Question

Wreckage piece found at Boeing 737 Max 8 crash site shows jet was set to dive

A screw-like device found in the wreckage of the Boeing 737 Max 8 that crashed last Sunday in Ethiopia indicates the plane was configured to dive, a piece of evidence that helped convince U.S. regulators to ground the model, a person familiar with the investigation said late Thursday night.

Federal Aviation Administration chief Daniel Elwell on Wednesday cited unspecified evidence found at the crash scene as part of the justification for the agency to reverse course and temporarily halt flights of Boeing's largest selling aircraft. Up until then, American regulators had held off as nation after the nation had grounded the plane, Boeing's best-selling jet model.

The piece of evidence was a so-called jackscrew, used to set the trim that raises and lowers the plane's nose, according to the person, who requested anonymity to discuss the inquiry.

A preliminary review of the device and how it was configured at the time of the crash indicated that it was set to push down the nose, according to the person, who wasn't authorized to speak publicly about the investigation.

The jackscrew, combined with a newly obtained satellite flight track of the plane, convinced the FAA that there were similarities to the Oct. 29 crash of the same Max model off the coast of Indonesia. In the earlier accident, a safety feature on the Boeing aircraft was repeatedly trying to put the plane into a dive as a result of a malfunction.

All 157 people aboard Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 died early Sunday shortly after the plane took off. The pilot reported an unspecified problem and was trying to return to the airport. The plane crashed near Addis Ababa, Ethiopia's capital. The plane's crash-proof recorders have been sent to France to be analyzed.

The discovery of the jackscrew was earlier reported by NBC News.

Separately, The New York Times reported that the doomed Ethiopian Airlines plane was in trouble almost immediately after takeoff as it lurched up and down by hundreds of feet at a time. The captain of the Boeing Co. 737 Max 8 asked in a panicky voice to turn back only three minutes into the flight as the plane accelerated to abnormal speeds, the newspaper reported, citing a person who reviewed the jet's air traffic communications.

The two plane crashes - one in Indonesia, the other in Ethiopia - that led to the worldwide grounding of Boeing 737 MAX 8 planes displayed similarities that linked them right away. On Thursday, Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg assumed responsibility for the flight-control problems that contributed to the accidents, saying, “We own it.’’

Here’s a look at the commonality and differences between the crashes:

Likely cause

At the time Lion Air Flight 610 plummeted into the Java Sea off Indonesia on Oct. 29, killing all 189 aboard, hardly anybody had heard of MCAS, the aircraft’s new anti-stall system. That included the pilots, whom Boeing had failed to notify with the reasoning that the revamped model flew much like the old 737.

Some of the evidence about that tragedy and the crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 on March 10 pointed to erroneous readings from a single angle of attack sensor that activated MCAS – and repeatedly pitched the planes’ nose down – as major factors, and Muilenburg acknowledged as much.

While aviation experts often point out crashes are not caused by a single reason, the problems with MCAS and the pilots’ lack of familiarity with the system certainly stand out.

“As pilots have told us, erroneous activation of the MCAS function can add to what is already a high workload environment,’’ Muilenburg said. “It’s our responsibility to eliminate this risk.’’

Flight pattern

The link between the two catastrophes was not established merely because both involved the same airplane model. The Federal Aviation Administration, which was days behind its counterparts elsewhere in calling for the MAX jets to be grounded, based its decision on satellite tracking that showed the flights followed a similar path.

In both cases, the pilots struggled to control the aircraft shortly after takeoff, as the jets experienced drastic changes in airspeed and altitude before lurching down. The Ethiopian Airlines flight was in the air for six minutes; the Lion Air flight for 12.

The weather was not considered a factor in either crash.

Desperate last moments

Data from the cockpit voice recorder has shed light on how the pilots reacted in both situations, and it appears they were overwhelmed by the MCAS malfunction.

MCAS was a foreign concept when the Lion Air flight took off from Jakarta, and according to media reports, as the tension mounted and control of the plane remained elusive, Indian-born pilot Bhavye Suneja flipped through a technical manual trying to find a solution.

His Indonesian first officer, known by the single name Harvino, prayed for a miracle.

The Ethiopian flight lasted half as long and ran into trouble almost from the first minute, with the aircraft barely 500 feet in the air. The Wall Street Journal reported an exchange between captain Yared Getachew and co-pilot Ahmed Nur Mohammed as one tells the other, “Pitch up! Pitch up!’’

Shortly afterward, the radio went dead and the planed plummeted onto a field outside the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa, killing all 157 aboard.

Maintenance

Ethiopian is known as one of the top airlines in Africa, with a strong safety record and a fleet featuring mostly newer aircraft. No maintenance issues had been reported on its MAX 8 plane and there was no reason to fear any mishaps when Flight 302 took off for a two-hour trip to Nairobi, Kenya.

Apology: Boeing CEO accepts blame for two plane crashes, apologizes to families of victims: 'We own it'

Duly prepared?: Are pilots outside the U.S. getting the training needed to fly jets, including Boeing 737 Max 8?

Indonesia’s Lion Air does not enjoy the same sterling reputation, given its history of safety lapses. Data-reading problems were reported in the four flights before the disaster, including one the previous day when the plane jerked so violently that some passengers vomited.

That is believed to be the same flight in which an off-duty pilot traveling on the jump seat recognized the malfunction, overrode the automated system and controlled the plane.

Pilot experience and training

Some U.S. pilots who have flown the 737 series – but not the MAX – have wondered aloud why the aviators on both flights didn’t manually stop the trim wheel, a piece of equipment in the cockpit console that controls the horizontal stabilizer on the plane’s tail.

Pilots for airlines elsewhere in the world train under a different system that requires fewer flight hours than their American counterparts, and Nur had only 200 hours of experience, an unthinkably low total for a first officer on a 737 for a U.S. airline.

But Getachew was highly experienced with more than 8,000 hours, and both Suneja and Harvino had more than 5,000 hours.

A bigger factor might have been training on a MAX simulator, which Ethiopian officials said both Getachew and Nur had. It’s not known whether Suneja and Harvino did, but it appears unlikely considering the simulators’ scarcity.

At a news conference in Addis Ababa, Ethiopian Minister of Transport Dagmawit Moges said Getachew and Nur did everything by the book as they attempted to keep the plane from nosediving.

“The crew performed all the procedures repeatedly provided by the manufacturer but were not able to control the aircraft,’’ Moges said.

Is there an agency relationship between the airlines (Lion Air and Ethiopian Air) and Boeing?

If so, who is the principal and who is the agent? Use evidence from news articles to back up your argument. In terms of potential liability for the deaths.

why is it important to determine whether an agency relationship exists?

Who is liable for the deaths of the passengers and crew?

Answer 1

Yes ,there is relationship similarity between airlines and Boeing. The relationship is -

1.In both cases, the pilots struggled to control the aircraft shortly after takeoff, as the jets experienced drastic changes in airspeed and altitude before lurching down. The Ethiopian Airlines flight was in the air for six minutes;the Lion Air flight for 12.The weather was not considered a factor in either crash.

2.Desperate last moments

Data from the cockpit voice recorder has shed light on how the pilots reacted in both situations, and it appears they were overwhelmed by the MCAS malfunction.

3.As pilots in both cases have told , erroneous activation of the MCAS function can add to what is already a high workload environment,’’it was responsibility to eliminate this risk.’

In terms of relationship Boieng is principal and Ethopian and lion air is the agent.

In terms of potential liability for the deaths it is important to determine whether an agency relationship exists because if that relationship could be found out, future accidents can be prevented and live of people can be saved.

As clearly evident from the case study.Boeing CEO accepts blame for two plane crashes,a nd apologizes to families of victims.

Please like this answer by giving it thumbs up.