The Boeing 737 Max accidents: Bad design, failed regulation, and deceitfulness Jim Thomson May 2021 www.safetyinengineering.com May 2021 www.safetyinengineering.com 1 May 2021 www.safetyinengineering.com 1 May 2021 www.safetyinengineering.com 1 May 2021 www.safetyinengineering.com 1 May 2021 www.safetyinengineering.com 1 May 2021 www.safetyinengineering.com 1 May 2021 www.safetyinengineering.com 1 May 2021 www.safetyinengineering.com 1 May 2021 www.safetyinengineering.com 1 May 2021 www.safetyinengineering.com 1
35
Embed
The Boeing 737 Max accidents: Bad design, failed regulation, and … 737 Max... · 2021. 4. 11. · without a fix to MCAS, during the lifetime of the 737 MAX fleet, there could potentially
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
The Boeing 737 Max accidents:Bad design, failed regulation, and
GE CFM LEAP, each up to 28000 lbf/130kN(LEAP=Leading Edge Aviation Propulsion)
‘Glass cockpit’ but retains hydro-mechanical flight controls(unlike 777 and 787 which are fly-by-wire).Look and feel remain similar to NG.
May 2021 www.safetyinengineering.com 3May 2021 www.safetyinengineering.com 3
Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO Jim Albaugh said in 2011 that adding more fly-by-wire control systems would be "very minimal". Most of the systems are carried from the 737NG for a short differences-training course to upgrade flight crews.
MCAS LOGICIF[(Flaps up) + (High Angle of Attack from RH AoA sensor) + (Autopilot disengaged)]
THENtrim the stabilizer down for up to 9.26 seconds (2.5 degrees nose down) then pause for 5 seconds and repeat if the conditions are still met
May 2021 www.safetyinengineering.com 8
If the single AoA sensor connected to MCAS is faulty during climb after take-off, MCAS will be triggered – and the aircraft will crash unless the pilot knows how to de-activate MCAS.
If the pilots used electric pitch trim, it paused MCAS for 5s and reset MCAS; to deactivate MCAS, the STAB TRIM CUTOUT switches had to be switched off.
May 2021 www.safetyinengineering.com 9May 2021 www.safetyinengineering.com 9
…..unintended MCAS-controlled stabilizer movement was considered to be “Major” (on a scale of Minor/Major/Catastrophic) which prevented further analysis of its failure conditions
…..(Boeing engineers reasoned that) uncommanded MCAS functionality could be countered by stabilizer trim and stabilizer cutout.
2018-23-51 - SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 737-8 and -9 airplanes. This emergency AD was sent previously to all known U.S. owners and operators of these airplanes. This AD requires revising certificate limitations and operating procedures of the airplane flight manual (AFM) to provide the flight crew with runaway horizontal stabilizer trim procedures to follow under certain conditions. This AD was prompted by analysis performed by the manufacturer showing that if an erroneously high single angle of attack (AOA) sensor input is received by the flight control system, there is a potential for repeated nose-down trim commands of the horizontal stabilizer. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
After the Lion Air accident, on 7 Nov 2018 the FAA issued Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2018-23-51:
May 2021 www.safetyinengineering.com 13
On 11 Dec 2019 House Transportation Committee Chairman Peter DeFazio referred to this AD and procedure by saying that “The FAA issued an emergency airworthiness directive that purported to inform pilots on how to respond to an erroneous activation of MCAS while actually never mentioning the system by name. In fact, during the certification of the 737 MAX, Boeing actively pushed the FAA to remove references to the MCAS from the flight crew operating manual.”
Ethiopian Airlines interim accident report, March 2020:One of the AD’s listed on the AD compliance report was AD-2018-23-51, Titled “To Address this potential resulting nose down trim”. The compliance report indicates that compliance was through AFM revision on 11/08/2018.
In December 2018, the FAA conducted a risk assessment and estimated that without a fix to MCAS, during the lifetime of the 737 MAX fleet, there could potentially be 15 additional fatal crashes resulting in over 2,900 deaths.
May 2021 www.safetyinengineering.com 14May 2021 www.safetyinengineering.com 14
Despite that assessment, the FAA permitted the 737 MAX to continue flying. During the period between the crashes, the FAA repeatedly justified its decision not to ground the 737 MAX saying that it did not have appropriate data to make that determination.
In October 2017, the right-side AOA sensor was repaired by Florida-based Xtra Aerospace. It was not installed until 28 October 2018.
“…….a [21-degree] difference between left and right AOA sensors was recorded, commencing shortly after the take-off roll was initiated, (indicating) that the AOA sensor was most likely improperly calibrated at Xtra Aerospace.”
Several hours after KNKT published its report, the FAA issued a statement (https://www.faa.gov/news/press_
releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=24314 ) revoking the Part 145 repair station certification of Xtra Aerospace.
AOA sensor maintenance QA issues
https://www.aviationtoday.com/2019/10/28/lion-air-737-max-final-accident-report-cites-aoa-sensor-mcas-as-contributing-factors/ from Final Lion Air accident report.
• As soon as the flaps were retracted the first automatic nose-down trim activated…….. The pilot flying pulled to pitch up the airplane with a force greater than 90lbs. • At 05:40:22, the second automatic nose-down trim activated. • At 05:40:43, a third automatic trim nose-down activated. • At 05:43:21, a fourth automatic nose-down trim activated for about 5 s.
• Despite recorded force of up to 180 lbs, the pitch continued decreasing.• At 05:43:44, end of flight record.
At the end of the flight, computed airspeed values reached 500kt, pitch values were greater than 40° nose down and descent rate values were greater than 33,000 ft/min.
“To make the claim that these accidents would not happen to U.S.-trained pilots is presumptuous and not supported by fact. Vilifyingnon-U.S. pilots is disrespectful and not solution-based…..Simply put, Boeing does not produce aircraft for U.S. pilots vs. pilots from the rest of the world.”
Captain Dan Carey, president of the Allied Pilots Association
“Pilots must be able to handle an unexpected emergency and still keep their passengers and crew safe, but we should first design aircraft for them to fly that do not have inadvertent traps set for them.”
Retired airline captain Chesley B. “Sully” Sullenberger
May 2021 www.safetyinengineering.com 20May 2021 www.safetyinengineering.com 20
During a reassessment of the aircraft in February 2020, both FAA and EASA determined that the stability and stall characteristics of the plane would have been acceptable with or without MCAS. (!!!)
1. Financial pressure on Boeing• Loss of market share to Airbus• Southwest Airlines (launch customer in US) negotiated $1M per plane if simulator training was necessary
2. Incorrect safety classification of MCAS• This was also a lesson from Qantas 72 (previous ETWG)
3. Concealment of information• Existence of MCAS; inoperable AoA disagree alert; test data regarding pilot response in simulators
to MCAS activation; failure to act after first crash
4. Ineffective oversight and regulation• Boeing employees were ‘authorised representatives’ of FAA • Inherent conflicts of interest
5. FAA management overruled their own technical experts at the behest of Boeing• Multiple career FAA officials have documented examples where FAA management overruled a
determination of the FAA’s own technical experts at the behest of Boeing
“The MAX crashes ……were the horrific culmination of a series of faulty technical assumptions by Boeing’s engineers, a lack of transparency on the part of Boeing’s management, and grossly insufficient oversight by the FAA—the pernicious result of regulatory capture on the part of the FAA…….”
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Report, September 2020
May 2021 www.safetyinengineering.com 22May 2021 www.safetyinengineering.com 22May 2021 www.safetyinengineering.com 22
“Amid a cacophony of confusing warnings and alerts on the flight deck, the horizontal stabilizer ultimately forced the airplane into a nose-down attitude from which the pilots were unable to recover.”
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Report, September 2020
May 2021 www.safetyinengineering.com 23May 2021 www.safetyinengineering.com 23May 2021 www.safetyinengineering.com 23
Remedial actions for 737 MAX return to serviceFrom Preliminary Summary of the FAA’s Review of the Boeing 737 MAX, FAA, 3rd August 2020
1. Eliminate MCAS reliance on a single AOA sensor
2. MCAS will not command repeated movements
3. Maximum stabiliser limit for MCAS commands
4. Additional training material
5. AOA DISAGREE alert message to be standard on all 737 MAX aircraft
6. FCC cross monitors to effectively detect and shut down erroneous stabilizer commands from the FCCs
7. Maintenance Manual for the AOA sensor was revised to include a final independent check
8. Operators must perform AOA Sensor System Tests on each airplane prior to return to service
May 2021 www.safetyinengineering.com 27
TL;DRThey fixed it.
May 2021 www.safetyinengineering.com 27
May 2021 www.safetyinengineering.com 28
Selected abridged recommendations for Boeing management systemsFrom Preliminary Summary of the FAA’s Review of the Boeing 737 MAX, FAA, 3rd August 2020
• System safety assessments
• Validating assumptions about pilot response
• Certification of changed products.
• Sufficient number of experienced specialists to perform certification and oversight duties.
• Promote a safety culture that drives a primary focus on the creation of safe products.
• FAA emphasize HF and human system integration throughout its certification process.
• Alarm overload.
• Use of systematic Human Performance and Error Assessments to complement SSAs.
May 2021 www.safetyinengineering.com 28
May 2021 www.safetyinengineering.com 29
Impact on regulators of some previous major accidents
1. After Deepwater Horizon, a new regulator for offshore safety regulation was created (BSEE).
2. After the 2006 RAF Nimrod accident, airworthiness was taken from the tri-service SHEF function and a Military Aviation Authority was established.
FAA reorganisation likely?
May 2021 www.safetyinengineering.com 29
1. Operators (pilots) and maintenance staff do not know
the detail of software logic in control systems.
2. Information buried in manuals is no good to
operators facing a crisis that requires immediate action.
3. Where prompt operator action is required in response
to a failure, this must be addressed in training.
4. Prompt incident reporting and circulation to operators.
https://transportation.house.gov/committee-activity/boeing-737-max-investigationLion Air PK-LQP.Accident date 29-10-18.189 dead.Preliminary Report, Nov 2018.Final Report, October 2019.
Ethiopian Airlines ET-AVJ.Accident date 10-3-19.157 dead.Preliminary Report, March 2019.Interim Report, March 2020.
“….numerous systemic deficiencies in FAA oversight”
“…..unnecessary risk to the flying public”
“FAA management appears to be aware, and in some cases complicit in thwarting the very oversight they are charged with directing and supervising.”
“In the most alarming cases, whistleblowers have warned of tragedies before they occur only to be retaliated against by managers.”
“FAA policies appear to have reduced effective oversight by abdicating responsibilities to the carriers. These actions within the administration have not gone unnoticed.”
In hazardous industries, independentregulators must be knowledgeable and suspicious.