Go Back  The Hull Truth - Boating and Fishing Forum > BOATING FORUMS > Dockside Chat
Reload this Page >

Boeing 737 MAX is stupidly designed

Notices
Like Tree173Likes

Boeing 737 MAX is stupidly designed

Old 03-17-2019, 10:21 AM
  #121  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: TX and Louisiana
Posts: 261
Default

ProppedUP, thanks for posting that write up.

I do have a question for you. Noticing that the stick shaker is active most of the last half of the flight, how disconcerting would that be to a relatively inexperienced pilot? I would think that his training instinct is that " shaking stick = bad things, ie stall warning", would/could that have clouded his OODA loop somewhat, resulting in him doing things to correct a stall condition, but without recognizing that he didn't really have the condition present?

I am not a professional aviator, but have been around enough to know that it is drummed into a pilot from day one, stalls are bad OK, don't stall the plane? Seems like that there enough other data present and not considered by the pilot, we will never know, what he was thinking in the last few minutes.
MikeeBooshay is offline  
Old 03-17-2019, 03:34 PM
  #122  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,695
Default

Originally Posted by km1125 View Post
Thanks for posting that. Will be interesting to find out if that is the real data or not.

Interesting that the AOA left and right were indicating differences even before takeoff (if I'm reading that correctly) and that the stick shaker was active nearly the whole time, aside from that little dive nearer the beginning. Is the "stick shaker left" and "stick shaker right" really the two physical sticks, or is that two different outputs to the same stick shaker system? Can/do the sticks shake independently, and if so, why?

Also interesting that they appeared to combat the initial dive with flaps, and that seemed to work great (even causing a steady climb), but didn't add any flaps later while they appeared to be fighting trim, even at the 29:23 mark where it appeared they were losing the battle.
Reading the AD that posted, I might have answered my own question. One of the bullet points was "Continuous or intermittent stick shaker on the affected side only", which leads me to believe that the stick shakers are independent. That makes we wonder, outside of some icing condition, what would make one side stall or have a different AOA if you're not in a bank or a roll?? If you're in wings-level flight, is there any reason that only one stick should shake??

I also wonder what triggered the Master Caution, both near the beginning and the quick one near the end. The first one seems to line up with the flaps being retracted, but no other indications (pitch, AOA change or stick shaker) seem to align to either. On the second short one t appears to pop up after the bottomed out from the descent.

km1125 is offline  
Old 03-17-2019, 04:40 PM
  #123  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Globetrottin, Earth
Posts: 932
Default

Originally Posted by MikeeBooshay View Post
ProppedUP, thanks for posting that write up.

I do have a question for you. Noticing that the stick shaker is active most of the last half of the flight, how disconcerting would that be to a relatively inexperienced pilot? I would think that his training instinct is that " shaking stick = bad things, ie stall warning", would/could that have clouded his OODA loop somewhat, resulting in him doing things to correct a stall condition, but without recognizing that he didn't really have the condition present?

I am not a professional aviator, but have been around enough to know that it is drummed into a pilot from day one, stalls are bad OK, don't stall the plane? Seems like that there enough other data present and not considered by the pilot, we will never know, what he was thinking in the last few minutes.
In my experience the only time (except once, I'll explain later) the shaker goes of is in training and there are many other things you usually sense going wrong before it goes off. For example it gets real quiet (wind noise) which is not normal and is accompanied by low airspeed one may pick up on. Pitch changes. As you slow down your AOA increases assuming your in level or near level flight so your seat of the pants feel will tell you something ain't right because you are for a lack of a better way of describing it leaning back in your seat when you shouldn't be.

Also leading up to the stall the trim wheel is rolling quite a bit to trim pressure off as speed decreases which is also unusual. If the autopilot is on you will hear it run and run and run. If you were hand flying at some point you would have to ask yourself "gees I am putting in a lot of nose up trim?" You really get outside the box when you stall these things and personally I feel like there are many warnings before you get to the shaker going off. Again my only experience with this is in a sim with the autopilot on and auto throttles off. So the plane is trying to maintain altitude but you have turned off it's ability to add power.

I have had a shaker go off in another type aircraft in cruise flight. When it went off of course our eyes went straight to the instruments and cross checked in the blink of an eye. We realized quickly it was a false alarm and pulled the breaker. In a lot of aircraft (depending on the operation or company) they will put collars on breakers like stick shakers and stick pushers (737 doesn't have a pusher) so if the go off inadvertently you can easily locate the breaker and turn it off.

As far as what they were thinking I can't say. If the shaker goes off your first instinct would be to execute a stall recovery maneuver but I am sure about the time you started doing that and looking at your instruments you would realize that wasn't a true warning but a false alarm. While you can stall an airplane at any speed if you are relatively unloaded with plenty of speed your obviously not stalling or in danger of it. I would have had the breaker pulled which would have rid us of that annoyance. The next part went on for 6 minutes. I would say that with the shaker going off for 6 minutes that would be very distracting for anyone myself included while trying to fly. Who knows that FDR data may read what the computer was telling things to do. They may have pulled the breaker so it wasn't physically shaking but the computer was sending out the signal to. The CVR would pick it up though because it's loud.
MikeeBooshay likes this.
ProppedUp is offline  
Old 03-17-2019, 05:59 PM
  #124  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: The South Coast
Posts: 729
Default

Well, I'm no pilot, but stabbing trim is the activity I've devoted most of my life to and it sure looks like pilot error to me.

Granted, you can design a machine that's hard to screw up, or a machine that's easy to screw up. I can understand criticism of both the operator and the machine.

But ultimately, even if the machine is easy to screw up with, if your job is to run it and you screw it up, it's on you.
Rico2 likes this.
cracked_ribs is offline  
Old 03-17-2019, 06:45 PM
  #125  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
PLEDGERPLEDGERPLEDGERPLEDGER
 
Snapper Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Republic of West Florida - the ORIGINAL lone star state
Posts: 17,777
Default

Originally Posted by cracked_ribs View Post
Well, I'm no pilot, but stabbing trim is the activity I've devoted most of my life to
I have focused on horizontal trim.

Big Al
Snapper Head is offline  
Old 03-17-2019, 07:47 PM
  #126  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Newport Beach, CA. USA
Posts: 1,304
Default

Originally Posted by Snapper Head View Post
I have focused on horizontal trim.

Big Al
Sorry to hear that.

...



.
Rico2 is online now  
Old 03-17-2019, 08:30 PM
  #127  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: The South Coast
Posts: 729
Default

Originally Posted by Snapper Head View Post
I have focused on horizontal trim.

Big Al
Well, if you get the trim fully horizontal, you've got a vertical smile on your face as often as not, so either way you want to get pitched up and set your thrust to maximum. I'm not going to say that instinct has kept me out of trouble but I've never failed to walk away afterwards, so it can't be all bad.
cracked_ribs is offline  
Old 03-18-2019, 12:58 AM
  #128  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 519
Default

Originally Posted by cracked_ribs View Post
Well, if you get the trim fully horizontal, you've got a vertical smile on your face as often as not, so either way you want to get pitched up and set your thrust to maximum. I'm not going to say that instinct has kept me out of trouble but I've never failed to walk away afterwards, so it can't be all bad.
Back in the 80's that would have given you visual aids.
JonisMist is offline  
Old 03-18-2019, 05:55 AM
  #129  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 10
Default

Originally Posted by ProppedUp View Post
Just to drop another little tid bit on you guys. Every 737 flying today has had logic built into the trim system. This is just a little add on for the Max and it's got a glitch.

Every single aircraft in the air has logic and CPUs that run various things, systems, etc.

But at the end the day as far as I am aware the 737 is the largest airliner (flying today) that has a direct mechanical connection from the pilots hands to the flight controls out on the wings and tail. I know the 737 has it for a fact not because I saw somebody talk about it on Pravda (I mean CNN), Or read about it in the New York Times but because according to various government agencies around the world including the FAA I am certified to fly one. Not a video game, not a remote control one, not something in a happy meal but a real Boeing 737.

Many on here have already stated what the real problem is. It's sad deal.

But saddle up Nancy's your about to see more of it. There is a pilot shortage here and standards aren't exactly going up.
I have flown on several foreign carriers who were allowed to fly into the EU and they were no where near the level of say Southwest, United or Lufthansa. When the flight crew is hired because of their looks (NOT a bad thing), you can bet the pilots probably are too. Look at Korean Air. Now that affirmative action and UN feel good had made it's way into killing folks, in the form of letting every 3rd world chithole's national airline fly into New York of the EU, and lowering the safety standards so every one can play now, maybe some folks will realize what is going on. Just my opinion. I ain't no pilot. Have honestly felt better flying on some old antonovs where the pilots actually could fly the darn thing. Trust me those planes had no computers.
EddieL is offline  
Old 03-18-2019, 07:06 AM
  #130  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ocean Isle Beach, NC
Posts: 1,607
Default

Originally Posted by EddieL View Post
Have honestly felt better flying on some old antonovs where the pilots actually could fly the darn thing. Trust me those planes had no computers.
Woa! Russian commercial airliners have some of the worst safety records in the world. I always avoid those when possible.
Kendall is offline  
Old 03-18-2019, 08:17 AM
  #131  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: orlando madbeach, fl
Posts: 8,671
Default

Originally Posted by Lorne Greene View Post
I really doubt the bank would have lent them money on aircraft if their training was not up to standard and I really doubt Boeing would sell them aircraft without requiring training. They have 108 aircraft in their fleet with only two, now one of them being 737-MAX.
Ask a commercial pilot here how many of the up and coming pilots get their training and flight time.

My buddy went from flying us around Florida and to the Bahamas, got his twin piston engine rating then got hired on at a Delta regional. He was in the right seat of the regional jet within a few weeks of getting hired.
signmansez is offline  
Old 03-18-2019, 01:37 PM
  #132  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Cape Cod, Mass
Posts: 4,631
Default

My God, talk about jumping to conclusions! A few news reports and the OP has it all figured out. We have become so used to immediacy that something as complex as the crash of an airliner is being put forth as conclusive while the wreck is still burning.

Like so much in life, it's far better to wait until ALL the FACTS are known before drawing conclusions. The old-fashioned way.
mikeloew and Windwood like this.
Hooper is offline  
Old 03-18-2019, 01:44 PM
  #133  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 452
Default

Originally Posted by signmansez View Post


Ask a commercial pilot here how many of the up and coming pilots get their training and flight time.

My buddy went from flying us around Florida and to the Bahamas, got his twin piston engine rating then got hired on at a Delta regional. He was in the right seat of the regional jet within a few weeks of getting hired.
He would have to have a minimum of 1500 hours and an ATP rating to sit in the right seat of a regional today.
Hooper likes this.
cdrhoek is offline  
Old 03-18-2019, 04:05 PM
  #134  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,695
Default

Originally Posted by Hooper View Post
My God, talk about jumping to conclusions! A few news reports and the OP has it all figured out. We have become so used to immediacy that something as complex as the crash of an airliner is being put forth as conclusive while the wreck is still burning.

Like so much in life, it's far better to wait until ALL the FACTS are known before drawing conclusions. The old-fashioned way.
Yep. It's one thing to speculate, explore and discuss the various possibilities and compare them with what is known or learned as the investigation continues. It helps us all understand the complexities and processes much better, but you can't come to conclusions until all the data is in.

Back in 1985 two 747's went down within a couple months of each other, losing all aboard but 4 passengers. At first, there was speculation that there might be something seriously "wrong" with the 747s, but as the investigations turned out real data, the demise of both planes was just a coincidence in timing. One was due to a improper repair on a bulkhead done 7 years earlier, the other was a terrorist attack. Aside from the accident determination, good things can also occur by doing a thorough investigation. In the JAL123 investigation, they also uncovered frame cracks that were unrelated to the crash, and a AD was released requiring inspections of all related aircraft. Many problems were found in other 'freighter' versions and those repairs were completed before any related incidents occurred.
km1125 is offline  
Old 03-18-2019, 04:13 PM
  #135  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Long Island, New York
Posts: 3,048
Default

The cause for all this rather simple. Humans being human.
LongIslandFisherman is offline  
Old 03-19-2019, 05:20 AM
  #136  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Globetrottin, Earth
Posts: 932
Default


Pay very close attention to what they say from 1:25 to 1:50.


Also note this video was from last November. The AD (in this case a warning to all operators and pilots) I posted was also from November.
ProppedUp is offline  
Old 03-19-2019, 05:44 AM
  #137  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ocean Isle Beach, NC
Posts: 1,607
Default

The Seattle Times reported sources say Boeing understated how dramatically the plane's automated anti-stalling system — which has been at the center of the crash probes — would move the plane's horizontal stabilizer. It also didn't properly address how the system would reset itself after pilots tried to intervene and how such a critical system could be designed to rely on one, instead of two or more, sensors.

........Points to DESIGN being a significant factor in this investigation.



Federal investigators and prosecutors appear to be raising questions about the process that led to the certification of Boeing's 737 Max jetliners in the aftermath of two deadly crashes according to USA Today.

............That certification process necessitated Boeing implementing the MCAS which is the presumed system which caused both Lion Air and Ethiopian Air 737 MAX 8s to nosedive to ultimate crash.




"Either you should have fixed it or you shouldn't be flying it. That's where Boeing the FAA didn't do their job," said Michael Barr, an air crash expert and senior instructor for the University of Southern California's Viterbi School of Engineering.
Kendall is offline  
Old 03-19-2019, 09:17 AM
  #138  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Globetrottin, Earth
Posts: 932
Default

Originally Posted by Kendall View Post
The Seattle Times reported sources say Boeing understated how dramatically the plane's automated anti-stalling system — which has been at the center of the crash probes — would move the plane's horizontal stabilizer. It also didn't properly address how the system would reset itself after pilots tried to intervene and how such a critical system could be designed to rely on one, instead of two or more, sensors.

........Points to DESIGN being a significant factor in this investigation.



Federal investigators and prosecutors appear to be raising questions about the process that led to the certification of Boeing's 737 Max jetliners in the aftermath of two deadly crashes according to USA Today.

............That certification process necessitated Boeing implementing the MCAS which is the presumed system which caused both Lion Air and Ethiopian Air 737 MAX 8s to nosedive to ultimate crash.




"Either you should have fixed it or you shouldn't be flying it. That's where Boeing the FAA didn't do their job," said Michael Barr, an air crash expert and senior instructor for the University of Southern California's Viterbi School of Engineering.
You need to stop. You just can't help yourself.
ProppedUp is offline  
Old 03-19-2019, 10:02 AM
  #139  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: North NJ
Posts: 627
Default

At least he didn't go with the FAA relied on Boeing to say what was safe argument.

Because you know, the FAA also has billions of dollars in engineering resources and knows the stuff better than Boeing does.
TurboJoe is offline  
Old 03-19-2019, 10:27 AM
  #140  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 616
Default

Originally Posted by Fractured but whole View Post
99.9% of the population is in no way qualified to comment on the physics of flight. That includes almost every poster in this thread including myself.

The engineers, scientists, and experienced pilots will figure it out.
Sweet, I'm in the top 0.1% of something!
Kenny Powers is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread