Ethiopian Airlines B737 crashes

  • Thread starter Deleted member 51920
  • Start date

cozzy121

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2009
Messages
5,448

" In one exchange in April 2017, an unnamed employee wrote: "This airplane is designed by clowns who in turn are supervised by monkeys."

The documents also showed Boeing planning to push back against requirements that 737 Max pilots receive training on simulators, which would have led to higher costs for its customers, making its aircraft less attractive.

"I want to stress the importance of holding firm that there will not be any type of simulator training required to transition from NG to Max," Boeing's 737 chief technical pilot at the time, Mark Forkner, said in a March 2017 email."
 


Nebuchadnezzar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
11,708
The Iranian’s tried to link the Ukrainian Airlines 752 in with the Max crisis.

FARS, Iran’s new agency, days after the Iranian admission still has this story up on its home page....

“The US allegations that a Ukrainian Boeing 737-800 aircraft crashed in Tehran after being hit by a missile has been assesses by analysts as an effort to manipulate the stock market; a measure that would both overshadow Trump’s failure in Iraq and save Boeing from bankruptcy.”

FarsNews Agency - Home Page
 

cozzy121

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2009
Messages
5,448
The Iranian’s tried to link the Ukrainian Airlines 752 in with the Max crisis.

FARS, Iran’s new agency, days after the Iranian admission still has this story up on its home page....

“The US allegations that a Ukrainian Boeing 737-800 aircraft crashed in Tehran after being hit by a missile has been assesses by analysts as an effort to manipulate the stock market; a measure that would both overshadow Trump’s failure in Iraq and save Boeing from bankruptcy.”

FarsNews Agency - Home Page
well the way things are with boeing at the moment, it wouldn't be surprised if they developed an automated fire suppression system that actually set the wing on fire..
 

cozzy121

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2009
Messages
5,448

cozzy121

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2009
Messages
5,448
Interesting piece by CNN on Ryanair sticking with the death plane


" Ryanair is Boeing's largest European customer for the 737 Max, according to a Boeing spokesperson, with orders for up to 210 of the jets. The advantage for carriers, particularly low-cost airlines such as Ryanair, is that the plane carries 4% more passengers and consumes up to 20% less fuel than today's most efficient commercial aircraft, according to Boeing.
"We believe this is a great aircraft," said O'Leary, adding that Ryanair pilots have received training in flight simulators and report that it "handles brilliantly."
The airline is discussing the pricing of the 737 Max aircraft with Boeing and also possible reimbursements for losses caused by the delayed deliveries, O'Leary said."

and a great comparison on how corporate geed kills people..


"..There are some disturbing similarities between the Boeing Max 8 scandal and the July 2013 Lac-Mégantic rail disaster. Both reveal a predictable pattern.

In Lac-Mégantic, a runaway train laden with volatile Bakken shale oil from North Dakota crashed in the heart of the small Québec community, killing 47 people, orphaning 26 children, spilling an unprecedented six million litres of oil and incinerating the town centre. It was the worst industrial disaster on Canadian soil in a century.

Both disasters were the deadly consequence of a decades-long trajectory of deregulation in the aerospace and railway industries. Safety precautions were systematically eroded to the point where the likelihood of an accident became a game of Russian roulette: not if, but when."
 

cozzy121

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2009
Messages
5,448
I guess that it pays to make safe aeroplanes..


" The company, which is multinational but has its biggest base in France, also said it plans to increase the number of A320neo planes it makes to 67 a month by 2023, while it is currently aiming to make 63 a month by 2021, The Wall Street Journal reported.

The A320neo, a single-aisle jet, is the main competitor plane for Boeing's 737 Max, which has been grounded around the world since March after two fatal crashes killed 346 people, costing Boeing and airlines billions"
 

Nebuchadnezzar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
11,708
Best of luck to the test pilots as they take their lives into their hands flying the death machine..

It’s a shame there isn’t similar interest in the issue of pilots standards and airline regulation in some particular countries.

Just over a month ago an Airbus 320 crashed in Pakistan. Flight PIA 8303 was one of the worst ever cases of criminal negligence by airline pilots and yet there has been very little media attention paid to it. They attempted to land from an approach that was far too fast and too high. They failed to lower the undercarriage. After belly landing on the runways, sparks flying out of both engines as it scraped its way along the ground, they then applied power and took off again. They then repositioned downwind for a second approach but both engines then failed from the damage sustained in their first attempt. They crashed short of the runway in a densely populated area. Unbelievably bad.

Meanwhile, within the last few weeks, it has come to light that about 30% of Pakistan commercial pilots do not have valid licences....

“Mr Khan said investigations had found that more than 260 of the country's 860 active pilots had either fake licences or had cheated in their exams.”

India had a similar scandal about many of its pilots about 10 years ago. There are other, more fundamental issues, that should be focussed on just as much as “death jets”.

Pakistani pilots grounded over 'fake licences'
 

Pabilito

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
5,973
It’s a shame there isn’t similar interest in the issue of pilots standards and airline regulation in some particular countries.

Just over a month ago an Airbus 320 crashed in Pakistan. Flight PIA 8303 was one of the worst ever cases of criminal negligence by airline pilots and yet there has been very little media attention paid to it. They attempted to land from an approach that was far too fast and too high. They failed to lower the undercarriage. After belly landing on the runways, sparks flying out of both engines as it scraped its way along the ground, they then applied power and took off again. They then repositioned downwind for a second approach but both engines then failed from the damage sustained in their first attempt. They crashed short of the runway in a densely populated area. Unbelievably bad.

Meanwhile, within the last few weeks, it has come to light that about 30% of Pakistan commercial pilots do not have valid licences....

“Mr Khan said investigations had found that more than 260 of the country's 860 active pilots had either fake licences or had cheated in their exams.”

India had a similar scandal about many of its pilots about 10 years ago. There are other, more fundamental issues, that should be focussed on just as much as “death jets”.

Pakistani pilots grounded over 'fake licences'
They failed to lower the undercarriage!..

Feck.. even I'd do that... as in lower the undercarriage for landing..
 

Nebuchadnezzar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
11,708
They failed to lower the undercarriage!..

Feck.. even I'd do that... as in lower the undercarriage for landing..
PIA should be banned from European airspace until they complete a thorough and radical safety audit.
 

Nebuchadnezzar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
11,708
They failed to lower the undercarriage!..

Feck.. even I'd do that... as in lower the undercarriage for landing..
It may have been the case that they were flying so fast that even though they had selected gear down that due to their high speed it did not extend. Above 260knots the gear will not extend.

Another point is that they failed to declare an emergency until the final minute of the flight, their final transmission. It would have been obvious to them that the aircraft was in serious danger from shortly after their aborted landing.
 
Last edited:

Nebuchadnezzar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
11,708
Great news.

“The European Union's aviation safety agency said Tuesday that Pakistan’s national airline will not be allowed to fly into Europe for at least six months after the country’s aviation minister revealed that nearly a third of Pakistani pilots had cheated on their pilot’s exams.”

 

Pabilito

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
5,973
It may have been the case that they were flying so fast that even though they had selected gear down that due to their high speed it did not extend. Above 260knots the gear will not extend.

Another point is that they failed to declare an emergency until the final minute of the flight, their final transmission. It would have been obvious to them that the aircraft was in serious danger from shortly after their aborted landing.
Extraordinary stuff.. and raises soo many questions:

- Is there not some automatic loud warning that sounds when an aircraft is descending close to terrain with the landing gear not down?

- What’s the standard procedure on belly landing.. applying power and taking off again sounds utterly crazy..

I read that the pilots were apparently in deep discussion about family members affected by Covid.. sounds to me like they broke out the whiskey..
 

Nebuchadnezzar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
11,708
Extraordinary stuff.. and raises soo many questions:

- Is there not some automatic loud warning that sounds when an aircraft is descending close to terrain with the landing gear not down?

- What’s the standard procedure on belly landing.. applying power and taking off again sounds utterly crazy..

I read that the pilots were apparently in deep discussion about family members affected by Covid.. sounds to me like they broke out the whiskey..
It was unbelievably bad.

There would have been multiple GPWS warnings triggered by two conditions.... gear not locked down by 800’ above the runway and excessive rate of descent(2000 fpm at 500’ above the runway....well over twice the target rate of descent). They ignored a plethora of warnings. They also declined ATCs repeated offers of turns to give them further distance to help them lose their excessive altitude.

Belly landing? ....I can’t think of any conceivable circumstance that any competent pilot would apply power and become airborne again. The subsequent approach with both engines failed....they could have elected to try to land on the closer parallel runway(also this runway was clear of buildings on close finals), they didn’t select any flaps(this would have lowered their stalling speed and would have enabled them to glide further).
 

Pabilito

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
5,973
It was unbelievably bad.

There would have been multiple GPWS warnings triggered by two conditions.... gear not locked down by 800’ above the runway and excessive rate of descent(2000 fpm at 500’ above the runway....well over twice the target rate of descent). They ignored a plethora of warnings. They also declined ATCs repeated offers of turns to give them further distance to help them lose their excessive altitude.

Belly landing? ....I can’t think of any conceivable circumstance that any competent pilot would apply power and become airborne again. The subsequent approach with both engines failed....they could have elected to try to land on the closer parallel runway(also this runway was clear of buildings on close finals), they didn’t select any flaps(this would have lowered their stalling speed and would have enabled them to glide further).
As I said I can only think that they were drunk.. mad stuff!
 

cozzy121

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2009
Messages
5,448
I note the attempts to defect from Boeings obvious short comings.

https://time.com/5862131/faa-boeing-737-max-jet-flight-control-report/

A government report says Boeing did not give regulators documents about changes it made in a key system blamed in two deadly crashes of its 737 Max jet, and that officials responsible for approving the plane did not know how powerfully the system could push the plane’s nose down.

Government personnel involved in flight tests knew about changes Boeing made to the flight-control system, but engineers responsible for certifying the plane did not, according to the report, which is expected to be released Wednesday.

Engineers for the Federal Aviation Administration didn’t perform a detailed examination of the flight-control system, called MCAS, until after the first crash, in October 2018 off the coast of Indonesia.

In that crash and another less than five months later in Ethiopia, MCAS pushed the nose of each plane down and pilots were unable to regain control. The crashes killed 346 people and led regulators around the world to ground every Boeing 737 Max — nearly 400 of them.
 

Nebuchadnezzar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
11,708
I note the attempts to defect from Boeings obvious short comings.

https://time.com/5862131/faa-boeing-737-max-jet-flight-control-report/
I don’t see any attempt to deflect from Boeing in today‘s damning report. Boeing and the FAA are rightly blamed.

However, my point over the last few posts, is worth defending in case you’re accusing me of deflection.

If these two crashes(Lion Air and Ethiopian) are understood to be solely a case of Boeing’s fault then the wider lessons will not be learnt. An aircraft manufacturer correcting the flaws in an aircraft or even the permanent grounding of the Max would do nothing to address other serious factors that were involved. This is particularly so in the case of the Lion Air crash. The case of the Pakistan crash shows that no matter how ‘safe’ an aircraft is that if professional standards of the crew and of the wider corporate culture within those airlines are not to a certain minimum acceptable standard then normally avoidable catastrophes will continue to happen. The actions of those Pakistan Airlines pilots is hard to understand. IMO they were unforgivable. To a lesser but still significant degree pilot standards was a factor in the Lion Air crash. Pilot error also contributed to the Ethiopian crash.

Greg Feith, former Senior Air Safety Investigator NTSB ...

“The NTSC(the state investigator in the Lion Air crash) stated the pilots, especially the First Officer, had significant training deficiencies and lacked basic flying skills. These same deficiencies occurred during the accident flight. These two pilots had no business being in the cockpit and the airplane should not have been operated because of all the maintenance issues that began at the beginning of October, and were not corrected, making the airplane unairworthy.”

Feith questions the NTSC’s silence regarding “the oversight by the Indonesian DGCA and the accountability of LionAir, especially after the airline had several serious incidents and accidents in the past 6 years.”

The focus on Boeing will eventually result in the Max returning to service as a ‘safe’ aircraft but the broader issue of professional and corporate standards in Indonesia, Ethiopia and Pakistan(...to name but a few) remains to be fundamentally addressed.

Highly respected aviation experts critical of Lion Air pilots and crash report - Airline Ratings
 
Last edited:

greencharade

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2019
Messages
705
Belly landing? ....I can’t think of any conceivable circumstance that any competent pilot would apply power and become airborne again. The subsequent approach with both engines failed....they could have elected to try to land on the closer parallel runway(also this runway was clear of buildings on close finals), they didn’t select any flaps(this would have lowered their stalling speed and would have enabled them to glide further).
Just a question about gliding and flaps in big aluminium - would lowering flaps (increase drag?) have actually increased longitudinal glide distance?
 

Nebuchadnezzar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
11,708
Just a question about gliding and flaps in big aluminium - would lowering flaps (increase drag?) have actually increased longitudinal glide distance?
Rough glide angle of clean wing Airbus 320 is about 15:1 and having a clean wing would give you best glide distance. However, by selecting slats and/or flaps shortly before touchdown you would reduce the stall speed and so enable the aircraft to remain airborne for about an extra 15 seconds or so, giving you extra distance in addition to the benefit of touching down at a lower speed. In the case of a dual engine failure in an A320 only slats would be available unless the APU was running.

However again, the best configuration for ‘a dead stick landing’ would be an intermediate flap stage rather than full landing flap. That’s the best compromise between drag and stretching the glide. Sully ditched in the Hudson with flap 2(AFAIR they had the APU running). In the case of the British Airways 009 dead stick landing in Heathrow about 10 years ago both engines failed after they had fully configured with flap full for landing. Interestingly the Captain elected to reduce flap from FULL to flap 3 in order to reduce drag without much of an increase in the stall speed.

The Pakistan Airlines crew crashed without using any flap at about 150 knots. If they had used some flap in those final seconds they would have increased their glide distance and reduced their impact speed by about 20 or 30 knots. If they had tried to land on the parallel runway they would probably landed on relatively flat ground clear of any obstructions.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom