PSA: Warning: Avoid flights on Boeing 737-800 MAX and 737-900 MAX aircraft

[Lanny]

I have been interested in airline safety for many many years. As of this writing, the FAA has not Grounded these aircraft, as has been done in many other countries (UK, EU, Etc.).  A case of the FAA "dragging their heels" or "sleeping with the air frame manufacturer and the airlines." In the USA, these models are operated by Southwest, American and United. Best to avoid them. Some links:

This is about the accident 2 days ago in Ethiopia.  Pay special attention to the comments today from the F.A.A. and from Boeing. In Yellow.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4c534c4a&opt=0

Two articles with lists of countries (and the EU) which have already grounded these aircraft:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/boeing-737-max-8-grounded-by-more-countries-heres-the-list/

https://www.apnews.com/94c19abef66d4a0e977a1286d779ba22

This may involve more than the MCAS and the 2 (ETA: Non-Survivable)  accidents on 2 aircraft that were almost Brand New, just after takeoff, may have related causes.

Flying in Civil Turbojet aircraft is incredibly safe, but there are issues  with these models that must be investigated and eliminated.

Edited March 12, 2019 by Lanny
add ETA

[Arcadia]

From Slate, just thought you might be interested 

https://slate.com/technology/2019/03/ethiopian-air-crash-where-did-boeing-go-wrong-with-the-737-max.html

“Where Did Boeing Go Wrong?

How a bad business decision may have made the 737 Max vulnerable to crashes.

... It all comes down to business strategy. Chicago-based Boeing is locked in a fierce duopolistic rivalry with Toulouse, France–based Airbus, with whom it roughly splits the $200 billion airliner market. The biggest segment of that market is for short- to medium-range narrow-body jets that typically carry between 100 and 200 passengers. These are the workhorses of aviation, unglamorous and hard-ridden, endlessly bouncing back and forth on routes like Salt Lake–Denver and La Guardia–O’Hare.

Boeing’s entry, the 737, first flew in 1967, and though various improvements have been rolled out over the years, at heart it’s still a creature of the Right Stuff era. Instead of computer-controlled fly-by-wire controls, which guide a plane’s flight electronically, it still has old-fashioned mechanical actuators, and it’s made of aluminum rather than modern lightweight composites.

...

To maintain its lead, Boeing had to counter Airbus’ move. It had two options: either clear off the drafting tables and start working on a clean-sheet design, or keep the legacy 737 and polish it. The former would cost a vast amount—its last brand-new design, the 787, cost $32 billion to develop—and it would require airlines to retrain flight crews and maintenance personnel.

Instead, it took the second and more economical route and upgraded the previous iteration. Boeing swapped out the engines for new models, which, together with airframe tweaks, promised a 20 percent increase in fuel efficiency. In order to accommodate the engine’s larger diameter, Boeing engineers had to move the point where the plane attaches to the wing. This, in turn, affected the way the plane handled. Most alarmingly, it left the plane with a tendency to pitch up, which could result in a dangerous aerodynamic stall. To prevent this, Boeing added a new autopilot system that would pitch the nose down if it looked like it was getting too high. According to a preliminary report, it was this system that apparently led to the Lion Air crash.

If Boeing had designed a new plane from scratch, it wouldn’t have had to resort to this kind of kludge. It could have designed the airframe for the engines so that the pitch-up tendency did not exist. As it was, its engineers used automation to paper over the aircraft’s flaws. Automated systems can go a long way toward preventing the sorts of accidents that arise from human fecklessness or inattention, but they inherently add to a system’s complexity. When they go wrong, they can act in ways that are surprising to an unprepared pilot. That can be dangerous, especially in high-stress, novel situations. Air France 447 was lost in 2009 after pilots overreacted to minor malfunctions and became confused about what to expect from the autopilot.

In the wake of crashes like last weekend’s, there are always calls for improved training and awareness, and that undoubtedly helps. But it can only go so far. The human brain is fundamentally ill-equipped to work through unfamiliar problems when under high stress. Five years after AF 447, every Airbus pilot should have been hyperaware of how the pilots erred in that case, yet in 2014, the pilots of Air Asia 8501 did almost exactly the same thing, with the same result.”

[Arcadia]

13 minutes ago, OKBud said:

So, just to be crystal clear... Boeing 737-700 and 737-800 planes are not the same planes these articles are referencing, right?!

 

Nope. The banned planes are Boeing 737 Max 8s and 9s https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/boeing-737-max-8-ethiopia-airlines-crash/index.html

[TravelingChris]

Human factors engineering or rather the lack of it has led to many, many disasters,  I remember reading a book with many chapters on different issues in about 2008/

[Ausmumof3]

Australia just grounded some.  I’m not sure which but I think the same as the type that just crashed.  I’m not sure if it’s a permanent thing.

[Arcadia]

1 hour ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Australia just grounded some.  I’m not sure which but I think the same as the type that just crashed.  I’m not sure if it’s a permanent thing.

 

From https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/virgin-pilot-body-says-it-has-utmost-confidence-in-boeing-max-8/news-story/2680f4379969f1a73b5351f51f17c0e6

“The troubled Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft has been banned from Australian airspace in the wake of the horror Ethiopian Airlines crash that killed 157 people.

Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority announced it was temporarily suspending operation of the planes while investigations into the cause of the accident continue.

...

While no Australian airlines currently use the aircraft, two foreign airlines fly them in Australian airspace.

One of those is the Singapore Airlines-owned SilkAir, which has already grounded its MAX 8s. The other is Fiji Airways, which is yet to make a decision.

A statement from CASA said it was working with Fiji Airlines to minimise any disruptions, and with regulators in Fiji and Singapore.

Fiji Airways has two Boeing 737 MAX aircraft, as well as other aircraft types in its fleet that will be substituted for the 737 MAX for services to Australia.

“This is a temporary suspension while we wait for more information to review the safety risks of continued operations of the Boeing 737 MAX to and from Australia.” CASA chief executive and director of aviation safety, Shane Carmody, said.

“CASA regrets any inconvenience to passengers but believes it is important to always put safety first.”

...

Australia’s second biggest airline, Virgin Australia, told news.com.au it was too early to comment on whether they will pull their order of 30 Boeing 737 MAX 8s following the fatal crash, which is the second incident involving the MAX 8 model in just six months.

In a statement to news.com.au on Wednesday, a spokesperson for Virgin Australia says they will make a decision on their MAX 8 order as the investigation continues.

“Safety is Virgin Australia’s number one priority,” the statement read.

“Virgin Australia will not introduce any new aircraft to the fleet unless we are completely satisfied with its safety.

“There are currently no Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft in our fleet.”

 

[TechWife]

One thing I’ve learned in the past few days is that the FAA doesn’t have the skill set and expertise needed to inspect modern aircraft, so Boeing largely self inspects their own aircraft during manufacturing. I wish I had a reference for you, but I don’t. It was an  NPR piece. 

[Lanny]

2 hours ago, TechWife said:

One thing I’ve learned in the past few days is that the FAA doesn’t have the skill set and expertise needed to inspect modern aircraft, so Boeing largely self inspects their own aircraft during manufacturing. I wish I had a reference for you, but I don’t. It was an  NPR piece. 

 

Common for the FAA to designate employees of airframe manufacturers (and probably FAA Repair Stations) as Designated Inspectors. I forget the exact title. They are people who are trusted to have the knowledge and integrity to not say "yes" to everything their employer would like to have approved.  And really, it would be difficult for any one person or even a department to have "expertise" with everything.

To add to some other posts and to my original post:

The N.T.S.B. with a very small staff does an incredibly wonderful job of  doing accident investigations.  I have tremendous respect for them.  You will  see them bring in the Engineers who worked on something, if there are any questions about what is going wrong.

This as far as I know, only involves the 737 800 and 900 MAX series aircraft.  The Engines in the MAX aircraft are very heavy and the CG (Center of Gravity) is moved Forward.  

So the MCAS system is (partially) to take care of any issues that come up with the CG being Forward of the Wing.  Boeing is working on Software updates to the MCAS, because of the Lion Air accident in Indonesia a few months ago.  However, in the Lion accident in Indonesia, there were some other issues, and I suspect there may be some components, unrelated to the MCAS, but that feed information to it, that are either poorly designed or have manufacturing defects.   

Having worked on Avionics for the Flight Recorder of a "Heavy" Civil Turbojet that is in daily service as I write this, I doubt very much that the people who wrote and/or Verified the Software had any idea about the CG being Forward of the Wing and possible MCAS issues and even possibly issues with other components.  That's so unusual that it would be hard to plan for or test for those eventualities.   Also I doubt that the people who designed the Simulators considered the possibility of that happening, so that the pilots could be trained on how to react if it happened.

Regarding the 737 being older than the Airbus A320 series aircraft.  They are both outstanding workhorse aircraft.  The Airbus A320 series is much more comfortable for the pilots and has always been more automated (a "glass cockpit").  Physically more comfortable.

The Boeing 737 especially the originals, are more uncomfortable for the pilots to get into and out of their seats. More cramped.  I am not sure about the newer Boeing 737 series, but I hope they are more comfortable for the pilots.

Although my favorite airline (Avianca of Colombia, which is the 2nd oldest airline in the world) does have some Boeing models, they are mostly larger wide body aircraft for routes to Europe. Mostly they have a fleet of Airbus A320 series aircraft, which are registered in the USA (they have "N" numbers).   So mostly we fly on those. It can be on local flights here in Colombia or up to the states and we are very comfortable with those.

For  curiosity, I just Googled on the web site of another excellent airline (COPA of Panama) which has an all Boeing 737 fleet, for "MAX" and yes, they do have Boeing 737 900 MAX aircraft in their fleet. So, if I were going to fly somewhere on COPA I would try to avoid those...

 

[TechWife]

13 minutes ago, Lanny said:

 

Common for the FAA to designate employees of airframe manufacturers (and probably FAA Repair Stations) as Designated Inspectors. I forget the exact title. They are people who are trusted to have the knowledge and integrity to not say "yes" to everything their employer would like to have approved.  And really, it would be difficult for any one person or even a department to have "expertise" with everything.

 

I'm of the mind that if an arm of the government is responsible for oversight of an industry, it needs to hire those experts. Why should we expect "one person or department" in a for profit, publicly traded company to have the expertise to manufacture an aircraft & inspect it, but to assume that our government oversight departments are incapable of finding equally qualified individuals is not accurate & allows the companies too much control. Industry self-policing is not a good idea. An employee inspecting it's own companies aircraft is immediately subject to the undue influence of the aircraft manufacturer - it is a conflict of interest, no matter the moral qualifications of the person doing the inspections. Aircraft manufacturers should have in house inspectors for quality control reasons, but in the same way we put USDA inspectors in meat processing plants, we should put appropriately trained & qualified FAA inspectors in aircraft manufacturing facilities. To do less is irresponsible.

[TechWife]

22 minutes ago, Lanny said:

 

Having worked on Avionics for the Flight Recorder of a "Heavy" Civil Turbojet that is in daily service as I write this, I doubt very much that the people who wrote and/or Verified the Software had any idea about the CG being Forward of the Wing and possible MCAS issues and even possibly issues with other components.  That's so unusual that it would be hard to plan for or test for those eventualities.   Also I doubt that the people who designed the Simulators considered the possibility of that happening, so that the pilots could be trained on how to react if it happened.

This is appalling. None of this is unpredictable. It's engineering. These issues can be addressed during the design, manufacture and testing processes. Ignorance is not an excuse - if they didn't have "any idea" then we need to find out why people who have "no idea" about the actual design & mechanics of aircraft are writing the software that runs them. That is a systemic issue rooted in decisions that are made consistent with the company culture, which quite possibly needs to be adjusted. It is not hard to plan or test for unusual circumstances - that is what testing is for - imagine the worst case scenario and plan for it. Consider all possibilities, including the training level of the various mechanics & pilots who will be responsible for the operation of the aircraft. If an aircraft manufacturer has a faulty design, manufacture and testing process, it needs to be held accountable for that - who made what decisions regarding the changes to this aircraft and what was the underlying reasoning behind those decisions? If they indeed put profit over safety and cut corners (which can include failing to hire knowledgeable people), then the people that made those decisions need to be held accountable.

[Arcadia]

From BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47553787

“Canada has grounded the world's third largest fleet of Boeing 737 Max 8 aircraft, following the crash of an Ethiopian Airlines jet on Sunday.

The country's regulator said that three Canadian airlines, operating 41 Max 8 jets, would be unable to use them in Canada's airspace.

Canada joins a long list of countries to halt the aircraft's use. But the US regulator says it is safe to fly.

Canada's transport minister said it had received new evidence about the crash.

Marc Garneau said that satellite data showed possible similarities between flight patterns of Boeing 737 Max planes operating in Canada and the Ethiopian Airlines plane that crashed.

He said: "As a result of new data that we received this morning, and had the chance to analyze, and on the advice of my experts and as a precautionary measure, I issued a safety notice.

"This safety notice restricts commercial passenger flights from any operator of the Boeing 737 MAX 8 or MAX 9 variant aircraft, whether domestic or foreign, from arriving, departing or overflying Canadian air space.

"This safety notice is effective immediately and will remain in place until further notice.””

[sassenach]

A major portion of my mom’s inheritance is in Boeing stock and I’m fairly certain they didn’t cash out yet. So.... I guess she’ll be waiting this one out. 

[Arcadia]

From Wall Street Journal (paywall) https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/pilot-of-crashed-ethiopian-airlines-jet-reported-flight-control-problems-11552473593

“Trump: FAA to Ground All U.S. Flights of Boeing 737 MAX Planes

‘Safety of the American people, of all people, is our paramount concern,’ Trump says

President Trump said U.S. regulators are grounding all U.S. flights of the Boeing 737 MAX 8 and MAX 9 aircraft, following similar moves by regulators in more than 30 other countries.

In remarks at the White House, Mr. Trump called Boeing an “incredible company” and said it is working hard to find the cause of the crash of an Ethiopian Airlines flight. Mr. Trump said until the cause is determined, “the planes are grounded” He added: “All of those planes are grounded effective immediately.”

The U.S. joins national regulators world-wide, from China to India to Europe, who have grounded the planes after the model was involved in a second deadly crash in less than five months.

“The safety of the American people, of all people, is our paramount concern,” Mr. Trump said.”

Edited March 13, 2019 by Arcadia
Add url

[Lanny]

3 hours ago, TechWife said:

This is appalling. None of this is unpredictable. It's engineering. These issues can be addressed during the design, manufacture and testing processes. Ignorance is not an excuse - if they didn't have "any idea" then we need to find out why people who have "no idea" about the actual design & mechanics of aircraft are writing the software that runs them. That is a systemic issue rooted in decisions that are made consistent with the company culture, which quite possibly needs to be adjusted. It is not hard to plan or test for unusual circumstances - that is what testing is for - imagine the worst case scenario and plan for it. Consider all possibilities, including the training level of the various mechanics & pilots who will be responsible for the operation of the aircraft. If an aircraft manufacturer has a faulty design, manufacture and testing process, it needs to be held accountable for that - who made what decisions regarding the changes to this aircraft and what was the underlying reasoning behind those decisions? If they indeed put profit over safety and cut corners (which can include failing to hire knowledgeable people), then the people that made those decisions need to be held accountable.

 

I'm an "early morning person" but let me try to clarify what I wrote, although it is late in the afternoon.   Someone like me (a retired Software Engneering Consultant)  who is writing Code to make a "Black Box" like the MCAS function, or, someone who is doing "V&V " or Validation and Verification, might know that the CG (Center of Gravity) in the MAX aircraft is Forward of the normal location (Wing) because of the weight of those engines.

However, I am not sure, to respond to your words, which I take quite seriously, whether someone who does that work would among a multitude of other things they are trying to make the Software do, think that the Hardware feeding information to the MCAS is flawed, either by design, or by manufacturing defect.   I think there would be an assumption of correct design and correct manufacturing, which, sadly, isn't 100% guaranteed.  Incorrect operation is one thing and can be detected.  

Now, here is another issue that Boeing is facing with the update of the Software for the MCAS, which apparently is in response to the Lion Air accident in Indonesia a few months ago.   There was a famous book about "Software Engineering" in the late 70s, when we thought of "Computer Science" as something far from a Science.  It had to do with the, forgive me, the "Chinese horde" theory.  I don't remember the name of the book or the author, but I remember in the office I was working in, ,that we had quite a few discussions about that book and the implications of what was written in it.

Basically, if you have a project involving a small team, as they must have in this case, you cannot just add a bunch of new people to the team. The result of that is that the work actually takes far longer, because the new team members do not have the expertise and the old team members need to spend some of their time, trying to bring the new team members "up to speed".

So, if there are 5 or 10 or 15 or 20 or 30  people working on this now, the team needs to stay in place and make progress as quickly as is possible.

My guess is that there were issues on the Lion Air aircraft that have to do with one or more components of the aircraft being defective, either by Design or in a lack of Quality Control by the manufacturer of the component(s) involved. From what I remember reading about that, months ago, Lion Air had replaced and/or serviced one or more components, the day before the accident?

I read a few hours ago that the F.A.A. finally issued an  Emergency AD (Airworthiness Directive) and that the 737 800 MAX and 737 900 MAX aircraft that were flying, will be grounded after they land at their destination airports. Better late than never.  I am thankful that the F.A.A. finally did that. 

Kudos to the Chinese, who were on top of this issue from the beginning!  "Leading from behind" is not a possibility when airline safety is involved.

If you have read the recent news articles, when the 737 MAX series aircraft came out, the FAA and Boeing didn't want the airline operators to go to the expense of training their pilots on the new systems and issues involved. In retrospect, that was a horrible decision for them to make, IMO.   The change to the 800 and 900 MAX series is not like the Airbus A320 series aircraft (A318, A319, A320 and A321).  The MAX series are a somewhat different breed with unique issues.

Both flights were in their Departure phase, cleaning up the aircraft after takeoff, changing radio frequencies, and climbing to cruise altitude.  Having a major handling issue at low altitude isn't a good thing. The pilots are quite busy at that time.

I hope this clarifies somewhat what I wrote earlier.

[Arcadia]

😞

From New York Times, reposted by MarketWatch

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

As the pilots of the doomed Boeing jets in Ethiopia and Indonesia fought to control their planes, they lacked two notable safety features in their cockpits.

One reason: Boeing charged extra for them.
For Boeing and other aircraft manufacturers, the practice of charging to upgrade a standard plane can be lucrative. Top airlines around the world must pay handsomely to have the jets they order fitted with customized add-ons.

Sometimes these optional features involve aesthetics or comfort, like premium seating, fancy lighting or extra bathrooms. But other features involve communication, navigation or safety systems, and are more fundamental to the plane’s operations.

Many airlines, especially low-cost carriers like Indonesia’s Lion Air, have opted not to buy them — and regulators don’t require them.
Now, in the wake of the two deadly crashes involving the same jet model, Boeing will make one of those safety features standard as part of a fix to get the planes in the air again.

It is not yet known what caused the crashes of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 on March 10 and Lion Air Flight 610 five months earlier, both after erratic takeoffs. But investigators are looking at whether a new software system added to avoid stalls in Boeing’s 737 Max series may have been partly to blame. Faulty data from sensors on the Lion Air plane may have caused the system, known as MCAS, to malfunction, authorities investigating that crash suspect.” From New York Times, reposted by MarketWatch

New York Times (paywall) link https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/21/business/boeing-safety-features-charge.amp.html

[Arcadia]

From Gizmodo https://gizmodo.com/boeing-charged-extra-money-for-vital-safety-features-on-1833462320

“The New York Times has a new report this morning quoting experts about the safety features and notes that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) doesn’t require the features to be deemed airworthy.

“They’re critical, and cost almost nothing for the airlines to install,” Bjorn Fehrm, an analyst with the aviation firm Leeham, told the Times. “Boeing charges for them because it can. But they’re vital for safety.”

As the Times notes, the two safety features at issue are the “angle of attack” sensor and a “disagree” light.

...

Software on the Boeing 737 Max measures the angle of the plane and automatically tries to correct the aircraft when it believes that the nose is pointed too high, which might cause the plane to stall. The system, called the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), may have gotten a false reading in both crashes, but without the optional “disagree” light to indicate that different sensors may be picking up different readings, the pilots might not have known what was going on.

In a statement to Gizmodo earlier this month, Boeing acknowledged that it had made “updates” to the MCAS in its new planes, but that it was “designed to make an already safe aircraft even safer.” Gizmodo reached out to Boeing for further comment but did not immediately get a response. We’ll update this article when we hear back.

Aviation-focused news website the Air Current was perhaps the first to point out back on March 12, just two days after the crash in Ethiopia on the morning of March 10, that the safety features were part of an optional package on the doomed flights:

A warning light that would’ve alerted the crew to the disagreement wasn’t part of the added-cost optional package of the equipment on Lion Air’s 737 Max aircraft. A guardrail wasn’t in place. Once the aircraft was airborne, the erroneous Angle of Attack data collided with an apparently unprepared crew with tragic consequences as the MCAS system repeatedly activated, driving the jet’s nose into a fatal dive.

The exact price of the safety features is unknown, but what is known is that Boeing makes a pretty penny from these “add ons,” potentially accounting for around 5 percent of the final price of the aircraft, based on data extrapolated from a 2013 report by consulting firm Jackson Square Aviation. What’s also known is that lower-cost airlines like Ethiopian and Indonesia’s Lion Air may be less likely to purchase the add ons. U.S.-based carriers like Southwest and American purchased the particular safety upgrades at issue for their 737 Max planes, according to the Times. United Airlines did not.”

[Lanny]

On 3/13/2019 at 7:50 PM, Dotwithaperiod said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/2018/04/06/amount-of-outsourced-offshore-airline-maintenance-work-has-risen-report-says/#11e1ef3026e2

I realize only the MAX 8 and 9 are grounded, but I heard a bit today( similar to   info) about  the outsourcing of repairs that seemed troubling.

“Foreign repair stations have less Federal Aviation Administration oversight than domestic repair stations as well as lesser standards for worker qualifications and licensing, the report said.”

 

IMO that would depend upon who is doing the work. There was an accident in Florida some years ago, I forget the name of the budget airline that no longer exists. The work was done by a company in Florida.  I think it had to do with some kind of batteries. The flight crashed shortly after takeoff from Miami, somewhere in Florida. I read about that a few days ago.

So about foreign repair stations...   It would depend upon who is doing the work.  Here, our largest airline (Avianca) has the vast majority of their aircraft registered in the USA. By that, I mean that their registration numbers begin with an "N".   While one of their aircraft might be flying a number of short Domestic flights, today, tomorrow it might be in some city in the USA.  I think you can bet your boots that their maintenance is high quality.

Does that mean that some employee couldn't make a mistake? No.   It does mean that if there is a lot of oversight and an emphasis on Quality Control, bad repairs are less likely to happen.

The issue with the 737 800/900 MAX aircraft seems to be a little like the issue with the DC-10/KC-10 series aircraft, many years ago.  In that case, Douglas Aircraft (now part of Boeing) was in a huge hurry to compete with Boeing.  The layout of the Hydraulic systems, in the Wings, was flawed from the moment it was in the Drawings. The Routing of the Hydraulic systems was flawed. 

All of these things are done by humans who are in a hurry, because their Supervisors/Managers are pushing them to do things ASAP.

[Lanny]

With regard to the optional safety features mentioned upthread today, it would be interesting to know what they are. With regard to Southwest and American having purchased them (and I assume that would also include United) their pilots had also been experiencing issues and reporting them.

There are, obviously, many upgrades available in the passenger cabin that are instantly obvious when one walks into the cabin. The in flight entertainment system is the easiest to recognize. The overhead bins, etc.  

It would be very interesting to know whether or not a second AOA (Angle of Attack) sensor was one of the options. And, if so, if the MCAS could process the differential between the 2 sensors if there was a disagreement.

If there is only one AOA (which I believe is the case) then there is no redundancy.   Redundancy is good, whenever possible. 

 

[Arcadia]

1 minute ago, Lanny said:

With regard to the optional safety features mentioned upthread today, it would be interesting to know what they are. With regard to Southwest and American having purchased them (and I assume that would also include United) their pilots had also been experiencing issues and reporting them.

 

UA did not purchased them. The Gizmodo article I quoted and linked upthread has more information.

[Lanny]

8 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

 

UA did not purchased them. The Gizmodo article I quoted and linked upthread has more information.

 

I would like to know what the optional safety features are...   Things like Entertainment systems are obvious, but not necessary. Safety should be at the highest level and not with optional safety features.

[Arcadia]

1 minute ago, Lanny said:

I would like to know what the optional safety features are...   Things like Entertainment systems are obvious, but not necessary. Safety should be at the highest level and not with optional safety features.

 

From upthread https://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/685121-psa-warning-avoid-flights-on-boeing-737-800-max-and-737-900-max-aircraft/?do=findComment&comment=8345596

“As the Times notes, the two safety features at issue are the “angle of attack” sensor and a “disagree” light.

...

Software on the Boeing 737 Max measures the angle of the plane and automatically tries to correct the aircraft when it believes that the nose is pointed too high, which might cause the plane to stall. The system, called the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), may have gotten a false reading in both crashes, but without the optional “disagree” light to indicate that different sensors may be picking up different readings, the pilots might not have known what was going on.”

 

[Lanny]

2 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

 

From upthread https://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/685121-psa-warning-avoid-flights-on-boeing-737-800-max-and-737-900-max-aircraft/?do=findComment&comment=8345596

“As the Times notes, the two safety features at issue are the “angle of attack” sensor and a “disagree” light.

...

Software on the Boeing 737 Max measures the angle of the plane and automatically tries to correct the aircraft when it believes that the nose is pointed too high, which might cause the plane to stall. The system, called the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), may have gotten a false reading in both crashes, but without the optional “disagree” light to indicate that different sensors may be picking up different readings, the pilots might not have known what was going on.”

 

 

Bolded above:   I don't think that is true. The AOA measures the Angle of Attack. AOA = Angle of Attack. As I understand it, the MCAS is a "Black Box", possibly an Auto-Pilot, designed to correct the attitude of the aircraft, if the nose gets too high, so that the aircraft does not Stall.   The MCAS would need Input(s) from the AOA, before it pops into action and hopefully it becoming activated would be a rare occurrence.

The 737 800/900 MAX series aircraft have (at least) one AOA (Angle of Attack Sensor).  Probably one that was faulty (?) contributed to the Lion Air accident in Indonesia about 5 months ago.  I do not believe, but am not positive about whether or not this is correct, that these aircraft have a 2nd AOA for Redundancy.   If not, there is no Redundancy.   Nothing to disagree about if there is only one AOA input to the MCAS. 

The pilots not having been trained about the MCAS and things that caused it to be included saved Boeing and the airline operators money.   That proved to be a bad way to save money.

The MCAS gets the inputs from the AOA.   If there is only one AOA and it malfunctions, or, if the MCAS goes crazy and the Pilots don't know how to turn it off, there is a problem that is related to two (2) non-survivable accidents in a period of approximately 5 months.    If there is (normally) one airline crash in every (approximately) 332 million flights, you can see how the Boeing 737 800/900 MAX aircraft, considering how many of them (or how few of them) were in daily service, have issues that must be corrected, before they are allowed to fly again.

[Carol in Cal.]

My understanding is that there were two AOA sensors but only one fed back into the MCAS.  That’s a design flaw, to have redundancy but not use it is just as bad as not having it.

[Lanny]

Here are two (2) links about the two (2) non-survivable accidents involving 737 800/900 MAX series aircraft:

http://avherald.com/h?article=4bf90724/0009&opt=0

http://avherald.com/h?article=4c534c4a&opt=0

 

[Arcadia]

From MarketWatch https://www.marketwatch.com/story/after-crashes-boeing-to-make-optional-safety-feature-standard-on-737-max-jetliners-2019-03-21

“After crashes, Boeing to make optional safety feature standard on 737 Max jetliners

Associated Press

Boeing will make standard on its troubled new airliner a safety feature that might have helped the crew of a jet that crashed shortly after takeoff last year in Indonesia, killing everyone on board.

The equipment, which had been offered as an option, alerts pilots of faulty information from key sensors. It will now be included on every 737 Max as part of changes that Boeing BA, -0.92%   is rushing to complete on the jets by early next week, according to two people familiar with the changes.

The people spoke on condition of anonymity because Boeing and federal regulators are still discussing details of the upgrade to the Max fleet, which was grounded worldwide after a second deadly crash this month in Ethiopia”

Edited March 23, 2019 by Arcadia

[Lanny]

I read the article linked to below about 3 1/2 hours ago. If my memory is correct, this article says that Southwest and American paid the extra $80000 for the optional warning light, but that United did not order that extra-cost option.  I believe this article, or another one I read, stated that Boeing is going to make the optional warning light a standard feature now.  Wondering whether Boeing will raise the price of the standard aircraft by $80000...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ethiopia-airplane-controls-explainer-idUSKCN1R322M

[Arcadia]

From Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/ethiopia-says-pilots-performed-boeings-recommendations-to-stop-doomed-aircraft-from-diving-urges-review-of-737-max-flight-control-system/2019/04/04/3a125942-4fec-11e9-bdb7-44f948cc0605_story.html

“The Ethio­pian Airlines pilots performed all the procedures recommended by Boeing to save their doomed 737 Max 8 aircraft but could not pull it out of a flight-system-induced dive, a preliminary report into the crash concluded Thursday. 

In a brief summary of the much-anticipated preliminary report on the March 10 crash, Transport Minister Dagmawit Moges told reporters that the “aircraft flight-control system” contributed to the plane’s difficulty in gaining altitude from Addis Ababa airport before crashing six minutes later and killing all 157 on board.

She said the crew “performed all the procedures, repeatedly, provided by the manufacturer but was not able to control the aircraft.”

“Since repetitive uncommanded aircraft nosedown conditions were noticed in this preliminary investigation, it is recommended the aircraft flight-control system related to the flight controllability be reviewed by the manufacturer,” she said.

...

Amid reports that a foreign object might have damaged one of the Ethio­pian plane’s sensors on takeoff, Amdeye Ayalew, the head of the investigation, said information from the recovered data recorders did not indicate that.

“We did not find any information regarding the foreign object damage on the aircraft,” he said. “Is there a structural design problem? No, we cannot verify that now.”

The officials said a full report would be completed within a year of the crash.

Ethio­pian Airlines said immediately after the news conference that the report absolves the pilots, who “followed the Boeing recommended and FAA-approved emergency procedures.”

“Despite their hard work and full compliance with the emergency procedures, it was very unfortunate that they could not recover the airplane from the persistence of nose diving,” the airline stated.”

[Lanny]

10 minutes ago, Patty Joanna said:

They've grounded all the -MAX planes, right?  I see I am on a flight in May with a 737-900 listed, but it doesn't say "MAX" and I'm assuming it is just a print-out at this point, and that the affected planes are grounded.

Please let me know what you know.

 

 

Yes. The United States and Canada were the last countries to Ground the Boeing 737 800/900 MAX aircraft. Better late than never!   

At this time, you can fly, safely, on the other Boeing 737 models. Those are the only Boeing 737 aircraft that are flying now.

The only flights of Boeing 737 800/900 MAX series aircraft allowed at this time are "Ferry" (Positioning) flights, which do not carry passengers. For example, Southwest Airlines is parking their aircraft in Victorville CA

Have a safe trip and enjoy!

[Arcadia]

13 minutes ago, Patty Joanna said:

  I see I am on a flight in May with a 737-900 listed, but it doesn't say "MAX" and I'm assuming it is just a print-out at this point, and that the affected planes are grounded.

From CNet https://www.cnet.com/news/boeings-737-max-8-all-about-the-aircraft-flight-ban-and-investigations/

“Older 737 models, like the 737-700, 737-800 and 737-900 don't use the flight control system under investigation and aren't affected.”

4 hours ago, Lanny said:

 

Yes. The United States and Canada were the last countries to Ground the Boeing 737 800/900 MAX aircraft. Better late than never!   

 

Lanny:

Can you please get the name of the afflicted aircraft correct?  Your continuing errors are confusing and frightening people needlessly.  Please edit your prior posts to reflect the correct name of these planes.

There is no such model as a Boeing 737 800 Max or 737 900 Max.  You are confusing two different aircraft names.

There do exist Boeing 737-700,  737-800 and 737-900.  These are much older planes that  have been in use for over a decade, are are considered safe.  For example, Southwest airlines has hundreds of them, flies thousands of flights a day, and has had few incidents in the last decades.  They continue to fly today, and do not have the software system that is suspected to cause the problem on the crashed planes.

The planes that crashed, and are now grounded, are the 737-Max 8. The somewhat larger 737-Max 9 hasn't crashed, but is suspected to have similar problems. All of these have been grounded.  Note the one digit 8 or 9 in their name.

[Lanny]

This is a link to information about the Preliminary Report about the crash of the aircraft in Ethiopia.  Very sad.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4c534c4a/0022&opt=0

GGardner I read you comment about the exact name of the aircraft that are involved.  I am too tired at the moment to check that out. Any 737 aircraft made by Boeing with "MAX" in the name should be avoided. I believe that all of them have been grounded, worldwide, because they have the MCAS.  The engines in the MAX aircraft are extremely heavy and they moved the CG (Center of Gravity) Forward and that creates issues and they came up with the MCAS.   I feel sorry for the people who are working on the Software for the MCAS.  BTDT.  Much sadder for the victims of the 2 accidents of the MAX aircraft and their families...

[Arcadia]

From abc7news https://abcnews.go.com/International/boeing-ceo-admits-faulty-sensor-triggered-automatic-flight/story?id=62191006

“Boeing CEO admits faulty sensor triggered automatic flight control system in deadly crashes

The Boeing Company issued an apology Thursday and, for the first time, acknowledged its automatic flight control system played a role in the two recent plane crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia that killed everyone on board.

Dennis Muilenburg, CEO of the Chicago-based aircraft manufacturer, apologized for the 346 total lives lost in the October crash of Lion Air Flight 610 and last month's crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, both of which involved Boeing's new 737 Max 8 jet.

"These tragedies continue to weigh heavily on our hearts and minds," Muilenburg said in a statement Thursday. "The full details of what happened in the two accidents will be issued by the government authorities in the final reports, but, with the release of the preliminary report of the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 accident investigation, it's apparent that in both flights the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, known as MCAS, activated in response to erroneous angle of attack information."”

[Lanny]

These aircraft should have been subject to a proper certification process and to proper training of the pilots. The heavy engines changed the aerodynamics of the aircraft, the addition of the MCAS, etc. 

One good thing has come out of this which is they discovered a critical software glitch that has nothing to do with the MCAS, which will also need to be fixed.  I believe, but am not positive, that it has to do with the FMS (Flight Management System).  the F.A.A. has flagged this as being a critical issue to flight safety. This page has information about the FMS:

http://www.b737.org.uk/fmc.htm

The top of this page has recent information about what I described above, regarding the additional Software issue that was discovered:  

http://avherald.com/h?article=4c534c4a/0023&opt=0

 

[Murphy101]

I’d have to cancel a 7 day trip I planned and paid for over 6 months ago to avoid this problem.  I’m just going to have to pray harder during my four flights required for this trip, all but one using planes of concern.

The good news is whether it goes good or bad, I’ll end up in paradise, so at least I’ve got that going for me. 😬

[Lanny]

22 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

I’d have to cancel a 7 day trip I planned and paid for over 6 months ago to avoid this problem.  I’m just going to have to pray harder during my four flights required for this trip, all but one using planes of concern.

The good news is whether it goes good or bad, I’ll end up in paradise, so at least I’ve got that going for me. 😬

 

No No No.   You are perfectly safe. You can enjoy your trip without worrying. The 737 models that are flying today are perfectly safe. They have been around (in several different generations) for approximately 50 years.   Since the late 60s. Proven technology. 

None of the aircraft involved are permitted to fly at this time. They have been Grounded.  The dangerous ones are the MAX series and they cannot fly at this time.  The other 737 aircraft are perfectly safe.

 

1 hour ago, Lanny said:

 

No No No.   You are perfectly safe. You can enjoy your trip without worrying. The 737 models that are flying today are perfectly safe. They have been around (in several different generations) for approximately 50 years.   Since the late 60s. Proven technology. 

 

Lanny:

I'm going to politely ask you again to edit your previous posts to correct the name of the crashed airplane type.  The name of the type of plane that has been grounded is the 737 Max 8 and the 737 Max 9.  There is but a single digit after the "Max", not a three digit number. I know that many types and numbers sound similar, but accuracy is important here. Your errors are confusing and scaring people.  Could you please make this change instead of posting the exact same link for the fourth time in this one thread?

[Lanny]

GGardner I suspect that you may be correct. I am trying to confirm that.

On this URL, regarding the Lion Air accident:
http://avherald.com/h?article=4bf90724
it says "A Lionair Boeing 737-800 MAX"

On this URL, regarding the Ethiopian Airlines accident:
An Ethiopian Boeing 737-8 MAX
it says "An Ethiopian Boeing 737-8 MAX"

Same web site. Probably the same person wrote the information on the above web pages. Different reference to the model involved.

The only 737 aircraft involved are MAX aircraft. None of the other, previous 737 models are involved in this catastrophic issue. None of the previous models have the MCAS or the new issue with the Flight Software or the heavier engines or the change in the CG (Center of Gravity) and changes to the Aerodynamics of the aircraft.

Any model of the Boeing 737 that is flying today is extremely safe.  The Boeing 737 MAX has been grounded.

 

[Lanny]

@GGardner    This URL on the FAA.GOV web site has some information on the deeply flawed aircraft model that has been grounded.

https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=93206

As you can see, in the title, they refer to the Boeing 737 MAX.

Toward the bottom of that web page, I copied this information: 

"3/11/19 6:00pm Update

The FAA has issued a Continued Airworthiness Notification (PDF) to the International Community (CANIC) related to the Boeing 737-8 and Boeing 737-9 (737 MAX) fleet."

So, as of the moment, I am not sure whether the correct title of this thread should be changed. Are they Boeing 737-800 MAX or Boeing 737-8 MAX or Boeing 737 MAX?  

They are, positively, MAX aircraft, and they are positively aircraft that should have been properly Certified.

 

[Lanny]

@GGardner This FAA URL has the .PDF file of the EAD (Emergency Airworthiness Directive) that grounded these aircraft:

https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/Emergency_Order.pdf

Near the top of the second page, I am unable to Copy and Paste from that document for some reason, they refer to the Boeing Company Model 737-8 and the Boeing Company Model 737-9 aircraft, "These airplanes are hereinafter referred to as the Boeing 737 MAX series airplanes".

 

Edited April 7, 2019 by Lanny
correct typo