Anyone could have made the same mistake.

The firm said it had inadvertently made an alarm feature optional instead of standard, but insisted that this did not jeopardise flight safety.

I believe two crashes proves that claim is a load of old bollocks

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Pilots 'raised Boeing safety fears' in 2018

American Airlines pilots confronted Boeing about potential safety issues in its 737 Max planes in a meeting last November, US media are reporting.

They urged swift action after the first deadly 737 Max crash off Indonesia in October, according to audio obtained by CBS and the New York Times.

Boeing reportedly resisted their calls but promised a software fix.

But this had not been rolled out when an Ethiopian Airlines' 737 Max crashed four months later, killing 157 people.

In a closed door meeting with Boeing executives last November, which was secretly recorded, American Airlines' pilots can be heard expressing concerns about the safety of MCAS.

Boeing vice-president Mike Sinnett told the pilots: "No one has yet to conclude that the sole cause of this was this function on the airplane."

Later in the meeting, he added: "The worst thing that can ever happen is a tragedy like this, and the even worse thing would be another one."

The pilots also complained they had not been told about MCAS, which was new to the 737 Max, until after the Lion Air crash off Indonesia, which killed 189.

"These guys didn't even know the damn system was on the airplane, nor did anybody else," said Mike Michaelis, head of safety for the pilots' union.

Damning stuff.

 

[Teaboy]

If either of those jets (especially the second one) had been an american based airline it would be jail time. As it happens it'll just be compensation and lessons learned.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

I think that the more that comes out about this the more Boeing is royally fucked. It is quite clear that they knew and their covering up led to all of these deaths, both on Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines. Whatever the criminal outcome, or not, Boeing has a big problem; once the 737 Max 8 is finally cleared to fly again, who will buy tickets on it?

You have a choice, one airline offering the 737Max8 and another an A320 on the same route, would you choose the 737? I wouldn't, not a fucking chance. So where does that leave airline that have bought them? Rightfully demanding their money back from Boeing and compo, plus they'll be beating a path to Airbus' door. Up thread people have repeatedly said Boeing is too big for this to kill it, possibly, but I wouldn't bet against that.

 

[2hats]

They could take a battering in the commercial sector but whilst us.gov is so reliant on them for so much military kit and the maintenance thereof I suspect it is unlikely they will go to the wall.

 

[Teaboy]

I think that the more that comes out about this the more Boeing is royally fucked. It is quite clear that they knew and their covering up led to all of these deaths, both on Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines. Whatever the criminal outcome, or not, Boeing has a big problem; once the 737 Max 8 is finally cleared to fly again, who will buy tickets on it?

You have a choice, one airline offering the 737Max8 and another an A320 on the same route, would you choose the 737? I wouldn't, not a fucking chance. So where does that leave airline that have bought them? Rightfully demanding their money back from Boeing and compo, plus they'll be beating a path to Airbus' door. Up thread people have repeatedly said Boeing is too big for this to kill it, possibly, but I wouldn't bet against that.

I think you're as best placed as anyone to assess how much people care about the type of plane, do you get asked much?

For sure I'd be nervous and given the choice I'd go for a different plane. I just think so many orders have been placed and airlines are so reliant on the plane being operational (possibly the reason Boeing were pushed into one last upgrade instead of a new plane) that its inevitable that there will still be hundreds and hundreds flying eventually.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

I think you're as best placed as anyone to assess how much people care about the type of plane, do you get asked much?

Generally people don't ask unless they are plane geeks and a new one comes out, wholly new, A380, 787, A350, no one asked to about 737Max8 or A320Neo, for example.

After the Ethiopian crash and before the aircraft was grounded, pretty much every company we deal with had already put out an order that no bookings were to be made on the 737Max8. With what is coming out about the alleged cover-up I can't see that changing once the plane is flying again.

And most people aren't plane geeks, but I am being asked quite often if it is a Boeing, regardless of model, and if an Airbus is available. It seems like the upcoming publicity will only be bad and that situation won't be changing either.

Unless Airbus has been at it too, in which case the climate might get some respite...

 

[Duncan2]

The Times might get to use that headline again Boeing,Boeing,Gone

 

[Sasaferrato]

I think that the more that comes out about this the more Boeing is royally fucked. It is quite clear that they knew and their covering up led to all of these deaths, both on Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines. Whatever the criminal outcome, or not, Boeing has a big problem; once the 737 Max 8 is finally cleared to fly again, who will buy tickets on it?

You have a choice, one airline offering the 737Max8 and another an A320 on the same route, would you choose the 737? I wouldn't, not a fucking chance. So where does that leave airline that have bought them? Rightfully demanding their money back from Boeing and compo, plus they'll be beating a path to Airbus' door. Up thread people have repeatedly said Boeing is too big for this to kill it, possibly, but I wouldn't bet against that.

We fly once a year, so loss of our custom isn't exactly going to cause share price panic in any airline, but, we will not be flying on one.

 

[Teaboy]

I was talking about this with my g/f last night. She is a pretty nervous flyer but she also doesn't pay much attention to planes and wouldn't know the difference between an A320 and 737 let alone different generations of 737 (though she has come to realise it Airbuses that make the weird grinding / sawing noise on take-off and after landing).

Her point was 'don't tell me which plane we're on and therefore it won't be a problem'. Thing is airlines do like to splash the type of plane over the safety literature and on announcements. This is particularly the case when they have a state of the art new plane, they understandably want to make a big deal of it.

I wonder if airlines will tone this right down with the 737 Max? Maybe just refer to them as 737's without the problematic Max label?

 

[2hats]

(though she has come to realise it Airbuses that make the weird grinding / sawing noise on take-off and after landing).

Barking dog - power transfer unit for single engine ops hydraulics during the taxi.