Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The 2 crashes could be a very unfortunate coincidence.
Boing provides training, the pilots are typically pilots already. That said do the airlines in question tolerate employees not following established policies and guidelines? It's easy to simply blame a machine or design, or even human error. In my experience in troubleshooting failure to follow policies, maintenance practices or lack of knowledge and training were the root cause of most machine failures. Not all but most. Not surprising most aircraft crashes fall in those same areas as the reason of the crash.
Angle of Attack sensor issues. What I've been reading for the last little while is saying there is an issue here. There have been two crashes for seemingly the same reason.
If it’s the AOA indicator then fly the airplane by airspeed. It seems the airplane stalled and then augured in. Basic piloting says fly the airplane first, then figure out the problem. On a climbout with airspeed dropping, push the nose over to gain airspeed. No matter how complicated the airplane, maintaining airspeed will keep you from stalling.
China has a company in direct competition with Boeing. In other words China is in direct competition with Boeing. Political issues that are currently in play also leans towards China just being China. China's record on safety is deplorable at best. Poisoned or tainted baby food. Lead based paints on children toys, tainted pet foods, Show me a faulty airbag system and very good chance it was manufactured in China.
So no I don't take China grounding the boeings as an decision based upon safety. They never cared about it before and don't care about it now. This is more likely a political move. Now if England grounds the 737 max or Switzerland, or France or Germany, then I'll take it seriously.
China is a nothingburger in the manufacturing of commercial jets.
Boing provides training, the pilots are typically pilots already. That said do the airlines in question tolerate employees not following established policies and guidelines? It's easy to simply blame a machine or design, or even human error. In my experience in troubleshooting failure to follow policies, maintenance practices or lack of knowledge and training were the root cause of most machine failures. Not all but most. Not surprising most aircraft crashes fall in those same areas as the reason of the crash.
The cause of the crash of the same model 6 months ago has not yet been determined.
Boeing has not issued a grounding advisory. This could change in 24 hours or next week or not.
The FAA says it’s safe to fly and will examine all evidence as it becomes available.
Is there anyone here that actually thinks that Boeing Air is willing to deal with the massive legal problems involved IF they had even a small suspicion of any danger to this aircraft?
Yes.
If you think a large corporation wouldn't make profit-oriented risk/reward tradeoff judgments that lead to decisions to put people at risk, then you just haven't been paying attention. Information asymmetry is in their favor, and if they think things are murky enough to where their legal team's could beat it, they'll absolutely roll with a situation that puts profits over people.
By the way, two brand new jets of the same new class with highly experienced pilots dropping from the sky in close time proximity under similar circumstances should be cause for concern. This is highly unusual. Yes, it could just be coincidence. But the prudent thing to do if we put people first would be to ground until an investigation is completed. But we don't put people first.
China is a nothingburger in the manufacturing of commercial jets.
Airbus and Boeing dominate the market.
Absolutely true, but any down turn of business for Boeing is the potential up turn for China. Once again China siting safety as the cause for grounding Boeing is as ridiculous as China requesting an embargo on anyone for human rights violations. China is among the absolute worst violators of safety protocols.
If you think a large corporation wouldn't make profit-oriented risk/reward tradeoff judgments that lead to decisions to put people at risk, then you just haven't been paying attention. Information asymmetry is in their favor, and if they think things are murky enough to where their legal team's could beat it, they'll absolutely roll with a situation that puts profits over people.
By the way, two brand new jets of the same new class with highly experienced pilots dropping from the sky in close time proximity under similar circumstances should be cause for concern. This is highly unusual. Yes, it could just be coincidence. But the prudent thing to do if we put people first would be to ground until an investigation is completed. But we don't put people first.
Just imagine how many vehicles would be left on the road if we followed that criteria?
Let's wait until they gather some more facts. Lion Air is rated among the most unsafe airlines to fly on. It can't all be just the machines at fault. That's why using Lion air's crash as a qualifier is questionable. Ethiopia Air seems to have a better record.
My gut says the two crashes are far too similar in nature to discount as a fluke. That said jumping to cause almost never delivers root cause.
I flew on a 777 a few years back. As I went to use the bathroom (14 hour flight), I noticed a piece of trim was loose and dangling. The trim was right next to an exit door. This was an Airbus.
I walked past it, it isn't my job as a passenger to conduct repairs. I did tell a flight attendant. Walking back 2 hours later that same piece of trim was still dangling. I snapped it back into place.
What was I thinking as I did the fix? Trained as I am in troubleshooting and maintenance and repair, I was thinking about my first lesson in equipment maintenance. If the obvious is ignored the less obvious and more difficult will absolutely be ignored. I was worried the rest of the flight. Of course nothing happened.
I worry about low budget airlines. Where do they recoup the costs of business when they low ball flights? Something gets missed. Maintenance and training are among the first to take a hit.
Just imagine how many vehicles would be left on the road if we followed that criteria?
But cars have many order of magnitude lower bars for safety, maintenance, and operator training. the standard for commercial aviation is WAY higher. Cars to airliners are apples to oranges.
Two jets crashing under these circumstances close together is not the same as two cars somewhere hitting a tree.
More about the shennanigans Boeing has apparently played... They wanted to get a fuel-efficient next-gen jet. They decided to retrofit 737 for cost efficiency. The larger engines required them to move the wing and engine position on fuselage in order to get sufficient ground clearance. Moving wing position changed aerodynamics and made the thing harder to handle under certain stall-risk situations, so they put in a brand new automated system (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System - MCAS) that was to mitigate this by automatically forcing nose down if stall detected - without clear communication and training to pilots.
That's the answer right there to "would a company like Boeing put people at risk for sake of profits."
So prelim reports suggest the new MCAS system that literally pilots flying the thing didn't even know existed apparently may have been feeding in false information from angle of attack sensors, causing the nose to drop unexpectedly - which pilots didn't react properly to, because again they didn't even know the damn thing existed in the first place...
Pilots flying the more than 200 MAX-8s now in service with airlines across the world have said that they were unaware that the MCAS had been installed and were never instructed in how to use it. That would have included the Lion Air pilots. They were also, therefore, unaware of the reasons why Boeing decided to add the MCAS system.
...
In order to attach the new engines and still get a safe distance between them and the ground Boeing lengthened the nose wheel by 9.5 inches and, crucially, had to move the engines, inside their bulging nacelles, further forward from the wing.
It now appears that the changes in the 737’s low-speed handling characteristics resulted from this shift in the weight of the engines, as well as the effects of their increased power.
As a result of the test flights Boeing seems to have decided that the airplane itself should be able to sense this problem and cure it through its automated flight management system, using MCAS to move the horizontal stabilizer to push down the nose. What they apparently did not anticipate was the possibility that an erroneous message from another system, an angle of attack (the pitch of the wings) sensor, could initiate action by the MCAS, unknown to pilots.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,368,826 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by boneyard1962
No but it is if not the number 1 cause in the top 3. The Crash in San Francisco is a damned good example of error and not following existing procedures.
As a troubleshooter in my previous job it normally, when root cause was pursued to the end, the human component. maintenance and repair either not done on time or done incorrectly. Operational procedures either not followed or not trained properly to them correctly.
At this point Im not blaming anyone, I am simply challenging the chicken littles to think instead of panic. No real data or facts have been released as of yet. Being screaming I won't fly on Boeing because they make an unsafe product. Boeing has a stellar track record. China grounding the 737 max? Well China has anything but a good safety record and several of their airlines are also rated the most unsafe. I dont avoid aircraft, I avoid airlines.
Yet you said "more likely a pilot error issue". Sounds pretty much like blame to me considering as you say: "No real data or facts have been released as of yet"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
