Advertisement
Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up,
it unlocks many cool features!
- Full List of Boeing 737 MAX Incidents Reported by Pilots
- From NASA ASRA Database: https://titan-server.arc.nasa.gov/ASRSPublicQueryWizard/QueryWizard_Filter.aspx
- ACN: 1604159 (1 of 20)
- Time / Day
- Date : 201812
- Local Time Of Day : 0601-1200
- Place
- Locale Reference.Airport : DEN.Airport
- State Reference : CO
- Altitude.MSL.Single Value : 10500
- Environment
- Light : Daylight
- Aircraft
- Reference : X
- ATC / Advisory.TRACON : D01
- Aircraft Operator : Air Carrier
- Make Model Name : B737-800
- Crew Size.Number Of Crew : 2
- Operating Under FAR Part : Part 121
- Flight Plan : IFR
- Mission : Passenger
- Nav In Use : FMS Or FMC
- Flight Phase : Initial Approach
- Airspace.Class B : DEN
- Person
- Reference : 1
- Location Of Person.Aircraft : X
- Location In Aircraft : Flight Deck
- Reporter Organization : Air Carrier
- Function.Flight Crew : Captain
- Function.Flight Crew : Pilot Flying
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Instrument
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Multiengine
- Experience.Flight Crew.Last 90 Days : 501
- Experience.Flight Crew.Type : 11195
- ASRS Report Number.Accession Number : 1604159
- Human Factors : Human-Machine Interface
- Human Factors : Situational Awareness
- Events
- Anomaly.Deviation - Altitude : Undershoot
- Anomaly.Deviation - Altitude : Excursion From Assigned Altitude
- Anomaly.Deviation - Procedural : Clearance
- Detector.Person : Flight Crew
- Detector.Person : Air Traffic Control
- When Detected : In-flight
- Result.Flight Crew : Returned To Clearance
- Result.Flight Crew : Became Reoriented
- Result.Air Traffic Control : Issued Advisory / Alert
- Assessments
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Human Factors
- Primary Problem : Human Factors
- Narrative: 1
- We planned for the Visual to Runway 16L and talked about the possible assignment to 17R. When checking in with Approach we were advised to expect 17R. We briefed and programmed the RNP Z 17R. AS we approached the IAF I was preparing for what to do (i.e. what fix to use based on location of active waypoint) and/or the state of the IAF (i.e. active waypoint or not). To the best of my recollection, the IAF was on LSK L2, then I placed it IAF under IAF, although a review after the fact stated we "could" place in on top of it. We both complied with VVMI prior to execution. The aircraft continued on downwind with no descent. Almost simultaneously, as we noticed the wrong picture on the MAP display, the Controller asked us if we were descending. By this time I had disconnected automation and was following the purple line while both of us were monitoring altitude restrictions based on our clearance. The Pilot Monitoring reprogrammed the approach and the rest of the flight was uneventful. No further calls from ATC, altitude, or course deviations occurred. Consider calling the field in sight and requesting visual approach. We do believe that the IAF (since we were close to it) might have auto-sequenced from L2 to L1 (active), and as we know the programming in this case would have been different. Therefore, maybe a closer look at the distance remaining to the active waypoint might have helped prevent this situation.
- Synopsis
- B737 MAX8 Captain reported failure to descend as charted while flying the RNAV (RNP) Z approach to Runway 17R at DEN due to an FMC programming error.
- ACN: 1603503 (2 of 20)
- Time / Day
- Date : 201812
- Place
- Locale Reference.Airport : ZZZ.Airport
- State Reference : US
- Altitude.AGL.Single Value : 0
- Environment
- Weather Elements / Visibility : Rain
- Light : Night
- Aircraft
- Reference : X
- Aircraft Operator : Air Carrier
- Make Model Name : B737-800
- Crew Size.Number Of Crew : 2
- Operating Under FAR Part : Part 121
- Mission : Passenger
- Flight Phase : Parked
- Component
- Aircraft Component : Aerofoil Ice System
- Aircraft Reference : X
- Problem : Malfunctioning
- Person
- Reference : 1
- Location Of Person : Company
- Location In Aircraft : Flight Deck
- Reporter Organization : Air Carrier
- Function.Flight Crew : Pilot Flying
- Function.Flight Crew : Captain
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Instrument
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Multiengine
- Experience.Flight Crew.Last 90 Days : 357
- ASRS Report Number.Accession Number : 1603503
- Human Factors : Time Pressure
- Human Factors : Confusion
- Human Factors : Distraction
- Events
- Anomaly.Aircraft Equipment Problem : Less Severe
- Anomaly.Deviation - Procedural : Published Material / Policy
- Anomaly.Deviation - Procedural : MEL
- Detector.Person : Flight Crew
- When Detected : In-flight
- Result.Flight Crew : Became Reoriented
- Assessments
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Chart Or Publication
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Equipment / Tooling
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Human Factors
- Contributing Factors / Situations : MEL
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Procedure
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Weather
- Primary Problem : Human Factors
- Narrative: 1
- ZZZ had terrible weather. We were already hours late when our aircraft arrived. The previous crew wrote up wing anti- ice not working. Outstation Maintenance arrived, and Dispatch and I determined that we could depart with a MEL (Minimum Equipment List) that allows us to fly in icing conditions. MEL was VERY complex and confusing. It required us to start a [B737] Max 8 with an air cart and start the number 2 engine first. I was concerned about the Safety of doing that in the dark and in heavy rain, so I made sure the ground crew and I were completely confident in our procedures.
- A new release with MEL arrived, logbook was completed by Outstation Maintenance, and we began the process of starting the number 2 engine. During that time, we also were dealing with three different runway changes at ZZZ (XXL then XYL then XZL) which also meant three different SIDS (Standard instrument Departure) and complete re-briefing of takeoff, departure and engine out procedures. Also had to coordinate a crossbleed start. Then, our release expired and we had to get with Dispatch to reload the flight.
- Amid all these distractions, we didn't realize that Maintenance never placed a sticker in the flight deck or logbook. I reviewed the logbook after Maintenance was done, but totally forgot about the stickers. I guess the major distraction was how the MEL and the MAX 8 AOM (Aircraft Operations Manual) differed with each other on this procedure, and lack of clear directions on working with this MEL. Flight was completed in ZZZ1 and we went to the hotel. I think a clearer AOM or MEL is needed on this problem.
- Synopsis
- B737 MAX Captain reported departing with deferred maintenance and complex MEL, but noticed MEL sticker was not properly applied.
- ACN: 1597380 (3 of 20)
- Time / Day
- Date : 201811
- Place
- Locale Reference.ATC Facility : ZZZ.TRACON
- State Reference : US
- Altitude.MSL.Single Value : 2000
- Environment
- Weather Elements / Visibility : Rain
- Weather Elements / Visibility : Snow
- Aircraft
- Reference : X
- ATC / Advisory.TRACON : ZZZ
- Aircraft Operator : Air Carrier
- Make Model Name : B737-800
- Crew Size.Number Of Crew : 2
- Operating Under FAR Part : Part 121
- Flight Plan : IFR
- Mission : Passenger
- Nav In Use : FMS Or FMC
- Flight Phase : Climb
- Airspace.Class B : ZZZ
- Component
- Aircraft Component : Autoflight System
- Aircraft Reference : X
- Problem : Malfunctioning
- Person
- Reference : 1
- Location Of Person.Aircraft : X
- Location In Aircraft : Flight Deck
- Reporter Organization : Air Carrier
- Function.Flight Crew : Captain
- Function.Flight Crew : Pilot Flying
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Instrument
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Multiengine
- Experience.Flight Crew.Last 90 Days : 626
- ASRS Report Number.Accession Number : 1597380
- Human Factors : Human-Machine Interface
- Human Factors : Confusion
- Events
- Anomaly.Aircraft Equipment Problem : Less Severe
- Detector.Automation : Aircraft Other Automation
- Detector.Person : Flight Crew
- When Detected : In-flight
- Result.Flight Crew : FLC Overrode Automation
- Result.Flight Crew : Overcame Equipment Problem
- Result.Aircraft : Equipment Problem Dissipated
- Assessments
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Aircraft
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Human Factors
- Primary Problem : Aircraft
- Narrative: 1
- It was day three of six for me and day three with very good FO (First Officer). Well rested, great rapport and above average Crew coordination. Knew we had a MAX. It was my leg, normal Ops Brief, plus I briefed our concerns with the MAX issues, bulletin, MCAS, stab trim cutout response etc. I mentioned I would engage autopilot sooner than usual (I generally hand fly to at least above 10,000 ft.) to remove the possible MCAS threat.
- Weather was about 1000 OVC drizzle, temperature dropping and an occasional snow flake. I double checked with an additional personal walkaround just prior to push; a few drops of water on the aircraft but clean aircraft, no deice required. Strong crosswind and I asked Tug Driver to push a little more tail east so as not to have slow/hung start gusts 30+.
- Wind and mechanical turbulence was noted. Careful engine warm times, normal flaps 5 takeoff in strong (appeared almost direct) crosswind. Departure was normal. Takeoff and climb in light to moderate turbulence. After flaps 1 to "up" and above clean "MASI up speed" with LNAV engaged I looked at and engaged A Autopilot. As I was returning to my PFD (Primary Flight Display) PM (Pilot Monitoring) called "DESCENDING" followed by almost an immediate: "DONT SINK DONT SINK!"
- I immediately disconnected AP (Autopilot) (it WAS engaged as we got full horn etc.) and resumed climb. Now, I would generally assume it was my automation error, i.e., aircraft was trying to acquire a miss-commanded speed/no autothrottles, crossing restriction etc., but frankly neither of us could find an inappropriate setup error (not to say there wasn't one).
- With the concerns with the MAX 8 nose down stuff, we both thought it appropriate to bring it to your attention. We discussed issue at length over the course of the return to ZZZ. Best guess from me is airspeed fluctuation due to mechanical shear/frontal passage that overwhelmed automation temporarily or something incorrectly setup in MCP (Mode Control Panel). PM's callout on "descending" was particularly quick and welcome as I was just coming back to my display after looking away. System and procedures coupled with CRM (Resource Management) trapped and mitigated issue.
- Synopsis
- B737MAX Captain reported an autopilot anomaly in which led to an undesired brief nose down situation.
- ACN: 1597286 (4 of 20)
- Time / Day
- Date : 201811
- Place
- Locale Reference.Airport : ZZZ.Airport
- State Reference : US
- Altitude.MSL.Single Value : 2000
- Aircraft
- Reference : X
- ATC / Advisory.Tower : ZZZ
- Aircraft Operator : Air Carrier
- Make Model Name : B737-800
- Crew Size.Number Of Crew : 2
- Operating Under FAR Part : Part 121
- Flight Plan : IFR
- Mission : Passenger
- Nav In Use : FMS Or FMC
- Flight Phase : Takeoff
- Airspace.Class C : ZZZ
- Component
- Aircraft Component : Autopilot
- Aircraft Reference : X
- Problem : Malfunctioning
- Person
- Reference : 1
- Location Of Person.Aircraft : X
- Location In Aircraft : Flight Deck
- Reporter Organization : Air Carrier
- Function.Flight Crew : Pilot Not Flying
- Function.Flight Crew : First Officer
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Instrument
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Multiengine
- Experience.Flight Crew.Last 90 Days : 511
- ASRS Report Number.Accession Number : 1597286
- Analyst Callback : Attempted
- Events
- Anomaly.Aircraft Equipment Problem : Critical
- Detector.Person : Flight Crew
- When Detected : In-flight
- Result.Flight Crew : Regained Aircraft Control
- Assessments
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Aircraft
- Primary Problem : Aircraft
- Narrative: 1
- Day 3 of 3 departing in a MAX 8 after a long overnight. I was well rested and had discussed the recent MAX 8 MCAS guidance with the Captain. On departure, we had strong crosswinds (gusts > 30 knots) directly off the right wing, however, no LLWS or Micro-burst activity was reported at the field. After verifying LNAV, selecting gear and flaps up, I set "UP" speed. The aircraft accelerated normally and the Captain engaged the "A" autopilot after reaching set speed. Within two to three seconds the aircraft pitched nose down bringing the VSI to approximately 1,200 to 1,500 FPM. I called "descending" just prior to the GPWS sounding "don't sink, don't sink." The Captain immediately disconnected the autopilot and pitched into a climb. The remainder of the flight was uneventful. We discussed the departure at length and I reviewed in my mind our automation setup and flight profile but can't think of any reason the aircraft would pitch nose down so aggressively.
- Synopsis
- B737 MAX First Officer reported that the aircraft pitched nose down after engaging autopilot on departure. Autopilot was disconnected and flight continued to destination.
- ACN: 1593701 (5 of 20)
- Time / Day
- Date : 201811
- Local Time Of Day : 1201-1800
- Place
- Locale Reference.Airport : ZZZ.Airport
- State Reference : US
- Altitude.MSL.Single Value : 33000
- Environment
- Light : Daylight
- Aircraft
- Reference : X
- ATC / Advisory.Center : ZZZ
- Aircraft Operator : Air Carrier
- Make Model Name : B737-800
- Crew Size.Number Of Crew : 2
- Operating Under FAR Part : Part 121
- Flight Plan : IFR
- Mission : Passenger
- Nav In Use : FMS Or FMC
- Flight Phase : Climb
- Airspace.Class A : ZZZ
- Component
- Aircraft Component : FMS/FMC
- Aircraft Reference : X
- Problem : Improperly Operated
- Person
- Reference : 1
- Location Of Person.Aircraft : X
- Location In Aircraft : Flight Deck
- Reporter Organization : Air Carrier
- Function.Flight Crew : First Officer
- Function.Flight Crew : Pilot Not Flying
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Multiengine
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Instrument
- Experience.Flight Crew.Last 90 Days : 454
- Experience.Flight Crew.Type : 454
- ASRS Report Number.Accession Number : 1593701
- Human Factors : Distraction
- Human Factors : Training / Qualification
- Events
- Anomaly.Deviation - Altitude : Undershoot
- Anomaly.Deviation - Procedural : Clearance
- Result.Flight Crew : Returned To Clearance
- Assessments
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Aircraft
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Human Factors
- Primary Problem : Human Factors
- Narrative: 1
- We were climbing from FL 330 given a clearance to FL 360. Aircraft briefly leveled at initial cruise altitude FL 340 before Aircrew intervention. [Center] queried if we received the clearance to FL 360. As a result of the brief delay [Center] issued brief off course vectors to both us and converging traffic. Causal factors were equipment: not much experience in MAX-800, as a result, still have to search for everything. Automation: Upon receipt of FL 360 clearance and after the Captain dialed the MCP Altitude 36,000 FT, I should have, but failed to, ensured the cruise altitude reflected FL 360. Engaging the ALT INTV button would have facilitated the process. The solution is to Verify/Verbalize/Monitor. Verifying the CDU cruise altitude (NAV 2/3) would have prevented the temporary level off. Monitoring would have mitigated the delay at FL 340 but could have been timelier. As a relatively new First Officer, I had not seen this issue. However, I could have done a better job with VVM (Verbalize, Verify, Monitor) to back up the Captain with his duties while flying. Had I seen the momentary level off, I might have been able to alert ATC of it, avoiding any confusion or deviation of what the expectations were.
- Synopsis
- B737 MAX8 First Officer reported an altitude deviation due to an intermediate level off by the aircraft automation.
- ACN: 1593699 (6 of 20)
- Time / Day
- Date : 201811
- Local Time Of Day : 0601-1200
- Place
- Locale Reference.Airport : ZZZ.Airport
- State Reference : US
- Altitude.AGL.Single Value : 0
- Environment
- Light : Daylight
- Aircraft
- Reference : X
- Aircraft Operator : Air Carrier
- Make Model Name : B737-800
- Crew Size.Number Of Crew : 2
- Operating Under FAR Part : Part 121
- Flight Plan : IFR
- Mission : Passenger
- Flight Phase : Parked
- Component
- Aircraft Component : Cockpit Furnishing
- Manufacturer : Boeing
- Aircraft Reference : X
- Problem : Design
- Person
- Reference : 1
- Location Of Person.Aircraft : X
- Location In Aircraft : Flight Deck
- Reporter Organization : Air Carrier
- Function.Flight Crew : Pilot Not Flying
- Function.Flight Crew : Captain
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Instrument
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Multiengine
- Experience.Flight Crew.Last 90 Days : 428
- ASRS Report Number.Accession Number : 1593699
- Events
- Anomaly.Aircraft Equipment Problem : Less Severe
- Anomaly.Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event : Other / Unknown
- Were Passengers Involved In Event : N
- When Detected : Pre-flight
- Assessments
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Equipment / Tooling
- Primary Problem : Equipment / Tooling
- Narrative: 1
- ATIS sheet fell through the slot forward of the center pedestal and the blank off plate. We had Maintenance come out to remove it. We discovered 20 other ATIS sheets mixed into the wiring. The aircraft is only six months old. Severe potential fire hazard!
- Synopsis
- 737MAX8 Captain reported a slot in the cockpit center pedestal allowed flight documents to slip through and collect on aircraft wire bundles.
- ACN: 1593021 (7 of 20)
- Time / Day
- Date : 201811
- Place
- Altitude.AGL.Single Value : 0
- Aircraft
- Reference : X
- Aircraft Operator : Air Carrier
- Make Model Name : B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
- Crew Size.Number Of Crew : 2
- Operating Under FAR Part : Part 121
- Flight Plan : IFR
- Flight Phase : Parked
- Person
- Reference : 1
- Location Of Person.Aircraft : X
- Location In Aircraft : Flight Deck
- Reporter Organization : Air Carrier
- Function.Flight Crew : Captain
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Instrument
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Multiengine
- Experience.Flight Crew.Total : 21200
- Experience.Flight Crew.Last 90 Days : 178
- Experience.Flight Crew.Type : 3342
- ASRS Report Number.Accession Number : 1593021
- Human Factors : Training / Qualification
- Human Factors : Confusion
- Events
- Anomaly.Deviation - Procedural : Published Material / Policy
- Detector.Person : Flight Crew
- When Detected : Pre-flight
- Result.General : None Reported / Taken
- Assessments
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Company Policy
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Human Factors
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Manuals
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Procedure
- Primary Problem : Manuals
- Narrative: 1
- This was the first flight on a Max for both pilots. Unfamiliarity with flight deck displays led to confusion about display annunciations and switch function. The Flight Manual does not address at least one annunciation, or the controls for the display--or if it does, neither pilot could find the explanation. I have spent literally days looking for an explanation, could not find one, and that is why I wrote this report. It shouldn't be this hard to figure out what I'm looking at.
- On the First Officer side ND, on the ground only, there is a MAINT annunciation. We both saw it, couldn't find any immediate explanation for it on the ground, and didn't address it until airborne. I researched the FM (Flight Manual) for an explanation, accomplishing a word search of the term MAINT. There are only two references I could find: the overhead MAINT light (a no go item) and the CDS MAINT light (a QRH item). There is no explanation of the ND MAINT annunciation.
- We spent the entire hour flight trying to find the meaning of this annunciation and came up empty handed. We determined to check it out once we landed (if the light came on again). Sure enough, after parking, the MAINT annunciation came back on the ND display. We called Maintenance to check out the light. We waited to make an ELB entry, unsure if one was required. Turned out, an ELB entry was not required.
- The mechanic explained the light was part of a menu for maintenance use only on the ground.
- In addition, there are two selector knobs that are under-explained (i.e., not explained) in the manual, and we were uncertain what their purpose was. One is under the Fuel Flow switch and the other under the MFD/ENG TFR display switch. These knobs don't seem to work in flight. The First Officer offered to hit the SEL function in flight, to test it out, but I thought something irreversible or undesirable might happen (not knowing what we were actually selecting), so we did not try it out in flight. The mechanic later explained SEL on the First Officer side was used on the ground by maintenance to toggle between the maintenance functions. I forgot to ask what my side did, and still don't know.
- Finally, in the Captain's preflight procedure in the bulletin, it says, "Selector... C". What selector is this referring to? Is this the same selector under the Fuel Flow switch, (which is shown in the MAX panels on the L position, as if that is the normal position?) This is very poorly explained. I have no idea what switch the preflight is talking about, nor do I understand even now what this switch does.
- I think this entire setup needs to be thoroughly explained to pilots. How can a Captain not know what switch is meant during a preflight setup? Poor training and even poorer documentation, that is how.
- It is not reassuring when a light cannot be explained or understood by the pilots, even after referencing their flight manuals. It is especially concerning when every other MAINT annunciation means something bad. I envision some delayed departures as conscientious pilots try to resolve the meaning of the MAINT annunciation and which switches are referred to in the setup.
- Synopsis
- B737MAX Captain reported confusion regarding switch function and display annunciations related to "poor training and even poorer documentation".
- ACN: 1593017 (8 of 20)
- Time / Day
- Date : 201811
- Place
- Altitude.AGL.Single Value : 0
- Aircraft
- Reference : X
- Aircraft Operator : Air Carrier
- Make Model Name : B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
- Flight Phase.Other
- Person
- Reference : 1
- Location Of Person.Aircraft : X
- Location In Aircraft : Flight Deck
- Reporter Organization : Air Carrier
- Function.Flight Crew : Captain
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
- ASRS Report Number.Accession Number : 1593017
- Human Factors : Confusion
- Human Factors : Training / Qualification
- Events
- Anomaly.Deviation - Procedural : Published Material / Policy
- Detector.Person : Flight Crew
- When Detected : Pre-flight
- Result.General : None Reported / Taken
- Assessments
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Aircraft
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Manuals
- Primary Problem : Manuals
- Narrative: 1
- The recently released 737 MAX8 Emergency Airworthiness Directive directs pilots how to deal with a known issue, but it does nothing to address the systems issues with the AOA system.
- MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) is implemented on the 737 MAX to enhance pitch characteristics with flaps UP and at elevated angles of attack. The MCAS function commands nose down stabilizer to enhance pitch characteristics during steep turns with elevated load factors and during flaps up flight at airspeeds approaching stall. MCAS is activated without pilot input and only operates in manual, flaps up flight. The system is designed to allow the flight crew to use column trim switch or stabilizer aisle stand cutout switches to override MCAS input. The function is commanded by the Flight Control computer using input data from sensors and other airplane systems.
- The MCAS function becomes active when the airplane Angle of Attack exceeds a threshold based on airspeed and altitude. Stabilizer incremental commands are limited to 2.5 degrees and are provided at a rate of 0.27 degrees per second. The magnitude of the stabilizer input is lower at high Mach number and greater at low Mach numbers. The function is reset once angle of attack falls below the Angle of Attack threshold or if manual stabilizer commands are provided by the flight crew. If the original elevated AOA condition persists, the MCAS function commands another incremental stabilizer nose down command according to current aircraft Mach number at actuation.
- This description is not currently in the 737 Flight Manual Part 2, nor the Boeing FCOM, though it will be added to them soon. This communication highlights that an entire system is not described in our Flight Manual. This system is now the subject of an AD.
- I think it is unconscionable that a manufacturer, the FAA, and the airlines would have pilots flying an airplane without adequately training, or even providing available resources and sufficient documentation to understand the highly complex systems that differentiate this aircraft from prior models. The fact that this airplane requires such jury rigging to fly is a red flag. Now we know the systems employed are error prone--even if the pilots aren't sure what those systems are, what redundancies are in place, and failure modes.
- I am left to wonder: what else don't I know? The Flight Manual is inadequate and almost criminally insufficient. All airlines that operate the MAX must insist that Boeing incorporate ALL systems in their manuals.
- Synopsis
- B737MAX Captain expressed concern that some systems such as the MCAS are not fully described in the aircraft Flight Manual.
- ACN: 1590012 (9 of 20)
- Time / Day
- Date : 201810
- Local Time Of Day : 0001-0600
- Place
- Locale Reference.Airport : ZZZ.Airport
- State Reference : US
- Altitude.AGL.Single Value : 1000
- Environment
- Light : Daylight
- Aircraft
- Reference : X
- ATC / Advisory.Tower : ZZZ
- Aircraft Operator : Air Carrier
- Make Model Name : B737-800
- Crew Size.Number Of Crew : 2
- Operating Under FAR Part : Part 121
- Flight Plan : IFR
- Mission : Passenger
- Flight Phase : Takeoff
- Airspace.Class C : ZZZ
- Component
- Aircraft Component : Autothrottle/Speed Control
- Aircraft Reference : X
- Problem : Improperly Operated
- Person
- Reference : 1
- Location Of Person.Aircraft : X
- Location In Aircraft : Flight Deck
- Reporter Organization : Air Carrier
- Function.Flight Crew : Pilot Flying
- Function.Flight Crew : Captain
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Multiengine
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Instrument
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
- Experience.Flight Crew.Last 90 Days : 419
- ASRS Report Number.Accession Number : 1590012
- Human Factors : Confusion
- Events
- Anomaly.Aircraft Equipment Problem : Less Severe
- Anomaly.Deviation - Speed : All Types
- Anomaly.Deviation - Procedural : Published Material / Policy
- Detector.Person : Flight Crew
- When Detected : In-flight
- Result.Flight Crew : Overcame Equipment Problem
- Assessments
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Aircraft
- Primary Problem : Aircraft
- Narrative: 1
- After 1000 feet I noticed a decrease in aircraft performance. I picked up that the autothrottles were not moving to commanded position even though they were engaged. I'm sure they were set properly for takeoff but not sure when the discrepancy took place. My scan wasn't as well developed since I've only flown the MAX once before. I manually positioned the thrust levers ASAP. This resolved the threat, we were able to increase speed to clean up and continue the climb to 3000 feet.
- Shortly afterwards I heard about the (other carrier) accident and am wondering if any other crews have experienced similar incidents with the autothrottle system on the MAX? Or I may have made a possible flying mistake which is more likely. The FO (First Officer) was still on his first month and was not able to identify whether it was the aircraft or me that was in error.
- Synopsis
- B737-MAX8 Captain reported the autothrottles failed to move to the commanded position during takeoff and climb.
- ACN: 1587343 (10 of 20)
- Time / Day
- Date : 201810
- Place
- Altitude.AGL.Single Value : 0
- Aircraft
- Reference : X
- Aircraft Operator : Air Carrier
- Make Model Name : B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
- Crew Size.Number Of Crew : 2
- Operating Under FAR Part : Part 121
- Flight Plan : IFR
- Mission : Passenger
- Flight Phase : Taxi
- Person
- Reference : 1
- Location Of Person.Aircraft : X
- Location In Aircraft : General Seating Area
- Reporter Organization : Air Carrier
- Function.Flight Attendant : Off Duty
- Qualification.Flight Attendant : Current
- ASRS Report Number.Accession Number : 1587343
- Human Factors : Situational Awareness
- Events
- Anomaly.Aircraft Equipment Problem : Less Severe
- Anomaly.Deviation - Procedural : FAR
- Anomaly.Deviation - Procedural : Published Material / Policy
- Detector.Person : Passenger
- Detector.Person : Flight Attendant
- Were Passengers Involved In Event : Y
- When Detected : Taxi
- Result.General : None Reported / Taken
- Assessments
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Aircraft
- Primary Problem : Aircraft
- Narrative: 1
- I was pass riding this flight on the new 737 Max. From my seat towards the rear of the aircraft, with seats that appear to be higher, it was impossible to see the Flight Attendant perform the safety demo. It was brought to my attention when overhearing a nearby passenger comment that they could not see the demo asking if they were supposed to be able to see it.
- Synopsis
- Off duty Flight Attendant reported being unable to see the B737 Max cabin safety demonstration because the passenger seats are too high.
- ACN: 1583127 (11 of 20)
- Time / Day
- Date : 201810
- Local Time Of Day : 1801-2400
- Place
- Locale Reference.Airport : DEN.Airport
- State Reference : CO
- Altitude.MSL.Single Value : 7000
- Environment
- Flight Conditions : VMC
- Aircraft
- Reference : X
- ATC / Advisory.Tower : DEN
- Aircraft Operator : Air Carrier
- Make Model Name : B737-800
- Crew Size.Number Of Crew : 2
- Operating Under FAR Part : Part 121
- Flight Plan : IFR
- Flight Phase : Initial Approach
- Airspace.Class B : DEN
- Person
- Reference : 1
- Location Of Person.Aircraft : X
- Location In Aircraft : Flight Deck
- Reporter Organization : Air Carrier
- Function.Flight Crew : Pilot Flying
- Function.Flight Crew : Captain
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Multiengine
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Instrument
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
- Experience.Flight Crew.Total : 18000
- ASRS Report Number.Accession Number : 1583127
- Human Factors : Situational Awareness
- Events
- Anomaly.Deviation - Procedural : Published Material / Policy
- Anomaly.Inflight Event / Encounter : Unstabilized Approach
- Detector.Person : Flight Crew
- When Detected : In-flight
- Result.General : None Reported / Taken
- Assessments
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Aircraft
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Human Factors
- Primary Problem : Human Factors
- Narrative: 1
- The purpose of this [report] is to explain a situation where I unintentionally used a high rate of descent to recapture a glide path landing in DEN in a 737 MAX. I have flown the MAX a few times [before] but this was the first time I've flown it in a high density altitude airport. The landing was uneventful and I felt like I was in control the entire final approach but the rate of descent was higher than I anticipated or normally use due to my hesitancy to quickly revert from reliance on technology to visual approach procedures. I understand the emphasis on visual approaches in training and safety.
- After an uneventful flight to DEN we were given a left downwind turn to base for DEN runway 16L outside of LEETS at 7000 feet. It was a clear night so I accepted the visual when offered and slowed appropriately for the final decent. To increase my familiarity of the MAX, prior to top of descent, I briefed and intended to engage ARM III below 5000 feet AGL and set up the HUD to do so. As we neared LEETS I pushed the Approach ARM button (with 7000 feet in the MCP) but my attention was outside and on the flight display system when I made a rookie mistake. I didn't notice that the Approach mode did not arm.
- I have flown the 737 MAX a few times and was familiar with, what I believe to be, slightly different descent characteristics. Also, I armed the speed brakes but apparently when I did so the handle was slightly past the detent. I don't know if the ARM switch wouldn't engage as a result of this or not? Also I don't know if the Landing Attitude Modifier behaves differently due to the speed brake handle not precisely set in detent? Of course since I had 7000 feet in the MCP as we flew past LEETS I lost vertical path display and in the moment(s) it took to evaluate what was happening, I got high on path.
- The vertical guidance displays were now unusable so I abandoned the idea of the CAT III practice and adjusted to a high rate of descent to visually get on the PAPI. Since DEN is 5434 feet I rationalized that a higher descent rate was appropriate due to the high density altitude and called "stable" at 1000 feet with a 1200 feet rate of descent but correcting. When I adjusted the throttles, the speed brake green light went to amber and the FO (First Officer) quickly and correctly armed the speed brake. I didn't get enough power in soon enough and ended up getting three reds on the PAPI and a "Glide Slope" announcement to which I adjusted up to regain path. I continued to an uneventful landing.
- As a result of this situation which happened very quickly, I will 1) recommit to confirming buttons arm when pushed, 2) recommit to confirming the speed brake handle is fully in the arm detent (in addition to the green arm light) 3) react more swiftly to visual methods (or go around) when appropriate when displays don't appear as expected and 4) continue to ensure stabilized approaches or go around as necessary.
- Synopsis
- B737 MAX Captain reported an unstabilized approach into DEN due to human factors and aircraft familiarization.
- ACN: 1583028 (12 of 20)
- Time / Day
- Date : 201809
- Environment
- Light : Daylight
- Aircraft
- Reference : X
- Aircraft Operator : Air Carrier
- Make Model Name : B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
- Crew Size.Number Of Crew : 2
- Operating Under FAR Part : Part 121
- Flight Plan : IFR
- Mission : Passenger
- Nav In Use : FMS Or FMC
- Nav In Use : GPS
- Flight Phase : Cruise
- Component
- Aircraft Component : Powerplant Fuel System
- Aircraft Reference : X
- Problem : Malfunctioning
- Person
- Reference : 1
- Location Of Person.Aircraft : X
- Location In Aircraft : Flight Deck
- Reporter Organization : Air Carrier
- Function.Flight Crew : Captain
- Function.Flight Crew : Pilot Flying
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Instrument
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Multiengine
- Experience.Flight Crew.Last 90 Days : 420
- Experience.Flight Crew.Type : 9000
- ASRS Report Number.Accession Number : 1583028
- Human Factors : Troubleshooting
- Events
- Anomaly.Deviation - Procedural : Weight And Balance
- Anomaly.Deviation - Procedural : Published Material / Policy
- Anomaly.Inflight Event / Encounter : Fuel Issue
- Detector.Person : Flight Crew
- When Detected : In-flight
- Result.General : None Reported / Taken
- Assessments
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Aircraft
- Primary Problem : Aircraft
- Narrative: 1
- My concern is that some MAX 8 aircraft are burning significantly more fuel than what is calculated on the Dispatch release. Perhaps the fuel bias on these aircraft needs to be re-evaluated. On this particular flight, the burn rate was so high that the Pilots referred to the MAX AOM (Aircraft Operator Manual) to look up what constitutes a fuel leak. Our flight plan fuel was for a burn of 21,600 pounds from push to touchdown. Our actual burn was 22,900 pounds (actual fuel load of 28,100 at push minus our 5,200 pounds at touchdown. We pulled into the gate with 5,000 pounds). This was 1,300 pounds more fuel burned than planned.
- Other than a direct to ZZZ shortly after departing ZZZ1, we flew the flight planned altitude and routing. I also slowed to .76 Mach a couple of times for pockets of turbulence. Winds were close to flight plan and there was minimal off-course maneuvering to avoid a couple of buildups. Based on another long MAX 8 flights where we burned more than flight plan, I kept a detailed fuel log this flight. We pushed with 700 pounds fuel more than flight plan. Fifty minutes into the flight we were plus 500 pounds of fuel over flight plan.
- At 1+20 into the flight, we were plus 300 pounds. At 1+49 we were at the calculated flight plan fuel. Eleven minutes later we were at -300 pounds from flight planned fuel. Around that point we contacted Dispatch through ACARS to let them know our fuel was not trending well. We got into the books and ran the Fuel Leak QRH just in case. The flight attendants scanned the engines and the wings. Everything checked out ok with respect to the QRH, except we had an unusual fuel burn. Dispatch, the FO (First Officer), and I came up with a plan to update our status over ZZZ and also over ZZZ2. At 2+11, we were -500 pounds for fuel. The fuel trend stayed constant at -500 pounds from flight plan for the duration of the flight from that point onward.
- The weather was VFR at ZZZ3 so we elected to continue over ZZZ and also ZZZ2. I was concerned as my calculations had us landing with less than 5,000 pounds. Dispatch said his calculations had us landing with 6,300 pounds. Dispatch was very helpful throughout the majority of the flight providing updates on weather and asking our fuel status. Dispatch also asked that I call him after landing. We landed uneventfully other than fuel being 900 pounds lower than the Dispatch Release after flying the flight plan. After landing, I walked around the aircraft and went into the main gear well. My concern was a potential fuel leak. I noted none nor any abnormal fuel smells.
- After that, I called Dispatch and we had a conference call with Maintenance. The Maintenance Controller said they were noting that several MAX 8 aircraft are not fuel efficient. He said they think the Boeing-recommended engine cleaning cycle is not frequent enough. I was told during this call that when the LEAP engines are dirty they lose all of their efficiency. If this is the case, shouldn't the fuel bias on these aircraft be adjusted accordingly? From now on, I am going to plan on an extra 400 pounds per hour of fuel on each MAX 8 I fly on a leg longer than two and a half hours.
- Synopsis
- B737 MAX-8 Captain reported the engine fuel burn was higher than expected.
- ACN: 1572630 (13 of 20)
- Time / Day
- Date : 201808
- Local Time Of Day : 1201-1800
- Place
- Locale Reference.Airport : ZZZ.Airport
- State Reference : US
- Altitude.AGL.Single Value : 0
- Environment
- Light : Daylight
- Aircraft
- Reference : X
- Aircraft Operator : Air Carrier
- Make Model Name : B737-800
- Crew Size.Number Of Crew : 2
- Operating Under FAR Part : Part 121
- Flight Plan : IFR
- Mission : Passenger
- Flight Phase : Taxi
- Component
- Aircraft Component : Engine Starting System
- Aircraft Reference : X
- Problem : Improperly Operated
- Person : 1
- Reference : 1
- Location Of Person.Aircraft : X
- Location In Aircraft : Flight Deck
- Reporter Organization : Air Carrier
- Function.Flight Crew : Pilot Flying
- Function.Flight Crew : Captain
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Instrument
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Multiengine
- Experience.Flight Crew.Last 90 Days : 354
- ASRS Report Number.Accession Number : 1572630
- Human Factors : Other / Unknown
- Person : 2
- Reference : 2
- Location Of Person.Aircraft : X
- Location In Aircraft : Flight Deck
- Reporter Organization : Air Carrier
- Function.Flight Crew : Pilot Not Flying
- Function.Flight Crew : First Officer
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Multiengine
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Instrument
- ASRS Report Number.Accession Number : 1573224
- Human Factors : Other / Unknown
- Events
- Anomaly.Aircraft Equipment Problem : Less Severe
- Anomaly.Deviation - Procedural : Published Material / Policy
- Detector.Automation : Aircraft Other Automation
- When Detected : Taxi
- Result.Flight Crew : Overcame Equipment Problem
- Assessments
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Aircraft
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Human Factors
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Manuals
- Primary Problem : Human Factors
- Narrative: 1
- We were pushing back from the gate in a MAX 8 and were starting the number 2 engine. The FO (First Officer) configured the air conditioning panel before the tick on the EGT was gone, causing the EEC (Electronic Engine Controller) to abort the engine start. Once we saw the white box flashing, we aborted the engine start, reviewed the QRC, and followed the QRH guidance. After confirming with Maintenance (and a review of the [operation manual]) a second successful start was made.
- We conducted a briefing about the MAX engine start and the items that we were going to see, and time limits associated during our normal preflight briefings. I was very surprised when the aborted start happened due to the fact that we had reviewed the start process. I will continue to brief the engine start procedures with a bigger emphasis on the EGT roll back.
- Narrative: 2
- [Report narrative contained no additional information.]
- Synopsis
- B737 MAX-8 crew reported failing to follow the engine start procedure resulting in an aborted engine start.
- ACN: 1568887 (14 of 20)
- Time / Day
- Date : 201808
- Local Time Of Day : 1801-2400
- Place
- Locale Reference.Airport : ZZZ.Airport
- State Reference : US
- Altitude.AGL.Single Value : 0
- Environment
- Flight Conditions : VMC
- Light : Night
- Aircraft
- Reference : X
- ATC / Advisory.Ramp : ZZZ
- Aircraft Operator : Air Carrier
- Make Model Name : B737-800
- Crew Size.Number Of Crew : 2
- Operating Under FAR Part : Part 121
- Flight Plan : IFR
- Mission : Passenger
- Flight Phase : Taxi
- Person
- Reference : 1
- Location Of Person.Aircraft : X
- Location In Aircraft : Flight Deck
- Reporter Organization : Air Carrier
- Function.Flight Crew : Pilot Flying
- Function.Flight Crew : Captain
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
- Experience.Flight Crew.Total : 11000
- ASRS Report Number.Accession Number : 1568887
- Human Factors : Situational Awareness
- Events
- Anomaly.Conflict : Ground Conflict, Critical
- Detector.Person : Flight Crew
- When Detected : Taxi
- Result.Flight Crew : Took Evasive Action
- Assessments
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Human Factors
- Primary Problem : Human Factors
- Narrative: 1
- Upon taxi into gate, [guidance system] was active, both pilots cleared ramp area. Approximately 20 ft remaining FO yells for me to stop. I immediately stopped aircraft and FO [advised] fueler was backing up into our safety zone. We were in a B737 MAX with the split winglets and thus the clearance provided below the wingtip was considerably less. After speaking with ramp [personnel] who reviewed the ramp video, I believe the monitoring and quick response of the FO averted possible damage or impact to aircraft. Ramp fueler personnel inattentive to position on ramp. [Not] all ramp personnel may be accustomed to the 737 MAX winglet design and the increased clearance required. Training for this may be beneficial.
- Synopsis
- B737-800 Captain reported making a sudden stop to avoid a collision with a fuel truck on the ramp.
- ACN: 1565207 (15 of 20)
- Time / Day
- Date : 201808
- Place
- Altitude.MSL.Single Value : 33000
- Environment
- Flight Conditions : VMC
- Aircraft
- Reference : X
- Aircraft Operator : Air Carrier
- Make Model Name : B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
- Crew Size.Number Of Crew : 2
- Operating Under FAR Part : Part 121
- Flight Plan : IFR
- Mission : Passenger
- Flight Phase : Cruise
- Component : 1
- Aircraft Component : Data Transmission and Automatic Calling
- Aircraft Reference : X
- Problem : Malfunctioning
- Component : 2
- Aircraft Component : Other Documentation
- Aircraft Reference : X
- Person
- Reference : 1
- Location Of Person.Aircraft : X
- Location In Aircraft : Flight Deck
- Reporter Organization : Air Carrier
- Function.Flight Crew : Pilot Flying
- Function.Flight Crew : Captain
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Instrument
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Multiengine
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
- Experience.Flight Crew.Last 90 Days : 50
- Experience.Flight Crew.Type : 2978
- ASRS Report Number.Accession Number : 1565207
- Events
- Anomaly.Aircraft Equipment Problem : Less Severe
- Detector.Person : Flight Crew
- When Detected : In-flight
- Result.Flight Crew : Overcame Equipment Problem
- Assessments
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Aircraft
- Primary Problem : Aircraft
- Narrative: 1
- At cruise flight, our Wi-Fi stopped working. I then saw that I was unable to access the Pilot Mobile app. Since I do not routinely copy the flight plan to iBook or acrobat (we are not required to do this), I was unable to access the flight plan. I've lost Wi-Fi before but not had this problem. Maybe it's a 737max thing. My First Officer had a copy on iBook and airdropped it to me. Later we were able to restore the Wi-Fi and I could login to pilot mobile but the [flight plan] was not there anymore.
- Synopsis
- B737NG Captain reported the aircraft Wi-Fi was not working in cruise, which affected the ability to access the flight plan on the iPad.
- ACN: 1560763 (16 of 20)
- Time / Day
- Date : 201807
- Local Time Of Day : 0601-1200
- Place
- Locale Reference.Airport : BWI.Airport
- State Reference : MD
- Altitude.MSL.Single Value : 17000
- Environment
- Light : Daylight
- Aircraft
- Reference : X
- ATC / Advisory.TRACON : PCT
- Aircraft Operator : Air Carrier
- Make Model Name : B737-800
- Crew Size.Number Of Crew : 2
- Operating Under FAR Part : Part 121
- Flight Plan : IFR
- Mission : Passenger
- Nav In Use : FMS Or FMC
- Nav In Use : GPS
- Flight Phase : Climb
- Route In Use.SID : TERPZ 6
- Airspace.Class E : PCT
- Person
- Reference : 1
- Location Of Person.Aircraft : X
- Location In Aircraft : Flight Deck
- Reporter Organization : Air Carrier
- Function.Flight Crew : Pilot Not Flying
- Function.Flight Crew : First Officer
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Multiengine
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Instrument
- Experience.Flight Crew.Last 90 Days : 230
- Experience.Flight Crew.Type : 1600
- ASRS Report Number.Accession Number : 1560763
- Events
- Anomaly.Deviation - Altitude : Crossing Restriction Not Met
- Anomaly.Deviation - Procedural : Published Material / Policy
- Detector.Person : Flight Crew
- When Detected : In-flight
- Result.General : None Reported / Taken
- Assessments
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Airspace Structure
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Aircraft
- Primary Problem : Airspace Structure
- Narrative: 1
- I have flown out of BWI on the TERPZ 6 to either OTTTO or RAMAY the last three weeks. Each time I have flown a 737-800 or MAX8. The first two times in the 737-800 we had to adjust our climb out speed below the ECON Schedule (which was around 300) to make the 17,000ft., or above restriction at FOXHL (FMC warnings were received "unable next altitude"). In the 737 MAX8, it was less. So by starting early to adjust our profile we were able to meet the restriction. It appears like a trend that heavy 737-800 aircraft in summertime will have a hard time meeting the climb restriction, and if you do not catch it soon enough you may not make the FOXHL restriction.
- [Suggestion].In the Departure Section of the SID add a note. If departing the TERPZ 6 to OTTTO or RAMAY be aware that high gross weights and hot temperatures may not allow you to climb via the FMC ECON Speed and meet the 17,000ft., or above restriction at FOXHL.
- Synopsis
- B737-800 First Officer reported that departing out of BWI, the aircraft is unable to make the 17000ft. restriction at FOXHL on TERPZ 6 departure.
- ACN: 1555013 (17 of 20)
- Time / Day
- Date : 201806
- Place
- Locale Reference.Airport : ZZZ.Airport
- State Reference : US
- Altitude.AGL.Single Value : 0
- Aircraft
- Reference : X
- Aircraft Operator : Air Carrier
- Make Model Name : B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
- Crew Size.Number Of Crew : 2
- Operating Under FAR Part : Part 121
- Flight Plan : IFR
- Mission : Passenger
- Nav In Use : FMS Or FMC
- Flight Phase : Parked
- Person
- Reference : 1
- Location Of Person.Aircraft : X
- Location In Aircraft : Flight Deck
- Reporter Organization : Air Carrier
- Function.Flight Crew : First Officer
- Function.Flight Crew : Pilot Not Flying
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Instrument
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Multiengine
- Experience.Flight Crew.Total : 10861
- Experience.Flight Crew.Type : 1660
- ASRS Report Number.Accession Number : 1555013
- Human Factors : Human-Machine Interface
- Human Factors : Training / Qualification
- Events
- Anomaly.Deviation - Procedural : Published Material / Policy
- Anomaly.Inflight Event / Encounter : Weather / Turbulence
- Detector.Person : Flight Crew
- When Detected : Pre-flight
- Result.General : None Reported / Taken
- Assessments
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Company Policy
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Human Factors
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Manuals
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Procedure
- Primary Problem : Company Policy
- Narrative: 1
- I had my first flight on the Max [to] ZZZ1. We found out we were scheduled to fly the aircraft on the way to the airport in the limo. We had a little time [to] review the essentials in the car. Otherwise we would have walked onto the plane cold.
- My post flight evaluation is that we lacked the knowledge to operate the aircraft in all weather and aircraft states safely. The instrumentation is completely different - My scan was degraded, slow and labored having had no experience w/ the new ND (Navigation Display) and ADI (Attitude Director Indicator) presentations/format or functions (manipulation between the screens and systems pages were not provided in training materials. If they were, I had no recollection of that material).
- We were unable to navigate to systems pages and lacked the knowledge of what systems information was available to us in the different phases of flight. Our weather radar competency was inadequate to safely navigate significant weather on that dark and stormy night. These are just a few issues that were not addressed in our training.
- I recommend the following to help crews w/ their introductory flight on the Max:
- Email notification the day before the flight (the email should include: Links - Training Video, PSOB and QRG and all relevant updates/FAQ's)
- SME (Subject Matter Expert) Observer - the role of the SME is to introduce systems navigation, display management, answer general questions and provide standardized best practices to the next generation aircraft.
- Additionally, the SME will collect de-identified data to provide to the training department for analysis and dissemination to the line pilots regarding FAQs and know systems differences as well best practices in fly the new model aircraft.
- Synopsis
- B737 MAX First Officer reported feeling unprepared for first flight in the MAX, citing inadequate training.
- ACN: 1550073 (18 of 20)
- Time / Day
- Date : 201806
- Aircraft
- Reference : X
- Aircraft Operator : Air Carrier
- Make Model Name : B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
- Crew Size.Number Of Crew : 2
- Operating Under FAR Part : Part 121
- Flight Plan : IFR
- Mission : Passenger
- Nav In Use : FMS Or FMC
- Flight Phase : Cruise
- Component
- Aircraft Component : Air/Ground Communication
- Aircraft Reference : X
- Problem : Design
- Person
- Reference : 1
- Location Of Person : Company
- Reporter Organization : Air Carrier
- Function.Maintenance : Other / Unknown
- ASRS Report Number.Accession Number : 1550073
- Human Factors : Communication Breakdown
- Communication Breakdown.Party1 : Maintenance
- Communication Breakdown.Party2 : Flight Crew
- Events
- Anomaly.Aircraft Equipment Problem : Less Severe
- Anomaly.Deviation - Procedural : Published Material / Policy
- Detector.Person : Maintenance
- When Detected : In-flight
- Result.General : None Reported / Taken
- Assessments
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Aircraft
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Equipment / Tooling
- Primary Problem : Ambiguous
- Narrative: 1
- Ever since the 737MAX, it seems most 737 controllers are not getting ACARS messages or Electronic Logbook write-ups the crew sends. The messages are not coming through on Maintenance Control ACARS/ELB page or through the Maintenance Control's alert manager application.
- Yesterday on a flight, I received a call from dispatch asking if I could answer the crew. Since I had not received any messages and no other controllers had either we were in the dark. Dispatcher gave me the info I proceeded to reply to Captain's inquiry, also telling him to message both dispatch and Maintenance Control, as we were not receiving the messages from him. We never got a response, but dispatch called and said Captain received our message and problem was resolved.
- After this situation, I decided to try and test it out on another aircraft, which had just arrived in our base. I sent a test log page. Again, we did not receive any pop up on Maintenance Control [page] or Maintenance Control's alert manager informing us of the write-up.
- Synopsis
- Maintenance personnel reported that on Boeing 737MAX, Maintenance Control is not receiving ACARS or Electronic Logbook write-ups the flight crew sends.
- ACN: 1538699 (19 of 20)
- Time / Day
- Date : 201804
- Place
- Locale Reference.ATC Facility : ZZZ.TRACON
- State Reference : US
- Relative Position.Distance.Nautical Miles : 15
- Altitude.MSL.Single Value : 3000
- Environment
- Flight Conditions : VMC
- Aircraft
- Reference : X
- ATC / Advisory.TRACON : ZZZ
- Aircraft Operator : Air Carrier
- Make Model Name : B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
- Crew Size.Number Of Crew : 2
- Operating Under FAR Part : Part 121
- Flight Plan : IFR
- Mission : Passenger
- Flight Phase : Initial Approach
- Airspace.Class B : ZZZ
- Person : 1
- Reference : 1
- Location Of Person.Aircraft : X
- Location In Aircraft : Flight Deck
- Reporter Organization : Air Carrier
- Function.Flight Crew : First Officer
- Function.Flight Crew : Pilot Not Flying
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Instrument
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Multiengine
- Experience.Flight Crew.Last 90 Days : 496
- Experience.Flight Crew.Type : 2200
- ASRS Report Number.Accession Number : 1538699
- Human Factors : Situational Awareness
- Human Factors : Human-Machine Interface
- Human Factors : Training / Qualification
- Human Factors : Distraction
- Person : 2
- Reference : 2
- Location Of Person.Aircraft : X
- Location In Aircraft : Flight Deck
- Reporter Organization : Air Carrier
- Function.Flight Crew : Captain
- Function.Flight Crew : Pilot Flying
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Multiengine
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Instrument
- Experience.Flight Crew.Last 90 Days : 327
- ASRS Report Number.Accession Number : 1538699
- Human Factors : Troubleshooting
- Human Factors : Confusion
- Human Factors : Human-Machine Interface
- Events
- Anomaly.Deviation - Altitude : Overshoot
- Anomaly.Deviation - Track / Heading : All Types
- Anomaly.Deviation - Procedural : Clearance
- Detector.Automation : Aircraft Other Automation
- Detector.Person : Flight Crew
- When Detected : In-flight
- Result.Flight Crew : FLC Overrode Automation
- Result.Flight Crew : Became Reoriented
- Result.Air Traffic Control : Provided Assistance
- Assessments
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Aircraft
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Company Policy
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Human Factors
- Primary Problem : Aircraft
- Narrative: 1
- While on a 300 degree intercept heading, at an assigned altitude of 3000 feet, autopilot engaged, we received clearance "Maintain 3000 ft until established, cleared for the ILS Approach", and were handed over to the Tower. The pilot flying "armed" VOR/LOC, which was verified on the FMA (Flight Mode Annunciator). Approaching the extended centerline of the runway, the pilot flying determined that VOR/LOC had failed to "capture" and was overshooting the final. The pilot flying then made immediate correction back toward centerline via manual input with the control yoke, which disengaged the autopilot in all axes. The pilot flying noted there was no ILS "raw data" presented on his EADI (Electronic Attitude Direction Indicator). Pilot not flying noted he did have CDI (Coursed Deviation Indicator) and glideslope pointers, but did not have VOR/LOC capture yet. Both pilot flying and pilot not flying verified that proper frequencies and inbound courses were set correctly.
- The pilot flying had the runway in sight visually at that point and continued hand flying toward the runway. The pilot not flying's FMA then "captured" VOR/LOC, while pilot flying's remained in "arm". At that time we were outside of the Final Approach Fix. We then received instruction from Final Monitor to climb back to 3000 feet. The pilot flying immediately returned to altitude, while maintaining centerline track to the runway visually. In the distraction, we had inadvertently descended to approximately 2450 feet. Inside of the Final Approach Fix, pilot flying set and descended to 2700 feet. Pilot not flying's FMA remained in VOR/LOC with glideslope pointer descending the scale toward the "centered" position, while pilot flying's "raw data" indications remained blank, with VOR/LOC "armed" on his FMA. At, or just prior to, ZZZZZ at 2700 feet, LOC and glideslope indications suddenly appeared, and VOR/LOC captured on the pilot flying's FMA. Pilot flying selected APP mode on the MCP (Mode Control Panel). Glideslope immediately "captured" on the pilot flying's FMA, and indications remained normal without further anomaly. Approach and landing were made on without incident.
- Contributing factors were this was the first flight of a morning trip. Also both pilots first flight in MAX aircraft so there was a lot of looking around for information that has become instinctual in the NG. The weather was ragged SCT-BKN layer between 3000-3200 feet. More time in the MAX aircraft would be helpful. Time spent looking for information on redesigned display layout was definitely a distraction. I have never seen such a disparity between Captain and First Officer instrumentation like we experienced, where one side has good data and the other has none (assuming both are tuned/setup identically, which ours were). I'm not sure if this issue is MAX specific. As the pilot monitoring, I should have done a better job monitoring our altitude, especially after the autopilot was disconnected. I became too distracted by the problem and trying to quickly correct it. I should have recognized and called out the altitude deviance.
- Narrative: 2
- [Report narrative contained no additional information.]
- Synopsis
- B737 MAX pilots reported flying through the final approach course and descending below published altitudes due to confusion with the new style instrument displays.
- ACN: 1517486 (20 of 20)
- Time / Day
- Date : 201802
- Local Time Of Day : 1201-1800
- Place
- Locale Reference.Airport : ZZZ.Airport
- State Reference : US
- Altitude.AGL.Single Value : 0
- Environment
- Light : Daylight
- Aircraft
- Reference : X
- Aircraft Operator : Air Carrier
- Make Model Name : B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
- Crew Size.Number Of Crew : 2
- Operating Under FAR Part : Part 121
- Flight Plan : IFR
- Mission : Passenger
- Flight Phase : Taxi
- Person
- Reference : 1
- Location Of Person.Aircraft : X
- Location In Aircraft : Flight Deck
- Reporter Organization : Air Carrier
- Function.Flight Crew : Pilot Flying
- Function.Flight Crew : Captain
- Qualification.Flight Crew : Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
- ASRS Report Number.Accession Number : 1517486
- Human Factors : Communication Breakdown
- Human Factors : Training / Qualification
- Events
- Anomaly.Deviation - Procedural : Published Material / Policy
- Anomaly.Ground Event / Encounter : Other / Unknown
- Detector.Person : Flight Crew
- When Detected : Aircraft In Service At Gate
- When Detected : Taxi
- Assessments
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Company Policy
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Airport
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Procedure
- Contributing Factors / Situations : Human Factors
- Primary Problem : Procedure
- Narrative: 1
- As we contacted the Pushback Driver for the required exchange of call outs, we finished running the Before Pushback Checklist. The First Officer and I, and Company Dispatcher doing his annual qualification on the jumpseat, were all listening on the Flight interphone to the exchange between the Pushback Driver and me. All call outs were normal up to the pushback call for "Brakes Set". Once the return reply "Brakes Set" was said by me, at that second the communication plugs were pulled and the communications ended. All three of us in the cockpit heard the headset connection plugs pulled out along with the door shut. I also watched the Ramp Agent walk away with the box in hand.
- This was very disturbing because we were starting the new 737 MAX engines, and number 2 was not stable and running yet. I was hoping for them to stay until we cleared them off, as per procedure. They all started to walk off without even any hand signals. I opened my window, and with number 1 still shut down, I got the attention of the nearby Wing Walker, and asked him to tell the pushback to "hook back up". After enduring their looks as if I had asked them to do something insane, they hooked back up. At this point all three of us in the cockpit listened to what I could only call a cover up for their poor and improper adherence to our procedures.
- We didn't have any communication problems during this push; it was crystal clear, all up to this re-plug in. It was still very clear; however, every time I made a call or statement on the interphone, it was followed by the pushback saying "can you hear me". I changed the pace of my calls, different intervals, and was never interrupted, just the reply, "can you hear me" after each of my responses. You could tell they were making a joke out of this. I stated on the intercom that this entire pushback is so wrong, and their attitudes showed they don't care. "I will write this up, and this activity will stop".
- After my comments, he responded in a manner that showed he heard me just fine. All three of us in the cockpit listened and observed this low moment in communications intended for Safety. The other two Crew Members are willing to verify this report. This type of unsafe, anti-procedure behavior cannot be tolerated. This is becoming a nation-wide trend, with this being one of the worst examples. I'm sure excuses will be made concerning poor communications involving equipment. I will not buy that excuse in this example. The attitudes on the Ramp came through loud and clear on this day that they do not buy into our Company procedures.
- Synopsis
- A pilot reported a tug driver and ramp crew did not follow proper procedures during pushback.
- v2.9
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Advertisement