NTSB: "Deficiencies in Boeing's documentation of complex flight control systems and in Asiana Airlines's pilot training were also cited as contributory factors."
Then, see those deficiencies through only a second-language facility.
Posted on 03/14/2019 2:33:55 PM PDT by rickmichaels
Lion Air Flight 610 plunged into the sea off Indonesia because the pilot “lost (the) fight with his software,” Canadian Transport minister Marc Garneau chillingly told a Wednesday press conference announcing the grounding of the Boeing 737 MAX 8.
There is nothing wrong with the basic mechanics of the aircraft: Its engines, wings and control surfaces are all believed to be working fine. Rather, the passenger jet may have killed 346 people for the terrifyingly modern reason that human pilots were unable to override a malfunctioning computer.
The cause of the Lion Air crash — and the suspected cause of the recent downing of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 — is a little-known piece of software known as MCAS, the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System.
The 737 MAX 8 has heavier and more fuel-efficient engines than prior editions of the 737, a change which causes the aircraft to pitch upwards ever-so-slightly after takeoff.
Rather than instructing airlines to warn their pilots of this quirk, Boeing simply equipped the MAX 8 with MCAS, a program that would automatically tilt the nose downwards to compensate.
In normal circumstances, the system is not a problem, but it only takes a minor maintenance error to turn MCAS into a deadly liability.
In the case of Lion Air Flight 610, the 737 MAX 8 had a faulty “angle of attack sensor”; a small blade sticking out of the cockpit that records the angle of the aircraft in flight.
The sensor was wrongly telling the MAX 8’s flight computers that the aircraft was climbing much more sharply than it was. As a result, pilots were left wrestling with an aircraft that was repeatedly plunging itself towards the ground for no reason.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalpost.com ...
You seemed to have missed the article where Boeing says the are going to rewrite their software so that it uses inputs from other available sensors and not just one sensor. I am not even an engineer and I Thought about that before they did. There are plenty of other sensors that provide information. How about Altitude for instance. Does a stalling plane gain altitude? Start thinking for yourself.
A link in the National Post article is to The Atlantic (I know... lib city) reference to a NASA run pilot’s professional blog— and has choice selections from that blog of SUPER PRO US pilots experiences with the MCAS “hidden” but “found out” software and the interaction of it vis a vis Autopilot disengage and MCAS activation (21,200 Hr Senior Pilot quite descriptive in the entire “handling” of this idiotic set up, so they could fly the plane).
One of the blog items has this— Captain and Flight Officer— on the way to the airport in their limo, get a text telling them their flight # will be on the new 737 Max, and they had minutes to review the Flight Manual to even barely understand what was going on. Airline names are not mentioned— but this was clearly company policy “find out on your own”. Quite descriptive case filings and summaries of each of 4 instances-— they all worked around it, or by pure luck it was not a problem since they didn’t use autopilot, or their sensors were OK, or whatever.
This is compounding computer “fixes” for design end results in flight characteristics that is difficult to understand. The one thing— the MAX 737 was “pitched” against the main competition Airbus— and thus came the secret MCAS program to “smooth the transition”. Senior pilots are pissed.
These are the “Stab trim cutout switches” that Media is referring to everywhere.
They form part of the “Runaway stabilizer” memory items that will stop most unwanted movements of the stabilizer, including the mentioned MCAS system.
All of us B737 pilots practice using them. pic.twitter.com/P1mc8KIWog— Mentour Pilot (@MenTourPilot) March 11, 2019
I learned how to fly in the early 70’s. Another thing that amazes me is that many pilots today have difficulty with basic navigation skills.
Could something as simple as despite training, some pilots in certain parts of the world never fully understand what’s going on with their aircraft, have a poor understanding of what makes their aircraft fly, and rely instead on “monkey see-monkey do” training response?
Just asking...? I’ve read several accounts written by US military instructors trying to train foreign “pilots” and the challenges things like low aptitude, poor memory and training retention presented...
>>>And we’re going to have driver less cars?
Cars with malfunctioning drivers kill 100 people a day in this country.
Actually, I believe it’s just the oposite. The MCAS system is active during manual pahse of flight. There are also two AOA sensors on the aircraft. If memory serves,there were conflicting readings from the AOA on the previous flight. The crew wrote it up but maintenance never addressed the issue prior to the fatal flight.
Also...I read the MCAS system makes pitch corrections in small increments, that it takes 10-seconds to go to full deflection and the total travel of the trim tab under the MCAS system is approx 2.5 inches.
While I believe Boeing was negligent in not placing the MCAS system in the flight manual, the “fix” for this system is supposedly the same as a runaway stab. Either manual change trim or utilize the trim button on the yoke.
I think these crashes are the result of training or lack thereof more than anything.
Like a car. "Look, gronktoid, it's simple . . . um . . . you just look under this hood . . . er . . ."
If I remember correctly, a kid is explaining that to his father.
They could react a lot better through the daily reminders that happen over the course of a flight, when it wasnt automated.
90% of forget most of what we are taught within a couple of days of being told.
Do you really want planes in the air that can crash because of such a simple glitch? A faulty sensor? Why on earth? It sounds like the software itself is only there to cover another design flaw of the nose tipping up unexpectedly on take off. I want safe planes that don’t kill hundreds of people if it can be prevented.
It sounds like it was not even a malfunctioning computer, but just a non-intuitively functioning computer that a third worlder couldn't grasp.
Coming from you I’m totally devastated.
Who are you? Lol.
Sometimes not adding the /sarcasm off tag confuses some.
Thank you for flying islam airlines. Have a nice day:)
No aircraft computer override system should be dependent on one sensor/one input.
HUGE design error. I’m an EE with 30 years in computers, hardware, software, etc.
Cannot believe Boeing engineers would do that.
AND that the pilots wouldn’t be trained in their certification to fly the plane of easy & quick means of overriding/cancelling the software....
TWO huge design errors........
Agree...would love to see what their FMEAs look like.
“It sounds like the software itself is only there to cover another design flaw of the nose tipping up unexpectedly on take off”
The nose tipping up at take off isn’t a big deal. If the pilots had direct control of the plane at take off it wouldn’t qualify as any sort of design flaw.
The problem is that the computer is in between the pilots and the control surfaces.
And it is incorrectly interpreting the nose tipping up as a “stall”, so it goes nose down to pick up speed. That could make sense if you were at 20,000 feet and the plane’s nose tipped up. When you are just taking off and have no altitude to spare that’s a disaster.
The problem isn’t the plane’s physical design or the pilots, it’s a badly designed computer program that has more control of the plane at take off than do the pilots.
It’s easy for people that aren’t pilots to second guess and just say “just turn off the autopilot” or “U.S. pilots wouldn’t let that happen”.
Each malfunction is different and what might be a minor issue at 30,000’ can turn deadly when it happens at 200’ on takeoff and you’ve only got seconds to figure it out before you hit the ground. A lot of things factor into how something like that will turn out. “Just train them better” isn’t the answer to a system that malfunctions during critical phases of flight and puts the aircraft in jeopardy, fixing the airplane is the answer. You don’t want an airliner that needs Chuck Yeager to fly, you want one that can be safely operated by mediocre pilots having a bad day because statistically half of your pilots are below average.
I agree that the software shouldn’t have more priority than the pilots. I don’t think any autopiloting should cut in automatically at all. If the plane’s behavior is so erratic as to require it, then there’s a problem with the aerodynamics of the plane itself. In this case it’s so slight that it’s not even needed.
NTSB: "Deficiencies in Boeing's documentation of complex flight control systems and in Asiana Airlines's pilot training were also cited as contributory factors."
Then, see those deficiencies through only a second-language facility.
I’m sorry, does not compute, don’t want to be mean but you have no clue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.