Cruise ship Viking Sky sends out a mayday call,

[Go Wildcats]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

All the aircraft that I have Certified, were all variations of an existing design, nothing was a clean sheet new design.
..........system had more authority than realized, pilots didn’t even know of its existence, much less how to diagnose and handle a failure, and a whole lot of people died.

I've been listening and reading on the matter - you have far more practical knowledge than I do and I'll defer to your judgement. My understanding is that the 737Max8 had a changes, but nothing requiring new training, new manual or recertifications. The new system in question that has led to two crashes is related to a faulty reading that makes the plane self correct in error. The pilots weren't made aware of the new system and thus the way to disengage it. In turn they fought for control with dire outcomes. Again, this i my understanding and I have zero practical experience other than ground and flight school for private license - both of which was 30 years ago. So, I'll defer to your judgment. thanks for helping me understand better.

[GILow]

Originally Posted by Go Wildcats

I've been listening and reading on the matter - you have far more practical knowledge than I do and I'll defer to your judgement. My understanding is that the 737Max8 had a changes, but nothing requiring new training, new manual or recertifications. The new system in question that has led to two crashes is related to a faulty reading that makes the plane self correct in error. The pilots weren't made aware of the new system and thus the way to disengage it. In turn they fought for control with dire outcomes. Again, this i my understanding and I have zero practical experience other than ground and flight school for private license - both of which was 30 years ago. So, I'll defer to your judgment. thanks for helping me understand better.

FWIW, I spend my life surrounded by aircraft fanatics. (I am not one of them). This group includes people who lecture in aviation, certify small aircraft and train new pilots. They are all describing the 737 MAX problem in much the way you describe and called the retraining of existing 737 certified pilots to the new MAX model as a “brochureware handover”. All feel this approach is inadequate given the combination human nature with the number of new systems on the aircraft.

[a64pilot]

While I don’t know much about the Max 8. I can tell you that changing engines is a certification program. Changing flight controls is another, lengthening the fuselage, which I assume was done is a third.
So I’m certain that in fact it went though several major certifications.
I also feel sure that this MCAS I think it was called was something that the failure mode was known, and the test pilots knew how to handle it.
My assumption is that the line pilots were pretty much given the airplane, and told it’s a 737, go fly it.
737 is the most prolific passenger aircraft ever built, and besides the issue it had with its single rudder hydraulic actuator a few years ago, has been a good airplane, however many died from the rudder hardcovers.

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

What little reading I have done one the subject has me amazed at how poorly trained some pilots are.
The anti stall can take control of the airplane and drop the nose if a stall is sensed or conditions are good for one occurring.
Apparently many pilots didn’t even know of the existence of the system, nor how to disengage it.

However aircraft automation and poorly trained pilots are becoming the norm, the day of the retired Military pilot are pretty much gone, now we send pilots through puppy mill flight schools where they have very little actual experience and move them up as soon as minimums are met.
The Air France crash off the coast of Brazil where they stalled that Airbus all the way down from the flight levels and never figured out what was going on is more of that.


I am going to bet that in truth it’s going to come down to pilot training, that won’t satisfy everyone, there will be a warning system installed to indicate when this system activates, but if you don’t even know of the existence 0f a system that can take control of the airplane away from you, what are the odds that you know how to disengage it?

Face it folks. Today's commercial airline pilots might as well be your local bus driver.

[tweitz]

Back to the original thread. Viking Sky ran into trouble with around 1300 people on board, just off the Norwegian Coast. The helicopters were only able to evacuate a few hundred, but fortunately they were able to save the ship and bring it into port. Now what happens if a cruise ship gets in trouble with 8000 souls aboard, like the new generation? Or if it is a ship in a really remote spot far from shore? Or both? I am a sailor, I love the sea, but it always has been a dangerous place. These newer gigantic ships, and itineraries that take them far from potential rescue, pose a risk that no coast guard or rescue service can possibly handle. Sooner or later disaster will come.

[boat driver]

Originally Posted by tweitz

Back to the original thread. Viking Sky ran into trouble with around 1300 people on board, just off the Norwegian Coast. The helicopters were only able to evacuate a few hundred, but fortunately they were able to save the ship and bring it into port. Now what happens if a cruise ship gets in trouble with 8000 souls aboard, like the new generation? Or if it is a ship in a really remote spot far from shore? Or both? I am a sailor, I love the sea, but it always has been a dangerous place. These newer gigantic ships, and itineraries that take them far from potential rescue, pose a risk that no coast guard or rescue service can possibly handle. Sooner or later disaster will come.

The issue is on the front of the world rescue organizations. The mega size of everything is stressing ports/facilities/ and many regulations. ULCV are a huge concern with upwards of 8000 boxes of contents that are ??? not necessarily listed correctly for "economic" reasons- then stowed incorrectly.
Cruise ships are failing just in the daily effects of keeping health and systems operating. And everyone expected messes like the "Exxon Valdez" to be worse case scenario.
The responding rescue ship also had engine failure.
as of this Wed mornings feeds- the authorities have ruled out cooling sea chests and any contact with the bottom. The simple facts still are that the blackout happened and the crew were not considered incompetent.
Speculate now begins to wonder if comparing the two vessels- any common denominators? Particularly like an ECDIS electronic update that had a virus attached to that chart area..... and because of integration was permitted to get to the vessel's engine software.
The US is trying to decide how to create a fast Response Vessel program to get professional help aboard a stricken (fire, structure, etc) vessel if within 12 hours of the coastline- simply because the traditional help methods and solutions are not adequate to the mega sizes.

[sveinung]

I'll bring this over from the press release in Norwegian by the Norwegian Maritime Authority:

Originally Posted by Sjøfartsdirektoratet

What we can preliminary determine is that the direct cause for the engines to shut down was low oil pressure to the engines. The level of lubrication oil was within normal range, but in the lower range. The tanks were equipped with level alerts which did not trip. The heavy sea outside of Hustadvika seems to have caused so much movement in the tanks that the feed to the pumps was interrupted.
This lead to a low oil alarm which in turn shut down the engines soon after.

[Horus]

Originally Posted by GILow

So, can anyone shed some light on engine failures in these situations? The freighter also seems to have had an engine failure. I am kind of surprised that engine’s should fail because of rough conditions. On an old sailing boat I get it that fuel sediment might get stirred up or water might get into the fuel system, but surely a modern cruise ship like this should not be troubled?

This "Viking Sky" was, so far I'm right, earlier called "Royal Viking Sky" and so over 30 years old. So I'm not sure this "Viking Sky" can be called a 'modern cruise ship'. That is up to the maintenance and upgrades done al these years.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Horus

This "Viking Sky" was, so far I'm right, earlier called "Royal Viking Sky" and so over 30 years old. So I'm not sure this "Viking Sky" can be called a 'modern cruise ship'. That is up to the maintenance and upgrades done al these years.

This is a new ship https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais...l:VIKING%20SKY

The old Royal Viking Sky is still in service however as 'Boudi'.... 45 year old.....

I wonder if the passengers realise just how very lucky they were.

When you look at what happened to the Costa Concordia when she grounded in fine weather..........

Grounding on a rocky lee shore in a gale would have beena very nasty business indeed...

[JPA Cate]

^^^^^

Judging by their complaints, no, they're not aware of that. I don't suppose many people who go on cruise ships are.....

Ann

[GILow]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

I wonder if the passengers realise just how very lucky they were.



When you look at what happened to the Costa Concordia when she grounded in fine weather
...

Ah, but the captain was able to get off ok and supervise the evacuation from a life boat. That helped. [emoji846]

[nortonscove]

It's not uncommon for ships to have engine trouble. My father in law just returned from moving a ship that has three engines. Even with all of the gear on board to help it seems they have some dirty fuel. The issue of course is that you put redundancy of three engines but all draw from the same tanks. A common day tank seems to have been the problem in this case. Next change to marine regulations I guess will be a series of tanks for each engine.

[nigel1]

I was skipper on a four engined 24,000HP tug. Complete blackout due to a failed contactor in the power management system. We had the emergency geny auto start OK, but took about 6 hrs to trace the fault.

[transmitterdan]

If these big engines run low on oil is there no onboard supply to refill the oil sump?

I spoke to a 737 pilot a couple days ago. He said that turning off the auto trim system on the MAX is a “memory item” all pilots should be able to do with their eyes closed. It should be the first thing the pilot thinks of when the automatic system pushes the nose down incorrectly. Also, early MAX planes had a second angle of attack indicator as an option which apparently neither Lion or Ethiopian airlines selected. It’s not an option now.

Similarly, one would think that a low oil cutoff would instantly tell the ship’s engineering team to refill with some barrels of oil.

Interestingly, i read a quote from the cruise line operator that said they would now revise their oil fill level guidelines on all their other vessels. I don’t know, but it sounds like a bean counter may have some ‘splaining to do.

[CSY Man]

. I spoke to a 737 pilot a couple days ago. He said that turning off the auto trim system on the MAX is a “memory item” all pilots should be able to do with their eyes closed.

Yeah, it is on the Runaway Stab Checklist. Been practicing it in the flight simulators for 30 years, nothing new. No idea why why these guys crashing the MAX planes did not think of it...