Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lion Air 737-Max missing, presumed down in the sea near CGK (Jakarta)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
    Then I'm afraid we're doomed, and have so been for a while. I'm not sure where you're planning to find all these wonderful, benevolent, kumbayatic regulatory bodies of which you speak. Regulatory agencies, like all other government bureaucracies, spend 50% of their time trying to justify their own existence, 38.3% of the time drinking coffee (that you and I bought them), and only 12.7% of the time doing anything resembling their jobs.
    Hmmm. So, you have to wonder then how the FAR's got written, and how they are constantly revised, and where all those AD's are coming from, and how those accident investigations lead to new AD's and regulations, and how things keep getting safer and how we can routinely fly through the sky at the edge of the subsonic envelope over tall mountains and vast oceans without a grim weekly body count. The thing is, I hold aviation up as a rare exemplar of what society can achieve, across borders even, if it has the will and the courage and the determination to do so. That is why I become alarmed when anything exposes a cancer in the system, because it is a miraculous and exceptional instance of governments and industries working within a rigid framework of rules written by intelligence and expertise, uncompromised by politics and groveling. Given the sad state of society today, particularly in areas of leadership, the aviation industry is truly miraculous.

    But if it is allowed to fester, ever so slightly, it will fester quickly. Aviation standards have to be adamant, always, without exception, to preserve this global achievement, and to keep airplanes from plummeting out of the sky (see: Indonesia).

    That's my motive. Specifically, my motive here is merely to discuss things. It's a social discussion forum. It's educational. I see plenty of value in that.

    It's not that there's "nothing to see here", it's that you're going about things backasswards.
    Ok. so, what's the assfrontwards way to go about this?

    Leave a comment:


  • ATLcrew
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post

    Which is why we must be able to trust regulatory bodies to manage those risks for us. Not the industry.

    If we can't trust the regulatory bodies, we're doomed (see: Indonesia).
    Then I'm afraid we're doomed, and have so been for a while. I'm not sure where you're planning to find all these wonderful, benevolent, kumbayatic regulatory bodies of which you speak. Regulatory agencies, like all other government bureaucracies, spend 50% of their time trying to justify their own existence, 38.3% of the time drinking coffee (that you and I bought them), and only 12.7% of the time doing anything resembling their jobs.

    If you want that to change, you'll have to change the whole society. At any rate, you certainly won't accomplish anything by banging away at the keyboard here.

    This is why I question your motives, I don't think you give a tenth of a damn about aviation. Your issues are with the social construct as a whole. There is nothing wrong with that, but to turn aviation into some sort of a scapegoat example of all this unethical horror is at the very least dishonest. The things you find so objectionable (in some cases very rightly so) didn't start with aviation, nor will end with it.

    It's not that there's "nothing to see here", it's that you're going about things backasswards.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
    But this happens all the time, and it needs to happen, Things can always be made safer by adding cost...
    I'm talking about making things less safer by removing costs. Which would be happening all the time if regulations didn't require those things.

    The caveat is that these "profit vs risk" decisions have to be made ethically.
    Oh, Gabriel, don't make me laugh like that. Ethics are dead in business. Long dead. These 'profit vs risk" decisions have to be made by regulators, not on ethical grounds, but on practical grounds, knowing that anything that threatens the sustainability of safe (and thus functional) air travel must be avoided for the industry to thrive.

    People doesn't know the risks decisions involved in the design of the cars they are driving, or the blender they are using, or the lettuce they are eating, let alone airplanes and airlines.
    Which is why we must be able to trust regulatory bodies to manage those risks for us. Not the industry.

    If we can't trust the regulatory bodies, we're doomed (see: Indonesia).

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    Calculated as follows: "We can realize some added profit here by accepting a bit more risk to the public". Regulators must prevent industries from making those decisions on our behalf. Regulators must be trusted to make those decisions on our behalf.
    But this happens all the time, and it needs to happen, Things can always be made safer by adding cost (in the shape of R&D, adding parts or technology to the product, or limiting the product's capability for example by increasing the empty weight, reducing the MTOW, etc...). Added cost will mean less profit or higher prices (or both).

    The caveat is that these "profit vs risk" decisions have to be made ethically. That is, not accepting unnecessary risks that can be reasonably avoided or addressed. And the ethics comes in what "unnecessary, reasonably, and address" mean.

    I'm aware that flying involves certain calculated risks. I'm the one calculating them when I choose to fly on a specific airline or aircraft. I can't do that if certain risks are hidden from me, or misrepresented.

    I highly doubt that the passengers of Lion Air flight 610 were aware of the risks that the company (and perhaps Boeing--time will tell) seems to have accepted on their behalf.
    This is highly naive. People doesn't know the risks decisions involved in the design of the cars they are driving, or the blender they are using, or the lettuce they are eating, let alone airplanes and airlines.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
    Evan, I agree in general with all what you say except this:

    What's the alternative to calculated risk?
    Calculated as follows: "We can realize some added profit here by accepting a bit more risk to the public". Regulators must prevent industries from making those decisions on our behalf. Regulators must be trusted to make those decisions on our behalf.

    I'm aware that flying involves certain calculated risks. I'm the one calculating them when I choose to fly on a specific airline or aircraft. I can't do that if certain risks are hidden from me, or misrepresented.

    I highly doubt that the passengers of Lion Air flight 610 were aware of the risks that the company (and perhaps Boeing--time will tell) seems to have accepted on their behalf.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Evan, I agree in general with all what you say except this:

    We cannot let industry take calculated risks with people's lives.
    What's the alternative to calculated risk?

    Leave a comment:


  • xspeedy
    replied
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/before...sts?yptr=yahoo

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
    Boeing's not going anywhere, Evan, certainly not because of this. Accept it or don't accept it, your choice.

    Have you thought of reviving The Great Speckled Bird? Your writing style and at least some of your ideas would lend themselves well to a publication like that.
    Meaning what? That I embrace a sort of ultra-leftist doctrine because I find it outrageous that a brand new Boeing with 181 souls on board just plunged into the sea in the year 2018? Do I embrace a paranoid righteousness because I question why the FAA restored a still-obviously-corrupted civil air authority to its good graces? Is it so anti-establishment to find it troubling that Boeing's launch customer for the 737-Max is built upon a culture that was known for prioritizing dispatch over safety, skimping on maintenance and pilot training, and had made that culture abundantly clear through a rather obvious display of broken airplanes and broken passengers?

    Or is it simply righteous paranoia to even raise questions regarding anything about the industry status quo? Because that seems to be your consistent stand on this forum. Nothing to see here. Move along.

    I'm not hoping for Boeing's demise; I want to see them evolve, but I'm hoping for some serious reform, some compunction, some lessons learned and a more progressive attitude, and hopefully some restored wisdom as a result of this investigation. We cannot let markets or schedules prevail over safety. We cannot let industry take calculated risks with people's lives. We cannot let business aspirations erode the high regulational standards that have come to make air travel so incredibly safe.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    The last two flights, the flight from Denpasar to Jakarta as well as the accident flight, were showing the same issue, the right hand speed (first officer's IAS) signficantly higher than the left hand speed (captain's speed). The captain's AoA indicated about 20 degrees higher than the first officer's AoA. As result the left stick shaker activated immediately after takeoff and operated, with a brief period where it stopped during a descent shortly after takeoff, continuosly throughout the flight. When the aircraft levelled off at 5000 feet automatic nose down trim inputs occurred which were countered by manual trim up inputs by the crew. The nose down trim inputs were created by the Maneouvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), a tool which will lower the nose of the aircraft to prevent a stall. Until the end of the flight the automatic nose down trim inputs were countered by manual nose up trim inputs by the crew. During the end of the recording the automatic nose down trim inputs increased, the pilots still trimmed nose up however shorter. Overall the stabilizer trim position moves increasingly towards nose down until it was no longer possible to counter the pitch down moment via the yoke. Throughout the flight there had been no problems with the engines. On the previous flight from Denpasar to Jakarta the same problem existed, the automatic trim inputs however did not occur. The crew must have done something preventing the MCAS system producing the nose down trim inputs.
    https://forums.jetphotos.com/showthr...062#post674062

    I don't know who performed worse. If the crew of the accident flight, if the crew of the previous fight, or if maintenance. Well, I know: Management.

    Leave a comment:


  • ATLcrew
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    A damning report by the New York Times today, telling us what we already knew... I highly suspect that the reinstatement of Indonesia to an IASA category 1 status was a reckless political move done to appease Boeing and clear the way for the biggest deal in their history. The safety culture there is indeed still broken and the problem is indeed still a governmental one.

    Lion Air is a house of cards. If the fallout from this investigation erodes consumer trust, a significant dip in revenue could cause creditors to panic and the company to fold. That means Boeing loses hundreds of orders and billions in revenue. And that would actually be justice.

    Regulation is not there to combat industry. It is there to assure that industry is sustainable. Ultimately, it is there to provide economic stability. The current age we live in embraces a cupidity for rapid growth and short-term returns, and is therefore hostile to regulation, which it only sees as an impediment. This age breeds volatile economies, reckless industries and tragic accidents. It accommodates great fortunes while it proceeds to topple industries and destroy great societies.
    Boeing's not going anywhere, Evan, certainly not because of this. Accept it or don't accept it, your choice.

    Have you thought of reviving The Great Speckled Bird? Your writing style and at least some of your ideas would lend themselves well to a publication like that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Spend the Minimum

    A damning report by the New York Times today, telling us what we already knew... I highly suspect that the reinstatement of Indonesia to an IASA category 1 status was a reckless political move done to appease Boeing and clear the way for the biggest deal in their history. The safety culture there is indeed still broken and the problem is indeed still a governmental one.

    Lion Air is a house of cards. If the fallout from this investigation erodes consumer trust, a significant dip in revenue could cause creditors to panic and the company to fold. That means Boeing loses hundreds of orders and billions in revenue. And that would actually be justice.

    Regulation is not there to combat industry. It is there to assure that industry is sustainable. Ultimately, it is there to provide economic stability. The current age we live in embraces a cupidity for rapid growth and short-term returns, and is therefore hostile to regulation, which it only sees as an impediment. This age breeds volatile economies, reckless industries and tragic accidents. It accommodates great fortunes while it proceeds to topple industries and destroy great societies.

    The report shows how Lion used a strategy of swapping faulty components (including weather radar!) between aircraft, rather than repairing them, to meet the MEL requirements for maximum allowable flights in that condition.

    I'm feeling pretty confident that this upset would have been recoverable by competent pilots. I'm also feeling pretty confident that the final report will be less than honest about that.

    Originally posted by NY Times
    Even by its own admission, Lion has skimped on pilot training compared with other airlines. When pilots for Garuda, Indonesia’s national carrier, train to fly the Max 8, the same new model that crashed last month, they travel to Singapore to practice on a Max simulator. Lion Air pilots, by contrast, take a three-hour online-learning program.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/22/w...-failures.html

    Again, Boeing strongly marketed the 737-Max on the merit of its low pilot transition training costs.

    Leave a comment:


  • BoeingBobby
    replied
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
    So- a serious question:

    Is it crappy training OR For the most part I would say no. Especially when it comes to 121 operators.

    Is it that even with the best efforts, you can't weed out all the goofuses. That will always be the case as well.

    OR

    Do people simply brainfart sometimes. That will always be the case with humans.

    (I know the absolute "OR" may not be valid).

    In my opinion anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    My point exactly, and not in blue font!
    So- a serious question:

    Is it crappy training

    OR

    Is it that even with the best efforts, you can't weed out all the goofuses.

    OR

    Do people simply brainfart sometimes.

    (I know the absolute "OR" may not be valid).

    Leave a comment:


  • BoeingBobby
    replied
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
    There we have it...what Airline pilots are taught and what we always suspected: not enough emphasis on stall prevention!

    This is in strong conflict with the Parlour Talker's procedure: Push forward, houses get bigger. Pull back houses get smaller. BUT DO NOT PULL BACK RELENTLESSLY OR they get bigger again followed by getting smaller as they burn to the ground after you crash into them.
    My point exactly, and not in blue font!

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    Push forward, houses get bigger. Pull back houses get smaller. Keep pulling back and houses get bigger again.
    There we have it...what Airline pilots are taught and what we always suspected: not enough emphasis on stall prevention!

    This is in strong conflict with the Parlour Talker's procedure: Push forward, houses get bigger. Pull back houses get smaller. BUT DO NOT PULL BACK RELENTLESSLY OR they get bigger again followed by getting smaller as they burn to the ground after you crash into them.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X