Pilot Who Hitched a Ride Saved Lion Air 737 Day Before Deadly Crash:
As the Lion Air crew fought to control their diving Boeing Co. 737 Max 8, they got help from an unexpected source: an off-duty pilot who happened to be riding in the cockpit.
That extra pilot, who was seated in the cockpit jumpseat, correctly diagnosed the problem and told the crew how to disable a malfunctioning flight-control system and save the plane, according to two people familiar with Indonesia's investigation.
The next day, under command of a different crew facing what investigators said was an identical malfunction, the jetliner crashed into the Java Sea killing all 189 aboard.
[...] The previously undisclosed detail on the earlier Lion Air flight represents a new clue in the mystery of how some 737 Max pilots faced with the malfunction have been able to avert disaster while the others lost control of their planes and crashed. The presence of a third pilot in the cockpit wasn't contained in Indonesia's National Transportation Safety Committee's Nov. 28 report on the crash and hasn't previously been reported.
The so-called dead-head pilot on the earlier flight from Bali to Jakarta told the crew to cut power to the motor driving the nose down, according to the people familiar, part of a checklist that all pilots are required to memorize.
[...] The Indonesia safety committee report said the plane had had multiple failures on previous flights and hadn't been properly repaired.
Related Stories
Boeing takes $5 billion hit as Indonesian airline cancels 737 MAX order
Indonesia's largest air carrier has informed Boeing that it wants to cancel a $4.9 billion order for 49 Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft. Garuda Indonesia spokesperson Ikhsan Rosan said in a statement to the Associated Press that the airline was cancelling due to concern that "its business would be damaged due to customer alarm over the crashes."
Garuda had originally ordered 50 737 MAX aircraft, and Boeing delivered the first of those aircraft in December of 2017. The airline already operates 77 older Boeing 737 models; two of the aircraft ordered were conversions from earlier orders for 737-800s. Garuda also flies Boeing's 777-300 ER, and the company retired its 747-400 fleet in the last few years—so the airline was looking for an economical long-range aircraft to fill in gaps.
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.
See also: They didn't buy the DLC: feature that could've prevented 737 crashes was sold as an option
Previously: Second 737 MAX8 Airplane Crash Reinforces Speculation on Flying System Problems
Boeing 737 Max Aircraft Grounded in the U.S. and Dozens of Other Countries
DoJ Issues Subpoenas in 737 Max Investigation
Pilot Who Hitched a Ride Saved Lion Air 737 Day Before Deadly Crash
The crew of a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 Max declared an emergency shortly after takeoff and returned to Orlando's main airport on Tuesday after reporting an engine problem, the Federal Aviation Administration said.
The FAA grounded this type of aircraft earlier this month following two fatal crashes of the popular model.
Airlines aren't allowed to fly passengers under the FAA's order. The Southwest plane, which was not carrying passengers, was bound for Victorville, Calif., where the carrier is storing the aircraft in a facility in the western Mojave Desert.
[...] The FAA said it is investigating the Southwest incident on Tuesday and that the issue was not related to other concerns about the 737 Max that led the agency to ground the plane.
Also at CNN.
See also: Boeing is handling the 737 Max crisis all wrong
Previously: Second 737 MAX8 Airplane Crash Reinforces Speculation on Flying System Problems
Boeing 737 Max Aircraft Grounded in the U.S. and Dozens of Other Countries
DoJ Issues Subpoenas in 737 Max Investigation
Pilot Who Hitched a Ride Saved Lion Air 737 Day Before Deadly Crash
Airline Cancels $4.9 Billion Boeing 737 MAX Order; Doomed Planes Lacked Optional Safety Features
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/17/788775642/boeing-will-temporarily-stop-making-its-737-max-jetliners
Production will stop in January. The jets were grounded after two crashes that killed nearly 350 people. Despite being grounded, Boeing continued cranking the planes out at its factory near Seattle.
(The interview had more good information, but at time of submission, the transcript wasn't available. There may be better articles out there.)
There are. Here's one:
Boeing will suspend 737 Max production in January at CNBC:
Boeing is planning to suspend production of its beleaguered 737 Max planes next month, the company said Monday, a drastic step after the Federal Aviation Administration said its review of the planes would continue into next year, dashing the manufacturer's forecast.
Boeing's decision to temporarily shut down production, made after months of a cash-draining global grounding of its best-selling aircraft, worsens one of the most severe crises in the history of the century-old manufacturer. It is ramping up pressure on CEO Dennis Muilenburg, whom the board stripped of his chairmanship in October as the crisis wore on.
The measure is set to ripple through the aerospace giant's supply chain and broader economy. It also presents further problems for airlines, which have lost hundreds of millions of dollars and canceled thousands of flights without the fuel-efficient planes in their fleets.
Boeing said it does not plan to lay off or furlough workers at the Renton, Washington, factory where the 737 Max is produced during the production pause. Some of the 12,000 workers there will be temporarily reassigned.
Previously:
Boeing's 737 Max Troubles Deepen, Taking Airlines, Suppliers With It
Review of 737 Max Certification Finds Fault With Boeing and F.A.A.
American Airlines Says It Will Resume Flights With Boeing’s 737 Max Jets in January
AP Sources: Boeing Changing 737 Max Software to Use 2 Computers
Boeing Falsified Records for 787 Jet Sold to Air Canada
Boeing Pledges $100M to Families of 737 Max Crash Victims
Capt. 'Sully' Sullenberger and Boeing 737 Max News
Boeing’s Own Test Pilots Lacked Key Details Of 737 Max Flight-Control System
Boeing CEO Defends 737 Max Flight Control System
Analysis: Why FAA-Approved Emergency Procedures Failed to Save ET302
Initial Findings Put Boeing's Software at Center of Ethiopian 737 Crash
Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 Max Flight Makes Emergency Landing (While Carrying No Passengers)
Airline Cancels $4.9 Billion Boeing 737 MAX Order; Doomed Planes Lacked Optional Safety Features
Pilot Who Hitched a Ride Saved Lion Air 737 Day Before Deadly Crash
DoJ Issues Subpoenas in 737 Max Investigation
Boeing 737 Max Aircraft Grounded in the U.S. and Dozens of Other Countries
Second 737 MAX8 Airplane Crash Reinforces Speculation on Flying System Problems
Boeing's promised 737 Max production halt begins:
The airline manufacturer had announced last month it would stop making the troubled craft at least until it was no longer grounded, but hadn't set a date. However the line has officially stopped producing planes while Boeing officials wait for regulators to give it the OK to fly again.
[...] The latest update estimated the grounding would last through at least mid-2020, Boeing said in a statement Tuesday.
Boeing will reassign 3,000 workers after 737 MAX production halt
Boeing Co said it will reassign 3,000 workers to other jobs as it halts production of the grounded best-selling 737 MAX jet in mid-January.
The announcement came after American Airlines Group Inc and Mexico's Aeromexico disclosed they were the latest carriers to reach settlements with Boeing over losses resulting from the grounding of the 737 MAX aircraft.
Neither airline disclosed the compensation. A number of airlines have struck confidential settlements with Boeing in recent weeks. Boeing said it does not comment on discussions with airlines.
Boeing's biggest supplier lays off 2,800 workers because of 737 Max production suspension:
Spirit AeroSystems (SPR), which makes fuselages for the Max as well as other items for Boeing, announced Friday that it is furloughing approximately 2,800 workers. Shares of the Wichita, Kansas-based company fell more than 1% in trading.
"The difficult decision announced today is a necessary step given the uncertainty related to both the timing for resuming 737 Max production and the overall production levels that can be expected following the production suspension," Spirit AeroSystems CEO Tom Gentile said in a press release.
Boeing wants to resume 737 Max production months before regulators sign off on the planes:
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 22 2019, @09:39PM (27 children)
In this whole situation with the 737 Max 8, the closest thing I've seen to a crime is this: just don't bother to inform the next crew that the aircraft is acting wonky. WTF!!!
That, IMHO, is manslaughter on the part of all 3 crew members.
The solution should have been obvious to a properly trained crew member, so we can still say that the next crew was slightly incompetent, but come on... not even mentioning it? That is just evil.
Not that the aircraft is great with that misfeature, but it should be perfectly safe to fly with a good crew and/or things functioning as designed. Letting a half-competent crew fly a plane with a damaged angle-of-attack sensor is just evil.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday March 22 2019, @09:48PM
The final report will state whether they did report or not. You and I don't know.
In fairness, they did indeed turn the flying off and then on again, so they were advancing the debugging process.
Whether that should involve paying passengers in a different matter.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by RamiK on Friday March 22 2019, @10:20PM
My guess is that they did tell them. Repeatedly. And were replied: "Did you try turning it off and on?". And it worked. And the standard procedure accounted for this. So people just shrugged their shoulders and made fun of the pilots like how we make fun of 90% of callers staying on hold for 15min only for tech support to resolve their grievance sin the first step in the procedure: "Please turn it on and off". And the problems only accumulated... Until everyone died.
Honestly the only question remaining is what version of windows 10 was the plane running on.
compiling...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 22 2019, @10:21PM (2 children)
"The next day" ... "identical malfunction"
IOW, not repaired correctly. And yeah, there is an obvious question about why a near catastrophic flight, was not addressed and the ALL crews notified by the airlines safety officer. They have people who are employed at the airline who have no other job but to make sure that things like this don't happen. So you have two crews of fuckups, a safety officer whose a fuckup, and a bunch of mechanics who are fuckups all working for the same airline.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 22 2019, @10:55PM (1 child)
... and a plane manufacturer fuck up, for nothing else but greed reasons.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 22 2019, @11:51PM
Greed? You mean like charging extra for the safety features that report on faulty sensors [apnews.com]?
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 22 2019, @10:35PM (20 children)
The previous pilots DID report the issue. That is why there was a mechanic on the accident flight.
BY FAR the best and most accurate factual reporting of this incident can be found here: http://avherald.com/h?article=4bf90724/0009&opt=0 [avherald.com]
(Score: 2) by drussell on Saturday March 23 2019, @12:43AM
Apparently you soyled that site by linking it here...
It is amazing that being
slashdottedsoyled is still a thing! :)That URL can't even return proper DNS entries at this time, let alone actually serve a webpage.. :)
Cached copies, however, are available, however... :)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 23 2019, @02:31AM (17 children)
Excellent source.
Let me summarize, then you critique my summary?
Boeing was well aware of this "diving" problem, and in fact, issued advice on defeating this less than optimum software.
Some pilots were aware of this advice, some pilots seemed to be unaware of it, or at least unaware of when and why the advice was applicable.
On at least one documented occassion, Boeing's advice saved the plane from crashing.
The following day, the same plane did crash, because Boeing's advice was not followed. That, despite the fact that the prior incident had been reported, maintenance personnel had addressed the issue, and in fact, one maintenance man was aboard at the time of the crash. Seemingly, none of the crew, nor the maintenance man, were aware, or were made aware of, Boeing's instructions for turning off and defeating the suspect software system.
If all of that is true, and/or if I understand it correctly, it seems that Boeing's liability has been slashed. They still have a faulty flight system, but at least they are demonstrating due diligence in correcting the problem, and by informing the owners of the aircraft. Those owners seem to be negligent, by not informing the flight crews. This eliminates some kind of cover up by Boeing.
(Score: 1) by snmygos on Saturday March 23 2019, @06:50AM (7 children)
"If all of that is true, and/or if I understand it correctly, it seems that Boeing's liability has been slashed. They still have a faulty flight system, but at least they are demonstrating due diligence in correcting the problem, and by informing the owners of the aircraft. Those owners seem to be negligent, by not informing the flight crews. This eliminates some kind of cover up by Boeing."
But selling a plane with a lot of patches and requiring special procedures for all the abnormal behaviors of the plane is not great either.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 23 2019, @07:05AM (6 children)
True, not great. But, that seems to be what the American public accepts as normal. How many of us pay for the privilege of testing Microsoft's and Apple's bright ideas?
Where I fault Boeing, is them charging extra for certain safety features and optional equipment. The planes should come standard with every safety feature and option available, IMO. No extra fees for any of them. The non-standard "extras" should be found in the passenger cabin(s), cargo area, restrooms, overhead storage, whatever. In terms of safety, most of that is meaningless. You can have double-wide seats for comfort, and charge for them. You can have a super-large galley, and a chef in it, and charge for it. But, you can't have a plane without the auto-correction feature that would have pulled these planes out of a dive. Nor can you have a plane without the manual over ride that would have defeated the auto-correction when it fails.
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Saturday March 23 2019, @08:55AM (5 children)
The public may accept Microsoft or Apple's shenanigans but that doesn't mean they will accept planes crashing.
Just because there was a known workaround for a problem doesn't let Boeing off the hook. They tacked on this system which relied on one sensor (a single point of failure). It's operation was evidently too cryptic, if pilots could see that the plane's angle was being altered but they didn't know why. Shouldn't there have been a flashing light or something to signal when the system was active? The procedure for overriding the malfunctioning system must also have been non-obvious, if it required the extra pilot to explain how to do it.
The equipment should be designed to minimize confusion. Operators are human and can only memorize and consider so much information. If you set enough traps, someone will eventually fall in, even if there was a footnote in some training material warning them about it.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 23 2019, @09:12AM (4 children)
The procedure couldn't have been ultra-cryptic, as the article on which I remarked points out that all 737's have a similar procedure, with the controls and indicators located in the same place. All of which suggests to me that pilots could and should have been familiar with the procedure all along. We might conclude that this hazard has always existed, but is only manifesting in the latest version of the plane. Skills on knowledge left unused for too long have been forgotten?
(Score: 2, Disagree) by janrinok on Saturday March 23 2019, @12:00PM (3 children)
There cannot be a 'similar procedure' for something that only exists on a small number of that aircraft type. If switching it off and back on again is done with a circuit breaker then how does one immediately know which circuit breaker to pull and reset? Is there a new switch installed alongside the existing switches for other equipment? I'll wager that neither you nor I actually know for sure.
The major reason for MCAS is so that the aircraft performs exactly like other 737s despite the effects resulting from the engines being re-positioned, which means that Boeing did not have to get the aircraft re-certified and could claim that there is no additional training required to fly the MCAS equipped aircraft for pilots trained on existing 737s. This is patently not the case in this instance. Boeing are simply trying to save money and get around an additional training burden which is against the marketing material they currently push out. If an airline buys an aircraft based on the assurance that 'any 737 pilot' can fly the aircraft then why would any company expect there to be additional manual chapters (which initially had not been issued to overseas customers - they cost extra!) which outline the procedures that have to be taken. These chapters were issued to US companies but were not promulgated to other users world wide. There are additional features that pilots have to know above those required by other 737 pilots - but they simply were not told about them. So a procedure that is well known to US operators (because they had been told about it) is not well known to foreign operators because Boeing wanted to make an even bigger profit and they appear to have failed to publish basic operating manual material which detailed the potential problem and how to rectify it.
It is easy to point the finger at the users and blame them, and there are probably faults in the operators' own procedures that should be rectified. But that is why we have experts to look at the problem in its entirety and report their findings. They have not yet done this so, until they do, everything that we might comment is nothing more than personal viewpoints and conjecture. Understandably, many Americans are blaming the operators and not the manufacturer, while outside the US the outcome was to ground the aircraft and hold a formal investigation. There have been 2 crashes (that's 2 too many!) so lets stop being defensive about national interests and look at the evidence before we make pronouncements. Just because US pilots were told does not mean that all other pilots were told.
(Score: 3, Informative) by drussell on Sunday March 24 2019, @02:50PM (2 children)
The memory items for runaway stabilizer trim are the same on MCAS and non-MCAS 737 variants.
1 - Disconnect autopilot if engaged
2 - If runaway continues, throw STAB TRIM cutout switches
3 - If runaway continues, physically grab and secure the trim wheels manually, trying not to break your wrist(s)
Something is seriously physically wrong with the aircraft if the trim is still moving on its own after step 2.
Step 2 removes electrical power from the motor(s) which operate the stabilizer jackscrew. The switches are at the lower right hand side of the centre instrument area where the throttles and trim wheels are, on all variants of the 737. It doesn't matter if you have MCAS or not, flipping those switches means manual trim only.
Take a look at this section of this video:
https://youtu.be/xixM_cwSLcQ?t=650 [youtu.be] [youtu.be]
or, better yet, watch that whole video, and the previous one about the trim system, MCAS, etc.:
https://youtu.be/xixM_cwSLcQ [youtu.be] [youtu.be]
https://youtu.be/TlinocVHpzk [youtu.be] [youtu.be]
These videos include complete explanations while "flying" a simulator.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday March 24 2019, @07:17PM (1 child)
If the 'solution' is as straightforward as you suggest - and I'm entirely happy with your explanation - then there must be something else that is happening unexpectedly. We shall have to wait until the findings are announced, because all we have at present is speculation.
(Score: 2) by drussell on Tuesday March 26 2019, @02:48AM
Perhaps, or else the pilots simply panicked and forgot what they were trained to do from memory.
You're supposed to not even need to pull out the handbook and checklists for this failure mode. You are trained to know this basic functionality off the top of your head because of the importance. This memorized procedure is exactly the same whether the 737 in question was built in 1967 or 2017.
Pilot error is, unfortunately, an extremely common cause of airplane crashes.
Indeed.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Bot on Saturday March 23 2019, @08:14AM (3 children)
There is more than one way to report a problem, though.
One is saying: this loads the new firmware.
One is saying: WARNING THIS PROCEDURE MIGHT RENDER YOUR PHONE USELESS. PERFORM IT WITH A CHARGED PHONE AND DO NOT INTERRUPT FOR ANY REASON.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday March 23 2019, @10:27PM (2 children)
Of course when I flew a 737 and it was splashing jet fuel out of cracks in the wing on, and after landing, as well as smearing out across the face of the wing during flight - I reported that to the flight deck crew, and they shrugged.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday March 24 2019, @02:33PM (1 child)
I was rather referring to boeing reporting a possible problem with his automatic system than the report of the pilot, I should have been more clear.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday March 24 2019, @03:01PM
Best I have gathered from the random bits of reporting that crossed my path: the previous crew did report the anomaly through appropriate channels, with appropriate urgency - but apparently that was insufficient to prevent the crash.
My point about the gallons of leaking jet fuel was: what may appear shockingly alarming is sometimes just business-as-usual that will be taken care of at the next normally scheduled maintenance - though in the case of the fuel leak I was referring to, I would have expected at least application of "500mph tape" at the gate before the next push-back, if nothing else because the leak looked so bad.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 23 2019, @08:17AM (2 children)
Let me summarize my critique of you ... you suck.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 23 2019, @08:51AM (1 child)
Ask yo Mama, fool.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 23 2019, @04:19PM
She said you sucked too. And she feel sorry for your wife.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 23 2019, @11:46AM
As long as not in 'murika, then fuck yeah. Right Runaway? As long as it's not your kids on the plane, it's not Boeing's fault?
Selling plane with systemic risks and one sensor input.. yeah, "that's not their fault". This entire system is 1 short of catastrophically bad design that would guarantee indefinite grounding.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 23 2019, @01:57PM
Not really. It depends on whether the workaround is sensible in the situation where it is supposed to apply. And apparently being already involved in two accidents over a short period of time, indicates that it may not be.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @12:44AM
So then why were there pax on a test flight? If it was bad enough to bring a mechanic just in case, it was bad enough not to load passengers.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 23 2019, @12:06AM
The flight that crashed was the next day. It's possible the plane flew one or more flights between the troubled flight and the flight that crashed.
I'd like to think the crew reported the problem to the airline because I doubt they were expected to sleep in the cockpit until the next day's crew arrived (assuming the plane flew no other flights between the troubled flight and the flight that crashed, but it may have).
(Score: 2) by exaeta on Friday March 22 2019, @10:02PM (4 children)
The Government is a Bird
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 22 2019, @10:24PM
The only safety that you should worry about is the safety you pappa shoulda' used when banging you mom, sock puppet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 23 2019, @05:26AM
might be a perfect plane ... just shitty software?
software makes rigid things flexible ... for good or bad!
getting older i tend to prefer less flexible but more reliable things.
adding flexibility in form of software must yield substantial benefits to spring for it else
it seems it just adds to maintaintance overhead over time.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday March 23 2019, @10:29PM
This plane-system is unsafe, said system including pilot training.
Could have been addressed with better type-training for the pilots, wasn't.
Sucks to lose a $6B order, but that's how it goes. I am pretty floored that a safety feature that can mitigate this problem was being sold as a cost-add option... seems like such things should be standard.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by drussell on Tuesday March 26 2019, @03:04AM
Obvious in what way?
All signs so far point to pilot error for both downed flights, unfortunately an extremely common cause of crashes.
It appears that the crews likely panicked and completely forgot their most basic training. This isn't even a "get out the handbook and go through the checklists to diagnose" type failure mode.
This is a simple "drilled through your head, must be memorized due to extreme importance" procedure that was apparently not followed, and is exactly the same procedure regardless of whether the 737 being flown was made in 1967 or the is latest revision MAX variant with MCAS.
It doesn't matter whether the fault on a given flight was caused by a sticky switch or shorted wiring or an incorrect MCAS sensor input. The procedure for runaway stabilizer trim (which should be an obvious condition given the giant trim wheels right beside the pilots) is always the same, regardless of the root cause.
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Friday March 22 2019, @10:05PM (6 children)
Associated Press [apnews.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Friday March 22 2019, @10:17PM (4 children)
I'm subbing that with this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/21/business/boeing-safety-features-charge.html [nytimes.com]
DLC safety package
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Friday March 22 2019, @10:51PM
Greed
From the cited
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Interesting) by drussell on Saturday March 23 2019, @12:57AM (2 children)
The inclusion (or not) of an idiot light is a red herring....
There are far more interesting and important aspects to these catastrophes....
Any 737 variant pilot should be cognizant of trim wheels repeatedly spinning rapidly, auto-magically.... and the disable (cut-out) switches for the trim motors are right there in the usual position in the lower right corner of the instrument panel of the MAX, just like all 737 variants if there is any suspected malfunction of any of said systems, MCAS equipped variant or not....
The wheels can be operated manually with ease, so there should never be any reason for this kind of incident, even if the pilots were not familiar with the exact versions of the systems on board these recent variants of the aircraft. All 737 variant pilots know where the STAB TRIM disable switches are...
My impression is that there is more to these events than first glance would suggest...
(Score: 2, Disagree) by kazzie on Sunday March 24 2019, @07:46AM (1 child)
In at least one of the two accidents, the pilots did use the trim wheel. The trouble is that the MCAS carried on making it's own (downward) corrections, and these eventually outnumbered the pilot's upward corrections via the trim wheel.
The pilots then needed to identify the MCAS unit as the source of the error. Without the use of the optional warning light that would inform them. And then they needed to disable it, using the new MCAS breaker switch that apparently wasn't mentioned in the conversion course from previous 737s.
(Score: 2) by drussell on Sunday March 24 2019, @02:37PM
Source, please?
Once you flip the STAB TRIM cutout switches, no power action can be taken to the stabilizer, you must manually crank the trim wheels, whether the aircraft is an MCAS-equipped variant or not. The switches cut off power to the electric motor that drives the jackscrew and you're left with cable actuation only.
Source, please? The STAB TRIM cutout switches remove all electrical power to the trim motor. It cannot be commanded to move from the pilot's trim switches, the autopilot system or MCAS.
Original-style stabilizer trim motor cutout switches:
http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/p/1003521/20757056/1443000192023/b737-300+tq+paddle+type+stab+trim+levers_cropped.jpg?asGalleryImage=true&token=nZ2Rp7pr3ISK9LPPtTIuzuwp3WQ%3D [sqspcdn.com]
More recent variants look like this, with little protectors to prevent accidental switch activation:
http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/p/1003521/19077661/1387075911823/_dwa3249.jpg?asGalleryImage=true&token=nZ2Rp7pr3ISK9LPPtTIuzuwp3WQ%3D [sqspcdn.com]
..but the cutout switches for the power trim motors are in the same physical location on ALL 737s and stabilizer trim runaway is a memory item all 737 pilots have been trained on, even on pre-MCAS aircraft.
Take a look at this section of this video:
https://youtu.be/xixM_cwSLcQ?t=650 [youtu.be]
or, better yet, watch that whole video, and the previous one about the trim system, MCAS, etc.:
https://youtu.be/xixM_cwSLcQ [youtu.be]
https://youtu.be/TlinocVHpzk [youtu.be]
These videos include complete explanations while "flying" a simulator.
The only thing the MCAS circuit breaker has to do with anything is if you wanted to turn the power trim back on once you isolated the problem, you could disable MCAS and then try re-enabling power so the pilot's power trim switch and autopilot could be used again. You are *NOT* supposed to start troubleshooting by disabling MCAS.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday March 23 2019, @03:11AM
As we learned from 9/11 and the death of Michael Hastings, self-driving jets are every-bit as good as "self-driven" transportation just as "self-driving" cars are. And only fools trust their lives to "automation."
Remember, businesses make those machines, and businesses cut costs every chance they get.
(Score: 2) by drussell on Saturday March 23 2019, @12:25AM (1 child)
The fact that the jump-seat pilot may have been instrumental in the successful second-to-last flight of the aircraft is not new news. Am I missing some angle here?
Best to find your information about this kind of subject from a small, local, demonstrably trustworthy source like blancolirio than wherever this drivel sprouted from... :facepalm:
(Score: 2) by Bot on Saturday March 23 2019, @08:19AM
>Am I missing some angle here?
you aren't.
the 737 MAX, on the other hand...
Account abandoned.