737-800 grounded ?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 IPPurewater 26 Oct 2019

Yesterday my girlfriend flew back from Prague.

She was on a Smartwings flight. She reckoned the aircraft was a 737-800 (the type of which two crashed recently, killing everybody on board). The safety card said it was a 737-800.

I thought that can't be correct, so I checked on flightstats.com. This website said the aircraft was a 737H. Further investigation reveals that at 737H is indeed a 737-800.

I thought these were grounded in Europe at the moment. How can they still be flying here ?

3
 mrphilipoldham 26 Oct 2019
In reply to IPPurewater:

The 800 and Max are different aircraft.

 Trangia 26 Oct 2019
In reply to IPPurewater:

A quick look at Google reveals that the Boing 737 800 is NOT thesame plane as the Boing 737 Max which is the one which is grounded.

OP IPPurewater 26 Oct 2019
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

Thanks. I'm happy to read that.

 Greenbanks 26 Oct 2019
In reply to Trangia:

Mind you, its the kind of public confusion (especially SLF) which is seriously undermining the 737 as an aircraft in the minds of the general public

Post edited at 14:13
 tehmarks 26 Oct 2019
In reply to IPPurewater:

The 737-800 is part of the 737NG family, which is the previous generation to the 737 MAX. As I understand it, some concerns have been raised that some of the contributory factors to the MAX accidents were design changes implemented in the NG series (the physically smaller manual trim wheel, for example), but the system which ultimately caused the crashes is unique to the MAX within the 737 family.

 wbo2 26 Oct 2019
In reply to IPPurewater:arent some other 737s grounded as well due to cracking near wing attachments?

OP IPPurewater 26 Oct 2019
In reply to wbo2:

I wasn't aware of that.

Post edited at 14:33
 Trangia 26 Oct 2019
In reply to IPPurewater:

According to an Expert speaking on the BBC News  about the Lionair crash investigation report, which was published yesterday, it seems, as is often the case, to have been be due to a fatal combination of a multitude  of faults and errors the principle one being that the on board computers kept erroneously detecting a stall attitude, were misinterpreting the angle of attack indicator and forcing the nose down to the extent that the pilots could not override it. In his opinion the pilots reacted in the manner to which normal airline pilots would be expected to, and not in the manner which an experienced test pilot would have done when faced with such an unexpected problem. Although Boeing were aware of this problem, they were working to correct it, but had not publicised it, and not grounded the type, nor published a manual for airline pilots to familiarise themselves with the possibility or how to counter it. The flight crew who had previously flown the aircraft had detected a problem, during their watch, but failed to log it correctly, the Captain on the fatal flight had reported for duty with 'flu, but rather than standing down had continued to fly whilst unwell, and the second pilot was inexperienced, for example not know where the manuals for dealing with a sudden emergency were kept in the flight deck, and had had a history of struggling to keep up to speed during his previous training.

 wbo2 26 Oct 2019
In reply to IPPurewater:yes, quick google.  I think 38 737-NG's. 10 October, structural cracks.  

 Offwidth 26 Oct 2019
In reply to Trangia:

Do you have any independant verified links to your reported pilot problems. Aircraft manufacturers have a pretty shady history of blaming pilots when design faults were the issue. If the pilots behaved as expected to the scenario they were simply not at fault. I don't believe someone with flu would be allowed to fly a plane nor that we have second class co-pilots.

2
 jimtitt 26 Oct 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

Hmm, we have copilots that deliberately fly aircraft into mountains. They are humans not gods.

2
 Tim Davies 26 Oct 2019
In reply to jimtitt:

That was one individual who had serious mental health problems that he had hidden from his medical examiner. Not a brilliant example. 

 Trangia 26 Oct 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

No. As I said at the start of my post, just repeating what I heard on BBC yesterday.

Post edited at 18:25
Gone for good 26 Oct 2019
In reply to IPPurewater:

Did she fly to Birmingham? I was on that flight yesterday afternoon. Definitely not a 737 Max. Boeing seem to think they won't be able to fly them again until the new year. 

cb294 26 Oct 2019
In reply to wbo2:

No worries, it is just minor bit that may break due the cracks (the bit that attaches the wings to the fuselage, but who cares about such minor details).

It seems that the overall quality of US manufacturing has declined in recent years, and I am tempted to blame their particular brand of capitalism for it.

CB 

 Dave the Rave 26 Oct 2019
In reply to Trangia:

In layman’s terms, was this plane broken?

 Trangia 26 Oct 2019
In reply to Dave the Rave:

No more like the software was broken. The plane did exactly what the computer required it to do..........

 Michael Hood 26 Oct 2019
In reply to Trangia: re 737-max

As usual with aircraft accidents it required several factors to all happen to cause the accident. Some of these were human factors, such as the pilots not taking the correct action, largely because nobody had told them that the plane could do that and what the correct actions might be.

But the human factors basically determined which flight crashed, whereas the MCAS software basically determined that at least one plane (or however many until you stop flying the plane and/or fix the plane) was likely to crash at some time.

Post edited at 23:26
 Luke90 26 Oct 2019
In reply to Trangia:

Though my understanding (purely from reading articles about it, no personal expertise) is that the MCAS software was only added as a way of compensating for a design compromise that shifted the engine position and made the plane badly balanced. So the software was badly implemented (and badly/deceptively communicated to airlines/pilots) but the basic physical design of the plane was also, arguably, flawed.

1
 Offwidth 27 Oct 2019
In reply to Luke90:

More on this from John Naughton (note the lack of pilot blaming).

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/26/boeing-737-max-crashe...

 tehmarks 27 Oct 2019
In reply to Luke90:

It's a terrible design on a few levels, in my humble opinion. It's a software bandaid to fix an aerodynamic problem - but even worse, it's a flawed bandaid. Trim just shouldn't be used to fly an aeroplane or make changes to its attitude. It's a crap solution, poorly implemented.

In reply to IPPurewater:

It's amazing the automatic system could continually adjust the trim to the point of disaster.

 elsewhere 27 Oct 2019
In reply to John Stainforth:

> It's amazing the automatic system could continually adjust the trim to the point of disaster.

All triggered by a single sensor that was known to sometimes malfunction. No triple redundancy.

 elsewhere 27 Oct 2019
In reply to Michael Hood:

> But the human factors basically determined which flight crashed, whereas the MCAS software basically determined that at least one plane (or however many until you stop flying the plane and/or fix the plane) was likely to crash at some time.

That is an excellent point.

 Michael Hood 27 Oct 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

What's really gobsmacking is that after the first crash, Boeing must have had an idea of what was going on, yet they didn't take anywhere near sufficient steps to ensure it didn't happen again.

If they really had no idea after the first crash, then that's really shocking instead.

Either gross corporate arrogance or gross corporate ignorance.

Interestingly, the initial cause of the whole thing was Boeing being caught on the hop by the efficiency advances with the Airbus A320neo. Which smacks of corporate incompetence.

Boeing does not come out well in any of this.

 Offwidth 29 Oct 2019
In reply to Trangia:

Finally found some link to the pilot issues...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-25/on-malfunctioning-max-ca...

This bloomberg headline to me looks grossly irresponsible,  as firstly the pilot clearly didn't have flu or he wouldn't have been able to function, secondly it's the airline and regulators job to ensure all pilots are capable to fly. The main investigation conclusion on the pilot errors is that they had sympathy for the pilot errors and the main problem was the lack of training in situations they had to tackle. In my mind the biggest question remains how much of this did Boeing know in advance. Boeing execs are facing US congressional questions right now.

More from bloomberg (again with unfair emphasis on the pilot errors)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-25/boeing-max-design-and-pi...

and the actual accident investigation report:

http://knkt.dephub.go.id/knkt/ntsc_aviation/baru/2018%20-%20035%20-%20PK-LQ...

 Trangia 29 Oct 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

Thank you, and well done digging all that up. The Accident report is long and will take time to read, but the summary at the end certainly seems to vindicate the aircrew's actions at the time.

I agree that Boeing seem to have a lot of questions to answer about just how much they knew and, it seems, failed to disclose. 

All those lives and probably those in the Ethiopian disaster sacrificed by Boeing for the sake of big money? It's starting to look that way.......

 Offwidth 29 Oct 2019
In reply to Trangia:

One wonders how the executives' 'stall instincts' function with the coming turbulence... this is only day 1 of the congressional hearings:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/29/boeing-dennis-muilenburg-c...


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...