Due to the last thread being long please continue discussion regarding Boeing 737MAX grounding below. For the time being we will open a thread each quarter however that is subject to review

Just a reminder to debate the topic and not each other and if quoting from other sources make sure it is within posting guidelines

Finally if anyone would like to work on a summary for the thread for the benefit for everyone please email us at [email protected] and we will just add it to this post

Link to previous thread

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1417545&p=21319495#p21319495

I suggest to read the following report and it shows how a similar problem (without MCAS) was handled in a 737NG: http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-r ... 1o0031.pdf

The raw data including thrust settings and flap retraction are quite similar.

Southwest and FAA officials never knew Boeing turned off a safety feature on its 737 Max jets

https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing- ... ?r=US&IR=T

Southwest Airlines and FAA officials overseeing the carrier never knew that Boeing turned off a standard safety feature on its 737 Max jets when Southwest brought the model into its fleet, reported Andy Pastzor of The Wall Street Journal.

That would be because Boeing (by that I mean Boeing management) is focussed on safety, wouldn't it?

FAA officials contemplated grounding Southwest's Max fleet on two separate occasions, but both times, the discussions were quickly dropped, according to a new WSJ investigation.

Can't read the article but <sarcasm on> doubtless Boeing (by that I mean Boeing management) were lobbying to have it grounded because Boeing (by that I mean Boeing management) are focussed on safety, aren't they? Shame some entity persuaded FAA not to follow Boeing's advice.<sarcasm off>

If only Boeing had come clean about the MCAS system having a defective design after the Lion Air crash it might have saved a lot of lives. Instead they quietly started working on fixing the problem. And another MAX crashed. Yet they still lobbied against the MAX being grounded even though they had recognised there was a problem on the aircraft that needed fixing and were working on a fix! Oh yes, Mr Boeing CEO, your company really has its primary focus on safety, doesn't it?

The Boeing 737 Max crashes show that 'deteriorating pilot skills' may push airlines to favor Airbus

Article

I think this is just blowing the issue well out of proportion. The article mentions that Airbus sales rep's are using this argument to pust the A320.

'Airbus told me the reason that their flight control system takes on more control authority is to overcome deteriorating pilot skills'

I doubt that Airbus would tell something like this to a reporter.

So in the end I think Boeing 737Max will be judged on its economics, just like last year.

qf789 wrote:

Due to the last thread being long please continue discussion regarding Boeing 737MAX grounding below. For the time being we will open a thread each quarter however that is subject to review

Just a reminder to debate the topic and not each other and if quoting from other sources make sure it is within posting guidelines

Suggestion ... Since you are opening a new thread, why not combine the "Ethiopian 737 MAX" thread with this one ? So many of the comments are duplicated between the 2 threads

And THANK YOU for creating this new thread !
At 125 pages, the old one was way too big !

zeke wrote:

I am not aware of any evidence that would suggest the MCAS implementation did not meet the required regulation. As far as I am aware no engineer, no mechanic, no test pilot, no airline, no regulator, and even the manufacturer had not anticipated this failure mode.

Think of the Comet, it met all the regulations at the time, that did not stop it from having failures which were not anticipated by anyone.

“It is easy to be wise after the event.” Arthur Doyle

Of course, hindsight is always 20/20. However, we're talking about pretty basic analysis, not about really convoluted scenario. It is a single failure of the only input to a system. As far as I understand, this is a very basic exercise for software QA.
And again - Boeing seemingly tends to overlook obvious things. Remember 787 terrible teens wing stress issues? Comet situation ver. 2.0.
So the question is - can Boeing, as an organisation, learn on mistakes others make (which means being wise in my book), on their own mistakes (which would qualify as smart), or we're talking about collective idiocy being willing to repeat mistakes over and over again?
Trust and public confidence are Boeings' biggest assets - and they are wasting those as if they don't care.

Can I make a plea to keep this topic focused on developments with the 737 MAX grounding and subsequent ungrounding.

Everytime i went to the other thread to get more information it was just a bunch of people arguing over MCAS pitches, pilots and their interpretations of information to back up their own ideology which became almost unbareably niave and not important. I dont care if you think it was the pilots fault or boeings fault or whatever, i want some information to make my own mind up.

Stories like the southwest one above is perfect.

SEU wrote:

Can I make a plea to keep this topic focused on developments with the 737 MAX grounding and subsequent ungrounding.

Everytime i went to the other thread to get more information it was just a bunch of people arguing over MCAS pitches, pilots and their interpretations of information to back up their own ideology which became almost unbareably niave and not important. I dont care if you think it was the pilots fault or boeings fault or whatever, i want some information to make my own mind up.

Stories like the southwest one above is perfect.

Welcome to the club. Try lobbying moderators team for some changes.
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1416585
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1417545&p=21313821#p21313821

A couple of points.

1. To me it is still odd that Boeing introduced an automatic system to help the pilots control the changes in the newest version of the plane whilst saying the pilots need to be able to manually control the automatic help system sometimes, ie turn it off in effect. That just shows the aid to safety actually was no such thing in effect. They have now "debugged it" further. Let's hope fully.

2. Considering admission of partial guilt even before the air safety reports have come in leads me to believe the financial impact from grounded planes and their airline customers now weighs more than any legal financial penalties from people impacted in the two crashes. They still obviously are treading the totally not to blame path without seeming to be buck passing.

Lawyers paradise sadly.

Dutchy wrote:

So in the end I think Boeing 737Max will be judged on its economics, just like last year.

Agreed - but does the MAX now carry more economic risk than A32x?

i.e. When making a decision on what to buy will an airline ponder "what if MAX has another accident, regardless of the reason, is there a significantly greater risk of it being grounded - even if just a few days - by regulators than A32x?"

The 737 will do fine - the point I'm really wondering is - will this leave a long term material impact on the 737 beyond just essentially an "order pause" during the grounding.

deltacto wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Due to the last thread being long please continue discussion regarding Boeing 737MAX grounding below. For the time being we will open a thread each quarter however that is subject to review

Just a reminder to debate the topic and not each other and if quoting from other sources make sure it is within posting guidelines

Suggestion ... Since you are opening a new thread, why not combine the "Ethiopian 737 MAX" thread with this one ? So many of the comments are duplicated between the 2 threads

And THANK YOU for creating this new thread !
At 125 pages, the old one was way too big !

Agree about pushing the Ethiopian thread to here as well. But on the other point - I see no need at all for there to be a new thread! You only see a page of 50 replies each time, and if you're following it you go to the newest unread posting - so the thread could be 500,000 pages long and it would make literally no difference to me logging on and seeing the twenty new replies since I last logged in!

On the old forum software, people had trouble viewing long threads (apparently - my browser never had an issue with them) so that's where this thread-breaking moderation behaviour comes from - but it's totally unnecessary on the current software, and actually makes it harder to keep track!

(Also, no other forum I use does this...)

Many thanks for the new thread.

Supplier woes:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-sup ... 1556569093



Suppliers to Boeing Co. are struggling to navigate uncertainty arising from the continued grounding of the company’s 737 MAX aircraft.
Reliant on Boeing orders, executives of the 600-plus companies that supply more than three million parts to make the beleaguered jet are bracing for potential changes to production levels should the aircraft remain grounded beyond the summer.

Boeing in April reduced its monthly production rate to 42, down from 52 before the second fatal crash of a 737 MAX in five months on March 10 in Ethiopia.
Boeing last week said it would go through its list of suppliers and components one by one and make adjustments if necessary. That might make suppliers—who provide parts from fan blades to fuselages—reconsider their risk-management strategies and growth plans, given that Boeing before the crashes had indicated it could boost monthly production to 57 planes later this year.



Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk

Amiga500 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So in the end I think Boeing 737Max will be judged on its economics, just like last year.

Agreed - but does the MAX now carry more economic risk than A32x?

i.e. When making a decision on what to buy will an airline ponder "what if MAX has another accident, regardless of the reason, is there a significantly greater risk of it being grounded - even if just a few days - by regulators than A32x?"

The 737 will do fine - the point I'm really wondering is - will this leave a long term material impact on the 737 beyond just essentially an "order pause" during the grounding.

I think not. In fact, pure from a risk point of view, the chances of a grounding happening is remote. Chances of this happening again are astronomical. If the 737 is ever grounded again, I doubt it will be for an issue related to the MCAS, it will be tested and tested again by Boeing and the regulators of different countries. It will be much more scrutinized by say the European Aviation Safety Agency than last time. So this decreases risk.

The major problem will be costumers perception. We have seen it with the 787-grounding, the public forgets quite fast. So I don't think there will be a real problem there. If Boeing gets the green light to put the 737Max in the air by August, I think the public will forget this grounding by next year, so orders should pick up at the end of the year as well.

The investors are another matter, I think the CEO should leave his post after this has been resolved. Under his watch the company lost 1bn every month of the grounding, so the tally could be as high as 3/4bn and that is quite some money lost due to this. It is part of his job to take responsibility for this incident, that's why he is getting paid the big bucks.

Dutchy wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So in the end I think Boeing 737Max will be judged on its economics, just like last year.

Agreed - but does the MAX now carry more economic risk than A32x?

i.e. When making a decision on what to buy will an airline ponder "what if MAX has another accident, regardless of the reason, is there a significantly greater risk of it being grounded - even if just a few days - by regulators than A32x?"

The 737 will do fine - the point I'm really wondering is - will this leave a long term material impact on the 737 beyond just essentially an "order pause" during the grounding.

I think not. In fact, pure from a risk point of view, the chances of a grounding happening is remote. Chances of this happening again are astronomical. If the 737 is ever grounded again, I doubt it will be for an issue related to the MCAS, it will be tested and tested again by Boeing and the regulators of different countries. It will be much more scrutinized by say the European Aviation Safety Agency than last time. So this decreases risk.

The major problem will be costumers perception. We have seen it with the 787-grounding, the public forgets quite fast. So I don't think there will be a real problem there. If Boeing gets the green light to put the 737Max in the air by August, I think the public will forget this grounding by next year, so orders should pick up at the end of the year as well.

The investors are another matter, I think the CEO should leave his post after this has been resolved. Under his watch the company lost 1bn every month of the grounding, so the tally could be as high as 3/4bn and that is quite some money lost due to this. It is part of his job to take responsibility for this incident, that's why he is getting paid the big bucks.

If we are going "by the numbers", you may be right. But as a CEO or C level exec, you need to ask what the worst case scenario is and how that would impact the business. The exact answer and implication will depend a little on the specific situation of your airline (are you exclusive Boeing operator or a split OEM operator for example), but the worst case scenario here is that another crash occurs, that Boeing or its officers are indicted and found guilty of something in the FBI probe, and missing another potential problem leading to another crash. Because while public may have been forgiving of battery fires on the ground that didn't kill passengers, they are far less forgiving of 350+ dead trapped in a lawn dart. And since there is often some choice about which airline to fly to avoid a certain type, passengers may vote with their wallets.

I do think the odds are that there will be no further crashes and that Boeing will recover from this in time (with new management). 25% of their overall revenue is generated through effectively no-bid work for the US military, so they will never fail. But I can certainly see the MAX being killed off if Boeing makes more missteps leading to more crashes. And THAT is what airlines should account for, and I believe they will (whether by spliting orders between MAX and NEO or whether by not buying any MAX). WHat has been ordered is mostly safe...but I would expect future orders to be impacted to some degree.

I appeciate that reduction to 42 pm from 52pm rising to 57pm is a problem for suppliers. Just curious how Airbus suppliers were affected by the lack of PW GTF engines which lasted for some time. Perhaps Airbus just continued taking delivery from other suppliers. Could Boring carry on taking delivery of most parts (perhaps not fuselages) at the rate of 52pm for a month or two?

lol! Funny story actually. And remember what he said yesterday.

"The max was designed and certified in the same way as we have always designed and certified planes."



Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk

lol! Funny story actually. And remember what he said yesterday.

"The max was designed and certified in the same way as we have always designed and certified planes."



Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk

Here is something I would like to bring up in regard to the MAX and MCAS. Remember when Boeing brought the MAX to the Paris Air Show and did that hammerhead climb takeoff? Was MCAS installed at the time and if so was it deactivated for this demo. How soon we forget these little things. Just a thought.

freakyrat wrote:

Here is something I would like to bring up in regard to the MAX and MCAS. Remember when Boeing brought the MAX to the Paris Air Show and did that hammerhead climb takeoff? Was MCAS installed at the time and if so was it deactivated for this demo. How soon we forget these little things. Just a thought.

Someone else mentioned that a few weeks ago. The answer was that flaps were out for that so therefore MCAS activation criteria would not have been met.

Additionally, I'm sure that any maneuver planned for an airshow does not approach a stall. I don't think that would be approved.

I hope the Boeing lawyers aren't working on a no win no fee agreement!

deltacto wrote:

And THANK YOU for creating this new thread !
At 125 pages, the old one was way too big !

Right. All the repetitious posts in the original thread were starting to look, well, real repetitious. Now all the repetitious posts will look new.

Unless Boeing admits MCAS was faulty, the world's aviation authorities should not unground it. Like they say, two can play at that game.

The lawyers were right except it’s not a “light”.

It’s just an alert message which if they had had time to look it up in the QRH just tells you that you might get one or two other alert messages.

In the heat of battle (stick shaker going off) they wouldn’t have noticed any of those messages and would already have figured out what was going on — the airspeeds and/or altitudes didn’t agree —without reading any of the alerts.

Boeing is more than happy to make the AOA DISAGREE message standard if it makes the airlines and the flying public feel safer — they’re just as safe with or without it.

art wrote:

Southwest Airlines and FAA officials overseeing the carrier never knew that Boeing turned off a standard safety feature on its 737 Max jets when Southwest brought the model into its fleet, reported Andy Pastzor of The Wall Street Journal.

That would be because Boeing (by that I mean Boeing management) is focussed on safety, wouldn't it?

Wasn't this the safety feature (the AoA disagree indicator/light) that WN and AA paid extra for, that ET and JT didn't pay extra for? So with this tidbit, the implication is that AA and WN basically paid more for something that wasn't even activated? Seems like either Boeing's sales team is either overpromising and underdelivering, or that aircraft inspection teams at AA and WN are incompetent.

DenverTed wrote:

Unless Boeing admits MCAS was faulty, the world's aviation authorities should not unground it. Like they say, two can play at that game.

This! Who is Boeing thinking that they are impressing with their handling of this situation?

The pilots, which they silently have taken safety warnings away from and from which they expect to perform weird special handling routines in order to compensate for a ("properly designed") 1960s simulation?

The airlines, which seas their planes grounded because Boeing delivered planes which were too complicated to fly without the extra training that they were promsised not to need?

The passengers, who can only stand on the side lines to watch the plane maker not take full responsibility of a plane that was clearly not possible to fly safely by normal pilots?

Short term money only is talking right now from Boeing's side. No heart is involved. And people are feeling this very clearly.

oschkosch wrote:

lol! Funny story actually. And remember what he said yesterday.

"The max was designed and certified in the same way as we have always designed and certified planes."



Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk

I don't believe that. All airline companies have screwed up at times but this was junior grade engineering that went wrong here. Boeing has been laying off many experienced engineers to bump profits. I wonder if that had anything to do with the lapse in standards.

RickNRoll wrote:

oschkosch wrote:

lol! Funny story actually. And remember what he said yesterday.

"The max was designed and certified in the same way as we have always designed and certified planes."



Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk

I don't believe that. All airline companies have screwed up at times but this was junior grade engineering that went wrong here. Boeing has been laying off many experienced engineers to bump profits. I wonder if that had anything to do with the lapse in standards.

Not just Boeing. Virtually any and every engineering- or deep knowledge-critical firm. Infrastructure, utilities, you name it, all the experienced folks have been let go in favor of new recruits at a fraction of the (upfront) cost. And it shows.

Dutchy wrote:

The Boeing 737 Max crashes show that 'deteriorating pilot skills' may push airlines to favor Airbus

Article

I think this is just blowing the issue well out of proportion. The article mentions that Airbus sales rep's are using this argument to pust the A320.

'Airbus told me the reason that their flight control system takes on more control authority is to overcome deteriorating pilot skills'

I doubt that Airbus would tell something like this to a reporter.

So in the end I think Boeing 737Max will be judged on its economics, just like last year.

I'm with you - indeed I doubt Airbus is saying something like that to anyone at all - it would be foolish if they did. Airline fleet selection panels almost always include one or more pilots, and they would take it quite badly to be told that by a manufacturer.

DeltaB717 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

The Boeing 737 Max crashes show that 'deteriorating pilot skills' may push airlines to favor Airbus

Article

I think this is just blowing the issue well out of proportion. The article mentions that Airbus sales rep's are using this argument to pust the A320.

'Airbus told me the reason that their flight control system takes on more control authority is to overcome deteriorating pilot skills'

I doubt that Airbus would tell something like this to a reporter.

So in the end I think Boeing 737Max will be judged on its economics, just like last year.

I'm with you - indeed I doubt Airbus is saying something like that to anyone at all - it would be foolish if they did. Airline fleet selection panels almost always include one or more pilots, and they would take it quite badly to be told that by a manufacturer.

Agreed, no way. Not by an officer anyway. Maybe some junior rah-rah type (we’ve all run into them from time to time.) All it takes is one mishap for the cannon to point the other way, beyond not wishing ill on innocent passengers. As Enders(?) said, “we never compete on safety”.

planecane wrote:

freakyrat wrote:

Here is something I would like to bring up in regard to the MAX and MCAS. Remember when Boeing brought the MAX to the Paris Air Show and did that hammerhead climb takeoff? Was MCAS installed at the time and if so was it deactivated for this demo. How soon we forget these little things. Just a thought.

Someone else mentioned that a few weeks ago. The answer was that flaps were out for that so therefore MCAS activation criteria would not have been met.

Additionally, I'm sure that any maneuver planned for an airshow does not approach a stall. I don't think that would be approved.

Hey thanks for that answer.

Reference the AoA sensor disagree lights and Southwest. Southwest is Boeings best customer and they are not happy campers right now. Neither are the pilots at Southwest. Southwest has even been talking to Airbus about the A220. I just wonder how Boeing is going to regain their trust

MrBretz wrote:

What would you expect Boeing to say? Aren't you being drained saying all is so horrible? Would you like Boeing to throw in the towel and go out of business?

Don't be ridiculous. No one suggesting they should go out of business.

I would've like for them to accept their responsibility for the crashes. I would like to hear them accept the s/w was substandard, and design and QA process was lacking. (Notice, I don't even mention the airframe. Let's just assume it was fine.) I really don't like hearing that there was no slip or gap. Even if pilots indeed could've saved the plane, that in no way diminishes Boeing's fault. To me that sounds their CEO defends their sloppy work, because there always be pilots to pick up the [email protected] after them.

When he is saying everything was proper and safe, but now it will be even safer, that is not very encouraging to me. That means they are not really making any improvements, even in the wake of two crashes.

ArgentoSystems wrote:

MrBretz wrote:

What would you expect Boeing to say? Aren't you being drained saying all is so horrible? Would you like Boeing to throw in the towel and go out of business?

Don't be ridiculous. No one suggesting they should go out of business.

Maybe someone is. Unless this post by Kalvado is just a joke: "It really goes to the point when euthanizing the company may be the best thing for everyone."

freakyrat wrote:

Reference the AoA sensor disagree lights and Southwest. Southwest is Boeings best customer and they are not happy campers right now. Neither are the pilots at Southwest. Southwest has even been talking to Airbus about the A220. I just wonder how Boeing is going to regain their trust

Although the AoA disagree warning missing is not a good thing, it is being overblown with respect to these MCAS incidents, especially Lion Air. Since MCAS wasn't described to pilots, they would have had no idea what an AoA disagree could cause. Plus, the stick shaker on one side only would indicate a disagree anyway.

AvFanNJ wrote:

ArgentoSystems wrote:

MrBretz wrote:

What would you expect Boeing to say? Aren't you being drained saying all is so horrible? Would you like Boeing to throw in the towel and go out of business?

Don't be ridiculous. No one suggesting they should go out of business.

Maybe someone is. Unless this post by Kalvado is just a joke: "It really goes to the point when euthanizing the company may be the best thing for everyone."

I am always looking at worst case scenario among other things. And I can see how this mess would lead to Boeing not being the old Boeing any more. Chances are not high, but my feeling they are non-zero, and actually higher than we may expect. And CEO seemingly pushes towards worst case development.

freakyrat wrote:

Reference the AoA sensor disagree lights and Southwest. Southwest is Boeings best customer and they are not happy campers right now. Neither are the pilots at Southwest. Southwest has even been talking to Airbus about the A220. I just wonder how Boeing is going to regain their trust

Of course they're talking to Airbus about the A220 - what do you expect them to do, walk into Boeing and say we'd like x number of E2 or MAX 7 and we'll take them at list price? I don't disagree for a second that WN is pissed (and rightly so), or that they might decide to acquire A220s at some point, but they're not going to abandon normal negotiating tactics just because they don't 'LUV' Boeing quite as much as usual!

N809FR wrote:

Why does everyone still seem to think that shit pilots with shit training share no blame in these accidents? Meh, six months from now no one will care or remember and likely the MAX will be the safest aircraft available.

Please, yeehaw and floor it is the best response to a problem, no matter if you are in a orange dodge charger or a commercial airliner.

Oh wait, no. There is no excuse for over speed in a modern airliner.
Lion Air, I give the pilots some credit as while they failed basic memory item(s), it was at least a novel situation presented to them by a dysfunctional airline failing to fix the issue. Ethiopia has no excuse. MCAS has nothing to do with that one, as it never should have been active. I don't think any aircraft would have made it back with that level of piloting, as most react poorly to pushing past Vmo as far as you physically can.

N809FR wrote:

Why does everyone still seem to think that shit pilots with shit training share no blame in these accidents? Meh, six months from now no one will care or remember and likely the MAX will be the safest aircraft available.

The MAX iteration of the 737 is an aircraft with engines located in an undesirable position to shoehorn them onto a frame not suited to their size. Why do you think it could become safer than other aircraft that are not hampered by this problem?

7BOEING7 wrote:

The lawyers were right except it’s not a “light”.

It’s just an alert message which if they had had time to look it up in the QRH just tells you that you might get one or two other alert messages.
In the heat of battle (stick shaker going off) they wouldn’t have noticed any of those messages and would already have figured out what was going on — the airspeeds and/or altitudes didn’t agree —without reading any of the alerts.

Boeing is more than happy to make the AOA DISAGREE message standard if it makes the airlines and the flying public feel safer — they’re just as safe with or without it.

I agree. I do not understand the emphasis being put on this "optional safety feature". None of these articles, nor the folks on this site slamming Boeing for making safety features optional, has even start to explain how this particular "optional safety feature" would have had any impact on both accidents.

Up to the Lionair accident, MCAS was unknown to 737 crews. Let alone they would know that MCAS was operated through one single AoA feed. Let alone they would understand the effect of AoA disagree on MCAS functionality. The latter also applied to the second accident. So I don't see how this would have prevented these accidents.

dakota123 wrote:

RickNRoll wrote:

oschkosch wrote:

lol! Funny story actually. And remember what he said yesterday.

"The max was designed and certified in the same way as we have always designed and certified planes."



Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk

I don't believe that. All airline companies have screwed up at times but this was junior grade engineering that went wrong here. Boeing has been laying off many experienced engineers to bump profits. I wonder if that had anything to do with the lapse in standards.

Not just Boeing. Virtually any and every engineering- or deep knowledge-critical firm. Infrastructure, utilities, you name it, all the experienced folks have been let go in favor of new recruits at a fraction of the (upfront) cost. And it shows.

And yet, aviation, transportation, infrastructure, construction, you name it, has never been more safe than today. We tend to lose sight on how safe these things are. Really.

Side-step: we want government to protect us against a handfull of aviations accidents (or terrorist related deaths), but without even blinking an eye readily accept thousands and thousands of road deaths as normal practice. Go figure.

N809FR wrote:

Why does everyone still seem to think that shit pilots with shit training share no blame in these accidents? Meh, six months from now no one will care or remember and likely the MAX will be the safest aircraft available.

I can guarantee you that in six months a lot of people will still care, especially attorneys and their clients. Definitely wishful thinking on your part.

XT6Wagon wrote:

N809FR wrote:

Why does everyone still seem to think that shit pilots with shit training share no blame in these accidents? Meh, six months from now no one will care or remember and likely the MAX will be the safest aircraft available.

Please, yeehaw and floor it is the best response to a problem, no matter if you are in a orange dodge charger or a commercial airliner.

Oh wait, no. There is no excuse for over speed in a modern airliner.
Lion Air, I give the pilots some credit as while they failed basic memory item(s), it was at least a novel situation presented to them by a dysfunctional airline failing to fix the issue. Ethiopia has no excuse. MCAS has nothing to do with that one, as it never should have been active. I don't think any aircraft would have made it back with that level of piloting, as most react poorly to pushing past Vmo as far as you physically can.

That same level of piloting successfully operated (and continues to operate!) 737 NG (and 320 series, 787, 350 etc) pretty safely.

Now with the introduction of the MAX, all of a sudden training is the issue?? Seems that these training issues mainly concentrate around the MAX. Wonder of the "no-sim conversion" as commitment by Boeing might have anything to do with that . . . ?

dampfnudel wrote:

N809FR wrote:

Why does everyone still seem to think that shit pilots with shit training share no blame in these accidents? Meh, six months from now no one will care or remember and likely the MAX will be the safest aircraft available.

I can guarantee you that in six months a lot of people will still care, especially attorneys and their clients. Definitely wishful thinking on your part.

99% of the travelling public won't even realise they've flown on a MAX within a week of the type being back in the air. There'll be news stories when it first starts flying again, but once that initial hype has blown over, the only people still discussing it will be those directly associated with the flights and investigations and the diehards here. We need to remember that people who frequent sites like this one are a minute portion of the population, like it or not, most people seriously won't give a damn.

Have not been really following this entire situation for almost a month now, anyone want to give me a brief rundown of how close/far we are from seeing the aircraft ungrounded?

jupiter2 wrote:

dampfnudel wrote:

N809FR wrote:

Why does everyone still seem to think that shit pilots with shit training share no blame in these accidents? Meh, six months from now no one will care or remember and likely the MAX will be the safest aircraft available.

I can guarantee you that in six months a lot of people will still care, especially attorneys and their clients. Definitely wishful thinking on your part.

99% of the travelling public won't even realise they've flown on a MAX within a week of the type being back in the air. There'll be news stories when it first starts flying again, but once that initial hype has blown over, the only people still discussing it will be those directly associated with the flights and investigations and the diehards here. We need to remember that people who frequent sites like this one are a minute portion of the population, like it or not, most people seriously won't give a damn.

Ordinarily i would agree with you and I think for the most part this will be shown to be true, however, I have a sneaking suspicion we havent reached the bottom of this scandal yet, I think there is more to come. The name 'Max' is tainted and may need to be changed. Social media changes the old rules.

7BOEING7 wrote:

The lawyers were right except it’s not a “light”.

It’s just an alert message which if they had had time to look it up in the QRH just tells you that you might get one or two other alert messages.

In the heat of battle (stick shaker going off) they wouldn’t have noticed any of those messages and would already have figured out what was going on — the airspeeds and/or altitudes didn’t agree —without reading any of the alerts.

Boeing is more than happy to make the AOA DISAGREE message standard if it makes the airlines and the flying public feel safer — they’re just as safe with or without it.

I know you were reacting to a bunch of rabid posts (that seem to have miraculously disappeared overnight!), but you are maybe being a little dismissive of what the intended? activated AOA Disagree warning effect may have been.

I suspect, if the warning had been displayed, the JT043 pilot may well have reported AOA Disagree as well as Airspeed and Altitude that would have required MX to adress it, and maybe, arrive at the correct action prior to JT610 taking to the air.

It is also possible that had AOA Disagree warning appeared for ET302, it may have coloured the crews appreciation and affected their decision making and subsequent actions to the good.

I also think Boeing had recognised this in their MCAS fix strategy long before ET302. Not just pandering to the feelings of carriers and their passengers.

Ray

XT6Wagon wrote:

Oh wait, no. There is no excuse for over speed in a modern airliner.
Lion Air, I give the pilots some credit as while they failed basic memory item(s), it was at least a novel situation presented to them by a dysfunctional airline failing to fix the issue. Ethiopia has no excuse. MCAS has nothing to do with that one, as it never should have been active. I don't think any aircraft would have made it back with that level of piloting, as most react poorly to pushing past Vmo as far as you physically can.

If you want pilots to act like an automate that implement strict procedures no matter what, then just implement that automation in the computer (as MCAS do, see the result). Don't blame pilot to act like human. Humans are error prone, subject to to fatigue, stress, misunderstanding and take time to manage new situation. This is why training is so important, lot of training if you want top performances. This is the responsibility of the aircraft manufacturer to identify the dangerous situations and to require appropriate training to assert the safety of the flight in case of that situation. The is the responsibility of the aircraft manufacturer to design an aircraft to minimize the possibility of dangerous situations. The raw facts are that Boeing failed multiple time on the 737 MAX, by designing a dangerous MCAS, by failing to identify how dangerous it is, by not requiring the appropriate training to survive a high AoA fault with MCAS.

It so painful to read months after those accidents that peoples still disagree on the procedure the pilots should have followed. There just don't have so much time. There don't have a so clear understanding that point to a single procedure. There never was trained in that situation. JT43 and JT610 don't even know that MCAS exists. At the time just before ET302 the consensus was that the situation was so "simple" as moving two switches and trim the wheels. This was written everywhere on the medias. But after ET302 only we learn the it's not so "simple" as the elevator don't have enough authority against extreme trim and that the trim wheels are too hard to operate at high speed. So now the new "simple" procedure is to avoid over speed and to avoid MCAS activation, something that even Boeing and the FAA don't talk about in the EAD published for high AoA fault on 737 MAX.

To me the JT43, JT610 and ET302 pilots was the last humans that can possibly do something in a very dangerous new failure mode unique to the 737 MAX that was put in place by a lot of others humans.