More countries are grounding them!!!
Printable View
More countries are grounding them!!!
EASA is halting all European flights from 19:00 UTC tonight, the pressure will be on FAA to change it's advice. Boeing shares have taken a bit of hit and are down 7% today,
Boeing have a massive order book for 737-MAX* sales, Airbus will be looking on in delight.
It's ok they've released a software update.
I’m buying the dip. :highly_amused:
I wouldn't fly on one until the investigation is complete
The Netherlands has closed its air space for the Boeing.
Menno
U.S seem reluctant to do the same.
Would be surprised if Boeing isn’t hit with corporate manslaughter charges over the two 737 crashes. Doubling down by claiming they are safe to fly is clearly risky too. There’s good reason to suspect the necessary modifications should have been flagged and tested before 300 people died
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
I strongly suspect that if the aircraft were manufactured by Airbus, then the FAA would have grounded them.
Fingers crossed that one doesn’t have an incident Stateside.
There doesn't appear to be a cause yet so why a huge knee jerk reaction?
I unwittingly flew to Iceland on one on Monday.
Sometimes ignorance is bliss!
I'm trying to decide whether it's a bold move to ground the whole type, or a bold move to decide not to.
If the suspicion is true, that all this is caused by software that causes the nose to dip in error, then the scariest thing is that the pilots can't seem to override it. Surely you'd think there would be some manual means of switching this thing off?
I wonder how many passengers unsuspectingly flew 737 Max since the Lion Air crash ?
Because the Black boxes have been recovered it is a fairly safe move, even politically. Analysis should not take too long and there will hopefully be a clear answer.
The 737 max had to have MCAS fitted to meet regulation because of engine size and location in relation to centre of gravity. It would be possible for a pilot to get the aircraft into a high angle of attack situation (near the stall) and not have elevator authority to push the nose down. When aircraft have unstable characteristics like this, they have systems fitted to prevent dangerous situations.
Another more simple example...if you fly in an aircraft with a high-T tail, they have “stick pushers” fitted to prevent deep stalling...a situation you’d never want to find yourself as you are then flying in a brick!
MCAS can be switched off - its not active, for example, with any stage of flap or with the autopilot selected. It can also be switched off by turning off both electric trim switches. Unfortunately, prior to the Lion Air crash, I believe Boeing didn’t even let operators know it existed. In addition to this, they designed a system that had a single point of failure...one angle of attack sensor. Not great. Since the Lion Air crash, operators should know about MCAS and actions in the event of unwanted MCAS input (trim runaway). The stage of flight that the Ethiopian jet crashed in is eerily similar to Lion Air though.
AvE has just made a video talking about this (Patreon only at the moment), and he came to similar conclusions.
Here's a web page I found that describes the problem with the MCAS system: https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-s...ion-air-crash/
A lot of knowledgeable guys on an aircraft forum I browse feel the evidence released so far suggests this was an explosion, quite possibly lithium-ion batteries in the cargo catching fire.
I would suggest from looking at the pictures of the crash site that the aircraft flew into the ground rather than broke up in mid air (explosion)
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
i find myself reluctant to fly anywhere with any airline as i get older, watch now I will be run over by a bus :-)
https://twitter.com/BoeingAirplanes/...406528/photo/1
Boeing have done the right thing eventually.
Don’t think this is just doing the right thing. Several days after the accident, there’ll be lot more information will be available in the private domain. I suspect this is further evidence is building to the fact that the Ethiopian flight is very similar to the Lion Air crash.
Did this aircraft go down tail or nose first?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Boeing should take the "e" out of its name!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47562727
At last!!!
Nah. It'll be the MCAS issue that Lionair had. There are reports all over the web that the type is prone to pitch down when the sensors get mixed up. Many pilots saying they've had to intervene.
Boeing have built a new aircraft but 'grandfathered' the approvals. It's appears quite naughty!
Can't recall verbatim what's being suggested but it's along the lines of a local fire/detonation causing the apparent power cut to the MCAS which happened whilst still airborne. The pilots certainly had the 'override' training/knowledge but simply couldn't do anything with the avionics being dead.
Another theory kicking around is a fire in the wheel well of the landing gear which apparently is near to under-protected avionics, effectively a design fault.
Interested in your source as the discussions on PPRUNE and everywhere else are that disagreeing sensors force anti-stall nose-down pitching and the pilots are pretty much out of time to identify and act. Good article here: https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-s...n-the-737-max/ and here: https://leehamnews.com/2019/03/13/co...-transparency/
All the tech discussions here: https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/...wn-africa.html
I don't see anyone, anywhere in the industry talking about fire...
Afraid both 'guesses' are a bit suspect in my view. Any fire in the hold would have been picked up by the warning system, and would have been mentioned in the emergency ATC message (and recorded on CVR)..... Fire in the wheel well is unlikely after departure (aircraft brakes only usually overheat after being 'spanked' on landing or after a rejected takeoff - even then a fire is most unlikely unless hydraulic lines also break).....and avionics components are very unlikely to be placed there anyway; they are usually under the flight deck floor.
The info I'm referring to is HERE if anyone wants to read.
A couple of the posters are very knowledgeable industry guys who usually call this stuff correctly; it'll all come clear once the boxes are analysed and they may well be barking up the wrong tree.
I'd trust the PPRUNE crowd more in this instance.....there are a fair few statements at your link that show very little specialist knowledge. Just for instance, one poster wondered why the transponder signal disappeared at 8000 feet; transponders work on standard atmosphere 1013mb for flight level trace.....ground level in that area is around 8000 feet, so I suspect the transponder stopped operating on impact.
However, as you rightly state, until the FDR/CVR data is analysed (and released), any conjecture is just that.....
I think Christian has it about right earlier in the thread.
He’s a commercial pilot iirc so I’d take his word over a website known to be populated by a few tinfoil hatters amongst the industry guys.
You know if you posted that statement in the BP youd have an avalanche of facts and figures tossed at you!! [emoji37]
One AoA sensor eh? One. Interesting.