Trump shutdown delayed work on software fix for 737 MAX unexpected nosedive problem

[FirNaTine]

I'd be interested in the actual training requirements of US pilots vs some of the other programs. I see the pilot was well experienced, but the copilot was much greener than any US pilot would be in that scenario. A 20+ year friend needed a lot more hours to get a copilot gig on an executive jet service. He'll likely work that for a bit, switch seats and continue to gather jet flight hours before moving up the ladder so to speak of commercial aviation.

I teach folks to operate fire apparatus, which while obviously less complex than a jet, have both theory and practical components. There's actually a bit of hydraulic theory in calculating different fire scene scenarios, and then translating that to various hands on tasks.

One thing I notice, is that some folks (and programs) ask how much training does it take so someone can get it right? Others ask how much training it takes so folks can't get it wrong? As in true understanding of what you are doing, (virtually) anything that can go wrong, and what can be done. I know our career drivers far exceed the minimum national standards, as in an 800+ person department running as many calls as we do, know the problems will eventually come up and bite us if we aren't prepared. Others are ok with good enough vs the price and time of exceeding the minimum.

But, I have noticed this trend exists elsewhere. I was in a position to reorient our military reservists as they returned from deployment (we give veteran preference, so we have a lot of current and former military). The high speed units (we have several Ranger Regiment/Special Forces) vs regular infantry were given more time and money to train and drill. And they kept going until they were convinced they had drilled any scenario they could think of, and a response to it. (By no means am I saying other units weren't well trained, just that some get a bigger ammo budget, training allowances, etc)

Bringing this back to the airplane issue, I understand the MCAS issue is new, but appears to cause the same symptoms as a "runaway trim." Both end up with the electric trim pushing the nose down, just for different reasons. The fix for both issues is to manually disable the electric trim to resume intended pitch/altitude, get on the ground quickly/safely and get it fixed ASAP (which unfortunately could have been done in the first crash at least and wasn't, as the plane was allowed to fly a second time after having the issue on a prior flight). It seems like a pilot well versed in all prior emergency operations would have fixed this, regardless of the new issue.

 

[FirNaTine]

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2019/march/14/faa-grounds-boeing-737-max-fleet

Take a look at this from a pilot's perspective

 

[Paratus]

While this maybe an unpopular opinion there won’t be a true single smoking gun cause for these crashes.

For these kind of failures there’s always an error chain. Break anyone of them and the crashes don’t happen.

The chain will likely include:

• The decision to use a different engine with a different center of gravity
• The MCAS system implementation
• The govt shutdown delaying the MCAS software update
• Differences in Pilot training
• Any hardware failure that exacerbated the issue
• Standard tension between cost, schedule, publicity, and safety

There will be more but these seem likely

 

[FirNaTine]

While this maybe an unpopular opinion there won’t be a true single smoking gun cause for these crashes.

For these kind of failures there’s always an error chain. Break anyone of them and the crashes don’t happen.

The chain will likely include:

• The decision to use a different engine with a different center of gravity
• The MCAS system implementation
• The govt shutdown delaying the MCAS software update
• Differences in Pilot training
• Any hardware failure that exacerbated the issue
• Standard tension between cost, schedule, publicity, and safety

There will be more but these seem likely

Formal training in incident analysis, or have you picked this up? I ask because it's very close to my own training in health and safety, and critical incident analysis.

 

[UNCjigga]

While this maybe an unpopular opinion there won’t be a true single smoking gun cause for these crashes.

For these kind of failures there’s always an error chain. Break anyone of them and the crashes don’t happen.

The chain will likely include:

• The decision to use a different engine with a different center of gravity
• The MCAS system implementation
• The govt shutdown delaying the MCAS software update
• Differences in Pilot training
• Any hardware failure that exacerbated the issue
• Standard tension between cost, schedule, publicity, and safety

There will be more but these seem likely

Add in the fact that there were people within the FAA who expressed severe concerns with MCAS, yet higher ups did not want to delay certification.

 

[Genx87]

The 737 is end of road in one regard. Its landing gear is limiting the capability to fit larger engines or get stretched. Right now 737s have longer takeoff runs because of its limitations to pull back on the yoke without a tail strike. The plane was originally built for going into smaller airports with little to no support infrastructure. Low landing gear allowed crews to load the plane by hand and fuel. The 737 was also a 100 seat jet with its original design. It has been morphed into a 220 seater with the MAX-10. The same as the now discontinued 757-200. Which has a larger more appropriate landing gear, larger engines, and better takeoff\climb performance. Sit at an airport and look at a 737-800\900 compared to a 757-200. And tell me which one looks like it has the infrastructure to take on 200+ passengers.

As for this issue with MCAS. What was Boeing thinking? The MAX-8\9 have two Angle of Attack sensors but the MCAS is only reading from one???? The reports for both crashes are sounding like the AOA sensors were conflicting by as much as 20 degrees on how they thought the aircraft was pitched. Unfortunately the one that thought it was pitched too high was the one feeding MCAS data and fighting the pilots to push the nose down. Now MCAS can be disabled via switch. Where in the 737NG pulling back on the yoke would disabled it. But Boeing didnt disclose that real well until after the Lions Air crash.

 

[Genx87]

Fair statement. When the 777 batteries caught fire it took government intervention to ground them. Obama's transportation secretary took action. Miss the days of responsible government.

787

 

[Genx87]

I'd be interested in the actual training requirements of US pilots vs some of the other programs. I see the pilot was well experienced, but the copilot was much greener than any US pilot would be in that scenario. A 20+ year friend needed a lot more hours to get a copilot gig on an executive jet service. He'll likely work that for a bit, switch seats and continue to gather jet flight hours before moving up the ladder so to speak of commercial aviation.

I teach folks to operate fire apparatus, which while obviously less complex than a jet, have both theory and practical components. There's actually a bit of hydraulic theory in calculating different fire scene scenarios, and then translating that to various hands on tasks.

One thing I notice, is that some folks (and programs) ask how much training does it take so someone can get it right? Others ask how much training it takes so folks can't get it wrong? As in true understanding of what you are doing, (virtually) anything that can go wrong, and what can be done. I know our career drivers far exceed the minimum national standards, as in an 800+ person department running as many calls as we do, know the problems will eventually come up and bite us if we aren't prepared. Others are ok with good enough vs the price and time of exceeding the minimum.

But, I have noticed this trend exists elsewhere. I was in a position to reorient our military reservists as they returned from deployment (we give veteran preference, so we have a lot of current and former military). The high speed units (we have several Ranger Regiment/Special Forces) vs regular infantry were given more time and money to train and drill. And they kept going until they were convinced they had drilled any scenario they could think of, and a response to it. (By no means am I saying other units weren't well trained, just that some get a bigger ammo budget, training allowances, etc)

Bringing this back to the airplane issue, I understand the MCAS issue is new, but appears to cause the same symptoms as a "runaway trim." Both end up with the electric trim pushing the nose down, just for different reasons. The fix for both issues is to manually disable the electric trim to resume intended pitch/altitude, get on the ground quickly/safely and get it fixed ASAP (which unfortunately could have been done in the first crash at least and wasn't, as the plane was allowed to fly a second time after having the issue on a prior flight). It seems like a pilot well versed in all prior emergency operations would have fixed this, regardless of the new issue.

FAA changed rules in 2013. FO has a graduating scale depending on where they are in their training. It starts at 750 hours if you are ex-military. And upto 1500 hours if you are just getting into mainline jets. But now FOs are required to have an ATP license. Where before they could have a commercial license and only 250 hours.

 

[Paratus]

Formal training in incident analysis, or have you picked this up? I ask because it's very close to my own training in health and safety, and critical incident analysis.

I’ve been a safety weenie for the last several years and taken part in the occasional failure investigation over the last twenty years.

 

[FirNaTine]

FAA changed rules in 2013. FO has a graduating scale depending on where they are in their training. It starts at 750 hours if you are ex-military. And upto 1500 hours if you are just getting into mainline jets. But now FOs are required to have an ATP license. Where before they could have a commercial license and only 250 hours.

Thanks. I read like 8,000 hours on pilot in command, but 200 ish for first officer. The other thing I would wonder, is do they sim that exact failure mode (runaway trim), and if so, enough that it is "muscle memory?" I get there's a checklist to run, but it takes time to run a list, and below a critical altitude, you will have little time to work through it, unless you know it virtually by heart.

 

[Genx87]

Thanks. I read like 8,000 hours on pilot in command, but 200 ish for first officer. The other thing I would wonder, is do they sim that exact failure mode (runaway trim), and if so, enough that it is "muscle memory?" I get there's a checklist to run, but it takes time to run a list, and below a critical altitude, you will have little time to work through it, unless you know it virtually by heart.

The FO for Ethiopian apparently had 200 hours. Which imo means he didnt have the experience to be helpful in a critical situation. The other issue is afaik only Southwest has a single MAX simulator. Nobody else does. A lot of the training was done on an iPad and took about an hour for 737NG pilots moving to the MAX. Seems like a lot was dropped on this aircrafts rollout because people thought the commonality between the 737NG and MAX was close enough.

 

[FirNaTine]

The FO for Ethiopian apparently had 200 hours. Which imo means he didnt have the experience to be helpful in a critical situation. The other issue is afaik only Southwest has a single MAX simulator. Nobody else does. A lot of the training was done on an iPad and took about an hour for 737NG pilots moving to the MAX. Seems like a lot was dropped on this aircrafts rollout because people thought the commonality between the 737NG and MAX was close enough.

Thanks. Good to know Southwest has a sim and did training. I will be in one of their 737-700s in a little over 24 hours, and was just in another a little over 4 days ago. But, as an outsider that speaks to a commitment to training to me.

 

[thilanliyan]

Why the heck is Boeing allowed to "self certify" their planes?!! WTF is that about?!!

 

[1prophet]

Why the heck is Boeing allowed to "self certify" their planes?!! WTF is that about?!!

And the next important question is who told the FAA back in 2009 that was such a good idea?

https://www.seattletimes.com/busine...s-boeings-authority-to-self-certify-aircraft/

FAA extends Boeing’s authority to self-certify aircraft

Originally published August 20, 2009 at 12:26 pm Updated August 21, 2009 at 9:33 am
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on Tuesday extended the authority of Boeing Commercial Airplanes to self-certify its aircraft and aircraft technologies.

And the next question is how did anyone not see this coming?

https://www.aviationlawmonitor.com/...easing-inspection-authority-to-manufacturers/

FAA Turns Over Increasing Inspection Authority to Manufacturers

How is that working out? Not surprisingly, not so well. According to documents obtained by the Seattle Times, through 2015, Boeing was fined $13 million to settle FAA proceedings arising from falsification of certification and repair work. The Seattle Times noted that one Boeing mechanic told FAA investigators that he had been entering false data into aircraft inspection records for at least seven years.

 

[trenchfoot]

Wrong thread or default answer to everything?

Yup, wrong thread. I had two ATPN screens up at the same time.

Thx for the heads up. :thumbsup:

 

[sao123]

What part of "the patch would have gone out in Jan if it weren't for the government shutdown" makes this post clickbait??

This was an Ethiopian owned plan operated by an Ethiopian owned airline... What does that have to do with the FAA and Trump?
if the patch was ready, it could have been applied EVERYWHERE outside the US already.

the FAA doesnt certify planes which operate outside of US territories and US owned companies.

This is nothing more than a political hack statement.

 

[thilanliyan]

And the next important question is who told the FAA back in 2009 that was such a good idea?

https://www.seattletimes.com/busine...s-boeings-authority-to-self-certify-aircraft/

I don't know the reason why the FAA did this (hope it's not budget cuts or something) but it's a terrible idea, asking companies to police themselves.

 

[hal2kilo]

And the next important question is who told the FAA back in 2009 that was such a good idea?

https://www.seattletimes.com/busine...s-boeings-authority-to-self-certify-aircraft/


And the next question is how did anyone not see this coming?

https://www.aviationlawmonitor.com/...easing-inspection-authority-to-manufacturers/

FAA Turns Over Increasing Inspection Authority to Manufacturers

Never any slippery slopes with private business, only government.

 

[hal2kilo]

Uh oh, Boeings got some splaining to do.
Justice Dept opens investigation

 

[Indus]

And the next important question is who told the FAA back in 2009 that was such a good idea?

https://www.seattletimes.com/busine...s-boeings-authority-to-self-certify-aircraft/

That was in 2009 when we were in the middle of the great depression..IIRC cuts were made everywhere except the auto loans to the big 3 and big infrastructure package to jump start the economy.

And the next question is how did anyone not see this coming?

https://www.aviationlawmonitor.com/...easing-inspection-authority-to-manufacturers/

FAA Turns Over Increasing Inspection Authority to Manufacturers

Yeah it doesn't make any sense to do it in 2017 when the economy is at an all time high.

Crony capitalism?

 

[realibrad]

So it looks like a previous crew and an off duty pilot were able to figure out what to do, but, did not give that information to the next crew.

 

[K1052]

What's wrong with letting manufactures self regulate? This, for starters:

Doomed Boeing Jets Lacked 2 Safety Features That Company Sold Only as Extras

Boeing’s optional safety features, in part, could have helped the pilots detect any erroneous readings. One of the optional upgrades, the angle of attack indicator, displays the readings of the two sensors. The other, called a disagree light, is activated if those sensors are at odds with one another.

Boeing will soon update the MCAS software, and will also make the disagree light standard on all new 737 Max planes, according to a person familiar with the changes, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they have not been made public. The angle of attack indicator will remain an option that airlines can buy.

Boeing charges extra, for example, for a backup fire extinguisher in the cargo hold. Past incidents have shown that a single extinguishing system may not be enough to put out flames that spread rapidly through the plane. Regulators in Japan require airlines there to install backup fire extinguishing systems, but the F.A.A. does not.

There are so many things that should not be optional, and many airlines want the cheapest airplane you can get,” said Mark H. Goodrich, an aviation lawyer and former engineering test pilot. “And Boeing is able to say, ‘Hey, it was available.’”

But what Boeing doesn’t say, he added, is that it has become “a great profit center” for the manufacturer.

Both Boeing and its airline customers have taken pains to keep these options, and prices, out of the public eye. Airlines frequently redact details of the features they opt to pay for — or exclude — from their filings with financial regulators. Boeing declined to disclose the full menu of safety features it offers as options on the 737 Max, or how much they cost.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/21/business/boeing-safety-features-charge.html

 

[thilanliyan]

^Yeah, all you "free market rah rah" people...this is what you get when you let companies have free rein, they cut corners usually at the expense of safety and the environment.

What I really don't understand is, the financial pain from including those options as standard has gotta be a fraction of what they are going to pay in lawsuits, fines, reduced share price etc. and yet some bean counter or exec decided it was worth the risk to people's lives...the higher ups really need to be held liable (not sure if that's even a possibility) because only the threat of real consequences (not just money) will keep this kind of thing from happening.

 

[K1052]

^Yeah, all you "free market rah rah" people...this is what you get when you let companies have free rein, they cut corners usually at the expense of safety and the environment.

What I really don't understand is, the financial pain from including those options as standard has gotta be a fraction of what they are going to pay in lawsuits, fines, reduced share price etc. and yet some bean counter or exec decided it was worth the risk to people's lives...the higher ups really need to be held liable (not sure if that's even a possibility) because only the threat of real consequences (not just money) will keep this kind of thing from happening.

Or one could roll the dice that you won't need it and the savings in aircraft cost across the fleet helps goose profitability just a tiny bit and thus the value of the shares that make up the vast majority of your (disgustingly large) annual compensation.

 

[thilanliyan]

Or one could roll the dice that you won't need it and the savings in aircraft cost across the fleet helps goose profitability just a tiny bit and thus the value of the shares that make up the vast majority of your (disgustingly large) annual compensation.

Risky game to play with people's lives, but Boeing isn't the first and won't be the last unless higher ups are personally held responsible...then they might think twice.