perhaps more throttle and earlier would be a better way to treat stalls.

OTOH if the system auto kicks in and flips the elevator to give a nose down one could presume the pilots had already crashed the plane and the result was unavoidable.

Unless the sensors are faulty.

I think that is a real issue, and likely compounded by the current pilot shortage.
Also, with English being the official/universal language in aviation, it would seem the language barrier alone can be a problem for many.

Yep. Think I mentioned the same in the Lion Air thread: If the MCAS (AOA nanny) goes haywire, it's the same procedure as runaway trim (which should be second-nature for any 737 driver).
There are two stab. trim cut-out toggles right below the flaps lever. Been there for several generations now. The elec. trim switches on the yoke are supposed to override the MCAS as well.

Still, if it is an abrupt-enough problem with little time/altitude to deal with it, I can definitely see where it could lead to a "recovery not probable" scenario.

To add more speculation (sorry Paul), there is another aspect of the MCAS system that I can see compounding the problem, especially under stress. That is the yoke break-away. Typically, one could simply apply enough force on the yoke in the opposite direction to disengage the AP/electric trim commands. On the MCAS-equipped Max, pulling back on the control column will not disengage stab. trim if the problem was caused by faulty AOA sensor. Yikes...

I have spoken English all my life and I can’t understand half of what ATC says on the radio. And that’s in the US, if you listen to what goes on overseas, they may as well be speaking Swahili, for all I know.

I doubt it was a problem in this case, but language may be an effective barrier to training.

The weird thing about the radar data is that it seems they were picking up airspeed but not a whole lot of altitude.

Could be. Also, attitude. I have a friend who was a USAF instructor, training Saudi pilots back in the day. Said they thought they were royalty, didn't like getting instruction from infidels. He told me this when predicting a short first gulf war because of our superior air power.

Yea, listen to ATC in a busy area. The controllers talk really fast. It is almost funny to hear ATC rattle off instructions with a LOT of acronyms in use, and hear a long drawn out reply in an southern drawl. The controllers have to be pulling hair.

No issues at all. I am learning a lot about the MCAS system.

I have, since I am a bit under the weather, been in touch with a bunch of commercial pilot friends of mine, still current.

All good.

ATC is advisory, btw. The PIC of the aircraft has the final say.

My neighbor flies 737"s. We talked when the Lion Air plane crashed. He said that he went on a training course a week after the Lion Air crash. He was also given a bulletin from his airline regarding a procedure with the plane.

People on the ground are saying that the plane was billowing smoke and flames from the rear. Bomb??

Pivoting to the cold topic of the impact on Boeing's business.

Even "supposing" the common cause turns out to be the antistall system, I don't see why this will have any large or lasting effect on Boeing. They'll change the software, pilots will get retrained, some compensation will be paid. If a US, European, Chinese 737 goes down, that'll be a lot worse. But haven't similar things happened with other planes, both Boeing and Airbus? Did it really affect either company much?

+1

I ran this scenario in my MBA ethics classes tonight. Told them to imagine they were the CEO of a small startup airline that operated this airplane, and they had to make the decision on whether to fly them or ground the fleet. This was a classic business ethics dilemma, with a choice between two equally unattractive courses of action: fly and take the risk, or ground the planes and lose a ton of money. And the decision had to be made immediately and without full information, which is also another common problem with these types of ethical dilemmas.

In the first class, the students voted overwhelmingly to ground the fleet. The second class voted the exact opposite.

it is a bit strong to talk about "3:rd worlds pilots" causing this, considering that Boeing hung large engines on airframe made for 60's turbojets and had to move them forward/up (as landing gear is too short). But this caused pitch-up issues at hi AoA (nacelles acting as lift bodies), they tacked on stick-pusher ... but did not told the pilots. How is that for ethics?

Mind you, A320 stall protection has three AoA sensors that are voted. MCAS seems to use one. So if sensor fails and A/C starts nosing over , it is up to pilot to troubleshoot it as runaway trim and pull correct breaker...rather tall order on climb out.

I agree with kach.

It was pilot error or a mechanical problem.

I saw this today. Can one of you pilots discuss this issue with the larger engines mounting in a different location than the original 737 design?

Interesting. The anti-stall system is not likely to cause smoke and flames in the rear of the aircraft.

Or it could be a phenomenon, too early to rule that out.

Really? I didn't know that. It makes sense when I think about Sully deciding to splash his aircraft. But if the Pilot ignores Control and bad stuff happens it's all on the pilot...yes?

I posted the Cut-A-Way diagram for that reason, it shows something back there but not the tiny toilet rooms.

Here is another view.

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines Aircraft Seating Charts - Airline Seating Maps and Layouts
http://www.aviationexplorer.com/airl...LM_737-300.jpg

Looks like that tank-like thing is the galley.

Page-1
dewolf, the same eyewitness also mention and erratic flight path or words to that effect, a suddenly out of balance jet engine could be one cause I would hazard to guess.

I'd hesitate to guess based on any early report, next thing you know people will come out of the woodwork to say they saw a missile, nothing should be discounted just yet.

For historical reference.

http://www.b737.org.uk/fuel.htm
http://www.b737.org.uk/images/aux_tanks.gif

http://www.b737.org.uk/images/fuelpump_locations.gif

Fuel will be near the C of G and Center of Lift, a jet fuel sourced fire at the rear of the plane seems unlikely, but I am not an aircraft designer, just using some common observations based on published information.

APU fire?

The flight data and voice recorders have been retrieved. Lets hope they survived that massive impact as they are designed to do. That will answer a lot of questions.

First, triple redundancy does not mean fool proof as evidenced by AF447 flying a perfectly good aircraft into the ocean even with the audible ant tactile warnings, after the pitot tubes had thawed and were functioning.

The system is not much different that what has been around for ages, but lets have a real pilot (Mac McClellan) explain that.

"Because the new MAX version of the 737 has heavier engines and other changes, Boeing added a system that under certain conditions of airspeed, CG location and weight, automatically moves the pitch trim to modify stick force. The pilot who is hand flying feels this as though he is pulling on the yoke and would naturally reduce pull force to lower the nose and angle of attack (AOA)."

"In the non-aviation media, this system is being called everything from new, to radical, to untested. In reality, nearly all airplanes larger than a basic four-seat piston single use some sort of device to alter the forces a pilot feels while maneuvering the airplane."

https://airfactsjournal.com/2019/03/can-boeing-trust-pilots/

This is a table of radar-sourced data on the initial phase of flight. The altitude of the runway is around 72xx ft. I am not sure that the data shows the entire flight. Note the steadily increasing ground speed and the oscillations in the vertical speed. Note also the time intervals between the swings in vertical speed. Lastly, note the initiation of a turn near the end of the data.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1552405329.jpg

yes air traffic communications are in english however it's a different vocabulary it's like verbal shorthand and is designed to be very precise with minimum verbage. the best controllers are not the ones that speak @ 100 words a min. they get too many "say agains" the best speak at a comfortable rate that is understood the first time . speaking so fast you have to repeat yourself is counter productive more so when your busy.

https://seekingalpha.com/news/3441964-boeing-make-significant-cockpit-software-update-737-max-wsj
I only found one example of a galley fire, and it was not a major one, and different aircraft. Posting because this is the approximate location of a fire an eye-witness claimed to have seen.

2014
United Airlines 777 diverts to Canada after galley fire

Fire Protection - Boeing

Eyewitnesses are often unreliable. Still, if turns out wasn't the auto trim control then BA stock will pop. If it was, then BA will roll out the software fix and it all blows over, except for the families.

The UK today banned the 737Max from flying in UK airspace

Are you kidding me? I couldn't believe this when I read it, if true:

Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-to-make-key-change-in-max-cockpit-software-11552413489?mod=hp_lead_pos1

Oh boy.

I'm sorry, but in this day an age, with the invention of self-driving cars and other automated equipment, the MCAS system should *not* be able to slam the plane into the ground unimpeded. I mean, the stupidity of that is insane. When I first heard about the system, I thought, well, it must be more complicated than that, and perhaps a software error (which is notoriously difficult to plan for when there are anomalies). But depending upon a single sensor to then send the airplane directly into the ground? At the very least, the system should have redundancy to know that it's about to destroy the airplane. My 20-year old BMW doesn't have a single-sensor system for ABS or the airbag deployment, it's inconceivable that an airliner would.

Still flabbergasted.

-Wayne

I must have missed this. Are you saying the Captain and/or FO had only 200 hours total? Or was it just 200 in type?

ATP is 1500 hrs minimum, IIRC.

Maybe the UK know more about the problem than you give credit for

Sounds like only the USA and Canada are allowing them to fly

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/12/africa/airlines-suspend-boeing-flights-intl/index.html

Better to be safe than have another one fall out the sky onto your citizens

Jeff, I can't imagine the mood at Boeing, the guys must be working all hours, checking and rechecking systems, design's and flight scenario's

If they have the black boxes, then they should absolutely know right now if the MCAS anti-stall system was triggered on this flight? I would think that transparency in releasing information would be paramount right now.

-Wayne

Wow, 200 hrs. is crazy low time for ANY seat in a 737.

TIA, my bru.

Wayne, I cannot read your WSJ article (not a subscriber), but I think I'm sensing a bit of confusion between what constitutes the MACS and the simple Angle of Attack sensor.

Yes, indeed, there is typically only one AOA sensor on an aircraft. It's a pretty simple and very reliable mechanical device. While MACS relies upon input from the AOA sensor, it also receives input form a number of other sources. MACS only intervenes when the combined input from all sources tell it that the aircraft is approaching a stall.

Boeing may be looking at adding redundancy to these other systems. Adding another AOA sensor would not be a simple software upgrade - it would have to be a mechanical modification to the aircraft, adding another AOA sensor.

AOA is sometimes difficult to understand. It's not a function of how high the nose is, it's a function of how high it is relative to direction of travel:
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1552432729.jpg

The airline said in a statement that the PIC, Yared Getachew, had 8,000 hours, they did not say how many hours in type.