Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

par13del · Thu May 23, 2019 5:21 pm

So nothing as yet from the two meetings being held today on the fate of the 737 MAX, hard to believe that there is no one there recording or posting live updates.

DenverTed · Thu May 23, 2019 5:31 pm

planecane wrote:
As far as I've seen, MCAS 2.0 still has the same trim change rate and the same 2.5 degrees maximum trim change per cycle. However, it will only perform one cycle per "event." It will only be able to erroneously activate if BOTH AoA sensors fail and indicate false nose up attitude AND they both fail within 5.5 degrees of each other. It will be extremely unlikely for that to happen. If it does, MCAS will kick in for one cycle and attempt to pitch down for 9 seconds. An interruption by the pilot pressing the thumb switch in the opposite direction (opposite requirement not confirmed but assumed) then MCAS will stop commanding. If the AoA doesn't get out of the trigger range, it will still be the same event so it will not activate again.

Also they are saying that the elevators will have 1.5g authority. I assume this puts a limit that the MCAS can't operate in the some range of incidence of the stab that MCAS 1.0 did. So, I assume it obviously was not needed in this range for certification, but existed there in the original design by error.

morrisond · Thu May 23, 2019 5:40 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
morrisond wrote:
AirlineCritic wrote:

FWIW, I very much agree with what Rheinwaldner is writing above.

There can be plenty of smoke and mirrors in this thread, and looks like some people have taken as their day job to post comments that try to deflect what really happened here. What's the goal, the create an impression that "most" posters think in some way? You have to wonder what makes people want to do that.

At the end of the day, no matter what the training situation is in the world, the stats for one aircraft model are way off from others, and not in a good way. Yes, the flights (probably) could have been saved by crew that acted in a very specific way. How foreseeable was that at the time, however? Even on this forum we're gone from the "but maintenance" to "just cut it off" to "obviously you should have adjusted first before cutting off" to "too much speed, they should have paid more attention to speed" and even the latest "don't raise flaps". What's common to these is that the posters -- months after the incident -- believe that crew should have followed a *particular* course of action among a set of many and raise that as a reason why it is a crew fault.

What seems to be happening here is that the poster crowd is trying to find a fault by the pilots. And it is easy. Curiously, very little attention is paid to the IMHO big mistakes in aircraft design, certification, and training requirements. A feature that points nose down in a critical phase of flight and no redundant design? A million things are thrown to the pilots in that same critical phase of flight and you're expected to figure which problem you have and react in seconds, and *no training*? Or else, the wrath of the a.net fanboys is upon you. Come on!

Plenty of blame to go around. But, I'd rather be a Boeing engineer or manager with guilt but with commitment that I will do better, than an investment banker posting in a.net or CEO trying to explain why nothing was wrong and there's nothing to fix. While at the same time fixing things! And we all should be thankful that we're not one of the 350 people dead as a result of all these mistakes.

Like Rheinwaldner said, take it like an adult and get on to fix your mess. Accidents are not 100.000000% preventable but when something happens, lets fix it and make sure it never happens again. And that responsibility lies on multiple shoulders. Pointing fingers to other guys does not help the process. At all.

Yes but ignoring the issues that have also become apparent in training are not helpful for safety either as many are trying to do.

Yes the stats are way off for the MAX and Boeing really screwed up the design - but it sure did uncover some training deficiencies as well. Are you honestly saying that Pilots shouldn't be required at least as a minimum to know how to control there airspeed manually? Just doing that would probably have resulted in an successful flight for ET.

ET had 50% of the Fatal Accidents in the last ten years with Pilot error at least a contributing factor. I am referring to AF447, Colgan 3407, ET409 and ET302.

They have .5% of the Worldwide fleet with 50% of the incidents - that's 100X the Worldwide average - there's some stats for you - but no the Ethiopian CEO says the pilots followed "all procedures" which is blatantly obvious from the Preliminary report they did not. They blamed ET409 on lightning. If you read the ET409 Final report it's quite obvious that the Pilot's manual flying skills were decidedly sub-par.

ET302 and ET409 Pilots went through 737 NG type training at about the same time.

I have no doubt that ET has great training system to teach Pilots how to use the Automated systems - but with 50% of the fatals in the last 10 years while manually flying ET training does not look so good.

Just to reaffirm - It's Boeing's fault that these incidents happened - but ET302 at least with the procedures they were required to know (and if ET actually informed them of the MCAS procedures) as part of there licensing should have saved the flight.

Also just to reaffirm my stance - this is not just a third world problem - as evidenced by the AF and Colgan incidents - as well as the many examples pilots have posted on these forums as well as others of basic procedures that are just no longer being taught and a general lack of knowledge on Airplane systems that newer pilots have worldwide.

The training system has gotten way too complacent and lax and needs improvement. With sufficient training, design and oversight it is conceivable that the existing low fatality rates grow even smaller - but you have to improve all three areas - design, oversight and training.

Still in the smoke and mirror business?

How about mandatory training for Boeing engineers that work safety relevant work on airplanes? How about a ban at Boeing for money managers to overrule engineers in safety critical cases? How about Boeing not ambushing pilots with Boeing made dangerous emergencies? How about Boeing not producing frames that do its best to kill crew and passengers? How about Boeing promoting pilot training instead of sabotaging it?

These two accident are the result of Boeing's negligent design resulting from Boeing's greed.

Yes I'm sure Boeing designed a plane on purpose to crash as that does such good things for it's bottom line. All designs are a compromise between safety, efficiency and cost and sometimes engineers make mistakes based on bad assumptions that pilots are able to handle the situations they supposedly are trained for.

How is asking for improved training standards for pilots Smoke and Mirrors? I would support it for Boeing and the FAA as well to make the whole system safer.

I'm just not so myopic to think that there are only issues with Boeing and the FAA as some would like to believe.

aerolimani · Thu May 23, 2019 5:43 pm

smartplane wrote:
planecane wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

Read the thread, was posted here, why should I do that work for you?

Because none of the simulations I've seen posted have attempted to simulate recovery starting from the beginning of the MCAS runaway. If you know of one, then I'd like you to point me to it since you are using them as part of your argument that they "just managed to avoid crash." That is only relevant if they are simulating starting from the point of failure.

What's the point? None of the simulations have been on true MCAS representative simulators. Even the Boeing simulator is claimed not to accurately reflect actual manual trim loads.

As far as we know, the NG simulators are accurately representing manual trim loads of an NG. Boeing's statement, and subsequently released update, is specific to MAX simulators. Unless the manual trim is radically different between MAX and NG, and there is no reason they are different, then the simulations performed in NG simulators should be a reasonably accurate representation of a MAX's manual trim system.

TL;DR… there's no reason to believe an NG sim is not accurately representing the manual trim wheel system in a MAX.

mjoelnir · Thu May 23, 2019 6:22 pm

morrisond wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
morrisond wrote:

Yes but ignoring the issues that have also become apparent in training are not helpful for safety either as many are trying to do.

Yes the stats are way off for the MAX and Boeing really screwed up the design - but it sure did uncover some training deficiencies as well. Are you honestly saying that Pilots shouldn't be required at least as a minimum to know how to control there airspeed manually? Just doing that would probably have resulted in an successful flight for ET.

ET had 50% of the Fatal Accidents in the last ten years with Pilot error at least a contributing factor. I am referring to AF447, Colgan 3407, ET409 and ET302.

They have .5% of the Worldwide fleet with 50% of the incidents - that's 100X the Worldwide average - there's some stats for you - but no the Ethiopian CEO says the pilots followed "all procedures" which is blatantly obvious from the Preliminary report they did not. They blamed ET409 on lightning. If you read the ET409 Final report it's quite obvious that the Pilot's manual flying skills were decidedly sub-par.

ET302 and ET409 Pilots went through 737 NG type training at about the same time.

I have no doubt that ET has great training system to teach Pilots how to use the Automated systems - but with 50% of the fatals in the last 10 years while manually flying ET training does not look so good.

Just to reaffirm - It's Boeing's fault that these incidents happened - but ET302 at least with the procedures they were required to know (and if ET actually informed them of the MCAS procedures) as part of there licensing should have saved the flight.

Also just to reaffirm my stance - this is not just a third world problem - as evidenced by the AF and Colgan incidents - as well as the many examples pilots have posted on these forums as well as others of basic procedures that are just no longer being taught and a general lack of knowledge on Airplane systems that newer pilots have worldwide.

The training system has gotten way too complacent and lax and needs improvement. With sufficient training, design and oversight it is conceivable that the existing low fatality rates grow even smaller - but you have to improve all three areas - design, oversight and training.

Still in the smoke and mirror business?

How about mandatory training for Boeing engineers that work safety relevant work on airplanes? How about a ban at Boeing for money managers to overrule engineers in safety critical cases? How about Boeing not ambushing pilots with Boeing made dangerous emergencies? How about Boeing not producing frames that do its best to kill crew and passengers? How about Boeing promoting pilot training instead of sabotaging it?

These two accident are the result of Boeing's negligent design resulting from Boeing's greed.

Yes I'm sure Boeing designed a plane on purpose to crash as that does such good things for it's bottom line. All designs are a compromise between safety, efficiency and cost and sometimes engineers make mistakes based on bad assumptions that pilots are able to handle the situations they supposedly are trained for.

How is asking for improved training standards for pilots Smoke and Mirrors? I would support it for Boeing and the FAA as well to make the whole system safer.

I'm just not so myopic to think that there are only issues with Boeing and the FAA as some would like to believe.

It is really quite uninteresting if Boeing design a plane that killed over 300 people on purpose or negligence, the result is the same.

I call it smoke and mirrors, because your calls for training start at the wrong end. Training at Boeing is needed for how to design save frames. It will help pilots if they are not supposed to fly death traps.

In regards to training for pilots flying Boeing frames, you also start at the wrong end. Training for pilots flying an manufacturers frames are based on the manufacturers recommendation. If the manufacturer recommends minimal training and sabotages the possibility that pilots are trained on all the peculiarities of said manufacturers frames, you again have to start with the manufacturer.

morrisond · Thu May 23, 2019 7:00 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
morrisond wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

Still in the smoke and mirror business?

How about mandatory training for Boeing engineers that work safety relevant work on airplanes? How about a ban at Boeing for money managers to overrule engineers in safety critical cases? How about Boeing not ambushing pilots with Boeing made dangerous emergencies? How about Boeing not producing frames that do its best to kill crew and passengers? How about Boeing promoting pilot training instead of sabotaging it?

These two accident are the result of Boeing's negligent design resulting from Boeing's greed.

Yes I'm sure Boeing designed a plane on purpose to crash as that does such good things for it's bottom line. All designs are a compromise between safety, efficiency and cost and sometimes engineers make mistakes based on bad assumptions that pilots are able to handle the situations they supposedly are trained for.

How is asking for improved training standards for pilots Smoke and Mirrors? I would support it for Boeing and the FAA as well to make the whole system safer.

I'm just not so myopic to think that there are only issues with Boeing and the FAA as some would like to believe.

It is really quite uninteresting if Boeing design a plane that killed over 300 people on purpose or negligence, the result is the same.

I call it smoke and mirrors, because your calls for training start at the wrong end. Training at Boeing is needed for how to design save frames. It will help pilots if they are not supposed to fly death traps.

In regards to training for pilots flying Boeing frames, you also start at the wrong end. Training for pilots flying an manufacturers frames are based on the manufacturers recommendation. If the manufacturer recommends minimal training and sabotages the possibility that pilots are trained on all the peculiarities of said manufacturers frames, you again have to start with the manufacturer.

I don't really care how we get to more training - as long as there is more training.

kalvado · Thu May 23, 2019 7:07 pm

morrisond wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
morrisond wrote:

Yes I'm sure Boeing designed a plane on purpose to crash as that does such good things for it's bottom line. All designs are a compromise between safety, efficiency and cost and sometimes engineers make mistakes based on bad assumptions that pilots are able to handle the situations they supposedly are trained for.

How is asking for improved training standards for pilots Smoke and Mirrors? I would support it for Boeing and the FAA as well to make the whole system safer.

I'm just not so myopic to think that there are only issues with Boeing and the FAA as some would like to believe.

It is really quite uninteresting if Boeing design a plane that killed over 300 people on purpose or negligence, the result is the same.

I call it smoke and mirrors, because your calls for training start at the wrong end. Training at Boeing is needed for how to design save frames. It will help pilots if they are not supposed to fly death traps.

In regards to training for pilots flying Boeing frames, you also start at the wrong end. Training for pilots flying an manufacturers frames are based on the manufacturers recommendation. If the manufacturer recommends minimal training and sabotages the possibility that pilots are trained on all the peculiarities of said manufacturers frames, you again have to start with the manufacturer.

I don't really care how we get to more training - as long as there is more training.

Setting up a gym for pilots in every terminal should work...

bob75013 · Thu May 23, 2019 7:58 pm

par13del wrote:
So nothing as yet from the two meetings being held today on the fate of the 737 MAX, hard to believe that there is no one there recording or posting live updates.

Well, the head of the FAA did tell US carriers that they would not need to extend the time in which MAXs are out of their schedules. So he expects them to be back in the air by August.

"Airlines that have taken the grounded Boeing 737 Max planes out of their schedules through the summer currently don’t need to extend flight cancellations of the popular jet, the acting head of the Federal Aviation Administration said Thursday."

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/23/faa-act ... plans.html

14ccKemiskt · Thu May 23, 2019 8:08 pm

Seems like the FAA is in full denial. Of course they failed in review and certification of the MAX. How can they claim something like this? No wonder the world's other agencies no longer trust them!

Despite two crashes involving the Boeing 737 MAX, the acting administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration said he has not come across any information that suggests his agency failed to properly review and certify the aircraft.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/23/politics ... index.html

morrisond · Thu May 23, 2019 8:08 pm

kalvado wrote:
morrisond wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

It is really quite uninteresting if Boeing design a plane that killed over 300 people on purpose or negligence, the result is the same.

I call it smoke and mirrors, because your calls for training start at the wrong end. Training at Boeing is needed for how to design save frames. It will help pilots if they are not supposed to fly death traps.

In regards to training for pilots flying Boeing frames, you also start at the wrong end. Training for pilots flying an manufacturers frames are based on the manufacturers recommendation. If the manufacturer recommends minimal training and sabotages the possibility that pilots are trained on all the peculiarities of said manufacturers frames, you again have to start with the manufacturer.

I don't really care how we get to more training - as long as there is more training.

Setting up a gym for pilots in every terminal should work...

All you need is a Control Column and a thrust lever...

morrisond · Thu May 23, 2019 8:16 pm

14ccKemiskt wrote:
Seems like the FAA is in full denial. Of course they failed in review and certification of the MAX. How can they claim something like this? No wonder the world's other agencies no longer trust them!

Despite two crashes involving the Boeing 737 MAX, the acting administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration said he has not come across any information that suggests his agency failed to properly review and certify the aircraft.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/23/politics ... index.html

Because there rules assume that Pilots have a certain level of proficiency so failures like MCAS shouldn't be a big deal?

It's becoming blindingly obvious that Pilots aren't as proficient in abnormal situations as presumed and that the FAA has to adjust it's certification standards which will cause Manufacturers to adjust there designs to this lower level of proficiency or training has to be increased.

Boeing and the FAA have screwed up by not keeping abreast on the current standard of Pilot training worldwide. Given that Airbus is starting it's own training schools it seems like they have figured it out before Boeing and FAA and are being proactive so the same type of tragedies don't befall one of there designs and the resultant fatalities.

StTim · Thu May 23, 2019 8:16 pm

morrisond wrote:
kalvado wrote:
morrisond wrote:

I don't really care how we get to more training - as long as there is more training.

Setting up a gym for pilots in every terminal should work...

All you need is a Control Column and a thrust lever...

Are you a pilot? - if so I pray I am never on one of your flights.

morrisond · Thu May 23, 2019 8:21 pm

StTim wrote:
morrisond wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Setting up a gym for pilots in every terminal should work...

All you need is a Control Column and a thrust lever...

Are you a pilot? - if so I pray I am never on one of your flights.

You should but it will never happen - I only have about 120 hours as a Private Pilot in Canada with experience only in an Cessna and have no visions at this stage in my life of becoming a pro - the ET pilots barely had more time before being put into the cockpit of an 737 as full instrument /commercial rated pilots.

kalvado · Thu May 23, 2019 8:24 pm

StTim wrote:
morrisond wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Setting up a gym for pilots in every terminal should work...

All you need is a Control Column and a thrust lever...

Are you a pilot? - if so I pray I am never on one of your flights.

Why, we're taking about good training opportunity. It should prepare pilots to handle extreme events. Just put appropriate handles on regular gym equipment. Some cable handles already look somewhat like a yoke:

TheF15Ace · Thu May 23, 2019 8:24 pm

StTim wrote:
morrisond wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Setting up a gym for pilots in every terminal should work...

All you need is a Control Column and a thrust lever...

Are you a pilot? - if so I pray I am never on one of your flights.

He has a bit over a hundred hours on a Cessna if I recall correctly. And he has done stall recovery training on it so he knows better than everyone, whether it be commercial pilots, industry experts, analysts, foreign regulators etc. If you jump on the band wagon of trying to pin the MAX crashes on third world pilots he will give you a digital pat on the back/wank under the table.

XRAYretired · Thu May 23, 2019 8:31 pm

14ccKemiskt wrote:
Seems like the FAA is in full denial. Of course they failed in review and certification of the MAX. How can they claim something like this? No wonder the world's other agencies no longer trust them!

Despite two crashes involving the Boeing 737 MAX, the acting administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration said he has not come across any information that suggests his agency failed to properly review and certify the aircraft.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/23/politics ... index.html

Touch of the El-Will o' the wisp about this character.

Ray

akb88 · Thu May 23, 2019 8:43 pm

Still a long way to go it seems. Icelandair says their planes won't fly until September at the earliest.

Sooner787 · Thu May 23, 2019 8:53 pm

bob75013 wrote:

par13del wrote:
So nothing as yet from the two meetings being held today on the fate of the 737 MAX, hard to believe that there is no one there recording or posting live updates.

Well, the head of the FAA did tell US carriers that they would not need to extend the time in which MAXs are out of their schedules. So he expects them to be back in the air by August.

"Airlines that have taken the grounded Boeing 737 Max planes out of their schedules through the summer currently don’t need to extend flight cancellations of the popular jet, the acting head of the Federal Aviation Administration said Thursday."

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/23/faa-act ... plans.html

Well, that's an about face after his quote this morning that it could be year or so before they were back in service.

We all know how many jets WN, AA and UA have grounded , but I'm wondering how many undelivered Max's
these airlines are waiting on?

Boeing's going to have heck of a time clearing the backlog once the grounding is lifted

planecane · Thu May 23, 2019 8:58 pm

aerolimani wrote:
smartplane wrote:
planecane wrote:

Because none of the simulations I've seen posted have attempted to simulate recovery starting from the beginning of the MCAS runaway. If you know of one, then I'd like you to point me to it since you are using them as part of your argument that they "just managed to avoid crash." That is only relevant if they are simulating starting from the point of failure.

What's the point? None of the simulations have been on true MCAS representative simulators. Even the Boeing simulator is claimed not to accurately reflect actual manual trim loads.

As far as we know, the NG simulators are accurately representing manual trim loads of an NG. Boeing's statement, and subsequently released update, is specific to MAX simulators. Unless the manual trim is radically different between MAX and NG, and there is no reason they are different, then the simulations performed in NG simulators should be a reasonably accurate representation of a MAX's manual trim system.

TL;DR… there's no reason to believe an NG sim is not accurately representing the manual trim wheel system in a MAX.

There shouldn't be any difference in manual trim wheel load for MAX vs. NG. Either the MAX simulators changed it for no apparent reason or the NG simulators aren't accurate either.

morrisond · Thu May 23, 2019 9:13 pm

TheF15Ace wrote:
StTim wrote:
morrisond wrote:

All you need is a Control Column and a thrust lever...

Are you a pilot? - if so I pray I am never on one of your flights.

He has a bit over a hundred hours on a Cessna if I recall correctly. And he has done stall recovery training on it so he knows better than everyone, whether it be commercial pilots, industry experts, analysts, foreign regulators etc. If you jump on the band wagon of trying to pin the MAX crashes on third world pilots he will give you a digital pat on the back/wank under the table.

No - my point is even with 120 hours in a Cessna that is nowhere near what it takes to be qualified to fly a 737 in commercial service - and the ET pilots had barely more than I have and in that time apparently they mastered instrument flying, night flying and the commercial rating as well and were put in the cockpit of a 737.

And as I have said many times it's not just the third world - it's everywhere - due to automation pilots have lost stick and rudder skills - which you will find tons of examples of on the net of pilots admitting that if you look.

Revelation · Thu May 23, 2019 9:21 pm

Reuters: Exclusive: FAA tells U.N. aviation agency 737 MAX ungrounding in U.S. could happen by late June - sources says:

U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) representatives told members of the United Nations’ aviation agency they expect an ungrounding of Boeing Co’s 737 MAX jets in the United States as early as late June, three people familiar with Thursday’s briefing said, though there is no firm timetable for the move.

So we have dates all over the place: June, August, October, next year, etc.

I personally don't have a hard time seeing the FAA making the late June date happen.

Of course, this doesn't mean all the airlines will work to that schedule, nor does it mean other nation's regulators will either.

This is consistent with what bob75013 posted earlier:

bob75013 wrote:

par13del wrote:
So nothing as yet from the two meetings being held today on the fate of the 737 MAX, hard to believe that there is no one there recording or posting live updates.

Well, the head of the FAA did tell US carriers that they would not need to extend the time in which MAXs are out of their schedules. So he expects them to be back in the air by August.

"Airlines that have taken the grounded Boeing 737 Max planes out of their schedules through the summer currently don’t need to extend flight cancellations of the popular jet, the acting head of the Federal Aviation Administration said Thursday."

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/23/faa-act ... plans.html

And CNN: FAA chief says nothing shows agency failed in review or certification of Boeing 737 MAX says:

Despite two crashes involving the Boeing 737 MAX, the acting administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration said he has not come across any information that suggests his agency failed to properly review and certify the aircraft.

"I have not seen anything that suggests that," Daniel Elwell said in an interview with CNN's Drew Griffin Thursday, though he said ongoing audits and reviews may find ways to improve his agency's processes.

Another case of mama saying her baby ain't ugly?

brunoguemes · Thu May 23, 2019 9:47 pm

It is amazing how many still try to blame the pilots after all the info we have.
How many saying that American pilots would never have the same problem.
Well, guess what, the American pilots Union is fed up with the blaming of the pilots.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... _clipboard

The Max will be a great plane, a success for decades, but Boeing does not deserve such a terrible management of this crisis. Such a great and proud company should recognize mistakes and propose solutions and not try to blame foreign pilots or birds.
Boeing is and will be great but has to do something better about this. Boeing deserves better and even if yes, in general the aviation world would benefit from better training we have to stop using the pilots as a scape goat.
You can love Boeing and still want them to take responsibility...right? Or everything needs to be black or white?

RickNRoll · Thu May 23, 2019 9:49 pm

par13del wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
Note that the FAA statement seems to include that the US could certify the plane first, and the rest of the world would certify after their regulatory agencies have done their due research. Also note that the FAA is not seeing foreign hesitations as unfriendly, indeed welcoming them.

Definitely not reading A.Net.

On another note, the cost of the grounding may be more expensive than the cost of paying airlines for additional training, since most purchases are made in tranches, they can pay the penalty for the current purchases and modify contracts for new purchases.
The grounding covers much more claimants than the airlines so biting the bullet for the penalty on increased training for the initial users should be much less expensive that a continued grounding, based on the time so far, we may already be past the cross over point.

China is now after compensation. With the current trade war escalating Boeing can expect painful claims being submitted from China.

TheF15Ace · Thu May 23, 2019 10:07 pm

morrisond wrote:
TheF15Ace wrote:
StTim wrote:

Are you a pilot? - if so I pray I am never on one of your flights.

He has a bit over a hundred hours on a Cessna if I recall correctly. And he has done stall recovery training on it so he knows better than everyone, whether it be commercial pilots, industry experts, analysts, foreign regulators etc. If you jump on the band wagon of trying to pin the MAX crashes on third world pilots he will give you a digital pat on the back/wank under the table.

No - my point is even with 120 hours in a Cessna that is nowhere near what it takes to be qualified to fly a 737 in commercial service - and the ET pilots had barely more than I have and in that time apparently they mastered instrument flying, night flying and the commercial rating as well and were put in the cockpit of a 737.

And as I have said many times it's not just the third world - it's everywhere - due to automation pilots have lost stick and rudder skills - which you will find tons of examples of on the net of pilots admitting that if you look.

If you look maybe you would realize that:

1) Not all training is the same. There is a difference between getting a PPL as a hobby and training programs which are geared towards pilots who want to fly commercially (and don't equate your apparent lack of being qualified to fly a 737 in commercial service to every other pilot out there. That's your problem not theirs)

2) If not having the almighty 1500 hours flying a crop duster was the end-all there would be crashes weekly in Europe and Asia, but thousands of cadet pilots safely fly commercial aircraft everyday in all sorts of weather conditions to all types of airports

And spare me the bullshit about how you're concerned about ''worldwide lack of training''. You jumped into this topic trying to pin ET302 on the first officer for no other reason other than he didn't follow the North American path to being a pilot. Plenty of screw ups by 1500+ sky gods during your time on A.net (some of epic proportions) and yet no endless crusade about lack of training/questioning of qualification. Boeing decides to put profit above safety in their attempts to challenge the A320neo, gets grounded worldwide when things go sideways and that is when you decide to have your epiphany on worldwide training standards?

kayik · Thu May 23, 2019 10:08 pm

RickNRoll wrote:
par13del wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
Note that the FAA statement seems to include that the US could certify the plane first, and the rest of the world would certify after their regulatory agencies have done their due research. Also note that the FAA is not seeing foreign hesitations as unfriendly, indeed welcoming them.

Definitely not reading A.Net.

On another note, the cost of the grounding may be more expensive than the cost of paying airlines for additional training, since most purchases are made in tranches, they can pay the penalty for the current purchases and modify contracts for new purchases.
The grounding covers much more claimants than the airlines so biting the bullet for the penalty on increased training for the initial users should be much less expensive that a continued grounding, based on the time so far, we may already be past the cross over point.
China is now after compensation. With the current trade war escalating Boeing can expect painful claims being submitted from China.

Compensation is nothing compared to Chinese never letting MAX to fly. Half of the world's population live in that area. Canada is another issue after the attack on Bombardier. Very difficult to fly to/from Alaska without using Canadian air space. Never let someone to grab your balls. It hurts.

kayik · Thu May 23, 2019 10:23 pm

For worldwide training concerns there are places to go for an hour a week. You can tell whatever you want and you dont have to repeat yourself, since, they take notes. What a time saver...and in the time saved you can even improve your stick skills.

planecane · Thu May 23, 2019 10:51 pm

kayik wrote:
RickNRoll wrote:
par13del wrote:
Definitely not reading A.Net.

On another note, the cost of the grounding may be more expensive than the cost of paying airlines for additional training, since most purchases are made in tranches, they can pay the penalty for the current purchases and modify contracts for new purchases.
The grounding covers much more claimants than the airlines so biting the bullet for the penalty on increased training for the initial users should be much less expensive that a continued grounding, based on the time so far, we may already be past the cross over point.
China is now after compensation. With the current trade war escalating Boeing can expect painful claims being submitted from China.

Compensation is nothing compared to Chinese never letting MAX to fly. Half of the world's population live in that area. Canada is another issue after the attack on Bombardier. Very difficult to fly to/from Alaska without using Canadian air space. Never let someone to grab your balls. It hurts.

I can definitely see China using this as part of the trade "negotiations." I don't think that Canada operates like that. They won't do something out of spite. Airlines in Canada operate the MAX and have more on order. They can't get A320's in the same time frame so it would hurt their operations to not allow the MAX back in the air once they are convinced it is safe to do so.

Veigar · Thu May 23, 2019 11:02 pm

Great news to see that they could be flying again within a few months!

morrisond · Thu May 23, 2019 11:03 pm

TheF15Ace wrote:
morrisond wrote:
TheF15Ace wrote:

He has a bit over a hundred hours on a Cessna if I recall correctly. And he has done stall recovery training on it so he knows better than everyone, whether it be commercial pilots, industry experts, analysts, foreign regulators etc. If you jump on the band wagon of trying to pin the MAX crashes on third world pilots he will give you a digital pat on the back/wank under the table.

No - my point is even with 120 hours in a Cessna that is nowhere near what it takes to be qualified to fly a 737 in commercial service - and the ET pilots had barely more than I have and in that time apparently they mastered instrument flying, night flying and the commercial rating as well and were put in the cockpit of a 737.

And as I have said many times it's not just the third world - it's everywhere - due to automation pilots have lost stick and rudder skills - which you will find tons of examples of on the net of pilots admitting that if you look.

If you look maybe you would realize that:

1) Not all training is the same. There is a difference between getting a PPL as a hobby and training programs which are geared towards pilots who want to fly commercially (and don't equate your apparent lack of being qualified to fly a 737 in commercial service to every other pilot out there. That's your problem not theirs)

2) If not having the almighty 1500 hours flying a crop duster was the end-all there would be crashes weekly in Europe and Asia, but thousands of cadet pilots safely fly commercial aircraft everyday in all sorts of weather conditions to all types of airports

And spare me the bullshit about how you're concerned about ''worldwide lack of training''. You jumped into this topic trying to pin ET302 on the first officer for no other reason other than he didn't follow the North American path to being a pilot. Plenty of screw ups by 1500+ sky gods during your time on A.net (some of epic proportions) and yet no endless crusade about lack of training/questioning of qualification. Boeing decides to put profit above safety in their attempts to challenge the A320neo, gets grounded worldwide when things go sideways and that is when you decide to have your epiphany on worldwide training standards?

So how did the ET training system work out for the ET pilots then? How many procedures did they miss? They did not follow all procedures like the ET CEO keeps insisting. However I will give the ET pilots a break as I believe that ET may never have informed them of the proper MCAS procedures - that makes a lot more sense than believing Professional Pilots who were given a valid procedure (you can see the Procedure the ET Pilots were given in the back of the Preliminary report) failed to follow it. Either their training was terrible or training failed them by never giving them the proper procedures in the first place.

Thousands of cadet pilots fly thousands of commercial flights successfully daily as the Autopilot is doing it for them. As long as it keeps working = no crashes.

Almost all the fatal accidents in the last ten years are due to a lack of hand flying skills when the automation screws up. AF447, Colgan 3407, Et409, Et302, Asiana 214, and the SkyDubai Moscow crash - all assuming the planes would do it for them and lacking the hand flying skills or confidence to successfully fly the airplanes manually.

XRadar98 · Thu May 23, 2019 11:11 pm

Any updates on possible return to flying?

OldAeroGuy · Thu May 23, 2019 11:27 pm

kayik wrote:
Compensation is nothing compared to Chinese never letting MAX to fly. Half of the world's population live in that area.

Then I guess that the 737 MAX Chinese completion center will be shutdown.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... -in-china/

kayik · Thu May 23, 2019 11:36 pm

OldAeroGuy wrote:
kayik wrote:
Compensation is nothing compared to Chinese never letting MAX to fly. Half of the world's population live in that area.

Then I guess that the 737 MAX Chinese completion center will be shutdown.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... -in-china/

You underestimate AliBaba...Boching737MAX :wink2:

OldAeroGuy · Thu May 23, 2019 11:43 pm

If China will not approve the 737 MAX for domestic operation, then why will the Chinese 737 MAX completion center be operational?

RickNRoll · Fri May 24, 2019 1:11 am

planecane wrote:
DenverTed wrote:
For me, the problem was MCAS and they fixed it fairly easily, so I would hop back on board tomorrow. But out of natural curiosity, I would like to know the specifics of how the MAX differs from the NG in terms of longitudinal stability. Obviously, the larger more forward engines being the driving factor. What is the stall angle of the MAX versus the NG? What was the critical AOA that triggered MCAS? What did the stability curve look like at that angle? For MCAS 2.0, what are the limits on the angle of the stab that it can operate within?
Also I'd like an explanation from Boeing how they missed it. In the design of MCAS, presumably several people chose and checked the parameters, like going on for 9 seconds and turning off for 5 seconds. How did they miss limiting how many repetitions, or limiting the range of the stab to not operate in the nose down range where it wasn't needed to begin with? They limited it to not work with the flaps down, so obviously there were a lot of conscious decisions being made as to the limits of MCAS.

How did they miss the obvious? Boeing has to explain and account for an inexcusable void in what should be a foolproof in house design process.

They didn't miss it, they made the very bad assumption that an MCAS failure would be recognized as a runaway stabilizer and easily corrected by applying the runaway stabilizer NNC. Having it not work with flaps deployed wasn't some safety thing. That parameter existing leads to the conclusion that with flaps deployed, the aerodynamics of the wing are changed to the point where the engine nacelles no longer provide the additional nose up pitch (or at least not enough to have an effect on the weight of the control column).

Some of the other items you ask for are probably confidential. The stall angle varies with airspeed and altitude. I don't think it would be that different between MAX and NG since they have the same wing. MCAS was added to make it require more force on the column to reach the stall angle in certain situations since the lift provided by the nacelles made it the force required to pitch up further "lighter" on the MAX than the NG in certain situations.

As far as I've seen, MCAS 2.0 still has the same trim change rate and the same 2.5 degrees maximum trim change per cycle. However, it will only perform one cycle per "event." It will only be able to erroneously activate if BOTH AoA sensors fail and indicate false nose up attitude AND they both fail within 5.5 degrees of each other. It will be extremely unlikely for that to happen. If it does, MCAS will kick in for one cycle and attempt to pitch down for 9 seconds. An interruption by the pilot pressing the thumb switch in the opposite direction (opposite requirement not confirmed but assumed) then MCAS will stop commanding. If the AoA doesn't get out of the trigger range, it will still be the same event so it will not activate again.

I think that a lot of the confidential stuff will be coming out in discovery.

RickNRoll · Fri May 24, 2019 1:18 am

morrisond wrote:
14ccKemiskt wrote:
Seems like the FAA is in full denial. Of course they failed in review and certification of the MAX. How can they claim something like this? No wonder the world's other agencies no longer trust them!

Despite two crashes involving the Boeing 737 MAX, the acting administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration said he has not come across any information that suggests his agency failed to properly review and certify the aircraft.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/23/politics ... index.html

Because there rules assume that Pilots have a certain level of proficiency so failures like MCAS shouldn't be a big deal?

The Pilots themselves don't agree with you, the airlines don't agree with you, every safety authority around the globe doesn't agree with you. Failures like MCAS are a big deal.

Amexair · Fri May 24, 2019 1:45 am

RickNRoll wrote:
morrisond wrote:
14ccKemiskt wrote:
Seems like the FAA is in full denial. Of course they failed in review and certification of the MAX. How can they claim something like this? No wonder the world's other agencies no longer trust them!

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/23/politics ... index.html

Because there rules assume that Pilots have a certain level of proficiency so failures like MCAS shouldn't be a big deal?

The Pilots themselves don't agree with you, the airlines don't agree with you, every safety authority around the globe doesn't agree with you. Failures like MCAS are a big deal.

Can we please stop entertaining this guy? I'm really tired of this highly informative, intellectual and reasonable discussion being hijacked by some guy who has some sort of agenda or vindictive feelings towards a specific airline.

RickNRoll wrote:
Well, the head of the FAA did tell US carriers that they would not need to extend the time in which MAXs are out of their schedules. So he expects them to be back in the air by August.

I'm confused, did I not read somewhere that he said something along the lines of "even if it takes a year, so be it"?

Planetalk · Fri May 24, 2019 1:45 am

The American Airlines pilots Union has said blaming the pilots is 'inexcusable'. We now know their pilots were furious with Boeing.

Are there still some here spinning thay wheel? Who haven't fown a plane in their lives and have repeatedly made incorrect assertions in this thread and shown no contrition when repeatedly corrected?

I don't know if it's more tragic, sick, or pathetic.

Please do go and tell the American Airlines pilots they are wrong. Although previously many here relied on American pilots having absolutely no problem with the plane. Its a pickle isn't it?

morrisond · Fri May 24, 2019 1:48 am

RickNRoll wrote:
morrisond wrote:
14ccKemiskt wrote:
Seems like the FAA is in full denial. Of course they failed in review and certification of the MAX. How can they claim something like this? No wonder the world's other agencies no longer trust them!

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/23/politics ... index.html

Because there rules assume that Pilots have a certain level of proficiency so failures like MCAS shouldn't be a big deal?

The Pilots themselves don't agree with you, the airlines don't agree with you, every safety authority around the globe doesn't agree with you. Failures like MCAS are a big deal.

It seems like the FAA is going the same route as Boeing - they didn't make any mistakes so it must be a training issue.

Whereas I think Boeing screwed up - the FAA screwed up and there is training issue. No one seems to want to take any blame for this at all.

TheF15Ace · Fri May 24, 2019 2:04 am

morrisond wrote:
TheF15Ace wrote:
morrisond wrote:

No - my point is even with 120 hours in a Cessna that is nowhere near what it takes to be qualified to fly a 737 in commercial service - and the ET pilots had barely more than I have and in that time apparently they mastered instrument flying, night flying and the commercial rating as well and were put in the cockpit of a 737.

And as I have said many times it's not just the third world - it's everywhere - due to automation pilots have lost stick and rudder skills - which you will find tons of examples of on the net of pilots admitting that if you look.

If you look maybe you would realize that:

1) Not all training is the same. There is a difference between getting a PPL as a hobby and training programs which are geared towards pilots who want to fly commercially (and don't equate your apparent lack of being qualified to fly a 737 in commercial service to every other pilot out there. That's your problem not theirs)

2) If not having the almighty 1500 hours flying a crop duster was the end-all there would be crashes weekly in Europe and Asia, but thousands of cadet pilots safely fly commercial aircraft everyday in all sorts of weather conditions to all types of airports

And spare me the bullshit about how you're concerned about ''worldwide lack of training''. You jumped into this topic trying to pin ET302 on the first officer for no other reason other than he didn't follow the North American path to being a pilot. Plenty of screw ups by 1500+ sky gods during your time on A.net (some of epic proportions) and yet no endless crusade about lack of training/questioning of qualification. Boeing decides to put profit above safety in their attempts to challenge the A320neo, gets grounded worldwide when things go sideways and that is when you decide to have your epiphany on worldwide training standards?

So how did the ET training system work out for the ET pilots then? How many procedures did they miss? They did not follow all procedures like the ET CEO keeps insisting. However I will give the ET pilots a break as I believe that ET may never have informed them of the proper MCAS procedures - that makes a lot more sense than believing Professional Pilots who were given a valid procedure (you can see the Procedure the ET Pilots were given in the back of the Preliminary report) failed to follow it. Either their training was terrible or training failed them by never giving them the proper procedures in the first place..

ET training system would've served them a lot better if Boeing didn't lie to them when selling them the MAX saying "90 minutes on the iPad will have you completely ready to handle the aircraft. Certainly no need to train your crews from the get go to the same level of proficiency they display on the rest of your fleet. It's true that the MAX isn't exactly a NG but we decided to cut a few corners and hide some critical changes to the aircraft so as to avoid paying the $1 million per plane to Norwegian, Southwest etc

Thousands of cadet pilots fly thousands of commercial flights successfully daily as the Autopilot is doing it for them. As long as it keeps working = no crashes

So what you're saying is those who got to 1500 hours flying a Cessna around a podunk town fly from origin to destination completely manually, no autopilot, no autothrottle, manual trimming? So they avoid RVSM airspace, fly only in VFR conditions?

Almost all the fatal accidents in the last ten years are due to a lack of hand flying skills when the automation screws up. AF447, Colgan 3407, Et409, , Asiana 214, and the SkyDubai Moscow crash - all assuming the planes would do it for them and lacking the hand flying skills or confidence to successfully fly the airplanes manually.

I fixed you're mistake by taking ET302 off since that one goes straight to Boeing. And once again it has absolutely jack to do with flight hours. And anyone read this thread from the beginning knows that is what is behind your ever stupid "global training problem''. You jumped in with 1500 hours to fly a plane with the only reason it being required is because that's how we do it.

TheF15Ace · Fri May 24, 2019 2:10 am

Amexair wrote:
'm confused, did I not read somewhere that he said something along the lines of "even if it takes a year, so be it"?

A little dog and pony show to try and distance themselves from the fact that they are still Boeing's stooge who will let anything fly as long as Boeing is ready to cut a check.

frmrCapCadet · Fri May 24, 2019 2:19 am

Amexair wrote:
RickNRoll wrote:
morrisond wrote:

Because there rules assume that Pilots have a certain level of proficiency so failures like MCAS shouldn't be a big deal?

The Pilots themselves don't agree with you, the airlines don't agree with you, every safety authority around the globe doesn't agree with you. Failures like MCAS are a big deal.

Can we please stop entertaining this guy? I'm really tired of this highly informative, intellectual and reasonable discussion being hijacked by some guy who has some sort of agenda or vindictive feelings towards a specific airline.

RickNRoll wrote:
Well, the head of the FAA did tell US carriers that they would not need to extend the time in which MAXs are out of their schedules. So he expects them to be back in the air by August.

I'm confused, did I not read somewhere that he said something along the lines of "even if it takes a year, so be it"?

But he also seemed to included comments that when Boeing made corrections and the FAA confirmed that it would make the MAX safe the re-certification would approved. And implied that the US would be first to re-certify.

'dog and pony show', Cute

Flyer222 · Fri May 24, 2019 2:38 am

Did you see the (lengthy) statement that the ECA put out today?

https://www.eurocockpit.be/news/boeings ... ansparency

Curious to hear what everyone on the board thinks about this....

morrisond · Fri May 24, 2019 2:57 am

TheF15Ace wrote:
morrisond wrote:
TheF15Ace wrote:

If you look maybe you would realize that:

1) Not all training is the same. There is a difference between getting a PPL as a hobby and training programs which are geared towards pilots who want to fly commercially (and don't equate your apparent lack of being qualified to fly a 737 in commercial service to every other pilot out there. That's your problem not theirs)

2) If not having the almighty 1500 hours flying a crop duster was the end-all there would be crashes weekly in Europe and Asia, but thousands of cadet pilots safely fly commercial aircraft everyday in all sorts of weather conditions to all types of airports

And spare me the bullshit about how you're concerned about ''worldwide lack of training''. You jumped into this topic trying to pin ET302 on the first officer for no other reason other than he didn't follow the North American path to being a pilot. Plenty of screw ups by 1500+ sky gods during your time on A.net (some of epic proportions) and yet no endless crusade about lack of training/questioning of qualification. Boeing decides to put profit above safety in their attempts to challenge the A320neo, gets grounded worldwide when things go sideways and that is when you decide to have your epiphany on worldwide training standards?

So how did the ET training system work out for the ET pilots then? How many procedures did they miss? They did not follow all procedures like the ET CEO keeps insisting. However I will give the ET pilots a break as I believe that ET may never have informed them of the proper MCAS procedures - that makes a lot more sense than believing Professional Pilots who were given a valid procedure (you can see the Procedure the ET Pilots were given in the back of the Preliminary report) failed to follow it. Either their training was terrible or training failed them by never giving them the proper procedures in the first place..

ET training system would've served them a lot better if Boeing didn't lie to them when selling them the MAX saying "90 minutes on the iPad will have you completely ready to handle the aircraft. Certainly no need to train your crews from the get go to the same level of proficiency they display on the rest of your fleet. It's true that the MAX isn't exactly a NG but we decided to cut a few corners and hide some critical changes to the aircraft so as to avoid paying the $1 million per plane to Norwegian, Southwest etc

Thousands of cadet pilots fly thousands of commercial flights successfully daily as the Autopilot is doing it for them. As long as it keeps working = no crashes

So what you're saying is those who got to 1500 hours flying a Cessna around a podunk town fly from origin to destination completely manually, no autopilot, no autothrottle, manual trimming? So they avoid RVSM airspace, fly only in VFR conditions?

Almost all the fatal accidents in the last ten years are due to a lack of hand flying skills when the automation screws up. AF447, Colgan 3407, Et409, , Asiana 214, and the SkyDubai Moscow crash - all assuming the planes would do it for them and lacking the hand flying skills or confidence to successfully fly the airplanes manually.

I fixed you're mistake by taking ET302 off since that one goes straight to Boeing. And once again it has absolutely jack to do with flight hours. And anyone read this thread from the beginning knows that is what is behind your ever stupid "global training problem''. You jumped in with 1500 hours to fly a plane with the only reason it being required is because that's how we do it.

You obviously are not that familiar with ET302. The unreliable airspeed procedure they failed to execute is not unique to the MAX. Autothrottle is not unique to the MAX and failure to properly follow the MCAS procedure is on ET as well.

Hours flying manually certainly helps so you have the experience when the nannies try to kill you and you have to turn them off.

If you don't think that ET might have a training problem and lack of time flying manually look at the final for ET409 whose Pilot went through ET initial type training at about the same time as the pilot from ET 302.

zoom321 · Fri May 24, 2019 3:11 am

Revelation wrote:
Reuters: Exclusive: FAA tells U.N. aviation agency 737 MAX ungrounding in U.S. could happen by late June - sources says:

U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) representatives told members of the United Nations’ aviation agency they expect an ungrounding of Boeing Co’s 737 MAX jets in the United States as early as late June, three people familiar with Thursday’s briefing said, though there is no firm timetable for the move.

No surprise here, of course they have a date they aim for then proceed to 'evaluate' the 'fix'. Just like how B already decided to what to announce, then proceeded to provide their 'simple and existing' procedure post Lion crash.

RickNRoll · Fri May 24, 2019 3:35 am

morrisond wrote:
TheF15Ace wrote:
morrisond wrote:

So how did the ET training system work out for the ET pilots then? How many procedures did they miss? They did not follow all procedures like the ET CEO keeps insisting. However I will give the ET pilots a break as I believe that ET may never have informed them of the proper MCAS procedures - that makes a lot more sense than believing Professional Pilots who were given a valid procedure (you can see the Procedure the ET Pilots were given in the back of the Preliminary report) failed to follow it. Either their training was terrible or training failed them by never giving them the proper procedures in the first place..

ET training system would've served them a lot better if Boeing didn't lie to them when selling them the MAX saying "90 minutes on the iPad will have you completely ready to handle the aircraft. Certainly no need to train your crews from the get go to the same level of proficiency they display on the rest of your fleet. It's true that the MAX isn't exactly a NG but we decided to cut a few corners and hide some critical changes to the aircraft so as to avoid paying the $1 million per plane to Norwegian, Southwest etc

Thousands of cadet pilots fly thousands of commercial flights successfully daily as the Autopilot is doing it for them. As long as it keeps working = no crashes

So what you're saying is those who got to 1500 hours flying a Cessna around a podunk town fly from origin to destination completely manually, no autopilot, no autothrottle, manual trimming? So they avoid RVSM airspace, fly only in VFR conditions?

Almost all the fatal accidents in the last ten years are due to a lack of hand flying skills when the automation screws up. AF447, Colgan 3407, Et409, , Asiana 214, and the SkyDubai Moscow crash - all assuming the planes would do it for them and lacking the hand flying skills or confidence to successfully fly the airplanes manually.

I fixed you're mistake by taking ET302 off since that one goes straight to Boeing. And once again it has absolutely jack to do with flight hours. And anyone read this thread from the beginning knows that is what is behind your ever stupid "global training problem''. You jumped in with 1500 hours to fly a plane with the only reason it being required is because that's how we do it.

You obviously are not that familiar with ET302. The unreliable airspeed procedure they failed to execute is not unique to the MAX. Autothrottle is not unique to the MAX and failure to properly follow the MCAS procedure is on ET as well.

Hours flying manually certainly helps so you have the experience when the nannies try to kill you and you have to turn them off.

If you don't think that ET might have a training problem and lack of time flying manually look at the final for ET409 whose Pilot went through ET initial type training at about the same time as the pilot from ET 302.

I don't think there's anyone here arguing that less training would be a good idea.

planecane · Fri May 24, 2019 3:48 am

RickNRoll wrote:
planecane wrote:
DenverTed wrote:
For me, the problem was MCAS and they fixed it fairly easily, so I would hop back on board tomorrow. But out of natural curiosity, I would like to know the specifics of how the MAX differs from the NG in terms of longitudinal stability. Obviously, the larger more forward engines being the driving factor. What is the stall angle of the MAX versus the NG? What was the critical AOA that triggered MCAS? What did the stability curve look like at that angle? For MCAS 2.0, what are the limits on the angle of the stab that it can operate within?
Also I'd like an explanation from Boeing how they missed it. In the design of MCAS, presumably several people chose and checked the parameters, like going on for 9 seconds and turning off for 5 seconds. How did they miss limiting how many repetitions, or limiting the range of the stab to not operate in the nose down range where it wasn't needed to begin with? They limited it to not work with the flaps down, so obviously there were a lot of conscious decisions being made as to the limits of MCAS.

How did they miss the obvious? Boeing has to explain and account for an inexcusable void in what should be a foolproof in house design process.

They didn't miss it, they made the very bad assumption that an MCAS failure would be recognized as a runaway stabilizer and easily corrected by applying the runaway stabilizer NNC. Having it not work with flaps deployed wasn't some safety thing. That parameter existing leads to the conclusion that with flaps deployed, the aerodynamics of the wing are changed to the point where the engine nacelles no longer provide the additional nose up pitch (or at least not enough to have an effect on the weight of the control column).

Some of the other items you ask for are probably confidential. The stall angle varies with airspeed and altitude. I don't think it would be that different between MAX and NG since they have the same wing. MCAS was added to make it require more force on the column to reach the stall angle in certain situations since the lift provided by the nacelles made it the force required to pitch up further "lighter" on the MAX than the NG in certain situations.

As far as I've seen, MCAS 2.0 still has the same trim change rate and the same 2.5 degrees maximum trim change per cycle. However, it will only perform one cycle per "event." It will only be able to erroneously activate if BOTH AoA sensors fail and indicate false nose up attitude AND they both fail within 5.5 degrees of each other. It will be extremely unlikely for that to happen. If it does, MCAS will kick in for one cycle and attempt to pitch down for 9 seconds. An interruption by the pilot pressing the thumb switch in the opposite direction (opposite requirement not confirmed but assumed) then MCAS will stop commanding. If the AoA doesn't get out of the trigger range, it will still be the same event so it will not activate again.

I think that a lot of the confidential stuff will be coming out in discovery.

The judge will keep proprietary information sealed. Also, anything that isn't pertinent to the negligence claim will be ruled off limits. Otherwise industrial espionage would be as easy as finding some kind of grounds for a lawsuit.

Do you think that in the lawsuit against Apple's app store pricing that the plaintiffs get to see the source code of the app store search algorithm in discovery?

planecane · Fri May 24, 2019 3:58 am

TheF15Ace wrote:
Amexair wrote:
'm confused, did I not read somewhere that he said something along the lines of "even if it takes a year, so be it"?

A little dog and pony show to try and distance themselves from the fact that they are still Boeing's stooge who will let anything fly as long as Boeing is ready to cut a check.

Please stop with this garbage. The FAA created an independent group of experts that all had nothing to do with design or certification of the MAX to evaluate the fix and determine if the MAX will be safe. They have publicly stated that they won't lift the grounding without the blessing of that independent group.

TheF15Ace · Fri May 24, 2019 4:10 am

morrisond wrote:
TheF15Ace wrote:
morrisond wrote:

So how did the ET training system work out for the ET pilots then? How many procedures did they miss? They did not follow all procedures like the ET CEO keeps insisting. However I will give the ET pilots a break as I believe that ET may never have informed them of the proper MCAS procedures - that makes a lot more sense than believing Professional Pilots who were given a valid procedure (you can see the Procedure the ET Pilots were given in the back of the Preliminary report) failed to follow it. Either their training was terrible or training failed them by never giving them the proper procedures in the first place..

ET training system would've served them a lot better if Boeing didn't lie to them when selling them the MAX saying "90 minutes on the iPad will have you completely ready to handle the aircraft. Certainly no need to train your crews from the get go to the same level of proficiency they display on the rest of your fleet. It's true that the MAX isn't exactly a NG but we decided to cut a few corners and hide some critical changes to the aircraft so as to avoid paying the $1 million per plane to Norwegian, Southwest etc

Thousands of cadet pilots fly thousands of commercial flights successfully daily as the Autopilot is doing it for them. As long as it keeps working = no crashes

So what you're saying is those who got to 1500 hours flying a Cessna around a podunk town fly from origin to destination completely manually, no autopilot, no autothrottle, manual trimming? So they avoid RVSM airspace, fly only in VFR conditions?

Almost all the fatal accidents in the last ten years are due to a lack of hand flying skills when the automation screws up. AF447, Colgan 3407, Et409, , Asiana 214, and the SkyDubai Moscow crash - all assuming the planes would do it for them and lacking the hand flying skills or confidence to successfully fly the airplanes manually.

I fixed you're mistake by taking ET302 off since that one goes straight to Boeing. And once again it has absolutely jack to do with flight hours. And anyone read this thread from the beginning knows that is what is behind your ever stupid "global training problem''. You jumped in with 1500 hours to fly a plane with the only reason it being required is because that's how we do it.

You obviously are not that familiar with ET302. The unreliable airspeed procedure they failed to execute is not unique to the MAX. Autothrottle is not unique to the MAX and failure to properly follow the MCAS procedure is on ET as well.

.

You are obviously not familiar with ET302. What finally put the aircraft in the ground was a flawed system Boeing secretly installed into the MAX. The MCAS procedure you talk about was a rushed AD Boeing released after the first MAX went down to try and cover their ass. Another read this and all will be OK solution to try and keep the money rolling in. Not to mention why did Boeing run to develop a software fix after JT610 if the ''MCAS procedure'' effectively dealt with the problem.

Hours flying manually certainly helps so you have the experience when the nannies try to kill you and you have to turn them off.

So 1500 hours in a Cessna will make you proficient in a 737/A320 from hour no 1? You guys must have some seriously kitted out Cessnas out there. So once again how do you explain all the cock ups by pilots who have surpassed the magical number? I mean between the 1500 and all that time they spent flying commercial aircraft with all automation turned off you'd think that something as trivial as a runway overrun or attempting to land on a taxiway taking out yourself and 4 other aircraft would be limited to lowly Cadets who obviously shouldn't be in the right hand seat.

If you don't think that ET might have a training problem and lack of time flying manually look at the final for ET409 whose Pilot went through ET initial type training at about the same time as the pilot from ET 302

Seems to have served him well for the past 9 years. Then came the MAX.

zckls04 · Fri May 24, 2019 4:37 am

morrisond wrote:
Because there rules assume that Pilots have a certain level of proficiency so failures like MCAS shouldn't be a big deal?

It's becoming blindingly obvious that Pilots aren't as proficient in abnormal situations as presumed and that the FAA has to adjust it's certification standards which will cause Manufacturers to adjust there designs to this lower level of proficiency or training has to be increased..

This sort of thing is why nobody buys your "I agree Boeing is at fault" line. Saying "Boeing/FAA screwed up by underestimating how incredibly thick and useless the pilots were" isn't really blaming Boeing at all. You're like the guy who insults somebody and when they protest says "I'm sorry you misunderstood what I said".

You are certainly right that more pilot training would be valuable, as it always would be. But that's a distraction from the most important issue here, which is Boeing's shoddy design, their sordid attempt to cover it up, and the FAA's almost total lack of oversight. If you put half as much energy into calling for improvements in those areas as you do to defaming the pilots, you might come across as rather more genuine.

In other words, let's put out the fire before we worry about repainting the house.

TheF15Ace · Fri May 24, 2019 5:05 am

planecane wrote:
TheF15Ace wrote:
Amexair wrote:
'm confused, did I not read somewhere that he said something along the lines of "even if it takes a year, so be it"?

A little dog and pony show to try and distance themselves from the fact that they are still Boeing's stooge who will let anything fly as long as Boeing is ready to cut a check.

Please stop with this garbage. The FAA created an independent group of experts that all had nothing to do with design or certification of the MAX to evaluate the fix and determine if the MAX will be safe. They have publicly stated that they won't lift the grounding without the blessing of that independent group.

They make a lot of public statements that seem to flop about depending on their audience. The FAA are the ones who got themselves into this position. So no need to whine on their behalf when people don't take the FAA's word at face value.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net