Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-30-2019, 12:56 PM   #381
Guru
 
Jeff F's Avatar
 
City: Great Lakes
Country: Canada
Vessel Name: Mazurka
Vessel Model: Mainship 34 Original
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ski in NC View Post

So what other "glitches" are in software? That is a universal question for the age, certainly not limited to the Max.
I found this article informative on that subject. Hopefully you can read it.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/...ware-developer
__________________
Advertisement

Jeff F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2019, 07:44 PM   #382
Guru
 
Seevee's Avatar
 
City: st pete
Country: usa
Vessel Model: 400 Mainship
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssobol View Post
Lots of places outside the US have MPL licenses for aircrew members. This usually takes someone off the street and puts them into the F/O seat of a 737 or A320 after a couple of hundred hours (21-24 months training). It costs around US$100K to do it.

The interesting thing is that an MPL will let you fly F/O on an airliner carrying passengers but will not let you fly a 150 by yourself.

"The aim of the MPL training course is to provide a student with a multi-crew pilot licence (MPL) by training one to the level necessary to operate as a co-pilot in a multi-engine, multi-pilot, turbine-powered commercial air transport aeroplane under visual flight rules (VFR) and instrument flight rules (IFR)."

Ab-initio does not always mean MPL. All it means is that they are taking someone with no pilot experience and making them a pilot of one sort or another. Anyone who walks into the local FBO and wants to take flying lessons for a PPL is an ab-initio student.

In the US the minimum time required for an ATP is 1500 hours. However, there is no certificate weighting for the quality of those hours. Legally someone with 1500 hours of 150 time has the same qualification as someone with 1500 hours turbine multi-engine time. Practically it is different, but the 150 time meets the ATP hours requirement.

The practical number of hours you need to get a pilot position varies with the economy. In times of high demand the hours of new pilots goes down. During a recession, it can be hard for pilots with many thousands of hours to get jobs. In Asia, the Middle East, and parts of Europe, there is a very high demand for pilots which leads to MPL pilots and to western pilots taking jobs in Asia and the Middle East that pay them much more than the pilot jobs in their home countries.
Good points... never heard of a MPL license. It's very interesting the qualifications that pilots get hired with. Back in the 60s it wasn't uncommon for a guy with a private pilots license and 200 hours to be hired by a major carrier. In the 70s, you couldn't buy an airline job (let alone a corporate job) with 5000 hours of jet time, college degree, married with 1 and 1/2 kids (that was the minimum requirements them).

Now, US carriers are required to hire pilot with at least 1500 hours, so no more "boy wonders". Like Baker, I had close to 6000 hours before hired by a major, but only took 6 years to the Captains seat which was fast.

The 200 hour copilots are just along for the ride until they get some experience. At that level, they are a hinderance, not a help. And most of them bow down to the captain, even if he's wrong. That culture has changed dramatically in the US, but apparently not elsewhere.
__________________

__________________
Seevee
Seevee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2019, 08:30 PM   #383
Guru
 
Ken E.'s Avatar
 
City: Bellingham WA
Country: United States
Vessel Name: Hatt Trick
Vessel Model: 45' Hatteras Convertible
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff F View Post
I found this article informative on that subject. Hopefully you can read it.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/...ware-developer
Great link on coping with weight and balance changes with software.
__________________
Ken on Hatt Trick
Ken E. is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2019, 10:02 PM   #384
Guru
 
ssobol's Avatar
 
City: Leesburg, VA
Country: United States
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seevee View Post
... And most of them bow down to the captain, even if he's wrong. That culture has changed dramatically in the US, but apparently not elsewhere.
In the US the days of "the captain is God" has passed. However, in other regions, especially Asia, this is a bigger problem. When a person is indoctrinated from birth to respect their elders, it is very hard to stand up to someone senior to them even when the plane is clearly headed towards a bad end.

There is an example in the US several years ago of a small turbo prop operator where the captain would actually smack the F/O if the F/O said something the captain didn't agree with. Didn't take long for the F/O to stop saying things. In the end it turned out like you'd expect.
ssobol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2019, 12:17 AM   #385
TF Site Team
 
Baker's Avatar
 
City: League City, Tx
Country: Texas
Vessel Model: Carver 356
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,183
The Asiana crash is a perfect example of cultural issues. Everyone in the cockpit knew what was going on...except the captain. That was pure luck that more people didn't die. The airplane almost flipped....but did not. Had it flipped, most souls would have been lost...IMO. Oh and no fire....pure luck!!!
__________________
Prairie 29...Perkins 4236...Sold
Mainship Pilot 30...Yanmar 4LHA-STP...Sold
Carver 356...T-Cummins 330B
Baker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2019, 09:00 AM   #386
Veteran Member
 
City: West Coast
Country: Canada
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 44
Asiana crash, July 2013, nearly six years ago. Does this sound familiar?

“The National Transportation Safety Board determines that (among other things) contributing to the accident were (1) the complexities of the autothrottle and autopilot flight director systems that were inadequately described in Boeing's documentation and Asiana's pilot training
soin2la is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2019, 11:04 AM   #387
TF Site Team
 
Baker's Avatar
 
City: League City, Tx
Country: Texas
Vessel Model: Carver 356
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by soin2la View Post
Asiana crash, July 2013, nearly six years ago. Does this sound familiar?

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that (among other things) contributing to the accident were (1) the complexities of the autothrottle and autopilot flight director systems that were inadequately described in Boeing's documentation and Asiana's pilot training



The "ARM" mode of the autothrottle can be confusing. It happens when the pilot is trying to overpower the A/T..and the computer basically says, you want it, you got it!!! And it goes into "passive" mode. The bottom line here is that the pilot should not have been in most of these modes this close to the ground nor V/S. THey should have been in the Approach mode and on the ILS with it coupled up.
__________________
Prairie 29...Perkins 4236...Sold
Mainship Pilot 30...Yanmar 4LHA-STP...Sold
Carver 356...T-Cummins 330B
Baker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2019, 06:45 PM   #388
Guru
 
BruceK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 9,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by soin2la View Post
Asiana crash, July 2013, nearly six years ago. Does this sound familiar?

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that (among other things) contributing to the accident were (1) the complexities of the autothrottle and autopilot flight director systems that were inadequately described in Boeing's documentation and Asiana's pilot training
Surprising. I thought that one was pilot error. And disturbing,we flew on Asiana into San Francisco not long before.
__________________
BruceK
Island Gypsy 36 Europa "Doriana"
Sydney Australia
BruceK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2019, 06:51 PM   #389
TF Site Team
 
Baker's Avatar
 
City: League City, Tx
Country: Texas
Vessel Model: Carver 356
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceK View Post
Surprising. I thought that one was pilot error. And disturbing,we flew on Asiana into San Francisco not long before.
It was majorly big time pilot error. And major big time poor training. Contributing factor may have been Boeing's lack of information on the flight control system.
__________________
Prairie 29...Perkins 4236...Sold
Mainship Pilot 30...Yanmar 4LHA-STP...Sold
Carver 356...T-Cummins 330B
Baker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2019, 11:15 PM   #390
Dauntless Award
 
Wxx3's Avatar
 
City: New York, NY
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Dauntless
Vessel Model: Kadey Krogen 42 - 148
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,684
From Aviation Week:

A simulator session flown by a US-based Boeing 737 MAX crew that mimicked a key portion of the Ethiopian Airlines ET302 crash sequence suggests the*Ethiopian crew*faced a near-impossible task of getting the aircraft back under control, and underscores the importance of pilots understanding severe runaway trim recovery procedures.

Details of the session, shared with*ATW, were flown voluntarily as part of routine, recurrent*training. Its purpose: practice recovering from a scenario in which the aircraft was out of trim and wanting to descend while flying at a high rate of speed. This is what the ET302 crew faced when it toggled cutout switches to de-power the MAX’s automatic stabilizer trim motor, disabling the maneuvering characteristics augmentation system (MCAS) that was erroneously trimming the horizontal stabilizer nose-down.

In such a scenario, once the trim motor is de-powered, pilots must use the hand-operated manual trim wheels to adjust the stabilizers. But they also must keep the aircraft from descending by pulling back on the control columns to deflect the elevator portions of the stabilizer upward. Aerodynamic forces from the nose-up elevator deflection make the entire stabilizer more difficult to move, and higher airspeed exacerbates the issue.

The US crew tested this by setting up a 737 Next Generation*simulator at 10,000 ft., 250 kt. and 2 deg. nose up stabilizer trim. This is slightly higher altitude, but otherwise similar to what the ET302 crew faced as it de-powered the trim motors 3 min. into the 6 min. flight, and about 1 min. after the first uncommanded MCAS input.*Leading up to the scenario, the Ethiopian crew used column-mounted manual electric trim to counter some of the MCAS inputs, but did not get the aircraft back to level trim, as the 737 manual instructs before de-powering the stabilizer trim motor. The crew also did not reduce their unusually high speed.

What the US crew found was eye-opening: keeping the aircraft level required significant aft-column pressure by the captain, and aerodynamic forces prevented the first officer from moving the trim wheel a full turn. They resorted to a little-known procedure to regain control.

ADVERTISING, MOUSE OVER FOR AUDIO

The crew repeatedly executed a three-step process known as the roller coaster: First, let the aircraft’s nose drop, removing elevator nose-down force.*Second, crank the trim wheel, inputting nose-up stabilizer, as the aircraft descends. Third, pull back on the yokes to raise the nose and slow the descent.

The excessive descent rates during the first two steps meant the crew got as low as 2,000 ft. during the recovery.

The Ethiopian Ministry of Transport preliminary report on the March 10 ET302 accident suggests the crew attempted to use manual trim after de-powering the stabilizer motors, but determined it “was not working,” the report said. A constant trust setting at 94% N1 meant ET302’s airspeed increased to the 737 MAX’s maximum (Vmo), 340 kt., soon after the stabilizer trim motors were cut off, and did not drop below that level for the remainder of the flight. The pilots, struggling to keep the aircraft from descending, also maintained steady to strong aft control-column inputs from the time MCAS first fired through the end of the flight.*

The US crew’s session and a video posted recently by YouTube’s Mentour Pilot that shows a similar scenario inside a simulator suggest the resulting forces on ET302’s stabilizer would have made it nearly impossible to move by hand.

Neither the current 737 flight manual nor any*MCAS-related guidance*issued by Boeing in the wake of October’s crash of*Lion Air JT610, when MCAS first came to light for most pilots, discuss the roller-coaster procedure for recovering from severe out-of-trim conditions. The 737 manual explains that “effort required to manually rotate the stabilizer trim wheels may be higher under certain flight conditions,” but does not provide details.

The pilot who shared the scenario said he learned the roller coaster procedure from excerpts of a 737-200 manual posted in an online pilot forum in the wake of the MAX accidents. It is not taught at his airline.

Boeing’s assumption was that erroneous stabilizer nose-down inputs by MCAS, such as those experienced by both the JT610 and ET302 crews, would be diagnosed as runaway stabilizer. The checklist to counter runaway stabilizer includes using the cutout switches to de-power the stabilizer trim motor. The ET302 crew followed this, but not until the aircraft was severely out of trim following the MCAS inputs triggered by faulty angle-of-attack (AOA) data that told the system the aircraft’s nose was too high.

Unable to move the stabilizer manually, the ET302 crew moved the cutout switches to power the stabilizer trim motors—something the runaway stabilizer checklist states should not be done. While this enabled their column-mounted electric trim input switches, it*also re-activated MCAS, which again received the faulty AOA data and trimmed the stabilizer nose down, leading to a fatal dive.

The simulator session underscored the importance of reacting quickly to uncommanded stabilizer movements and avoiding a severe out-of-trim condition, one of the pilots involved said. “I don’t think the situation would be survivable at 350 kt. and below 5,000 ft.,” this pilot noted.*

The ET302 crew climbed through 5,000 ft. shortly after de-powering the trim motors, and got to about 8,000 ft.—the same amount of altitude the US crew used up during the roller-coaster maneuvers—before the final dive.

A second pilot not involved in the session but who reviewed the scenario’s details said it highlighted several training opportunities.

“This is the sort of simulator experience airline crews need to gain an understanding of how runaway trim can make the aircraft very difficult to control, and how important it is to rehearse use of manual trim inputs,” this pilot said.*

While Boeing’s runaway stabilizer checklist does not specify it, the second pilot recommended a maximum thrust of 75% N1 and a 4 deg. nose-up pitch to keep airspeed under control.

Boeing is developing*modifications*to MCAS as well as additional training.*Simulator sessions*are expected to be integrated into recurrent training, and may be required by some regulators, and opted for by some airlines, before pilots are cleared to fly MAXs again. The MAX fleet has been grounded since mid-March, a direct result of the two accidents.

Sean Broderick,*sean.broderick@aviationweek.com
__________________
Richard on Dauntless,
New York

a Kadey Krogen 42 currently: https://share.garmin.com/dauntless
Blog:
https://dauntlessatsea.com
Wxx3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2019, 05:23 AM   #391
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 18,926
I wonder what the holdup is?

The procedure to safely fly the Max was known (perhaps not well understood) before the accidents.

By now even the 3rd world , 200 hour seat warmers should know how to make the aircraft function should one of the angle of attack sensors fail.

Sure a software fix would make it easier to fly , but today every Max would be safe to operate , and a simulator ride to certify the crews level of understanding might be wise for PR reasons.

So what is the holdup?
FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2019, 05:38 AM   #392
Guru
 
Ski in NC's Avatar
 
City: Wilmington, NC
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Louisa
Vessel Model: Custom Built 38
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 4,995
Why the holdup? It has become political.
Ski in NC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2019, 09:10 AM   #393
TF Site Team
 
Baker's Avatar
 
City: League City, Tx
Country: Texas
Vessel Model: Carver 356
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ski in NC View Post
Why the holdup? It has become political.
Yep. And a lot of interested entities want their voice heard. They aren't going to risk f*cking it up the second time so they want to make sure everyone is on board before they go forward with the plan.
__________________
Prairie 29...Perkins 4236...Sold
Mainship Pilot 30...Yanmar 4LHA-STP...Sold
Carver 356...T-Cummins 330B
Baker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2019, 09:39 AM   #394
Veteran Member
 
Screaming04's Avatar
 
City: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Vessel Name: Aluminauti
Vessel Model: 54 Waterman
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 32
The holdup is it’s an serious aircraft problem not a pilot problem. ( from a first world pilot that has flown the scenario in a Boeing sim).
Screaming04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2019, 10:23 PM   #395
Guru
 
ssobol's Avatar
 
City: Leesburg, VA
Country: United States
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ski in NC View Post
Why the holdup? It has become political.
The big question is if Boeing was not forthcoming about the MCAS and the FAA did not know, did not care, or just missed it, is what else might be lurking in the MAX that may also have unintended consequences.

There are lots of new systems on the MAX to make it fly better. If the MCAS (which was there for a similar reason) can screw up and lead to a crash, what about the other new stuff?

For instance, there is a new FBW spoiler system. One of the things this does is deploy the spoilers a bit on approach at flap 30 or 40 so the flight spoilers will raise slightly to reduce lift necessitating a higher AOA and hence nose attitude to give an "acceptable nose gear contact margin" (because the wing and landing gear geometry has changed from previous 737 models). I'm not saying it could occur, but what happens if this system puts the spoilers full out, or full out on only one wing? Was this tested? How extensively? Does anyone actually know? Boeing has already shown that they may not have thought things out all the way through. Needless to say, a full spoiler deployment at low altitude at approach speeds is unlikely to have a good outcome.

Basically, the whole certification process on the MAX has been called into question. Boeing is going to have to convince the regulators that the plane is ok and the regulators are going to have to convince the public that they (the regulators) know what they are talking about.

Since the certification of an airplane model takes a minimum of a couple of years (even for a derivative model), going back and reviewing the MAX certification is not going to be a something that is done overnight, even without any defensive finger pointing.

Another issue is foreign regulators (which were the first to ground the MAX). A number of them see the US FAA as the gold standard and say "If it's good enough for the FAA it is good enough for us." If they come to believe that the FAA is out of their depth and not the standard they think it was, there is going to be a whole lot of pain to get these foreign regulators to approve the MAX again because they won't want to rubber stamp the FAA certificate for their country.

This is a worldwide problem for Boeing. Solving it in the US with the US regulators will help their case a lot, but it will not automatically be a free pass everywhere. The majority of MAX orders are to foreign carriers.
ssobol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2019, 12:18 AM   #396
Guru
 
BruceK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 9,506
Virgin Australia, largely owned by foreign airlines and a bit (?10%) by Branson,which bases its domestic fleet on the 737-800, had a Max8 delivery program commencing November. I saw it reported they cancelled/converted the order to the Max 10 due in a couple of years, maybe with taking the Max 8 later. Could have been an issue of needing them or paying,I`m not sure. Qantas/Jetstar is top dog here, Virgin struggles to make a profit,Qantas makes lots and pays good dividends.
Perhaps Boeing has to fix 8s to make 10s, I really don`t know.
But based on the sensible analytical recent posts above, some pilots are due an apology for insults offered on this thread.
__________________
BruceK
Island Gypsy 36 Europa "Doriana"
Sydney Australia
BruceK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2019, 05:19 AM   #397
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 18,926
"The holdup is it’s an serious aircraft problem not a pilot problem."

So is "engine failure , fire ,seperation", but these emergencies are handled routinely.
FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2019, 09:34 AM   #398
Veteran Member
 
Screaming04's Avatar
 
City: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Vessel Name: Aluminauti
Vessel Model: 54 Waterman
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by FF View Post
"The holdup is its an serious aircraft problem not a pilot problem."

So is "engine failure , fire ,seperation", but these emergencies are handled routinely.
Exactly. And this problem is not able to be handled routinely. The whole point of mcas is to make an airplane that has a design flaw (pitch up stall) fly. When mcas fails, not only do the pilots have to initially fight runaway down trim, they subsequently must fly an aircraft that wants to stall and do it without trim motors. Did you read the AW post about starting with extreme down trim and no assist?

This thing is like the post sully sim. With the benefit of hindsight and lots of tries, half the time you can return to the airport and land. Fortunately, aviation standards look for something better than that.

I would not be surprised if the max 8 is done. Bandaiding a flawed design with software is likely recognized for what it is... a bad design.
Screaming04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2019, 10:02 AM   #399
TF Site Team
 
Baker's Avatar
 
City: League City, Tx
Country: Texas
Vessel Model: Carver 356
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssobol View Post
The big question is if Boeing was not forthcoming about the MCAS and the FAA did not know, did not care, or just missed it, is what else might be lurking in the MAX that may also have unintended consequences.

There are lots of new systems on the MAX to make it fly better. If the MCAS (which was there for a similar reason) can screw up and lead to a crash, what about the other new stuff?

For instance, there is a new FBW spoiler system. One of the things this does is deploy the spoilers a bit on approach at flap 30 or 40 so the flight spoilers will raise slightly to reduce lift necessitating a higher AOA and hence nose attitude to give an "acceptable nose gear contact margin" (because the wing and landing gear geometry has changed from previous 737 models). I'm not saying it could occur, but what happens if this system puts the spoilers full out, or full out on only one wing? Was this tested? How extensively? Does anyone actually know? Boeing has already shown that they may not have thought things out all the way through. Needless to say, a full spoiler deployment at low altitude at approach speeds is unlikely to have a good outcome.

Basically, the whole certification process on the MAX has been called into question. Boeing is going to have to convince the regulators that the plane is ok and the regulators are going to have to convince the public that they (the regulators) know what they are talking about.

Since the certification of an airplane model takes a minimum of a couple of years (even for a derivative model), going back and reviewing the MAX certification is not going to be a something that is done overnight, even without any defensive finger pointing.

Another issue is foreign regulators (which were the first to ground the MAX). A number of them see the US FAA as the gold standard and say "If it's good enough for the FAA it is good enough for us." If they come to believe that the FAA is out of their depth and not the standard they think it was, there is going to be a whole lot of pain to get these foreign regulators to approve the MAX again because they won't want to rubber stamp the FAA certificate for their country.

This is a worldwide problem for Boeing. Solving it in the US with the US regulators will help their case a lot, but it will not automatically be a free pass everywhere. The majority of MAX orders are to foreign carriers.
That is a most excellent post!!!
__________________
Prairie 29...Perkins 4236...Sold
Mainship Pilot 30...Yanmar 4LHA-STP...Sold
Carver 356...T-Cummins 330B
Baker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2019, 10:07 AM   #400
TF Site Team
 
Baker's Avatar
 
City: League City, Tx
Country: Texas
Vessel Model: Carver 356
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceK View Post
Virgin Australia, largely owned by foreign airlines and a bit (?10%) by Branson,which bases its domestic fleet on the 737-800, had a Max8 delivery program commencing November. I saw it reported they cancelled/converted the order to the Max 10 due in a couple of years, maybe with taking the Max 8 later. Could have been an issue of needing them or paying,I`m not sure. Qantas/Jetstar is top dog here, Virgin struggles to make a profit,Qantas makes lots and pays good dividends.
Perhaps Boeing has to fix 8s to make 10s, I really don`t know.
But based on the sensible analytical recent posts above, some pilots are due an apology for insults offered on this thread.
Nah....we are the only operator of Max9s and our fleet is grounded as well. It has nothing to do with the "derivative". And no apology necessary. Some people are just know-it-all a******s and can't help it.

Screaming04....not gonna happen. The Max(8) is here to stay....as is the 9 and 10. After all of this scrutiny, it will likely be the safest airplane in the fleet/sky!
__________________

__________________
Prairie 29...Perkins 4236...Sold
Mainship Pilot 30...Yanmar 4LHA-STP...Sold
Carver 356...T-Cummins 330B
Baker is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012