For the aviation fans

[kosmonooit]

The problem sometimes when techies design a system, is to neglect the user interface to the system.

 

I don't think the techies or coders can be blamed - this is a systems architectural design issue, and I think complacency is the root cause.

[Spoke101]

Nope, RVSM airspace it is still 1000 feet vertically between opposite direction traffic.

However, we require 7nm (13km) lateral separation on departure and approach from the A380. That is for our little jet in the Medium weight category.

 

The RVSM tops at FL410. It then reverts back to 2000 ft vertical separation of opposite direction traffic. Sadly our little Challenger is normally in the 36000 to 40000 ft (FL360 to FL400) levels. The Global was normally directly to FL430 or FL450 depending on direction. At those levels, typically above most airliners (especially early in their flights when heavy with fuel), we would get a lot of direct routings in the quieter airspace and therefore save on time and fuel.

 

I found the flight levels a little odd, on the A380 we were at FL410 but on the 777-300er only FL360 I did check service ceiling and both are FL430. Any reason why the 777 would be flying so low?

[Spokey]

I found the flight levels a little odd, on the A380 we were at FL410 but on the 777-300er only FL360 I did check service ceiling and both are FL430. Any reason why the 777 would be flying so low?

Normally just a weight issue. Heavy with fuel, they will climb as the fuel burns off. The airlines have a complex system of flight and route planning in order to save costs. I do not know enough about those big beasts and how they operate them but I do believe they will ultimately go as high as possible to reduce fuel burn.

You can run into trade offs between fuel burn and ground speed. Perhaps a lower level can give a great ground speed with a strong tail wind. Normally the wind is stronger the higher you go, but not always. Your True Air Speed also increases the higher you go, to a point. Around the middle to upper FL400’s it drops off again due temperature. Good job we have computers to worry about all of that!

Occasionally you can be held lower by ATC due to congestion on a Level. This happens often in China. For the long haul airliners that can really eat into the reserves which are usually at the absolute minimum legal requirement anyways.

[Robbie Stewart]

Although the manual does state there is a system that might trim the nose down, they should have been more explicit, we will see how much they have to pay for their negligence although I think having that system depend of only one sensor is bigger mistake, also not hacing enough visual indications as to what is going on, ffs its so easy with glass cockpits. 

 

So far, 346 humans had to pay with their lives.

 

And as I suspected, the lawsuits against Boeing because of these crashes have begun.

 

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/families-of-canadians-killed-in-ethiopian-airlines-crash-file-lawsuit-1.1251044

[kosmonooit]

So far, 346 humans had to pay with their lives.

 

And as I suspected, the lawsuits against Boeing because of these crashes have begun.

 

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/families-of-canadians-killed-in-ethiopian-airlines-crash-file-lawsuit-1.1251044

 

Yes it is yet to be seen how liability for negligence will be proven, however in both accidents it has been shown that both situations were recoverable although all the details and final reports have not been published. Certainly with Ethiopian the high speed due to no speed control was one of the fatal factors.

 

But that Boeing CEO gives me the creeps: seriously slippy character.

[Bateleur1]

Eon de Vos posted this link on his CRM facebook page about the 737 Max accidents.  Well worth the read.

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/boeing-737-max-8-crashes-case-pilot-error-vaughn-cordle-cfa/?fbclid=IwAR0raSZhImJ6T_2-1c5ApKFXC1a3pjyNLWHye-EQkTEG1iPfw95eO-JeSUM

 

Did some of you look at this article?  Very technical but I found it rather interresting.  Especially in the case of the Ethiopian crash it could see the blame shifted somewhat.

[Long Wheel Base]

Nope, RVSM airspace it is still 1000 feet vertically between opposite direction traffic.

However, we require 7nm (13km) lateral separation on departure and approach from the A380. That is for our little jet in the Medium weight category.

 

The RVSM tops at FL410. It then reverts back to 2000 ft vertical separation of opposite direction traffic. Sadly our little Challenger is normally in the 36000 to 40000 ft (FL360 to FL400) levels. The Global was normally directly to FL430 or FL450 depending on direction. At those levels, typically above most airliners (especially early in their flights when heavy with fuel), we would get a lot of direct routings in the quieter airspace and therefore save on time and fuel.

RVSM is a subject that fascinates me so much. When I first started working on airliners RVSM was not really something we worried too much about but now its a lot more extensive and we have training to learn about RVSM critical areas etc. It's amazing how accurate technology is today, 1000ft is like just over 300 Metres. That is not much when you at cruising altitude and speed.

[Capricorn]

Did some of you look at this article?  Very technical but I found it rather interresting.  Especially in the case of the Ethiopian crash it could see the blame shifted somewhat.

interesting perspectives and details. One thing that stands out in contrast is the Ethiopian minister of transport's claim that the pilots did follow emergency procedures.

[Robbie Stewart]

Yes it is yet to be seen how liability for negligence will be proven, however in both accidents it has been shown that both situations were recoverable although all the details and final reports have not been published. Certainly with Ethiopian the high speed due to no speed control was one of the fatal factors.

 

But that Boeing CEO gives me the creeps: seriously slippy character.

 

I also don't like the CEO. He is dodging a bullet, and if you watch the clip of his explanation, you will notice he is talking from a script, not from the heart.

 

I have a strong feeling that Boeing is going to end up settling out of court to limit the damage to the brand. They will rather settle for losing a couple million dollars to some class-action suit, rather than not selling another 737.

 

Did some of you look at this article?  Very technical but I found it rather interresting.  Especially in the case of the Ethiopian crash it could see the blame shifted somewhat.

 

I intend to read this, but I am pretty sure that blame shifting is the name of the game. I remember reading somewhere (many moons ago) how manufacturers of aircraft would first wait for a possible issue to present itself, and settle in a lawsuit, in order to fix a problem that leads to crashes, rather than spend enormous amounts to investigate a possibly unknown future cause. Almost as if the end customers are expected to do the testing of the aircraft. 

 

(_{disclaimer - I am not stating the above as fact. I just recall reading that somewhere, and somehow recall it now})

 

Also, whatever happened to the Dreamliner debacle with their batteries? Does Boeing not test at all?

[Bateleur1]

I also don't like the CEO. He is dodging a bullet, and if you watch the clip of his explanation, you will notice he is talking from a script, not from the heart.

 

I have a strong feeling that Boeing is going to end up settling out of court to limit the damage to the brand. They will rather settle for losing a couple million dollars to some class-action suit, rather than not selling another 737.

 

 

I intend to read this, but I am pretty sure that blame shifting is the name of the game. I remember reading somewhere (many moons ago) how manufacturers of aircraft would first wait for a possible issue to present itself, and settle in a lawsuit, in order to fix a problem that leads to crashes, rather than spend enormous amounts to investigate a possibly unknown future cause. Almost as if the end customers are expected to do the testing of the aircraft. 

 

(_{disclaimer - I am not stating the above as fact. I just recall reading that somewhere, and somehow recall it now})

 

Also, whatever happened to the Dreamliner debacle with their batteries? Does Boeing not test at all?

 

Boeing would do whatever it takes to protect their brand.  No doubt about it.  What to me was interresting, was that Eon de Vos who is, in my opinion, one of SA's most experienced pilots and who has aviation safety top of his agenda always, posted this link.  That to me is very telling.  That Boeing with the way they released the 737 Max played part in the accidents in my mind is no question but it was not the only factor that played a roll here.  This report also refers to the Indonesia crash and the flight just before the fatal crash into the ocean.  They also experienced the same problem but it took a third experienced pilot who happened to sit in the jump seat to help them out of trouble.

[kosmonooit]

,,,,

 

Also, whatever happened to the Dreamliner debacle with their batteries? Does Boeing not test at all?

 

 

it was the early days of such Lithium Ion batteries in aviation and the solution was to work around the issue, they did not drill down to the root cause of the overheating because as far as I know, to this very day, its not fully understood why that happens, What they do is just to avoid such conditions, contain the problem.

 

You have probably read about Tesla's spontaneously combusting for no apparent reason, same thing really - the great unknown!

[kosmonooit]

Boeing would do whatever it takes to protect their brand.  No doubt about it.  What to me was interresting, was that Eon de Vos who is, in my opinion, one of SA's most experienced pilots and who has aviation safety top of his agenda always, posted this link.  That to me is very telling.  That Boeing with the way they released the 737 Max played part in the accidents in my mind is no question but it was not the only factor that played a roll here.  This report also refers to the Indonesia crash and the flight just before the fatal crash into the ocean.  They also experienced the same problem but it took a third experienced pilot who happened to sit in the jump seat to help them out of trouble.

 

I haven't read that link yet, but on that third pilot on Lion Air flight: it was the previous flight on the same aircraft with the same problem, that guy just happened to be sitting in the jump seat and had the presence of mind to tell them to flick the auto trim switches off when all else failed, but that is so clearly indicated in the electric trim runaway procedures, so we must really ask what level of training is taking place?

 

In my opinion part of the problem is over-automation, what with auto speed and auto pilot, pilots actually do a minimum of actual manual flying and there is belief the computer will fly the plane

[Spokey]

RVSM is a subject that fascinates me so much. When I first started working on airliners RVSM was not really something we worried too much about but now its a lot more extensive and we have training to learn about RVSM critical areas etc. It's amazing how accurate technology is today, 1000ft is like just over 300 Metres. That is not much when you at cruising altitude and speed.

It is amazing, the Lateral accuracy is also so good that you pass in opposite directions directly one above the other.

[Robbie Stewart]

Boeing would do whatever it takes to protect their brand.  No doubt about it.  What to me was interresting, was that Eon de Vos who is, in my opinion, one of SA's most experienced pilots and who has aviation safety top of his agenda always, posted this link.  That to me is very telling.  That Boeing with the way they released the 737 Max played part in the accidents in my mind is no question but it was not the only factor that played a roll here.  This report also refers to the Indonesia crash and the flight just before the fatal crash into the ocean.  They also experienced the same problem but it took a third experienced pilot who happened to sit in the jump seat to help them out of trouble.

 

I read the article, and just, Wow!

 

I am with the commentators at the end of the article, highlighting the fact that it is easy to stand after the fact and blame the pilots, using the perfectly presented data on hand.Here's my challenge then: In the time it took both ET 302 and LA 610 to take off until crashing, diagnose and sort the problem, without the aid of simulator training. See how absurd that would be? Yet, it is simple to make judgement calls on why the pilots did X, Y or Z, rather than follow SOP. 

 

Yes, the takeoff is a busy phase of flight, but surely the pilots cannot be realistically expected to shoulder (even partial) blame for failing to handle an emergency which the aircraft manufacturers created, with the explicit intent to avoid the need to train pilots for in the first instance? 

 

If you buy a new car, and the manufacturers have designed a new way of applying brake pressure to the wheels, and decide not to inform you as a customer, and this new way fails to work when you most need it, leading to a crash, and loss of life, would it be fair of the manufacturer to turn around and blame you for not driving the car as designed, despite you not being aware of the change, or need to perform differently?

 

As has been said before, Boeing is trying to minimize losses to the shareholders and investors. I quote the author of this piece, in response to a question by a reputable pilot:

 

Question:

 

 ''...A lot of garbage too, if both Boeing and the FAA did their jobs properly, with no financial rush to beat the Neo, these accidents would not have happened! I do not disagree that the usual last defenses of organizational failures failed as well, but pilot error is the What happened, and not the Why!..."

(Cobus Toerien, Chairman Accident Analysis and Prevention Committee at ALPA-SA Retired SFO A330/340 & CRM Facilitator at SAA)

 

Answer:

 

"...Keep in mind that our initial reports were for institutional investors so we could not wait for the final investigative reports which, hopefully, cover all the issues that must be evaluated..."

(Vaughn Cordle, CFA, Partner at Ionosphere Capital LLC / B-787Captain for major Airline) 

 

 

[edit] It is easy for a pilot to become fixated on a problem, at the expense of solving additional errors as they appear. Doing this in a high workload environment will inevitably compound the problem, leading the final mistake, and subsequent loss of control. Training would have helped, but would not have solved the issue initiated by bad design.

Edited April 30, 2019 by Robbie Stewart

[Bateleur1]

I read the article, and just, Wow!

 

I am with the commentators at the end of the article, highlighting the fact that it is easy to stand after the fact and blame the pilots, using the perfectly presented data on hand.Here's my challenge then: In the time it took both ET 302 and LA 610 to take off until crashing, diagnose and sort the problem, without the aid of simulator training. See how absurd that would be? Yet, it is simple to make judgement calls on why the pilots did X, Y or Z, rather than follow SOP. 

 

Yes, the takeoff is a busy phase of flight, but surely the pilots cannot be realistically expected to shoulder (even partial) blame for failing to handle an emergency which the aircraft manufacturers created, with the explicit intent to avoid the need to train pilots for in the first instance? 

 

If you buy a new car, and the manufacturers have designed a new way of applying brake pressure to the wheels, and decide not to inform you as a customer, and this new way fails to work when you most need it, leading to a crash, and loss of life, would it be fair of the manufacturer to turn around and blame you for not driving the car as designed, despite you not being aware of the change, or need to perform differently?

 

As has been said before, Boeing is trying to minimize losses to the shareholders and investors. I quote the author of this piece, in response to a question by a reputable pilot:

 

Question:

 

 ''...A lot of garbage too, if both Boeing and the FAA did their jobs properly, with no financial rush to beat the Neo, these accidents would not have happened! I do not disagree that the usual last defenses of organizational failures failed as well, but pilot error is the What happened, and not the Why!..."

(Cobus Toerien, Chairman Accident Analysis and Prevention Committee at ALPA-SA Retired SFO A330/340 & CRM Facilitator at SAA)

 

Answer:

 

"...Keep in mind that our initial reports were for institutional investors so we could not wait for the final investigative reports which, hopefully, cover all the issues that must be evaluated..."

(Vaughn Cordle, CFA, Partner at Ionosphere Capital LLC / B-787Captain for major Airline) 

 

 

[edit] It is easy for a pilot to become fixated on a problem, at the expense of solving additional errors as they appear. Doing this in a high workload environment will inevitably compound the problem, leading the final mistake, and subsequent loss of control. Training would have helped, but would not have solved the issue initiated by bad design.

 

Fully agree.

[Walt Jabsco]

Eon de Vos posted this link on his CRM facebook page about the 737 Max accidents.  Well worth the read.

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/boeing-737-max-8-crashes-case-pilot-error-vaughn-cordle-cfa/?fbclid=IwAR0raSZhImJ6T_2-1c5ApKFXC1a3pjyNLWHye-EQkTEG1iPfw95eO-JeSUM

 

I am certainly no aviation expert, but I have followed this incident with interest.

 

This report does not sit comfortably with me. It appears to have been written with an agenda - put maximum blame on the pilots and minimise the blame on Boeing (but leave a little bit in to create the appearance of impartiality).