6 ms·

This isn't only MCAS issue anymore... If there are issues with manually rectifying trim after it went haywire because of any reason, that might be a problem. In

This isn't only MCAS issue anymore... If there are issues with manually rectifying trim after it went haywire because of any reason, that might be a problem. Interesting to find out was that an issue with older 737 models, just without severe runaway trim events.

msbarnett 8y ago
> If there are issues with manually rectifying trim after it went haywire because of any reason, that might be a problem. It's not so much a "problem" as it is "physics". If the stabilizers are forcing the nose down, and the pilot pulls back on the stick (engaging the elevators) to pull the nose up, the forces exerted on the stabilizer are such that, in extreme cases, human force is insufficient to move the manual wheel. This is extremely (EDIT: No longer) well documented by Boeing going back decades, and it presents solutions of either: 1) reengaging the electronic stabilizer trim and trimming electronically back to a point where the forces are manageable, then cutting electronic trim again, or 2) relaxing the stick, letting the nose go the way the stabilizers want it to, which slackens the force, and makes cranking the wheel manually doable. Great if you're stabilizers are trimmed severely nose down at a height of 40,000 feet; less great at a height of 1,000 feet. (EDITED TO ADD: Apparently this information & procedure was removed from Boeing's manuals after the 1980s, and pilots no longer train on it, as the issues that led to its necessity were thought solved. The MCAS apparently has reintroduced the need for them.). This is compounded by a new change in the 737-MAX: in prior 737 series aircraft, there are two stab trim cutout switches: one to cut the autopilot's ability to command the stabilizer trim, the other to cut electronic power to the stabilizer trim adjustment entirely, so you could stop the autopilot from changing the trim but still retain electronic control and not need to worry about the manual crank forces. The two switches are MAIN ELEC and AUTO PILOT. In the MAX, this changed, and it's now an all or nothing setup: you have to kill electronic power to kill autopilot commands to the stabilizer. The two switches are now PRI and B/U. Both must be cut out to stop any stabilizer runaway, including MCAS runaway. This all seems to add up to Boeing's narrative of "The MCAS is safe, pilots just need to know to hit the stab trim cutout" being grossly insufficient. They must cut it at a moment where the stabilizer isn't grossly mistrimmed with respect to level flight, OR they may well need to re-engage it and race the MCAS to get into a close-to-proper trim setup prior to cutting out the stabtrim and assuming manual trim control.
- Rooster61 8y ago
  > They must cut it at a moment where the stabilizer isn't grossly mistrimmed with respect to level flight, OR they may well need to re-engage it and race the MCAS to get into a close-to-proper trim setup prior to cutting out the stabtrim and assuming manual trim control. All while keeping the plane in the air, reading the manual, and attempting not to lose composure knowing that the same thing has happened to another flight that lost all hands. I'm trying very hard to look at this objectively, but this is an extremely bad look for Boeing.
  - daddylonglegs 8y ago
    > > They must cut it at a moment where the stabilizer isn't grossly mistrimmed with respect to level flight, OR they may well need to re-engage it and race the MCAS to get into a close-to-proper trim setup prior to cutting out the stabtrim and assuming manual trim control. > All while keeping the plane in the air, reading the manual, and attempting not to lose composure knowing that the same thing has happened to another flight that lost all hands. Additionally an angle of attack (AOA) sensor failure also triggers an unreliable airspeed warning so the pilots no longer trust their airspeed sensors or their AOA sensors while trying to judge pitch and speed. If they go too fast the control forces overpower them, if they go too slow they are more likely to stall. I don't think Boeing gamed out or tested in a simulator the human factors involved in an AOA failure at takeoff, particularly for pilots who - like the Lion Air pilots - are entirely ignorant of MCASes existence.
    - Rooster61 8y ago
      I don't remember where I read it, but my understanding is that the MAX simulator does NOT simulate MCAS behavior. EDIT: Found it: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ethiopia-airplane-simulator-exclusive/ethiopia-crash-captain-did-not-train-on-airlines-max-simulator-source-idUSKCN1R20WD https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ethiopia-airplane-simulat...
      - daddylonglegs 8y ago
Rooster61 8y ago
Doubtful. Older models don't have the oversized, forward-mounted engines, and thus don't have as much of an AoA problem as the MAX does in typical flight conditions. That's the reason the MAX should have been a separate classification with specific hands-on training.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  The MAX is stable in normal flight. It's only when you are pitched up does the engine placement make it want to pitch up even more (and it is only a problem at a speed that is low enough that the normal stabilizer control doesn't have enough control authority to push it back) hence MCAS forcing the nose down every so often via the trim. A normal flight does include pitching up but it does not include pitching up at such a low speed that a little more pitch would quickly cause a stall. MCAS (or at least the nose down function) is specifically designed for an edge case (in that it should be sitting there watching, not actually doing anything during a normal flight). edited
  - Rooster61 8y ago
    Hence why I said "typical flight conditions", which includes pitching up. Point being, its utterly commonplace for a plane to pitch up at some point during the flight. They weren't doing anything out of the ordinary.
  - Rooster61 8y ago
    > MCAS is specifically designed for an edge case Source? That's the first I've heard that it's only for edge cases.
    - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
      If the pilot, who hopefully has thicker skin than people on the internet, moves the buttons and levers properly MCAS should never have to do anything. It's only supposed to actually do anything when you let the nose pitch up a little too much (which the system will detect using the AoA sensors)[0]. It's like automatic braking in a new car, if you drive the way you're "expected to" you shouldn't be activating it often. [0] https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/what-is-the-boeing-737-max-maneuvering-characteristics-augmentation-system-mcas-jt610/ https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/what-is-the-boeing...
jessaustin 8y ago
...was that an issue with older 737 models... 737 is a common plane. If there were a systemic problem it would have been discovered long ago. (In fact I think several such problems were discovered and fixed long ago.) Look how quickly this new problem was discovered by the public, with both the manufacturer and primary regulator working to hide it.
treis 8y ago
I think people are reading too much into an ambiguous statement. It says: >At 05:41:46, the Captain asked the First-Officer if the trim is functional. The First-Officer has replied that the trim was not working and asked if he could try it manually. The Captain told him to try. At 05:41:54, the First-Officer replied that it is not working. "Manually" here could mean manual electric control. 8 seconds seems an awfully short time for the Captain to ask if trim is functional, FO to say no and ask to try manual, Captain to say Yes, and for the FO to try the wheel and conclude it's not working.

msbarnett 8y ago

> If there are issues with manually rectifying trim after it went haywire because of any reason, that might be a problem. It's not so much a "problem" as it is "physics". If the stabilizers are forcing the nose down, and the pilot pulls back on the stick (engaging the elevators) to pull the nose up, the forces exerted on the stabilizer are such that, in extreme cases, human force is insufficient to move the manual wheel. This is extremely (EDIT: No longer) well documented by Boeing going back decades, and it presents solutions of either: 1) reengaging the electronic stabilizer trim and trimming electronically back to a point where the forces are manageable, then cutting electronic trim again, or 2) relaxing the stick, letting the nose go the way the stabilizers want it to, which slackens the force, and makes cranking the wheel manually doable. Great if you're stabilizers are trimmed severely nose down at a height of 40,000 feet; less great at a height of 1,000 feet. (EDITED TO ADD: Apparently this information & procedure was removed from Boeing's manuals after the 1980s, and pilots no longer train on it, as the issues that led to its necessity were thought solved. The MCAS apparently has reintroduced the need for them.). This is compounded by a new change in the 737-MAX: in prior 737 series aircraft, there are two stab trim cutout switches: one to cut the autopilot's ability to command the stabilizer trim, the other to cut electronic power to the stabilizer trim adjustment entirely, so you could stop the autopilot from changing the trim but still retain electronic control and not need to worry about the manual crank forces. The two switches are MAIN ELEC and AUTO PILOT. In the MAX, this changed, and it's now an all or nothing setup: you have to kill electronic power to kill autopilot commands to the stabilizer. The two switches are now PRI and B/U. Both must be cut out to stop any stabilizer runaway, including MCAS runaway. This all seems to add up to Boeing's narrative of "The MCAS is safe, pilots just need to know to hit the stab trim cutout" being grossly insufficient. They must cut it at a moment where the stabilizer isn't grossly mistrimmed with respect to level flight, OR they may well need to re-engage it and race the MCAS to get into a close-to-proper trim setup prior to cutting out the stabtrim and assuming manual trim control.

Rooster61 8y ago
> They must cut it at a moment where the stabilizer isn't grossly mistrimmed with respect to level flight, OR they may well need to re-engage it and race the MCAS to get into a close-to-proper trim setup prior to cutting out the stabtrim and assuming manual trim control. All while keeping the plane in the air, reading the manual, and attempting not to lose composure knowing that the same thing has happened to another flight that lost all hands. I'm trying very hard to look at this objectively, but this is an extremely bad look for Boeing.
- daddylonglegs 8y ago
  > > They must cut it at a moment where the stabilizer isn't grossly mistrimmed with respect to level flight, OR they may well need to re-engage it and race the MCAS to get into a close-to-proper trim setup prior to cutting out the stabtrim and assuming manual trim control. > All while keeping the plane in the air, reading the manual, and attempting not to lose composure knowing that the same thing has happened to another flight that lost all hands. Additionally an angle of attack (AOA) sensor failure also triggers an unreliable airspeed warning so the pilots no longer trust their airspeed sensors or their AOA sensors while trying to judge pitch and speed. If they go too fast the control forces overpower them, if they go too slow they are more likely to stall. I don't think Boeing gamed out or tested in a simulator the human factors involved in an AOA failure at takeoff, particularly for pilots who - like the Lion Air pilots - are entirely ignorant of MCASes existence.
  - Rooster61 8y ago
    I don't remember where I read it, but my understanding is that the MAX simulator does NOT simulate MCAS behavior. EDIT: Found it: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ethiopia-airplane-simulator-exclusive/ethiopia-crash-captain-did-not-train-on-airlines-max-simulator-source-idUSKCN1R20WD https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ethiopia-airplane-simulat...
    - daddylonglegs 8y ago

Rooster61 8y ago

Doubtful. Older models don't have the oversized, forward-mounted engines, and thus don't have as much of an AoA problem as the MAX does in typical flight conditions. That's the reason the MAX should have been a separate classification with specific hands-on training.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
The MAX is stable in normal flight. It's only when you are pitched up does the engine placement make it want to pitch up even more (and it is only a problem at a speed that is low enough that the normal stabilizer control doesn't have enough control authority to push it back) hence MCAS forcing the nose down every so often via the trim. A normal flight does include pitching up but it does not include pitching up at such a low speed that a little more pitch would quickly cause a stall. MCAS (or at least the nose down function) is specifically designed for an edge case (in that it should be sitting there watching, not actually doing anything during a normal flight). edited
- Rooster61 8y ago
  Hence why I said "typical flight conditions", which includes pitching up. Point being, its utterly commonplace for a plane to pitch up at some point during the flight. They weren't doing anything out of the ordinary.
- Rooster61 8y ago
  > MCAS is specifically designed for an edge case Source? That's the first I've heard that it's only for edge cases.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    If the pilot, who hopefully has thicker skin than people on the internet, moves the buttons and levers properly MCAS should never have to do anything. It's only supposed to actually do anything when you let the nose pitch up a little too much (which the system will detect using the AoA sensors)[0]. It's like automatic braking in a new car, if you drive the way you're "expected to" you shouldn't be activating it often. [0] https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/what-is-the-boeing-737-max-maneuvering-characteristics-augmentation-system-mcas-jt610/ https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/what-is-the-boeing...

jessaustin 8y ago

...was that an issue with older 737 models... 737 is a common plane. If there were a systemic problem it would have been discovered long ago. (In fact I think several such problems were discovered and fixed long ago.) Look how quickly this new problem was discovered by the public, with both the manufacturer and primary regulator working to hide it.

treis 8y ago

I think people are reading too much into an ambiguous statement. It says: >At 05:41:46, the Captain asked the First-Officer if the trim is functional. The First-Officer has replied that the trim was not working and asked if he could try it manually. The Captain told him to try. At 05:41:54, the First-Officer replied that it is not working. "Manually" here could mean manual electric control. 8 seconds seems an awfully short time for the Captain to ask if trim is functional, FO to say no and ask to try manual, Captain to say Yes, and for the FO to try the wheel and conclude it's not working.