ikolkyo wrote:

Also I’d like to repeat this again, MCAS can only be active in a flaps up condition. This aircraft did not make it far enough into flight for flaps to have already been retracted.

The crash site is 60 km away form the departure airport. It is not far-fetched to assume that flaps had been are retracted.

PacificBeach wrote:

bob75013 wrote:

akb88 wrote:

Yeah.......
but doesn't tell me why I shouldn't have concerns

Maybe you shouldn't be flying at all.

It does not have to be black and white. He can just avoid the types with bad record.

I asked him to point out the "bad record" of the 800. He could not..,

So he was not avoiding "the types with bad record.

I’m sure some airlines with the MAX in their fleets are working on contingency plans in case they get temporarily grounded. Any prudent carrier should at this point. Anyway, until investigators find a link to JT610, talks of grounding the MAX fleet are not only premature, but illogical.

RIP to the people who perished on ET302.

OEMInsider wrote:

Hi all,

An interesting discussion here, thought I'd add my 2c:

• I think it's too early to ground the 737MAX, but not too early to consider it.
• It's not enough to simply blame the pilots for making a mistake and move on. There is an expectation that the manufacturers make the aircraft relatively easy to fly (i.e. don't create an unreasonable burden on pilot workload). I don't think the Lion Air crash will lead to a legal liability for Boeing, but it seems to me that MCAS could have been implemented better.
• I was really surprised that the Lion Air (JT610) incident appears to have been caused by a single faulty sensor. Don't we normally have redundancy for something so important?
• I've done some Data Analytics at work using FR24 data - don't always trust it! Generally its OK, but there are some inaccuracies (data not synced properly etc).
• I was curious about the similarities between the Lion Air crash and this one. Both sets of detailed ADSB data from FR24 are available here. I plotted them as best I could (for ET302 I've taken 'zero' time as when the vertical speed becomes >0. I think this shows there are similarities between these two incidents (although I've just done this quickly so feel free to point out if I've made a mistake)

Thanks.

This is why this site is still great. Thank you for this.

JohnKrist wrote:

mm320cap wrote:

JohnKrist wrote:

United Airlines have had more incidents and deaths than ET in the same timeframe, Lion has had one major crash in 16 years of operation. Heck, KLM caused more deaths in One accident than Lion and ET together have in their lifetime.

What are you talking about???? Ethiopian had a fatal crash in 2009 killing 90. Not counting hijackings (which both Ethiopian and UAL have been victims of), United lost 1 passenger to turbulence in 1997. The last fatal accident on a UAL plane was in 1991. Considering the number of flights UAL does per year compared to Ethiopian, your insinuation that Ethiopian and Lion are safer than UAL is laughable.

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough I meant the 55 years that ET has been operating as some stated that ET is an unsafe airline. In that timeframe UAL has had more deaths than ET. Both are IMO safe airlines.

Got it. Thanks for the clarification

Per FR24, the aircraft had reached 383 kts at some point during its flight. I would assume that at such a speed, the flaps had already been retracted. If they hadn't been, they would actually impede the aircraft handling. It's mainly the speed that's commanding the setting of the flaps rather than the AG height.

I would add that even with the flaps retracted, 383 kts appears to be a high speed for an altitude of 8600 ft. From a structural standpoint, is it even safe to fly this fast with such an aircraft at 8600 ft? Looking at the speed and altitude data of the same flight over the previous days, they seem to have reached 380 kts at significantly higher altitude.

dampfnudel wrote:

I’m sure some airlines with the MAX in their fleets are working on contingency plans in case they get temporarily grounded. Any prudent carrier should at this point. Anyway, until investigators find a link to JT610, talks of grounding the MAX fleet are not only premature, but illogical.

If I were a MAX operator, I would be soliciting classified, internal, anonymous feedback from all of my MAX pilots with, say minimum 100 hours in the type, and ask them to be 200% forthright about any incidents or concerns they've experienced. I then probably would do the same of similar MX personnel.

I.ll fly it anytime..The MAX is well tested and certified.All those comments about Boeing rushed it into service..B.llsh.t..Let.s wait and see what the investigation brings.Grounding is the last option if they will find a design flaw.

I dont want to get in a fight about safety, but 2 crashes out of 100,000-200,000 flights is a statistical anomoly, not a trend. The occurrance rate is too small to draw a conclusion. Two of the same type flown by different airlines in different conditions crashing 5 months apart isn’t enough of a similarity to point to one problem. And the fact that ET knew about the prior crash as would the pilots, and there is a method to disable the faulty system, and the first airline knew their plane was acting up but dispatched it anyway, it muddies the issue further.

bob75013 wrote:

PacificBeach wrote:

bob75013 wrote:

Maybe you shouldn't be flying at all.

It does not have to be black and white. He can just avoid the types with bad record.

I asked him to point out the "bad record" of the 800. He could not..,

So he was not avoiding "the types with bad record.

Of course I couldn't...since I was asking if I should be concerned. So obviously I wouldn't know anything abotu the safety record of that particular plane. But a similar airplane seems to having issues.

akb88 wrote:

bob75013 wrote:

akb88 wrote:

Yeah.......
but doesn't tell me why I shouldn't have concerns

Maybe you shouldn't be flying at all.

Well...I've not alwyas been like this and infact used to be big into aviation. Bad bouts of anxiety in the last couple of years have made me into a more doom and gloom type of person.

I sensed your general uneasiness about flying which is why I suggested that maybe you shouldn't fly. Flying is inherently safe. The 737-800 is an inherently safe airplane. No airplane is 100% safe - maybe 99.999%, but that's not 100%. I put myself on planes 35-45 times a year and have been doing it for over 40 years (probably 400 on 737s over the last decade), and have never had a scary flight.

At this point there are questions about the 737-max8, but that's not a 737-800. You have to decide what to do about your flight anxiety.

Miquel787 wrote:

I.ll fly it anytime..The MAX is well tested and certified.All those comments about Boeing rushed it into service..B.llsh.t..Let.s wait and see what the investigation brings.Grounding is the last option if they will find a design flaw.

maybe not? This NY Times article from February gives a lot of insight IMHO.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/03/worl ... ilots.html

I actually believe many larger mutlinational companies will issue new travel rules for their employees shortly requesting 737Max to be avoided when booking flights.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk

MCAS or no MCAS, the aircraft pretty much went into a nose dive in the seconds leading the crash, based on the crater images of crash site. At this point the lack of data from the last couple of minutes because of no FR24 coverage in that area makes any statements mere speculations. With that in mind, IMHO a possible nose dive brings up a lot more to the hypothesis table, as it is a thing of immense worry from the point of the aircrafts functionality (if hijack is ruled out).

Vladex wrote:

The 737 is too old of an air frame to graft a huge engine onto. It makes the aircraft unstable in flight. It is an unsafe design and must be withdrawn from service. Boeing clearly cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

I've been on A.net for a real long time - this is one of the most uneducated replies I've ever seen posted.

Wacker1000 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Could it be we have created a machine that is far more intelligent that the people who were meant to operated it.

Possibly if it was a 787. If the 737 is more intelligent than you then there is a problem. It is probably the least complicated western commercial aircraft in service today.

The Lionair crew couldn't out fly their machine it flew them into the ground

JOYA380B747 wrote:

MCAS or no MCAS, the aircraft pretty much went into a nose dive in the seconds leading the crash, based on the crater images of crash site. At this point the lack of data from the last couple of minutes because of no FR24 coverage in that area makes any statements mere speculations. With that in mind, IMHO a possible nose dive brings up a lot more to the hypothesis table, as it is a thing of immense worry from the point of the aircrafts functionality (if hijack is ruled out).

Is it possible, like with MH370, that the engines were still transmitting data to satellites until the final moment?

usflyguy wrote:

Let’s ground the aircraft because 2 airlines with very small fleets of Max aircraft have had accidents, ET has 4. Over 100 have flown thousands of flights in the US and Europe.

Substandard training maybe?

2 out of the total active fleet of 350 aircraft crashed and killed everybody on board in the last 20 weeks, 0.6% of the total fleet. If you heard 0.6% of brand X beer bottles were contaminated with arsenic in the past few months, I'm fairly sure you would never drink it again, or at least not for a very long time.

My post on this is gone for some reason, but I think people on here are mistaking the mere MENTION of grounding as a declaration of fault instead of the declaration of “we don’t know.” That is a mistake.

The question of grounding is an important one, even if and provably BECAUSE a conclusion can not be drawn today.

JOYA380B747 wrote:

MCAS or no MCAS, the aircraft pretty much went into a nose dive in the seconds leading the crash, based on the crater images of crash site. At this point the lack of data from the last couple of minutes because of no FR24 coverage in that area makes any statements mere speculations. With that in mind, IMHO a possible nose dive brings up a lot more to the hypothesis table, as it is a thing of immense worry from the point of the aircrafts functionality (if hijack is ruled out).

It’s odd that we have rank speculation about pilot suicide (which is consistent with everything we know to this point about this crash) over in the Atlas thread but nothing of the sort here.

bob75013 wrote:

akb88 wrote:

bob75013 wrote:

Maybe you shouldn't be flying at all.

Well...I've not alwyas been like this and infact used to be big into aviation. Bad bouts of anxiety in the last couple of years have made me into a more doom and gloom type of person.

I sensed your general uneasiness about flying which is why I suggested that maybe you shouldn't fly. Flying is inherently safe. The 737-800 is an inherently safe airplane. No airplane is 100% safe - maybe 99.999%, but that's not 100%. I put myself on planes 35-45 times a year and have been doing it for over 40 years (probably 400 on 737s over the last decade), and have never had a scary flight.

At this point there are questions about the 737-max8, but that's not a 737-800. You have to decide what to do about your flight anxiety.

I love to travel so I'm not giving up flying and I've been actively working on getting better. I've been flying several times a year all my life, that's 30 years, never an issue. This started when my dad got dementia and the added responsiblities on me regarding all that made me extra nervous about flying, new parents appparently tend to get the same thing. A lot of my anxiety subsided when he passed last summer but for some reason the flying anxiety lingers.
I know flying is safe and there are millions of people in the skies now and nothing is happening. I hope aviation is still getting safer and safer.
40 years and never anything scary? Not severe turbulence or diversions?

Also there hasn't been an accident like this with a European and American commercial flight for a very very very long time. Better training and maintenance?

What is the criteria for grounding a plane in this modern age?

I see arguments for both sides. Aviation has become so safe, and EIS is usually fairly painless that two crashes of a type so early in service is worrisome. Especially since, at first glance to a layperson, they seem similar. I am sure that discussions are going on at regulatory agencies and airlines right now.

But, at the same time,'similar' to a layperson might not necessarily be similar in reality. And there are only two crashes of this type,
So again, not trying to start an argument, but really curious about what would be the "tipping point" for grounding this type. Obviously another crash soon after but absent that then what? I assume if investigators think the flight patterns in both crashes are "too similar for comfort" even if a cause isn't definitively determined at that point. Also if pilots are probed and it was revealed that there were a number of troubling incidents.

if you err on the side of caution you have cancelled flights, financial hardships for airlines, and tarnish the reputation of a planemaker. But if you don't and another plane crashes.....

oschkosch wrote:

Miquel787 wrote:

I.ll fly it anytime..The MAX is well tested and certified.All those comments about Boeing rushed it into service..B.llsh.t..Let.s wait and see what the investigation brings.Grounding is the last option if they will find a design flaw.

maybe not? This NY Times article from February gives a lot of insight IMHO.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/03/worl ... ilots.html

I actually believe many larger mutlinational companies will issue new travel rules for their employees shortly requesting 737Max to be avoided when booking flights.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk

The press can write anything...It.s all about the investigation and FACTS. I repeat FACTS..For now we don.t know nothing.The only thing we know is that sadly enough 157 people are killed.

As for me personally, I’m not getting on one until I hear why this jet crashed.

Interested wrote:

dampfnudel wrote:

khobar95 wrote:

Sorry if this was already covered:

From: https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News ... ?rc_fifo=1

Geoffrey Thomas, the editor in chief of Airline Ratings, told CNN the Ethiopian Airlines crash on Sunday had "significant differences" to the Lion Air crash last year. On the Lion Air flight, there were "wild fluctuations in air speed and... we continued to get data from the plane all the way down to impact."
Sunday's crash, however, had "no fluctuations and all of the sudden transmission" ceased, he said. "That transmission ceasing indicates catastrophic failure in air."

Like possibly a bomb brought the aircraft down?

With a bomb or catostrophic failure does a pilot ask permission to return to the airport?

Maybe not... but with some sort of fire severing control lines that then leads to a catastrophic failure it could happen. Kinda the point with this.. a LOT of weird stuff in the limited data we have.

FYI, I wasn’t up on what the MCAS was and its potential issues. This seems like a good article to get up to speed with...

What is the Boeing 737 Max Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System?
https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safe ... cas-jt610/

When we know the causes of the two crashes, then we can talk about taking action.

Taking action before you know the causes, is not a good idea.

Sudden loss of transmissions could simply be terrain blocking those transmissions.

akb88 wrote:

Also there hasn't been an accident like this with a European and American commercial flight for a very very very long time. Better training and maintenance?

Ethiopian has a maintenance and safety standard that is on par with European countries. It could be argued that Europe and North America have relatively boring and safe routes, compared to say flying out of Nepal or La Paz (or ADD) and therefore there are not as many opportunities for these conditions to arise in the first place.

dangerhere wrote:

2 out of the total active fleet of 350 aircraft crashed and killed everybody on board in the last 20 weeks, 0.6% of the total fleet. If you heard 0.6% of brand X beer bottles were contaminated with arsenic in the past few months, I'm fairly sure you would never drink it again, or at least not for a very long time.

Flawed analogy there: you imply that both aircraft came down due to the same issue (arsenic contamination in your case). That is far from certain at this hour. Additionally, one of the "bottles" (Lion Air) was known to have issues and while the "bottles" (MAX) are the same, they went through two different breweries (airlines) and therefore it could be any number of things that went wrong this morning over Ethiopia.

dangerhere wrote:

usflyguy wrote:

Let’s ground the aircraft because 2 airlines with very small fleets of Max aircraft have had accidents, ET has 4. Over 100 have flown thousands of flights in the US and Europe.

Substandard training maybe?

2 out of the total active fleet of 350 aircraft crashed and killed everybody on board in the last 20 weeks, 0.6% of the total fleet. If you heard 0.6% of brand X beer bottles were contaminated with arsenic in the past few months, I'm fairly sure you would never drink it again, or at least not for a very long time.

2 flights out of how many flights, and what were the causes?

A330freak wrote:

I'm saddened to hear about this. As unlikely as it may be, I hope there are survivors.

Below is a screenshot of the flight radar data for those who haven't looked at the FR24 link upthread.

(Taken from this tweet)
https://twitter.com/flightradar24/statu ... 3613764609

A few observations/notes
-When the aircraft is on the ground, FR24 shows the altitude as 0 ft. Wikipedia lists the airport height as 7625 ft, taking that into account, if the FR24 data is accurate, the aircraft didn't climb much in the first few minutes

-The FR24 data isn't complete, the last signal has a timestamp of 5:41 UTC whereas news outlets report that it crashed around 5:44 UTC. In the tweet I linked to, FR24 also acknowledges that coverage is limited in the area.

-Playing back previous flights of ET302 shows the flight generally does a right turn quite quickly after departure. As can be seen above, this does not happen on this flight.

Looking at raw flight24radar if accurate. The airport is at 7,200 ft and the plane went up to to 8,100 ft then dropped like about 400ft to 7,700 ft that is very close to the ground and then the last recorded altitude is 8,600 feet. I wonder how high is the terrain in the of that area?? Cause the plane just continued to go in a straight line. All previous flights seem to do an fast altiutde climb with a right hand turn. this look like another mcas related event again.

interested

I flew LS recently. When I selected my seat the Seatmap showed a plane with 30 rows of seats.

Therefore a B737-800, not a B737-300.

On a wider point, I note that the FO only had 200 Hours TT.

Also that pilot radioed asking to return.

Would be interested to know who was flying, especially if the Captain became incapacitated at some point in the flight.

Finn350 wrote:

JoeCanuck wrote:

Flight ended at 8600' according to flightradar24. If accurate, it's not the same profile as the previous MAX accident...more like CFIT.

Good point, but there is loss of altitude in the climb phase, and while troubleshooting that they could have ended in (seemingly) controlled flight into terrain.

That is a bad point. Double check the alatitude of the airport and you will find how low the plane was actually flying above the land

This is getting ridiculous, you don't have to be an aerospace engineer, 737 MAX maintenance worker, 737 MAX pilot or instructor, Boeing design engineer, FAA executive or whatever in order to have a valid opinion on this topic.

Purely from a consumer protection and public safety angle while taking into account the precautionary principle the MAX may have to be grounded. You can't wait until having final reports on the two crashes and don't have the luxury of complete FDR analysis at this point, the simple fact is two brand new aircraft crashed, we know they are a bit unstable by design, we already know of the dubious MCAS system, various similarities between the two accidents.

Common people with a basic understanding of aviation (such as most users on this sight) have the legitimate right to call on the regulatory authorities to ground these aircraft until we know what is wrong with them. No amount of calling these opinions stupid or uninformed will invalidate them.

Vladex wrote:

The 737 is too old of an air frame to graft a huge engine onto. It makes the aircraft unstable in flight. It is an unsafe design and must be withdrawn from service. Boeing clearly cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

I do not speculate on crashes, I think it’s rediculous people are even speculating causes when the only fact we know is that they requested to come back to land due to technical difficulties.
But like the the guy above said, the max even before any of this happened was just a lousy attempt to stay in the race, still 1960s technology with 2019 engines, on top of that the max 10 has this new gear retraction system which has to collapse before it goes into the belly.
I’m not saying the max is an unsafe plane but the whole thing seems rushed and very pieced together

Listen gentlemen

Its really easy

If you are Boeing and one of the big guys in the top of Boeing, then for sure you have the grounding option on the table.

Whoever is saying grouding the fleet is crazy or whatever show that they should never be in a high position in Boeing.

Of course, Boeing is now in a state of doubt. They wont ground the max fleet immediately. But thinking Boeing will not talk about this within the top management is nonsense.

ikramerica wrote:

I dont want to get in a fight about safety, but 2 crashes out of 100,000-200,000 flights is a statistical anomoly, not a trend. The occurrance rate is too small to draw a conclusion. Two of the same type flown by different airlines in different conditions crashing 5 months apart isn’t enough of a similarity to point to one problem. And the fact that ET knew about the prior crash as would the pilots, and there is a method to disable the faulty system, and the first airline knew their plane was acting up but dispatched it anyway, it muddies the issue further.

Occurrence rate is 100x higher than rate across the rest of airline fleet, as worldwide crash rate is about 1 in 20 million flights right now. It is still more probable that these 2 crashes are an unlucky coincidence than me winning a $100M jackpot in the lottery next week, but probability is on the same page...
It may be that this is just bad luck, but a big red flag is definitely there.

JAAlbert wrote:

osiris30 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The data we have is to conflicting to draw any conclusion from it.

We know the plane did not climb out as it should, but we also see a very high energy impact scene. That together with the indicates that the engines should have been deliviring thrust as normal. At the moment everything is possible, from pilot error to technical problems or sabotage or even crew committed suicide.

No. The data is starting to look like a no flaps situation. Aircraft took off without flaps. Mcas active then. Speed would increase more rapidly than with flaps. Forgetting to set flaps would explain most of what we see and as someone posted ADD has long runways so the AC would get off without flaps.

Just from a historical perspective, flap retraction certainly sounds like a plausible explanation given that this flight never gained more than a 1000 or so feet. A number of flap related air crashes have occurred in the past and all of them struggled to gain altitude and crashed shortly after take off.

Still, others have posted that attempting a take off with flaps retracted will result in an loud alarm that the pilots could not have missed. If flaps were retracted, is it possible that the alarm was somehow disabled or faulty? I am not a pilot, but knowing ADD is high altitude, it seems that flaps would be something the pilots would know to activate even if the runway were long. And as others have noted, MAX isn't certified for take off without flaps.

It is very possible. One circuit breaker can disable alarm horns (some of them anyway). The FR data is incomplete, but what it does show is a very slow initial climb out in terms of altitude. What that means if anything who knows.

Interested wrote:

When as a customer you book a plane flight where does it tell you what type of plane you will be flying on?

It depends. I've seen booking sites with no info on aircraft type at all. But it is usually under "more info" or "flight details".

dangerhere wrote:

akb88 wrote:

Also there hasn't been an accident like this with a European and American commercial flight for a very very very long time. Better training and maintenance?

Ethiopian has a maintenance and safety standard that is on par with European countries. It could be argued that Europe and North America have relatively boring and safe routes, compared to say flying out of Nepal or La Paz (or ADD) and therefore there are not as many opportunities for these conditions to arise in the first place.

North America has some of the world's worst weather, especially thunderstorms and tornadoes.

bennett123 wrote:

interested

I flew LS recently. When I selected my seat the Seatmap showed a plane with 30 rows of seats.

Therefore a B737-800, not a B737-300.

On a wider point, I note that the FO only had 200 Hours TT.

Also that pilot radioed asking to return.

Would be interested to know who was flying, especially if the Captain became incapacitated at some point in the flight.

Really far fetched captain incapacitation right after take off. And novice FO’s are really common. Nothing at the moment suggests even remotely this got anything to do with this.

Wait,, folks, isn’t the flightradar data showing altitude AGL? If so, it reached an altitude of 8,XXX *above ground level*.

PW100 wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

Also I’d like to repeat this again, MCAS can only be active in a flaps up condition. This aircraft did not make it far enough into flight for flaps to have already been retracted.

The crash site is 60 km away form the departure airport. It is not far-fetched to assume that flaps had been are retracted.

Weird data starts IMMEDIATELY after take off.. seconds in, in fact.. are you saying they pulled the flaps 15s into the air? Would you consider flaps up 15s into a flight normal?

Chemist wrote:

dangerhere wrote:

akb88 wrote:

Also there hasn't been an accident like this with a European and American commercial flight for a very very very long time. Better training and maintenance?

Ethiopian has a maintenance and safety standard that is on par with European countries. It could be argued that Europe and North America have relatively boring and safe routes, compared to say flying out of Nepal or La Paz (or ADD) and therefore there are not as many opportunities for these conditions to arise in the first place.

North America has some of the world's worst weather, especially thunderstorms and tornadoes.

Don't forget snow, icing, windshear, etc. :lol

Sorry this got so long, just lots of random thoughts I've been meaning to address anyways.

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

So why did data broadcast cease? Why is the altitude data so incomplete?

As has been stated numerous times (including by FR24 staff) the data coverage in that area is extremely limited. Both data points ceased at the same time, and before any unusual deviations began. This is consistent with LOS.

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

Let's assume that flaps were brought back to 0 shortly after data transmission ended. Are we assuming that MCAS stepped in immediately?

You don't have to assume that MCAS "stepped in immediately" - it's a piece of software programming, it does what it's told to do. If it's programmed to enable its flight control augmentation corrections upon flap retract, then that's exactly what it will do.

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

With or without the pitot tubes accurately feeding AOA data to the FMS? We know that Lion Air was having such mechanical issues. So much that the engineer took pics and flew with the plane. Let's assume the Ethiopian plane had completely fine hardware feeding the FMS with accurate AOA data. Would MCAS still step in?

You're kinda answering your own question - the fact that MCAS was active and performing in an unexpected manner DUE TO incorrect data input on the Lion Air flight is proof that the system (as it's implemented currently) is incapable of error-checking itself or at least the data being fed into it. So yes, it appears that it'll always be active regardless of what data it's getting.

Fault-checking to that degree likely requires additional sensors and independent computers as you see on Airbus (due to the degree of automated systems, they need the ability to cross-check and "vote", and/or remove a computer or data source if required.) Since the ADIRU is a core component to the functionality of the entire flight control system on FBW Airbus', they have 3 of them AND they're all (each) designed around a quad-redundant architecture. It's very difficult to "fool" one, regardless of a combination of failed data inputs.

When you stick an "add on" system to essentially a legacy aircraft like the MAX (flight control-wise at least) with no core FBW system, laws, data-checking or voting, redundancy, etc, you open yourself up to potential problems like MCAS. Again I'm not saying that's what happened here as we have no idea yet.

So for example - pretend Airbus had the clearance issue w/ engines, not Boeing. They'd be able to modify the entire FBW programming and flight envelope for the engine mods/location/thrust behavior/CoG. Even if they just added a new trim program system into the envelope protections (again, not required as it would be integrated at the core level) - it would be fed "clean" data, and have the ability to disable itself and/or disregard data based on what the ADIRUs have determined. It would be totally seamless and a non-issue.

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

Should we assume that there are still MAX pilots who, in the past few months, have learned nothing about mitigating MCAS? If MCAS did step in, despite receiving accurate data, then MCAS has a new fault mode we don't know about. Could Boeing have, not publicly, updated MCAS in the meantime but perhaps this update created new faults?

The problem is likely psychological in nature, there have been lots of studies on how pilots think in more recent crashes. When you're presented with data or behavior that doesn't make sense, or goes against your primal training in every way, it's difficult to address the problem and usually takes a few seconds longer (even in sims, but to a lesser degree).

Even if every MAX driver has read the numerous bulletins and training updates most airlines seem to have performed, it'll still take a second to register. Depending on the upset encountered though, it might be pretty complicated to recover. From what I recall, MCAS is capable of commanding extreme trim inputs VERY rapidly. If you're on autopilot climbing out, reaching for a coffee or something, looking at a chart, changing a radio frequency, etc, and that thing slams full trim on you, it's tough to know how you'd react and if you would have enough time.

If it was receiving correct data, it wouldn't result in a crash. In its normal state, MCAS is seamless and simply trims the MAX to behave like legacy 737's in certain parts of the flight envelope.

Also I'm not aware of the exact method for a software update to a component like MCAS, but they absolutely wouldn't do it (or be able to anyways) without the airlines knowing it.

Flightsimboy wrote:

Will a third crash of a Boeing 737 Max 8 with an operator for less than three months and crashing less than ten minutes after take off, actually have them take note?

Answer to goofy question:
if the contributing factors were similar, yes. If not, no.
Only way to know, is find out what the contributing factors ACTUALLY are, and not just assume them to be the same based on the fact that it's the same aircraft.

anshabhi wrote:

ADD has 3.7km long runways. I don't see why would they need flaps for takeoff here

Certification issues aside, you might want to take a look at ADD's elevation...

Indy wrote:

Remember when the DC-10 got grounded? Was that jumping the gun too?

Nope.

Because if you had half a clue what you were talking about in that regard, YOU'D KNOW that the DC wasn't grounded until 12 days after AA191 when both the sheared pylon bolt was found *and* similar artificial wear on pylon bolts and triangular jamming of the engine mount into the pylon mount were found on both a CO and UA DC10....

...both of which fit right into the actually sensible (ya know, the opposite of what you're proposing) practice of figuring out a correlative contribution before doing something as drastic as grounding a fleet.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

There is a subtle but important distinction between those calling for it to be grounded and those open to a grounding. As much as we might see similarities between these two accidents, we know very little about this second one.

Finally, someone joins AngMoh with an actually logical post.

There's no one, repeat **NO ONE**, who's closed to the idea of a grounding. Make no mistake, the aircraft family SHOULD BE GROUNDED if indeed the two crashes were caused by (or even primarily contributed to by) the same non human factor.

But no one's going to know that, hours after the crash and before anyone's found the debris field.

trnswrld wrote:

Unreal the bullshit here.

Amen on that.

PacificBeach wrote:

bob75013 wrote:

akb88 wrote:

but doesn't tell me why I shouldn't have concerns

Maybe you shouldn't be flying at all.

It does not have to be black and white. He can just avoid the types with bad record.

That reads like the precursor to an Alanis Morissette song.

My condolences to the families and friends of those who lost their lives.

I see no possible information that would lead to any kind of reliable indication of possible cause. What we know is that this flight apparently had a reasonably normal take off; experienced some kind of problem shortly thereafter, Pilot reported unknown problem and requested permission to return, aircraft crashed in a likely highly vertical dive leaving an impact crater and small bits and pieces of the aircraft.

We know the aircraft type. We know that that aircraft type has crashed before (for reasons yet unknown). We know that both aircraft had pilots and crew (another similarity that some people seem to forget).

We need to wait for the investigation to release a lot more information before we can even eliminate possible causes.

As far as grounding the aircraft type - and the comments that the relevant authorities must be considering it. That is true. They also are considering pilot suicide. Both are on the list - and I assure you that they are looking at and considering the list. I also note that both a need to ground an aircraft type and pilot suicide have about the same probability (very very low).

Have a great day,

Just a quick question, does the 737MAX has ACARS? If so then i might give the investigators some insight in what happened quite quickly. But somewhere I doubt that they have it?