• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Ethiopian Airways flight crashes (10/03) + 737 MAX grounding

Status
Not open for further replies.

atillathehunn

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2010
Messages
1,433
Location
NL
An Ethiopian Airlines flight has crashed shortly after take off from Addis bound for Nairobi.

All 157 souls are lost.

The Boeing 737MAX8 now has its second fatal accident within a few months.

A devastating loss.

I fly this route regularly. A sobering thought.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-47513508

An Ethiopian Airlines jet has crashed shortly after take-off from Addis Ababa, killing all on board.

The airline said 149 passengers and eight crew members were on flight ET302 from the Ethiopian capital to Nairobi in Kenya.

It said 32 Kenyans, 18 Canadians, eight Americans and seven British nationals were among the passengers.

The crash happened at 08:44 local time, six minutes after the months-old Boeing 737 Max-8 took off.

Another plane of the same model was involved in a crash less than five months ago, when a Lion Air flight crashed into the sea near Indonesia with nearly 190 people on board.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

bnm

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2009
Messages
4,996
Boeing will be concerned. Two complete hull losses of the 737MAX in a few months. Both shortly after take-off.
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
8,677
Does it feel similar to the lion air crash? Seems it from the limited information I've seen.

Also incredible the variety of nationalities
 

berneyarms

Established Member
Joined
26 Nov 2013
Messages
2,811
Location
Dublin
Does it feel similar to the lion air crash? Seems it from the limited information I've seen.

Also incredible the variety of nationalities

Not really that incredible about the nationalities - there’s a UN conference starting in Nairobi this week.

Regardless of that Ethiopian are a major hub airline for the African continent through Addis Ababa.
 

TheEdge

Established Member
Joined
29 Nov 2012
Messages
4,489
Location
Norwich
I see Ethiopian has already grounded the remainder of its 737MAX fleet and China has banned them from their airspace. Although that might be more political than anything.

It may turn out to be absolutely unrelated to the Lion Air crash but it doesn't really look good for Boeing to have lost two MAXs in such quick succession.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
I see Ethiopian has already grounded the remainder of its 737MAX fleet and China has banned them from their airspace. Although that might be more political than anything.

It may turn out to be absolutely unrelated to the Lion Air crash but it doesn't really look good for Boeing to have lost two MAXs in such quick succession.
It seems that attention is being focused on the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) as both of the crashes were preceded with unstable climb rates and angles of attack. The system is intended to prevent stalls that Owing to the larger bypass fans needing to be mounted higher to achieve minimum ground clearance, they have been raised into the wings leading edge profile. This has changed the aerodynamics of the wing/airframe and consequently created a tendency for tail heavy flight attitudes particularly likely during climbing after takeoff. I would imagine that Boeing will already be creating scenarios that look for systematic failures in that area. The MCAS was already under investigation following the Lion Air crash.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
It seems that attention is being focused on the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) as both of the crashes were preceded with unstable climb rates and angles of attack. The system is intended to prevent stalls that Owing to the larger bypass fans needing to be mounted higher to achieve minimum ground clearance, they have been raised into the wings leading edge profile. This has changed the aerodynamics of the wing/airframe and consequently created a tendency for tail heavy flight attitudes particularly likely during climbing after takeoff. I would imagine that Boeing will already be creating scenarios that look for systematic failures in that area. The MCAS was already under investigation following the Lion Air crash.

Small Boeings typically sit far lower than Airbuses (hence the "hamster cowl" on the engines) - I wonder why they went for all this complexity rather than just making the landing gear a bit taller?
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
Small Boeings typically sit far lower than Airbuses (hence the "hamster cowl" on the engines) - I wonder why they went for all this complexity rather than just making the landing gear a bit taller?
It seems that in their quest to undercut the operating cost of the A320neos by using a larger bypass fan, they took a compromise in the engine location. As you say, the 737 has always had the shortest undercarriage that they could get away with and in this case, in order to maintain the 17 inch clearance below the engine nacelle, an extension to the front undercarriage strut would have involved extensive airframe modifications to accomodate it when raised which would have put both the production cost and the weight up. The (less costly) solution chosen was to partially extend the strut and mount the engines further forward and higher on the wing. This necessitated a laminar flow spun nacelle lip similar to the 787 design. For the 737 max10, the front strut has been extended further with a lever arrangement that shrinks it's length as it rises so that the existing stowage bay can accommodate it. The net result of the engine relocation on all the maxs is a tendency to go nose up which requires measures to lift the tail. The MCAS was put there to reduce the pilot's involvement in that.
 
Last edited:

TheEdge

Established Member
Joined
29 Nov 2012
Messages
4,489
Location
Norwich
Small Boeings typically sit far lower than Airbuses (hence the "hamster cowl" on the engines) - I wonder why they went for all this complexity rather than just making the landing gear a bit taller?

As a total layman maybe certain alterations would require a different type rating or similar. Although that's a total guess!
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
As a total layman maybe certain alterations would require a different type rating or similar. Although that's a total guess!
I don't think so, - tweaks to enhance the performance against the competition are intended to cause as little (design) disruption as possible. The certification of design changes is against a full engineering case. Boeing, like Airbus make decisions against previous design baselines, qualifying not only the new part(s) but also ensure system integrity is as intended. In the race to compete though, it is inevitable that some things are overlooked, and occasionally, new failure modes (that weren't expected) arise. Fortunately, they rarely get attention outside the industry but something as big as this attracts widespread scruting, and rightly so.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
I would have thought raising the centre of thrust with the engines would create a tendency to go nose down?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I would have thought raising the centre of thrust with the engines would create a tendency to go nose down?

Think about it this way - the aircraft pivots around the wing, effectively (as that's the bit that's holding it up), so a force below the wing will make the nose go down. If you move the force closer to the wing, that effect will reduce. Move it above and it'll go up.

So I guess it's more a reduced tendency for the nose to go down?

The elevators at the back push the tail down (by pushing air up) to counter this effect, they aren't a second wing in the sense of keeping the plane up.
 

atillathehunn

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2010
Messages
1,433
Location
NL
My workplace has banned flights on the 737MAX8 (an agency within the UN). It isn't UN policy, but a local initiative.
 

73001

Member
Joined
2 Jun 2010
Messages
396
Location
Liverpool
It seems that in their quest to undercut the operating cost of the A320neos by using a larger bypass fan, they took a compromise in the engine location. As you say, the 737 has always had the shortest undercarriage that they could get away with and in this case, in order to maintain the 17 inch clearance below the engine nacelle, an extension to the front undercarriage strut would have involved extensive airframe modifications to accomodate it when raised which would have put both the production cost and the weight up. The (less costly) solution chosen was to partially extend the strut and mount the engines further forward and higher on the wing. This necessitated a laminar flow spun nacelle lip similar to the 787 design. For the 737 max10, the front strut has been extended further with a lever arrangement that shrinks it's length as it rises so that the existing stowage bay can accommodate it. The net result of the engine relocation on all the maxs is a tendency to go nose up which requires measures to lift the tail. The MCAS was put there to reduce the pilot's involvement in that.

Thank you for a concise explanation of the issues... I also read Airliners.net and gave up on their thread after 20 pages of complete guesswork, repetition and childish comments. Obviously we have no idea at the minute but at least I now understand why there might be an issue and what it might be.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
Think about it this way - the aircraft pivots around the wing, effectively (as that's the bit that's holding it up), so a force below the wing will make the nose go down. If you move the force closer to the wing, that effect will reduce. Move it above and it'll go up.

So I guess it's more a reduced tendency for the nose to go down?

The elevators at the back push the tail down (by pushing air up) to counter this effect, they aren't a second wing in the sense of keeping the plane up.
Yes, I think the problem isn't so much the increased tendency for the nose to go up, - most pilots will be trained to deal with an aircraft that is approaching a stall, (then there's nagging Nora shouting it out anyway), but Boeing fitted the MCAS to provide some auto correction. This feature may have been malfunctioning on the Lion Air flight and to make matters worse, the crew hadn't been trained on it's use, so they were trying to correct an effect caused by a system that they didn't know existed and might have been faulty anyway. If true, in a nightmare situation like that, the crew didn't stand a chance.
 

Swanny200

Member
Joined
18 Sep 2010
Messages
665
It does make me wonder is this is Boeing's Airbus moment where they implement something in their new aircraft and neglect to tell the people that pilot them how it all works: see the Air France 296 crash in 1988. (Boeing had originally said in some reports that they didn't want to overload pilots technically with the differences), these pilots have some from 737's whereas the 737 Max is a completely different plane.
 

TheEdge

Established Member
Joined
29 Nov 2012
Messages
4,489
Location
Norwich
Can you be sure what aircraft you will get until you get to the gate?

Most (if not all) airlines openly list the aircraft booked on each flight, sometimes even down to if its a 737-800 or 737-900 so you can tell what you get. Necessity also means most aircraft allocations are fairly solid.

It does make me wonder is this is Boeing's Airbus moment where they implement something in their new aircraft and neglect to tell the people that pilot them how it all works: see the Air France 296 crash in 1988. (Boeing had originally said in some reports that they didn't want to overload pilots technically with the differences), these pilots have some from 737's whereas the 737 Max is a completely different plane.

Well the more obvious example would be Kegworth, as that was a new family of 737s with a modification over the last generation, in that case swapping the engine the bleed air was drawn from on the 737 Classic than it was on the 737-1/200s.
 

Swanny200

Member
Joined
18 Sep 2010
Messages
665
Most (if not all) airlines openly list the aircraft booked on each flight, sometimes even down to if its a 737-800 or 737-900 so you can tell what you get. Necessity also means most aircraft allocations are fairly solid.



Well the more obvious example would be Kegworth, as that was a new family of 737s with a modification over the last generation, in that case swapping the engine the bleed air was drawn from on the 737 Classic than it was on the 737-1/200s.

Yes of course I forgot all about Kegworth, IIRC they powered down the wrong engine, because if you smelt burning through the flightdeck vents on the 737 classic it denoted that the right engine was at fault when in fact it was the left at fault on the newer model, how such a simple change in some respects had caused the downing of a plane.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Think about it this way - the aircraft pivots around the wing, effectively (as that's the bit that's holding it up), so a force below the wing will make the nose go down. If you move the force closer to the wing, that effect will reduce. Move it above and it'll go up.

So I guess it's more a reduced tendency for the nose to go down?

The elevators at the back push the tail down (by pushing air up) to counter this effect, they aren't a second wing in the sense of keeping the plane up.
Looking at it from the port wingtip, it is flying right to left and applying forward (leftward) force to the engines (equal and opposite reaction to the thrust) in the absence of any correction will surely rotate it clockwise therefore nose up? And if the same force is applied closer to the wing the nose won't go up so much?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Looking at it from the port wingtip, it is flying right to left and applying forward (leftward) force to the engines (equal and opposite reaction to the thrust) in the absence of any correction will surely rotate it clockwise therefore nose up? And if the same force is applied closer to the wing the nose won't go up so much?

You're actually right, I was being thick. Must be something else related to weight/balance then.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Bringing the heavy engines further forward would also create a tendency to go nose down. They haven't by any chance stretched the rear part of fuselage?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I don't fully understand it, but apparently it's also related to the refined shape of the engines and their higher thrust output:
https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-...aracteristics-augmentation-system-mcas-jt610/

That makes a very interesting and slightly chilling read. It certainly gives the impression, to be blunt, of "we screwed up designing the shape of the engine nacelle, and it caused an unexpected issue in flight, so we bodged on a system to work around it instead of fixing it properly because it was cheaper than binning a load of metal we'd already built and doing it again properly".

This is rather concerning as an attitude from an aircraft manufacturer.
 

rdeez

Member
Joined
7 Apr 2013
Messages
354
That makes a very interesting and slightly chilling read. It certainly gives the impression, to be blunt, of "we screwed up designing the shape of the engine nacelle, and it caused an unexpected issue in flight, so we bodged on a system to work around it instead of fixing it properly because it was cheaper than binning a load of metal we'd already built and doing it again properly".

This is rather concerning as an attitude from an aircraft manufacturer.

In theory, it seems like a reasonable solution to a potentially very expensive problem, if you would otherwise end up redesigning large chunks of the fuselage - the MCAS is only supposed to be required in a small number of situations and flight envelope protections are found in most modern aircraft. From what I've read though, it seems like the implementation and particularly how it was (or wasn't, as it turned out) communicated to pilots left a lot to be desired. Boeing are "all in" with the 737 MAX with thousands of orders on the books - even if this crash did turn out to be related to MCAS as well, I can't see them going back to the drawing board on the entire aircraft, it could ruin them. More likely extensive modifications to the system and further training for pilots.
 

TheEdge

Established Member
Joined
29 Nov 2012
Messages
4,489
Location
Norwich
So Singapore has now banned the entire MAX family, as opposed to the MAX 8 only, from their airspace.

I'd imagine the Boeing boardroom isn't a happy place at the moment.
 

thejuggler

Member
Joined
8 Jan 2016
Messages
1,186
I don't fully understand it, but apparently it's also related to the refined shape of the engines and their higher thrust output:
https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-...aracteristics-augmentation-system-mcas-jt610/

An American Airlines 737 Max pilot was on R4 yesterday and he also discussed the matter of the system being installed, but its existence not being revealed to pilots as they wouldn't be aware it was operating. There was fear of overloading pilots with too much information. His familiarity training was an ipad app training course which took him 56 minutes.

He did however state it is great aircraft to fly, but this was a serious omission by Boeing and he feels it was done to show the new aircraft isn't that much different in order to keep customers away from the 320 Neo.
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
8,677
More countries added to the list that have prohibited 737MAX operation, Singapore and Australia this morning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top