User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21878
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:14 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
The NYT article has exposed the binary narrative we're seeing from certain parties. Even though the NYT author was highly critical of all parties involved, that's not acceptable to some. If you're not placing 100% of blame in one certain direction and 0% in every other, you're a PR man, hit piece author, not credible, etc. Sad. It's exposing extreme bias, but they don't care.

Indeed, it has exposed the "fear of absolution complex" present in the minds of many posters here.

Giving an inch with regard to questioning the pilot's actions is equated to giving a mile, so it's just not an option for some, despite it exposing their absence of objectivity.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
planecane
Posts: 1242
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:20 pm

XRAYretired wrote:
planecane wrote:
Noshow wrote:
They now have changed the entire MCAS-system and the use of onboard computers (dual now) and inform and train the pilots different.
They finally changed the aircraft not because the pilots were to blame.


They changed the aircraft because there was clearly an issue with the design of MCAS that led to an unacceptably high rate of runaway stabilizer incidents and worldwide regulatory agencies were not going to allow it to fly again if they didn't.

The final reports on the crashes haven't been released yet. Therefore the amount of blame assigned to pilots is speculation and opinion at this point. The blame for the failure mode caused by multiple bad decisions in the design of MCAS falls 100% on Boeing. "Blame" for the crashes will likely be spread, at least in part, to other factors. Regardless of the pilots or MCAS, Lion Air dispatched a plane that landed with a known malfunctioning sensor. That crash would not have happened if the failed sensor was replaced and verified to be in working order. It is also true that if MCAS had been designed properly the crash would not have occurred. It isn't so black and white that there is one cause and one party to blame.

No. There was not a known malfunctioning AOA sensor. The pilots best assessment was their problems were related to airspeed malfunction and this was addressed.

Ray


Since when is it the pilot's job to root cause in flight malfunctions? I thought that that was the job of maintenance technicians. I will rephrase. The flight was dispatched with what should have been a known malfunctioning AoA sensor.

IIRC correctly, MCAS was documented in the maintenance manual although my memory could be failing me.
 
morrisond
Posts: 1816
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:23 pm

PixelFlight wrote:
morrisond wrote:
PixelFlight wrote:
Sure there don't want that, but it that realistically avoidable since there officially published an EAD about the MCAS starting with "prompted by analysis performed by the manufacturer" ?
I always thought that the EAD will become an unavoidable central evidence in the legal aspect of this drama.


They probably won't have much a leg to stand on with Lionair - but I can see them fighting ET to the bitter end. It fits their narrative and there will probably be enough doubt about the ET crew actions that this is the course they will probably take.

Will see...
ET302 pilots did not recognize the first MCAS AND in time as expected by Boeing and the FAA (3 seconds expected), but there was not trained to do that in the scenario there faced. There reacted 9 seconds later than expected. For the second MCAS AND there reacted 5 seconds later than expected. Then ET302 pilots followed the EAD procedure that did not take in account the elevator loss of authority and the too small trim wheels, and that procedure contains nothing about the flags or the speed. I doubt that Boeing can uses that 9 and 5 seconds delay, in a never trained failure scenario, to avoid anything. The expected reaction time was unrealistic in that situation, and the training to recognize in time in that situation was missing.


Somehow I think the ability to control thrust/speed is one of those things pilots are expected to know. Just like which way is up or down. They won't get a free pass on that one. It does not need to be part of the EAD. They did not follow the EAD as one of the requirements was to not use Autothrottle or Autopilot - yet they kept using it/trying to reengage it as that was probably there comfort zone. To me that is the problem - Manual flight does not seem to be "Comfortable" for way too many Pilots worldwide. All pilots in all Commercial aircraft should have to demonstrate the ability to fly in full manual mode from takeoff to touchdown in Instrument conditions on a regular basis or quite frankly they don't deserve to be in an cockpit. This is currently an assumption of there license but it seems that in reality it is no longer practiced.

Would that require more training - Yes - and as I showed months ago mastery of flight and maybe 10 more hours of sim time per year per pilot (practicing flying in degraded states) might add a few bucks to an airline ticket. Airline's are reticent to add this cost and will only happen if worldwide regulators impose it - which may be tough to do given the political connections/influence airlines seem to have worldwide. However if it is imposed on all it won't put anyone at an competitive disadvantage.

Heck - to make a simple analogy - My kids are going through high school right now and the new Mantra is mastery of learning. You keep doing things until you get it 100% right.

Yet some people on here believe that it's okay for commercial pilots who have the lives of hundred's of people in there hands are fine if they know only enough to get the equivalent of 50% on a math test.

That is not good enough.

If pilots are faced with malfunctioning electronics it should be no biggie to simply revert to manual flight and continue to destination. This should not be considered to require extraordinary skill for any pilot and pilots should embrace the chance to fly manually. Otherwise they do not deserve the title Pilot and should be given the Title "Systems Operator".

Just as simply if you were driving a Tesla and the Autopilot starting acting weird - you would disable the system and continue on to your destination using your hands and feet - no big deal.


I doubt there is a transport category aircraft that still has sufficient elevator authority to counteract full thrust in over Vmo scenarios. If they did the Elevator is probably over sized leading to increased drag and inefficiency.
 
User avatar
PixelFlight
Posts: 786
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:09 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:44 pm

morrisond wrote:
They did not follow the EAD as one of the requirements was to not use Autothrottle or Autopilot

Your claim is not supported by the ET320 "FACTUAL INFORMATION" chapter from the Preliminary Report of March 2019:
ET302 tried to engage autopilot at 05:38:58 and at 05:39:22 while the first MCAS AND subject of the EAD was only at 05:40:00, respectively 62 and 38 seconds later.
You can't expect pilots to follow a procedure before the conditions for that procedure exists !
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8898
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:44 pm

morrisond wrote:
PixelFlight wrote:
morrisond wrote:

They probably won't have much a leg to stand on with Lionair - but I can see them fighting ET to the bitter end. It fits their narrative and there will probably be enough doubt about the ET crew actions that this is the course they will probably take.

Will see...
ET302 pilots did not recognize the first MCAS AND in time as expected by Boeing and the FAA (3 seconds expected), but there was not trained to do that in the scenario there faced. There reacted 9 seconds later than expected. For the second MCAS AND there reacted 5 seconds later than expected. Then ET302 pilots followed the EAD procedure that did not take in account the elevator loss of authority and the too small trim wheels, and that procedure contains nothing about the flags or the speed. I doubt that Boeing can uses that 9 and 5 seconds delay, in a never trained failure scenario, to avoid anything. The expected reaction time was unrealistic in that situation, and the training to recognize in time in that situation was missing.


Somehow I think the ability to control thrust/speed is one of those things pilots are expected to know. Just like which way is up or down. They won't get a free pass on that one. It does not need to be part of the EAD. They did not follow the EAD as one of the requirements was to not use Autothrottle or Autopilot - yet they kept using it/trying to reengage it as that was probably there comfort zone. To me that is the problem - Manual flight does not seem to be "Comfortable" for way too many Pilots worldwide. All pilots in all Commercial aircraft should have to demonstrate the ability to fly in full manual mode from takeoff to touchdown in Instrument conditions on a regular basis or quite frankly they don't deserve to be in an cockpit. This is currently an assumption of there license but it seems that in reality it is no longer practiced.

Would that require more training - Yes - and as I showed months ago mastery of flight and maybe 10 more hours of sim time per year per pilot (practicing flying in degraded states) might add a few bucks to an airline ticket. Airline's are reticent to add this cost and will only happen if worldwide regulators impose it - which may be tough to do given the political connections/influence airlines seem to have worldwide. However if it is imposed on all it won't put anyone at an competitive disadvantage.

Heck - to make a simple analogy - My kids are going through high school right now and the new Mantra is mastery of learning. You keep doing things until you get it 100% right.

Yet some people on here believe that it's okay for commercial pilots who have the lives of hundred's of people in there hands are fine if they know only enough to get the equivalent of 50% on a math test.

That is not good enough.


I doubt there is a transport category aircraft that still has sufficient elevator authority to counteract full thrust in over Vmo scenarios. If they did the Elevator is probably over sized leading to increased drag and inefficiency.


I think you just do not get it.

One of the main points to control speed is elevator and trim. With the failure mode of MCAS Boeing did aggressive limit the ability of pilots to control the speed.

Activation hits pilots at the worst possible moment of the flight.

A christmas tree of other error signals produced by the AoA failure, plus stick shaker putting a huge work load on the pilots, independent from the activation of MCAS.

To be able to sell the 737MAX as just a NG with better engines. Boeing kept MCAS and the working thereof a secret from pilots and customers. Even after the first accident Boeing kept mum.

MCAS, a horrible implementation. One sensor, no redundancy in regards to a critical flight control system. Breaking every rule and convention how to design a flighty control system. Raw amateurs would not be excused for designing such a system. Everybody that came near to designing MCAS at Boeing should just shroud there heads in shame. Boeing seems to have no engineers in there employ any longer, that can be trusted to design a flight control system.



Stop blaming the pilots. Put the blame where it belongs, squarely at the feet of Boeing.
 
pasen
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:03 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:50 pm

morrisond wrote:
PixelFlight wrote:
morrisond wrote:

They probably won't have much a leg to stand on with Lionair - but I can see them fighting ET to the bitter end. It fits their narrative and there will probably be enough doubt about the ET crew actions that this is the course they will probably take.

Will see...
ET302 pilots did not recognize the first MCAS AND in time as expected by Boeing and the FAA (3 seconds expected), but there was not trained to do that in the scenario there faced. There reacted 9 seconds later than expected. For the second MCAS AND there reacted 5 seconds later than expected. Then ET302 pilots followed the EAD procedure that did not take in account the elevator loss of authority and the too small trim wheels, and that procedure contains nothing about the flags or the speed. I doubt that Boeing can uses that 9 and 5 seconds delay, in a never trained failure scenario, to avoid anything. The expected reaction time was unrealistic in that situation, and the training to recognize in time in that situation was missing.


Somehow I think the ability to control thrust/speed is one of those things pilots are expected to know. Just like which way is up or down. They won't get a free pass on that one. It does not need to be part of the EAD. They did not follow the EAD as one of the requirements was to not use Autothrottle or Autopilot - yet they kept using it/trying to reengage it as that was probably there comfort zone. To me that is the problem - Manual flight does not seem to be "Comfortable" for way too many Pilots worldwide. All pilots in all Commercial aircraft should have to demonstrate the ability to fly in full manual mode from takeoff to touchdown in Instrument conditions on a regular basis or quite frankly they don't deserve to be in an cockpit. This is currently an assumption of there license but it seems that in reality it is no longer practiced.

Would that require more training - Yes - and as I showed months ago mastery of flight and maybe 10 more hours of sim time per year per pilot (practicing flying in degraded states) might add a few bucks to an airline ticket. Airline's are reticent to add this cost and will only happen if worldwide regulators impose it - which may be tough to do given the political connections/influence airlines seem to have worldwide. However if it is imposed on all it won't put anyone at an competitive disadvantage.

Heck - to make a simple analogy - My kids are going through high school right now and the new Mantra is mastery of learning. You keep doing things until you get it 100% right.

Yet some people on here believe that it's okay for commercial pilots who have the lives of hundred's of people in there hands are fine if they know only enough to get the equivalent of 50% on a math test.

That is not good enough.

If pilots are faced with malfunctioning electronics it should be no biggie to simply revert to manual flight and continue to destination. This should not be considered to require extraordinary skill for any pilot and pilots should embrace the chance to fly manually. Otherwise they do not deserve the title Pilot and should be given the Title "Systems Operator".

Just as simply if you were driving a Tesla and the Autopilot starting acting weird - you would disable the system and continue on to your destination using your hands and feet - no big deal.


I doubt there is a transport category aircraft that still has sufficient elevator authority to counteract full thrust in over Vmo scenarios. If they did the Elevator is probably over sized leading to increased drag and inefficiency.


What does anything of that have to do with the grounding of the 737MAX? As others have tried to explain to you over and over again, the pilots who fly the 737MAX are exactly the same as the ones who have been flying the 737NG safely for the last two decades - same training, same experience, same skills, same people. So all your endless talk about pilot training - whether justified or not - has absolutely nothing to do with the 737MAX grounding. Why don't you start a new thread about insufficient pilot training instead of constantly trying to use that topic to distract from what this thread is about.
 
n562wn
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:50 pm

Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:53 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
morrisond wrote:
PixelFlight wrote:
Will see...
ET302 pilots did not recognize the first MCAS AND in time as expected by Boeing and the FAA (3 seconds expected), but there was not trained to do that in the scenario there faced. There reacted 9 seconds later than expected. For the second MCAS AND there reacted 5 seconds later than expected. Then ET302 pilots followed the EAD procedure that did not take in account the elevator loss of authority and the too small trim wheels, and that procedure contains nothing about the flags or the speed. I doubt that Boeing can uses that 9 and 5 seconds delay, in a never trained failure scenario, to avoid anything. The expected reaction time was unrealistic in that situation, and the training to recognize in time in that situation was missing.


Somehow I think the ability to control thrust/speed is one of those things pilots are expected to know. Just like which way is up or down. They won't get a free pass on that one. It does not need to be part of the EAD. They did not follow the EAD as one of the requirements was to not use Autothrottle or Autopilot - yet they kept using it/trying to reengage it as that was probably there comfort zone. To me that is the problem - Manual flight does not seem to be "Comfortable" for way too many Pilots worldwide. All pilots in all Commercial aircraft should have to demonstrate the ability to fly in full manual mode from takeoff to touchdown in Instrument conditions on a regular basis or quite frankly they don't deserve to be in an cockpit. This is currently an assumption of there license but it seems that in reality it is no longer practiced.

Would that require more training - Yes - and as I showed months ago mastery of flight and maybe 10 more hours of sim time per year per pilot (practicing flying in degraded states) might add a few bucks to an airline ticket. Airline's are reticent to add this cost and will only happen if worldwide regulators impose it - which may be tough to do given the political connections/influence airlines seem to have worldwide. However if it is imposed on all it won't put anyone at an competitive disadvantage.

Heck - to make a simple analogy - My kids are going through high school right now and the new Mantra is mastery of learning. You keep doing things until you get it 100% right.

Yet some people on here believe that it's okay for commercial pilots who have the lives of hundred's of people in there hands are fine if they know only enough to get the equivalent of 50% on a math test.

That is not good enough.


I doubt there is a transport category aircraft that still has sufficient elevator authority to counteract full thrust in over Vmo scenarios. If they did the Elevator is probably over sized leading to increased drag and inefficiency.


I think you just do not get it.

One of the main points to control speed is elevator and trim. With the failure mode of MCAS Boeing did aggressive limit the ability of pilots to control the speed.

Activation hits pilots at the worst possible moment of the flight.

A christmas tree of other error signals produced by the AoA failure, plus stick shaker putting a huge work load on the pilots, independent from the activation of MCAS.

To be able to sell the 737MAX as just a NG with better engines. Boeing kept MCAS and the working thereof a secret from pilots and customers. Even after the first accident Boeing kept mum.

MCAS, a horrible implementation. One sensor, no redundancy in regards to a critical flight control system. Breaking every rule and convention how to design a flighty control system. Raw amateurs would not be excused for designing such a system. Everybody that came near to designing MCAS at Boeing should just shroud there heads in shame. Boeing seems to have no engineers in there employ any longer, that can be trusted to design a flight control system.



Stop blaming the pilots. Put the blame where it belongs, squarely at the feet of Boeing.



Haha, talk about not "getting it"... You obviously don't. All parties have egg on their face in this fiasco. I'm not sure why that's so hard to grasp for some here.

We have actual pilots with thousands of hours of experience flying planes telling you that the crews could have recovered the plane or not let it get into a state that was unrecoverable, but somehow people like you know better.
Last edited by n562wn on Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 710
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:55 pm

planecane wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
planecane wrote:

They changed the aircraft because there was clearly an issue with the design of MCAS that led to an unacceptably high rate of runaway stabilizer incidents and worldwide regulatory agencies were not going to allow it to fly again if they didn't.

The final reports on the crashes haven't been released yet. Therefore the amount of blame assigned to pilots is speculation and opinion at this point. The blame for the failure mode caused by multiple bad decisions in the design of MCAS falls 100% on Boeing. "Blame" for the crashes will likely be spread, at least in part, to other factors. Regardless of the pilots or MCAS, Lion Air dispatched a plane that landed with a known malfunctioning sensor. That crash would not have happened if the failed sensor was replaced and verified to be in working order. It is also true that if MCAS had been designed properly the crash would not have occurred. It isn't so black and white that there is one cause and one party to blame.

No. There was not a known malfunctioning AOA sensor. The pilots best assessment was their problems were related to airspeed malfunction and this was addressed.

Ray


Since when is it the pilot's job to root cause in flight malfunctions? I thought that that was the job of maintenance technicians. I will rephrase. The flight was dispatched with what should have been a known malfunctioning AoA sensor.

IIRC correctly, MCAS was documented in the maintenance manual although my memory could be failing me.

It is unlikely it would have been despatched with a known faulty AOA sensor since this would be contrary to the MEL. You can argue that if the OMS had been consulted, maybe we can assume not since it was not reported, then AOA disagree flag may have been recorded and would have been addressed. However, it can also be argued that if AOA DISAGREE was annunciated in the cockpit, it would have been clear that there was AOA sensor problem, but it wasn't of course, and therefore actually supporting a view there was not an AOA sensor problem.

We have seen a paragraph in the MX training manual that purports to describe MCAS, but nothing related to diagnostics of multiple messages and effects (without AOA DISAGREE) so we don't know. Of course, the wording is related to function at MCAS Version 0.0 (not 1.0 installed from day 1) at the time of the event.

Ray
 
pasen
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:03 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 1:13 pm

n562wn wrote:
We have actual pilots with thousands of hours of experience flying planes telling you that the crews could have recovered the plane or not let it get into a state that was unrecoverable, but somehow people like you know better.


No you're not getting it. Nobody denies that "better" pilots could potentially have prevented the accidents. But what people are trying to explain to you is, it is completely irrelevant. From all the pilots that are certified to fly a 737, roughly half of them have above-average skills and the other half has below-average skills. That is simple statistics. But the airplane must be designed so that ANY certified pilot can fly it safely, not just the elite.
 
n562wn
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:50 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 1:16 pm

pasen wrote:
n562wn wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:


No you're not getting it. Nobody denies that "better" pilots could potentially have prevented the accidents. But what people are trying to explain to you is, it is completely irrelevant. From all the pilots that are certified to fly a 737, roughly half of them have above-average skills and the other half has below-average skills. That is simple statistics. But the airplane must be designed so that ANY certified pilot can fly it safely, not just the elite.


Ok. Fair enough. Perhaps the standards need to be raised. That's what many are suggesting.
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
 
morrisond
Posts: 1816
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 1:26 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
morrisond wrote:
PixelFlight wrote:
Will see...
ET302 pilots did not recognize the first MCAS AND in time as expected by Boeing and the FAA (3 seconds expected), but there was not trained to do that in the scenario there faced. There reacted 9 seconds later than expected. For the second MCAS AND there reacted 5 seconds later than expected. Then ET302 pilots followed the EAD procedure that did not take in account the elevator loss of authority and the too small trim wheels, and that procedure contains nothing about the flags or the speed. I doubt that Boeing can uses that 9 and 5 seconds delay, in a never trained failure scenario, to avoid anything. The expected reaction time was unrealistic in that situation, and the training to recognize in time in that situation was missing.


Somehow I think the ability to control thrust/speed is one of those things pilots are expected to know. Just like which way is up or down. They won't get a free pass on that one. It does not need to be part of the EAD. They did not follow the EAD as one of the requirements was to not use Autothrottle or Autopilot - yet they kept using it/trying to reengage it as that was probably there comfort zone. To me that is the problem - Manual flight does not seem to be "Comfortable" for way too many Pilots worldwide. All pilots in all Commercial aircraft should have to demonstrate the ability to fly in full manual mode from takeoff to touchdown in Instrument conditions on a regular basis or quite frankly they don't deserve to be in an cockpit. This is currently an assumption of there license but it seems that in reality it is no longer practiced.

Would that require more training - Yes - and as I showed months ago mastery of flight and maybe 10 more hours of sim time per year per pilot (practicing flying in degraded states) might add a few bucks to an airline ticket. Airline's are reticent to add this cost and will only happen if worldwide regulators impose it - which may be tough to do given the political connections/influence airlines seem to have worldwide. However if it is imposed on all it won't put anyone at an competitive disadvantage.

Heck - to make a simple analogy - My kids are going through high school right now and the new Mantra is mastery of learning. You keep doing things until you get it 100% right.

Yet some people on here believe that it's okay for commercial pilots who have the lives of hundred's of people in there hands are fine if they know only enough to get the equivalent of 50% on a math test.

That is not good enough.


I doubt there is a transport category aircraft that still has sufficient elevator authority to counteract full thrust in over Vmo scenarios. If they did the Elevator is probably over sized leading to increased drag and inefficiency.


I think you just do not get it.

One of the main points to control speed is elevator and trim. With the failure mode of MCAS Boeing did aggressive limit the ability of pilots to control the speed.

Activation hits pilots at the worst possible moment of the flight.

A christmas tree of other error signals produced by the AoA failure, plus stick shaker putting a huge work load on the pilots, independent from the activation of MCAS.

To be able to sell the 737MAX as just a NG with better engines. Boeing kept MCAS and the working thereof a secret from pilots and customers. Even after the first accident Boeing kept mum.

MCAS, a horrible implementation. One sensor, no redundancy in regards to a critical flight control system. Breaking every rule and convention how to design a flighty control system. Raw amateurs would not be excused for designing such a system. Everybody that came near to designing MCAS at Boeing should just shroud there heads in shame. Boeing seems to have no engineers in there employ any longer, that can be trusted to design a flight control system.



Stop blaming the pilots. Put the blame where it belongs, squarely at the feet of Boeing.


Last time I checked Elevator and trim are used to control the Attitude/attack angle of the plane - not the speed.

Yes - MCAS was a horrible implementation and Boeing is totally to blame for putting such a piss poor design on an aircraft.

MCAS was disclosed after the first crash - Stop trying to spread disinformation.

Yes - Boeing is totally to blame for MCAS - however that does negate that the crashes exposed the fact that the training of the pilots (and I'm really blaming the training system - not the pilots) is inadequate.

And how does that impact the grounding of the MAX - Simple - Pilots need to be better trained worldwide on all aircraft in Manual flight - that should be a learning of the crashes and new regulations put into place - that should start with the MAX but should spread to the full commercial fleet over time.

These threads are full of Worldwide examples of senior pilots talking about 200 Hour wonders that have no place in an cockpit.
 
pasen
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:03 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 1:28 pm

n562wn wrote:
Ok. Fair enough. Perhaps the standards need to be raised. That's what many are suggesting.


Maybe, but wasn't the existing standard always good enough for the 737NG?
 
Alfons
Posts: 272
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 1:17 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 1:29 pm

n562wn wrote:
pasen wrote:
n562wn wrote:


No you're not getting it. Nobody denies that "better" pilots could potentially have prevented the accidents. But what people are trying to explain to you is, it is completely irrelevant. From all the pilots that are certified to fly a 737, roughly half of them have above-average skills and the other half has below-average skills. That is simple statistics. But the airplane must be designed so that ANY certified pilot can fly it safely, not just the elite.


Ok. Fair enough. Perhaps the standards need to be raised. That's what many are suggesting.


No, the actual standard shouldn't be undercut, that's what many are thinking.
 
n562wn
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:50 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 1:34 pm

Alfons wrote:
n562wn wrote:
pasen wrote:

No you're not getting it. Nobody denies that "better" pilots could potentially have prevented the accidents. But what people are trying to explain to you is, it is completely irrelevant. From all the pilots that are certified to fly a 737, roughly half of them have above-average skills and the other half has below-average skills. That is simple statistics. But the airplane must be designed so that ANY certified pilot can fly it safely, not just the elite.


Ok. Fair enough. Perhaps the standards need to be raised. That's what many are suggesting.


No, the actual standard shouldn't be undercut, that's what many are thinking.


Agreed
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
 
Alfons
Posts: 272
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 1:17 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:13 pm

n562wn wrote:
Alfons wrote:
n562wn wrote:

Ok. Fair enough. Perhaps the standards need to be raised. That's what many are suggesting.


No, the actual standard shouldn't be undercut, that's what many are thinking.


Agreed


And that counts also for airplane manufacturers.
 
wingman
Posts: 3804
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:28 pm

pasen wrote:
But the airplane must be designed so that ANY certified pilot can fly it safely, not just the elite.


That'd be nice. But remember also that in the Airbus Ledger of Death, blame assignation is as follows:

"Certified" Pilots - 100%
Airbus - 0%
EASA - 0%

That's the same hole in the Swiss cheese lining up over and over again. Either more training is needed to "properly" certify pilots or we need to edit the list and make it:


Pilots - 1%
Airbus - 0%
EASA - 0%
Swiss Cheese - 99%
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1810
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:38 pm

Revelation wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Langwiesche is a very experienced aviator and writer with many years at Atlantic and other publications. Cheap hit there.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Langewiesche

:checkmark:

People should do a little research.

It's open season on messengers these days: shoot first and ask questions later.

You are the only one mentioning the messenger. The posts you criticize talked about the content of that article and not the writer. The article is rubish and could not have been written better by Boeing PR. Go figure. That has nothing to do with the messenger.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
morrisond
Posts: 1816
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:43 pm

Alfons wrote:
n562wn wrote:
Alfons wrote:

No, the actual standard shouldn't be undercut, that's what many are thinking.


Agreed


And that counts also for airplane manufacturers.


Yes it does and Regulators.

It seems to be a re-currency problem with Pilots - they need to have Manual skills to initially pass - but no requirements to maintain those skills over time.

If you are a button pusher and nothing ever goes wrong you can go 10,000 HR in the cockpit without having to really manually fly the plane.

I know why Airline's mandate this as fewer mistakes are made - but it does not keep Pilot's sharp with essential skills.
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 1031
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 3:32 pm

n562wn wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
morrisond wrote:

Somehow I think the ability to control thrust/speed is one of those things pilots are expected to know. Just like which way is up or down. They won't get a free pass on that one. It does not need to be part of the EAD. They did not follow the EAD as one of the requirements was to not use Autothrottle or Autopilot - yet they kept using it/trying to reengage it as that was probably there comfort zone. To me that is the problem - Manual flight does not seem to be "Comfortable" for way too many Pilots worldwide. All pilots in all Commercial aircraft should have to demonstrate the ability to fly in full manual mode from takeoff to touchdown in Instrument conditions on a regular basis or quite frankly they don't deserve to be in an cockpit. This is currently an assumption of there license but it seems that in reality it is no longer practiced.

Would that require more training - Yes - and as I showed months ago mastery of flight and maybe 10 more hours of sim time per year per pilot (practicing flying in degraded states) might add a few bucks to an airline ticket. Airline's are reticent to add this cost and will only happen if worldwide regulators impose it - which may be tough to do given the political connections/influence airlines seem to have worldwide. However if it is imposed on all it won't put anyone at an competitive disadvantage.

Heck - to make a simple analogy - My kids are going through high school right now and the new Mantra is mastery of learning. You keep doing things until you get it 100% right.

Yet some people on here believe that it's okay for commercial pilots who have the lives of hundred's of people in there hands are fine if they know only enough to get the equivalent of 50% on a math test.

That is not good enough.


I doubt there is a transport category aircraft that still has sufficient elevator authority to counteract full thrust in over Vmo scenarios. If they did the Elevator is probably over sized leading to increased drag and inefficiency.


I think you just do not get it.

One of the main points to control speed is elevator and trim. With the failure mode of MCAS Boeing did aggressive limit the ability of pilots to control the speed.

Activation hits pilots at the worst possible moment of the flight.

A christmas tree of other error signals produced by the AoA failure, plus stick shaker putting a huge work load on the pilots, independent from the activation of MCAS.

To be able to sell the 737MAX as just a NG with better engines. Boeing kept MCAS and the working thereof a secret from pilots and customers. Even after the first accident Boeing kept mum.

MCAS, a horrible implementation. One sensor, no redundancy in regards to a critical flight control system. Breaking every rule and convention how to design a flighty control system. Raw amateurs would not be excused for designing such a system. Everybody that came near to designing MCAS at Boeing should just shroud there heads in shame. Boeing seems to have no engineers in there employ any longer, that can be trusted to design a flight control system.



Stop blaming the pilots. Put the blame where it belongs, squarely at the feet of Boeing.



Haha, talk about not "getting it"... You obviously don't. All parties have egg on their face in this fiasco. I'm not sure why that's so hard to grasp for some here.

We have actual pilots with thousands of hours of experience flying planes telling you that the crews could have recovered the plane or not let it get into a state that was unrecoverable, but somehow people like you know better.

As you’re profile name is a registration to a WN plane either you are a fan or you work there in which case I would be inclined to believe you are biased; however, this is besides the point.

My argument and always will be my argument is to consider human factors for a moment. A failed aircraft is given to someone, it’s running the stick shaker, it’s trying to crash itself with the trim, and there’s also aural warning going off (which are very poorly set up on the 737), so give this situation to various different people and some will pass and some will fail and I’m sure we can all agree on that. What this then means is that this isn’t the factor that you can remove or change and as a result you have a guarantee that this won’t happen. Remove the failed 737 MAX from the equation and this accident does not happen. This is how you find where the primary blame lies. Yes there were different things that could’ve been done to stop the crash at the moment, but the buck stops at Boeing for creating something that gets into a dangerous situation in the first place. Evidence to back this up is that all these same people were flying the 737NG and it never fell out of the sky like this.

If all we cared about was how well the pilots could operate the plane and the actual working condition of the plane was not of as much importance there wouldn’t be an organized system of maintenance checks and MROs because when the plane has issues it’s the pilot’s responsibility to save it. This, however, is flawed logic even though many on here, especially those who wear rose colored glasses towards Boeing and their products, go by it.
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8898
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 3:39 pm

n562wn wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
morrisond wrote:

Somehow I think the ability to control thrust/speed is one of those things pilots are expected to know. Just like which way is up or down. They won't get a free pass on that one. It does not need to be part of the EAD. They did not follow the EAD as one of the requirements was to not use Autothrottle or Autopilot - yet they kept using it/trying to reengage it as that was probably there comfort zone. To me that is the problem - Manual flight does not seem to be "Comfortable" for way too many Pilots worldwide. All pilots in all Commercial aircraft should have to demonstrate the ability to fly in full manual mode from takeoff to touchdown in Instrument conditions on a regular basis or quite frankly they don't deserve to be in an cockpit. This is currently an assumption of there license but it seems that in reality it is no longer practiced.

Would that require more training - Yes - and as I showed months ago mastery of flight and maybe 10 more hours of sim time per year per pilot (practicing flying in degraded states) might add a few bucks to an airline ticket. Airline's are reticent to add this cost and will only happen if worldwide regulators impose it - which may be tough to do given the political connections/influence airlines seem to have worldwide. However if it is imposed on all it won't put anyone at an competitive disadvantage.

Heck - to make a simple analogy - My kids are going through high school right now and the new Mantra is mastery of learning. You keep doing things until you get it 100% right.

Yet some people on here believe that it's okay for commercial pilots who have the lives of hundred's of people in there hands are fine if they know only enough to get the equivalent of 50% on a math test.

That is not good enough.


I doubt there is a transport category aircraft that still has sufficient elevator authority to counteract full thrust in over Vmo scenarios. If they did the Elevator is probably over sized leading to increased drag and inefficiency.


I think you just do not get it.

One of the main points to control speed is elevator and trim. With the failure mode of MCAS Boeing did aggressive limit the ability of pilots to control the speed.

Activation hits pilots at the worst possible moment of the flight.

A christmas tree of other error signals produced by the AoA failure, plus stick shaker putting a huge work load on the pilots, independent from the activation of MCAS.

To be able to sell the 737MAX as just a NG with better engines. Boeing kept MCAS and the working thereof a secret from pilots and customers. Even after the first accident Boeing kept mum.

MCAS, a horrible implementation. One sensor, no redundancy in regards to a critical flight control system. Breaking every rule and convention how to design a flighty control system. Raw amateurs would not be excused for designing such a system. Everybody that came near to designing MCAS at Boeing should just shroud there heads in shame. Boeing seems to have no engineers in there employ any longer, that can be trusted to design a flight control system.



Stop blaming the pilots. Put the blame where it belongs, squarely at the feet of Boeing.



Haha, talk about not "getting it"... You obviously don't. All parties have egg on their face in this fiasco. I'm not sure why that's so hard to grasp for some here.

We have actual pilots with thousands of hours of experience flying planes telling you that the crews could have recovered the plane or not let it get into a state that was unrecoverable, but somehow people like you know better.


There are two entities with egg on their face: Boeing and the FAA.

There are also pilots, with thousands of hours of experience, having tried to fly those flights on a simulator, either failing to save the frame or having extrem difficulties and that with the hindsight of knowing about MCAS.
 
AABusDrvr
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 6:48 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 3:43 pm

TheF15Ace wrote:
AABusDrvr wrote:
TheF15Ace wrote:

Oh absolutely. Anything that goes against Boeing's ''she's just like the NG'' sales pitch/delays RTS is apparently a big no-no :shakehead:

The only training that matters is flying circuits around a field in a 172 to achieve 1500 hours. The accompanying master type rating (valid for Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, Bombardier etc) and Skygod status will ensure that any situation can be dealt with accordingly. ;)


No one has any illusion that the MAX is “just like an NG”. But as a guy who received his company designed, computer based MAX differences training, and was able to successfully fly a MAX. I’m curious exactly what everyone thinks needs to be trained in a simulator. If it’s ultimately required, I’ll attend whatever training is mandated, but I believe it will be a waste of all our time.


We should hear about it from EASA and possibly other regulating bodies before a RTS if they deem it necessary. Might not apply specifically to took you but just as there are differing views on initial training others might not follow in lockstep with the FAA.

You need to understand, it’s not the 1500 hours that’s required, it’s the experience and judgement you acquire getting those hours.


And you need to understand that an FAA rule implemented after Colgan 3407 in 2009 doesn't suddenly make it the absolute gold standard and anyone who doesn't follow that path and that path alone is any less of a pilot. After all you do need to consider the amount of non Cessna training that a pilot goes through before ever setting foot inside an Airbus/Boeing flight deck even to do base training on said type. Unless you mean that airlines from around the world, from major international carriers to regional LCCs are conducting thousands of safe flight operations daily only due to sheer luck.


The "gold standard" that should be applied globally, and should have always been applied, is requiring an airline transport pilot level license for all airline pilots.

Every regional pilot, or aspiring regional pilot in the US should applaud the 1500 hour rule, it's resulted in significant increases in pay at that level.

There are decent, and not so decent ab initio and cadet programs, and then there is the push for MPL. I am fully aware of the "non Cessna" training pilots receive in these programs. These programs produce acceptable systems managers, they do not produce exceptional aviators. A pilot who isn't even qualified to carry passengers in a light airplane by themselves, has no business in an airline cockpit.

I spent several years as the FAA equivalent of a line training captain, and a line check airman before the 1500 hour rule, and have spent thousands of hours working with very low time airline pilots. Good people, but I don't want to be in the back when the captain becomes incapacitated, or the airplane develops serious problems.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3053
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 3:51 pm

n562wn wrote:
pasen wrote:
n562wn wrote:


No you're not getting it. Nobody denies that "better" pilots could potentially have prevented the accidents. But what people are trying to explain to you is, it is completely irrelevant. From all the pilots that are certified to fly a 737, roughly half of them have above-average skills and the other half has below-average skills. That is simple statistics. But the airplane must be designed so that ANY certified pilot can fly it safely, not just the elite.


Ok. Fair enough. Perhaps the standards need to be raised. That's what many are suggesting.

So pilots need to be of a higher standard to fly the MAX than other types, namely the NG?

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
flyingphil
Posts: 256
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 2:56 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 3:55 pm

Aviation industry expects double-digit insurance premium hikes after 737 MAX grounding

https://www.reuters.com/article/ethiopi ... SL2N2671F6

One of these days I hope to find some good news for Boeing, but more doom & gloom I am afraid.
 
hivue
Posts: 1957
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 3:58 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
One of the main points to control speed is elevator and trim.


Speed is controlled with the thrust levers. The ET crew -- for whatever reason -- failed to use them.

There has been a narrative growing on this thread amongst the large number of "crew apologists" (to be distinguished from the large number of "Boeing apologists" in the thread) that the accident crews were faced with problems in physics an aeronautics that would have stumped an intellect the quality of Einstein's. However, there is no evidence to back this up. Yes, they may have been hit with so many things going wrong at once -- not the least of which was a very badly designed MCAS -- that they personally and individually could not cope. But it is an error to say that this absolves them of any blame.

The software I manage can be used by virtually anyone with a little bit of training. The reason someone pays me to manage it is so that I can handle situations that either are very challenging or occur when the software doesn't act as expected. My assumption when I get on an airplane is that the professional pilots up front are getting paid for the same reason.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3525
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:01 pm

pasen wrote:
No you're not getting it. Nobody denies that "better" pilots could potentially have prevented the accidents. But what people are trying to explain to you is, it is completely irrelevant. From all the pilots that are certified to fly a 737, roughly half of them have above-average skills and the other half has below-average skills. That is simple statistics. But the airplane must be designed so that ANY certified pilot can fly it safely, not just the elite.


Talk about not getting it. The reason we have standards for a profession is so even the "worst" professional has the skills necessary to perform the task. Just like a plane is certified for all qualified pilots to fly, all pilots are certified to skillfully fly the airplane. There was a breakdown in both areas.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:03 pm

n562wn wrote:
pasen wrote:
n562wn wrote:


No you're not getting it. Nobody denies that "better" pilots could potentially have prevented the accidents. But what people are trying to explain to you is, it is completely irrelevant. From all the pilots that are certified to fly a 737, roughly half of them have above-average skills and the other half has below-average skills. That is simple statistics. But the airplane must be designed so that ANY certified pilot can fly it safely, not just the elite.


Ok. Fair enough. Perhaps the standards need to be raised. That's what many are suggesting.


If pilot qualification is in general too low you'd have seen the crash rate for the MAX on the NG too.

Everything is improvable including training.
But if you introduce a fickle type like the MAX it is a major step backwards into the early years of jet flight.
The difference is jet flight ( and flight safety considerations in general ) at the time were new territory, still to be mastered. Today statistics show that mastery has improved significantly. The MAX throws this out the window.
Murphy is an optimist
 
uta999
Posts: 767
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:10 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:14 pm

The fact that some posters on here are saying the pilots are partly to blame just proves that the MAX was a complete dog to fly. If it was the same as an NG as Boeing sold it, then any pilot good or bad wouldn't have crashed it. Are you people dumb?
Your computer just got better
 
TheF15Ace
Posts: 296
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 10:27 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:20 pm

AABusDrvr wrote:
TheF15Ace wrote:
AABusDrvr wrote:

No one has any illusion that the MAX is “just like an NG”. But as a guy who received his company designed, computer based MAX differences training, and was able to successfully fly a MAX. I’m curious exactly what everyone thinks needs to be trained in a simulator. If it’s ultimately required, I’ll attend whatever training is mandated, but I believe it will be a waste of all our time.


We should hear about it from EASA and possibly other regulating bodies before a RTS if they deem it necessary. Might not apply specifically to took you but just as there are differing views on initial training others might not follow in lockstep with the FAA.

You need to understand, it’s not the 1500 hours that’s required, it’s the experience and judgement you acquire getting those hours.


And you need to understand that an FAA rule implemented after Colgan 3407 in 2009 doesn't suddenly make it the absolute gold standard and anyone who doesn't follow that path and that path alone is any less of a pilot. After all you do need to consider the amount of non Cessna training that a pilot goes through before ever setting foot inside an Airbus/Boeing flight deck even to do base training on said type. Unless you mean that airlines from around the world, from major international carriers to regional LCCs are conducting thousands of safe flight operations daily only due to sheer luck.


The "gold standard" that should be applied globally, and should have always been applied, is requiring an airline transport pilot level license for all airline pilots.

Every regional pilot, or aspiring regional pilot in the US should applaud the 1500 hour rule, it's resulted in significant increases in pay at that level.

There are decent, and not so decent ab initio and cadet programs, and then there is the push for MPL. I am fully aware of the "non Cessna" training pilots receive in these programs. These programs produce acceptable systems managers, they do not produce exceptional aviators. A pilot who isn't even qualified to carry passengers in a light airplane by themselves, has no business in an airline cockpit.

I spent several years as the FAA equivalent of a line training captain, and a line check airman before the 1500 hour rule, and have spent thousands of hours working with very low time airline pilots. Good people, but I don't want to be in the back when the captain becomes incapacitated, or the airplane develops serious problems.


So all you've got is burying your head in the sand and saying ''This is how we do it so it is the only way''. Noted
 
XRAYretired
Posts: 710
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:21 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:30 pm

AABusDrvr wrote:
TheF15Ace wrote:
AABusDrvr wrote:

No one has any illusion that the MAX is “just like an NG”. But as a guy who received his company designed, computer based MAX differences training, and was able to successfully fly a MAX. I’m curious exactly what everyone thinks needs to be trained in a simulator. If it’s ultimately required, I’ll attend whatever training is mandated, but I believe it will be a waste of all our time.


We should hear about it from EASA and possibly other regulating bodies before a RTS if they deem it necessary. Might not apply specifically to took you but just as there are differing views on initial training others might not follow in lockstep with the FAA.

You need to understand, it’s not the 1500 hours that’s required, it’s the experience and judgement you acquire getting those hours.


And you need to understand that an FAA rule implemented after Colgan 3407 in 2009 doesn't suddenly make it the absolute gold standard and anyone who doesn't follow that path and that path alone is any less of a pilot. After all you do need to consider the amount of non Cessna training that a pilot goes through before ever setting foot inside an Airbus/Boeing flight deck even to do base training on said type. Unless you mean that airlines from around the world, from major international carriers to regional LCCs are conducting thousands of safe flight operations daily only due to sheer luck.


The "gold standard" that should be applied globally, and should have always been applied, is requiring an airline transport pilot level license for all airline pilots.

Every regional pilot, or aspiring regional pilot in the US should applaud the 1500 hour rule, it's resulted in significant increases in pay at that level.

There are decent, and not so decent ab initio and cadet programs, and then there is the push for MPL. I am fully aware of the "non Cessna" training pilots receive in these programs. These programs produce acceptable systems managers, they do not produce exceptional aviators. A pilot who isn't even qualified to carry passengers in a light airplane by themselves, has no business in an airline cockpit.

I spent several years as the FAA equivalent of a line training captain, and a line check airman before the 1500 hour rule, and have spent thousands of hours working with very low time airline pilots. Good people, but I don't want to be in the back when the captain becomes incapacitated, or the airplane develops serious problems.

And you signed off the pilots you would not want to fly with?

Ray
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21878
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:45 pm

rheinwaldner wrote:
Revelation wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Langwiesche is a very experienced aviator and writer with many years at Atlantic and other publications. Cheap hit there.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Langewiesche

:checkmark:

People should do a little research.

It's open season on messengers these days: shoot first and ask questions later.

You are the only one mentioning the messenger. The posts you criticize talked about the content of that article and not the writer.

Nope, my reply was to viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1426007&start=3850#p21669569 where a poster criticized the writer's lack of experience, which is an absurd claim showing the poster did no research about the author or his background. Meanwhile the Der Spiegel article got praised as a must read even though it was attributed to "staff" presumably because they could not find anyone willing to risk their reputation by claiming authorship or the paper didn't want to help lawyers willing to sue them for publishing such dreck.

rheinwaldner wrote:
The article is rubish and could not have been written better by Boeing PR.

Fine, and you are entitled to your opinion as is Langewiesche, but to criticize him because he is inexperienced is absurd. Others actually wrote "Boeing is using the NYT for PR purposes only" so you've shown some cleverness for planting the accusation without clumsily stepping over the line like the other poster did. I'm still waiting to hear how Boeing was able to "use" NYT with regard to this story but utterly failed to prevent NYT from printing many stories that Boeing's PR department would not approve of, but all of a sudden things have gone quiet.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:05 pm

Revelation wrote:
I'm still waiting to hear how Boeing was able to "use" NYT with regard to this story but utterly failed to prevent NYT from printing many stories that Boeing's PR department would not approve of, but all of a sudden things have gone quiet.


For quite some time undesired information got out in scope of the 787 gestation.

Then things got quiet.
Apparently it takes time to plug leaks and
then "wine and dine" the investigative busybodies while impressing them ( or their bosses )
with the undesirability of those informations being made available to the wider public.
Murphy is an optimist
 
weezydrvr
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu May 10, 2018 5:43 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:25 pm

uta999 wrote:
The fact that some posters on here are saying the pilots are partly to blame just proves that the MAX was a complete dog to fly. If it was the same as an NG as Boeing sold it, then any pilot good or bad wouldn't have crashed it. Are you people dumb?


You’ve never actually flown a Max, have you?
 
AABusDrvr
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 6:48 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:43 pm

XRAYretired wrote:
AABusDrvr wrote:
TheF15Ace wrote:

We should hear about it from EASA and possibly other regulating bodies before a RTS if they deem it necessary. Might not apply specifically to took you but just as there are differing views on initial training others might not follow in lockstep with the FAA.



And you need to understand that an FAA rule implemented after Colgan 3407 in 2009 doesn't suddenly make it the absolute gold standard and anyone who doesn't follow that path and that path alone is any less of a pilot. After all you do need to consider the amount of non Cessna training that a pilot goes through before ever setting foot inside an Airbus/Boeing flight deck even to do base training on said type. Unless you mean that airlines from around the world, from major international carriers to regional LCCs are conducting thousands of safe flight operations daily only due to sheer luck.


The "gold standard" that should be applied globally, and should have always been applied, is requiring an airline transport pilot level license for all airline pilots.

Every regional pilot, or aspiring regional pilot in the US should applaud the 1500 hour rule, it's resulted in significant increases in pay at that level.

There are decent, and not so decent ab initio and cadet programs, and then there is the push for MPL. I am fully aware of the "non Cessna" training pilots receive in these programs. These programs produce acceptable systems managers, they do not produce exceptional aviators. A pilot who isn't even qualified to carry passengers in a light airplane by themselves, has no business in an airline cockpit.

I spent several years as the FAA equivalent of a line training captain, and a line check airman before the 1500 hour rule, and have spent thousands of hours working with very low time airline pilots. Good people, but I don't want to be in the back when the captain becomes incapacitated, or the airplane develops serious problems.

And you signed off the pilots you would not want to fly with?

Ray


The ones that met the standards, and I was convinced would be safe line pilots got signed off. When the overall experience of the new hires went way down, and the amount of line training they received almost doubled, I resigned my CKA letter. The job became too much work, and the exposure to unwanted attention from both the company and FAA was too high for what we were paid at the time.

In the 30+ years since I started, the regional industry has come full circle and then some. In the 80's, you couldn't get a job flying a Jetstream/Metroliner or Shorts with less than 2,000 hours total time. As a new hire, my class had a 50% washout rate. We got 25 hours of line training to figure things out, or we were out the door. If the training captain had to take the airplane away from you, that was an unsat, and the training manager would decide if you got sent back for additional training, or were let go.

Then the 90's brought "pay for training". Cut a check for north of $10 grand to the company the first day of training, but people were still lined up out the door for the jobs.

9/11 brought us the "lost decade" for American airline pilots. Very few jobs, very competitive.

When things picked up again, there wasn't anyone in the pipeline, so the airlines started scrambling. New hires could start from an approved 141 school with as little as 200 hours. However, the amount of simulator required to get them out to the line went up, and the amount of line training also had to increase. Some had as much as 100 hours of IOE before they were ready to go be line pilots.

Today, with the 1500 hour rule, regionals are paying huge bonuses to new hires, I've seen as much as $50K advertised. Some are hiring right into the left seat, or forcing first officers to upgrade to captain as soon as they meet the minimums.

I realize I'm in the minority here, but IMHO the only training that should be going on in any airliner full of people is learning the difference between the simulator and the airplane, and the specifics to the airlines route structure. Not teaching someone with very limited actual airplane flying experience, and some simulator experience how to really fly, and manage a 150,000' or bigger airplane.
 
morrisond
Posts: 1816
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:54 pm

AABusDrvr wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
AABusDrvr wrote:

The "gold standard" that should be applied globally, and should have always been applied, is requiring an airline transport pilot level license for all airline pilots.

Every regional pilot, or aspiring regional pilot in the US should applaud the 1500 hour rule, it's resulted in significant increases in pay at that level.

There are decent, and not so decent ab initio and cadet programs, and then there is the push for MPL. I am fully aware of the "non Cessna" training pilots receive in these programs. These programs produce acceptable systems managers, they do not produce exceptional aviators. A pilot who isn't even qualified to carry passengers in a light airplane by themselves, has no business in an airline cockpit.

I spent several years as the FAA equivalent of a line training captain, and a line check airman before the 1500 hour rule, and have spent thousands of hours working with very low time airline pilots. Good people, but I don't want to be in the back when the captain becomes incapacitated, or the airplane develops serious problems.

And you signed off the pilots you would not want to fly with?

Ray


The ones that met the standards, and I was convinced would be safe line pilots got signed off. When the overall experience of the new hires went way down, and the amount of line training they received almost doubled, I resigned my CKA letter. The job became too much work, and the exposure to unwanted attention from both the company and FAA was too high for what we were paid at the time.

In the 30+ years since I started, the regional industry has come full circle and then some. In the 80's, you couldn't get a job flying a Jetstream/Metroliner or Shorts with less than 2,000 hours total time. As a new hire, my class had a 50% washout rate. We got 25 hours of line training to figure things out, or we were out the door. If the training captain had to take the airplane away from you, that was an unsat, and the training manager would decide if you got sent back for additional training, or were let go.

Then the 90's brought "pay for training". Cut a check for north of $10 grand to the company the first day of training, but people were still lined up out the door for the jobs.

9/11 brought us the "lost decade" for American airline pilots. Very few jobs, very competitive.

When things picked up again, there wasn't anyone in the pipeline, so the airlines started scrambling. New hires could start from an approved 141 school with as little as 200 hours. However, the amount of simulator required to get them out to the line went up, and the amount of line training also had to increase. Some had as much as 100 hours of IOE before they were ready to go be line pilots.

Today, with the 1500 hour rule, regionals are paying huge bonuses to new hires, I've seen as much as $50K advertised. Some are hiring right into the left seat, or forcing first officers to upgrade to captain as soon as they meet the minimums.

I realize I'm in the minority here, but IMHO the only training that should be going on in any airliner full of people is learning the difference between the simulator and the airplane, and the specifics to the airlines route structure. Not teaching someone with very limited actual airplane flying experience, and some simulator experience how to really fly, and manage a 150,000' or bigger airplane.


Very well said.
 
morrisond
Posts: 1816
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:56 pm

weezydrvr wrote:
uta999 wrote:
The fact that some posters on here are saying the pilots are partly to blame just proves that the MAX was a complete dog to fly. If it was the same as an NG as Boeing sold it, then any pilot good or bad wouldn't have crashed it. Are you people dumb?


You’ve never actually flown a Max, have you?


Or looked at the NG crash stats. Many write offs. And BTW ET crashed one of those as well when the Pilot couldn't handle flying it without automation - see ET409.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2162
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:11 pm

AABusDrvr wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
AABusDrvr wrote:

The "gold standard" that should be applied globally, and should have always been applied, is requiring an airline transport pilot level license for all airline pilots.

Every regional pilot, or aspiring regional pilot in the US should applaud the 1500 hour rule, it's resulted in significant increases in pay at that level.

There are decent, and not so decent ab initio and cadet programs, and then there is the push for MPL. I am fully aware of the "non Cessna" training pilots receive in these programs. These programs produce acceptable systems managers, they do not produce exceptional aviators. A pilot who isn't even qualified to carry passengers in a light airplane by themselves, has no business in an airline cockpit.

I spent several years as the FAA equivalent of a line training captain, and a line check airman before the 1500 hour rule, and have spent thousands of hours working with very low time airline pilots. Good people, but I don't want to be in the back when the captain becomes incapacitated, or the airplane develops serious problems.

And you signed off the pilots you would not want to fly with?

Ray


The ones that met the standards, and I was convinced would be safe line pilots got signed off. When the overall experience of the new hires went way down, and the amount of line training they received almost doubled, I resigned my CKA letter. The job became too much work, and the exposure to unwanted attention from both the company and FAA was too high for what we were paid at the time.

In the 30+ years since I started, the regional industry has come full circle and then some. In the 80's, you couldn't get a job flying a Jetstream/Metroliner or Shorts with less than 2,000 hours total time. As a new hire, my class had a 50% washout rate. We got 25 hours of line training to figure things out, or we were out the door. If the training captain had to take the airplane away from you, that was an unsat, and the training manager would decide if you got sent back for additional training, or were let go.

Then the 90's brought "pay for training". Cut a check for north of $10 grand to the company the first day of training, but people were still lined up out the door for the jobs.

9/11 brought us the "lost decade" for American airline pilots. Very few jobs, very competitive.

When things picked up again, there wasn't anyone in the pipeline, so the airlines started scrambling. New hires could start from an approved 141 school with as little as 200 hours. However, the amount of simulator required to get them out to the line went up, and the amount of line training also had to increase. Some had as much as 100 hours of IOE before they were ready to go be line pilots.

Today, with the 1500 hour rule, regionals are paying huge bonuses to new hires, I've seen as much as $50K advertised. Some are hiring right into the left seat, or forcing first officers to upgrade to captain as soon as they meet the minimums.

I realize I'm in the minority here, but IMHO the only training that should be going on in any airliner full of people is learning the difference between the simulator and the airplane, and the specifics to the airlines route structure. Not teaching someone with very limited actual airplane flying experience, and some simulator experience how to really fly, and manage a 150,000' or bigger airplane.

I guess you can tell a similar story about many thing. Writing - remember those days when there were only few literate people and who had the REAL handwriting skill? (well, not me - that was hundreds years ago). In a medieval town s mith was The Man - how machinist is a routine job. Drivers, who had to know - as a bare minimum - how to deal with carburetor in field.. When was the last time you opened a hood on your car? Few other things come to mind. Why should it be different for pilots? One may dream that 100 years from now everyone has a flying car (probably not going to happen, but to put hings into perspective)
 
AABusDrvr
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 6:48 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:26 pm

kalvado wrote:
AABusDrvr wrote:
XRAYretired wrote:
And you signed off the pilots you would not want to fly with?

Ray


The ones that met the standards, and I was convinced would be safe line pilots got signed off. When the overall experience of the new hires went way down, and the amount of line training they received almost doubled, I resigned my CKA letter. The job became too much work, and the exposure to unwanted attention from both the company and FAA was too high for what we were paid at the time.

In the 30+ years since I started, the regional industry has come full circle and then some. In the 80's, you couldn't get a job flying a Jetstream/Metroliner or Shorts with less than 2,000 hours total time. As a new hire, my class had a 50% washout rate. We got 25 hours of line training to figure things out, or we were out the door. If the training captain had to take the airplane away from you, that was an unsat, and the training manager would decide if you got sent back for additional training, or were let go.

Then the 90's brought "pay for training". Cut a check for north of $10 grand to the company the first day of training, but people were still lined up out the door for the jobs.

9/11 brought us the "lost decade" for American airline pilots. Very few jobs, very competitive.

When things picked up again, there wasn't anyone in the pipeline, so the airlines started scrambling. New hires could start from an approved 141 school with as little as 200 hours. However, the amount of simulator required to get them out to the line went up, and the amount of line training also had to increase. Some had as much as 100 hours of IOE before they were ready to go be line pilots.

Today, with the 1500 hour rule, regionals are paying huge bonuses to new hires, I've seen as much as $50K advertised. Some are hiring right into the left seat, or forcing first officers to upgrade to captain as soon as they meet the minimums.

I realize I'm in the minority here, but IMHO the only training that should be going on in any airliner full of people is learning the difference between the simulator and the airplane, and the specifics to the airlines route structure. Not teaching someone with very limited actual airplane flying experience, and some simulator experience how to really fly, and manage a 150,000' or bigger airplane.

I guess you can tell a similar story about many thing. Writing - remember those days when there were only few literate people and who had the REAL handwriting skill? (well, not me - that was hundreds years ago). In a medieval town s mith was The Man - how machinist is a routine job. Drivers, who had to know - as a bare minimum - how to deal with carburetor in field.. When was the last time you opened a hood on your car? Few other things come to mind. Why should it be different for pilots? One may dream that 100 years from now everyone has a flying car (probably not going to happen, but to put hings into perspective)


You wont get any argument from me there. I know what the future will bring, I may not agree with it, or think it's the safest thing to do, but no one asked me.

I can say that in just over 10 years time when I set the parking brake, and call for the shutdown checklist for the last time, I will be spending as little time as possible as a passenger, and I'll be very selective about what airlines we ride on.
 
art
Posts: 2991
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:36 pm

From the Reuters article - Dickson is the FAA boss:

The FAA has been reviewing proposed software and training changes from Boeing Co (BA.N) for months and it remains uncertain when Boeing will conduct a certification test flight, a step needed before its best-selling plane can fly again.

In a telephone interview with Reuters, Dickson laid out a series of steps that must happen before the certification test flight, adding it should then take about another month before the FAA could allow flights to resume absent unforeseen circumstances.


This makes me think that FAA approval for RTS will not be before November at the earliest. I guess more likely not before December 2019 or January 2020. Will Boeing be pushed into reducing the production rate soon or just put up with the continual drain on cash until whenever?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21878
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:43 pm

WIederling wrote:
Revelation wrote:
I'm still waiting to hear how Boeing was able to "use" NYT with regard to this story but utterly failed to prevent NYT from printing many stories that Boeing's PR department would not approve of, but all of a sudden things have gone quiet.


For quite some time undesired information got out in scope of the 787 gestation.

Then things got quiet.
Apparently it takes time to plug leaks and
then "wine and dine" the investigative busybodies while impressing them ( or their bosses )
with the undesirability of those informations being made available to the wider public.

Please do tell us how you know this to be true so we can be sure that you are not just making stuff up.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21878
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:52 pm

kalvado wrote:
I guess you can tell a similar story about many thing. Writing - remember those days when there were only few literate people and who had the REAL handwriting skill? (well, not me - that was hundreds years ago). In a medieval town s mith was The Man - how machinist is a routine job. Drivers, who had to know - as a bare minimum - how to deal with carburetor in field.. When was the last time you opened a hood on your car? Few other things come to mind. Why should it be different for pilots? One may dream that 100 years from now everyone has a flying car (probably not going to happen, but to put hings into perspective)

Because the consequences of not being able to write in a largely illiterate society, or bash metal, or fix a carb on the side of the road, aren't very harsh and don't happen very swiftly.

The consequences of not being able to keep up with the airplane can become very harsh very quickly.

Even if the automation advances tremendously, there's still going to be unpredictable failure modes, and all that is left is the hope that the airmanship of the pilot is adequate to the task.

There's no pulling over to the side of the road and sorting things out when the spam hits the fan.

Even if the automation has a mode to return to base when the spam has hit the fan, there's no guarantee that it will work all the time.

And before anyone gets triggered, please keep in mind both Boeing and FAA both have admitted that MCAS 1.0 put too much work on the pilots.

The problem is that we still depend on pilots having strong airmanship skills, and as was posted a page or two earlier, the airline's insistence that pilots use the automation all the time is a recipe for future disasters.
Last edited by Revelation on Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
cuban8
Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 7:17 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:01 pm

We should seriously open up a topic about worldwide pilot training, minimum requirement(s) and certification process.....
I find it strange that this thread is still debating training issues and third world pilot flying ability. These issues have been around for decades, but on a.net it sounds like these problems just emerged six month ago when the MAX got grounded. Pilot training is a very big and important topic to discuss and should in my opinion not take away the attention from the more fundamental problems of the MAX.
When business goes to hell, you get rid of three things. Your private jet, your yacht and your mistress..........and most importantly in that order.
~ Russian Billionaire ~
 
kalvado
Posts: 2162
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:42 pm

Revelation wrote:
kalvado wrote:
I guess you can tell a similar story about many thing. Writing - remember those days when there were only few literate people and who had the REAL handwriting skill? (well, not me - that was hundreds years ago). In a medieval town s mith was The Man - how machinist is a routine job. Drivers, who had to know - as a bare minimum - how to deal with carburetor in field.. When was the last time you opened a hood on your car? Few other things come to mind. Why should it be different for pilots? One may dream that 100 years from now everyone has a flying car (probably not going to happen, but to put hings into perspective)

Because the consequences of not being able to write in a largely illiterate society, or bash metal, or fix a carb on the side of the road, aren't very harsh and don't happen very swiftly.

The consequences of not being able to keep up with the airplane can become very harsh very quickly.

Even if the automation advances tremendously, there's still going to be unpredictable failure modes, and all that is left is the hope that the airmanship of the pilot is adequate to the task.

There's no pulling over to the side of the road and sorting things out when the spam hits the fan.

Even if the automation has a mode to return to base when the spam has hit the fan, there's no guarantee that it will work all the time.

And before anyone gets triggered, please keep in mind both Boeing and FAA both have admitted that MCAS 1.0 put too much work on the pilots.

The problem is that we still depend on pilots having strong airmanship skills, and as was posted a page or two earlier, the airline's insistence that pilots use the automation all the time is a recipe for future disasters.

This is usually how people talk to justify above-average paycheck only to find themselves collecting unemployment benefits at some point. Numerous elite specialties are becoming a daily job; pilots are half way there, if you think about it.
 
pasen
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:03 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:37 pm

uta999 wrote:
The fact that some posters on here are saying the pilots are partly to blame just proves that the MAX was a complete dog to fly. If it was the same as an NG as Boeing sold it, then any pilot good or bad wouldn't have crashed it. Are you people dumb?


Yes, it's funny how some posters constantly ignore that simple fact.

morrisond wrote:
Or looked at the NG crash stats. Many write offs. And BTW ET crashed one of those as well when the Pilot couldn't handle flying it without automation - see ET409.


Which NG crash stats are you talking about? This one that indicates, a MAX is about 50 times more likely to crash than a NG despite the fact that the pilots flying them have exactly the same training?
http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm

As a frequent flyer, I have absolutely no problem if pilots get better training. But stop using that topic to distract from the real problems that lead to the MAX grounding.

cuban8 wrote:
We should seriously open up a topic about worldwide pilot training, minimum requirement(s) and certification process.....
I find it strange that this thread is still debating training issues and third world pilot flying ability. These issues have been around for decades, but on a.net it sounds like these problems just emerged six month ago when the MAX got grounded. Pilot training is a very big and important topic to discuss and should in my opinion not take away the attention from the more fundamental problems of the MAX.


Exactly, and if the posters who constantly bring up training issues would actually be interested in a serious discussion about that topic, then they would have started a separate thread to discuss it.
Last edited by pasen on Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
NightStar
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu May 09, 2019 11:17 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 10:26 pm

uta999 wrote:
The fact that some posters on here are saying the pilots are partly to blame just proves that the MAX was a complete dog to fly. If it was the same as an NG as Boeing sold it, then any pilot good or bad wouldn't have crashed it. Are you people dumb?


I rather agree with this for the most part. Boeing's error was creating such a system in the first place. I find the idea that a computer can take control of a plane and leave little to no way to override it frightening. Emergency warnings and controls are one thing, but taking over the flight? Just wow.

All aspects of known potential emergency situations should be CRYSTAL clear to all pilots to the best of human possibility.
 
morrisond
Posts: 1816
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 10:51 pm

pasen wrote:
uta999 wrote:
The fact that some posters on here are saying the pilots are partly to blame just proves that the MAX was a complete dog to fly. If it was the same as an NG as Boeing sold it, then any pilot good or bad wouldn't have crashed it. Are you people dumb?


Yes, it's funny how some posters constantly ignore that simple fact.

morrisond wrote:
Or looked at the NG crash stats. Many write offs. And BTW ET crashed one of those as well when the Pilot couldn't handle flying it without automation - see ET409.


Which NG crash stats are you talking about? This one that indicates, a MAX is about 50 times more likely to crash than a NG despite the fact that the pilots flying them have exactly the same training?
http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm

As a frequent flyer, I have absolutely no problem if pilots get better training. But stop using that topic to distract from the real problems that lead to the MAX grounding.

cuban8 wrote:
We should seriously open up a topic about worldwide pilot training, minimum requirement(s) and certification process.....
I find it strange that this thread is still debating training issues and third world pilot flying ability. These issues have been around for decades, but on a.net it sounds like these problems just emerged six month ago when the MAX got grounded. Pilot training is a very big and important topic to discuss and should in my opinion not take away the attention from the more fundamental problems of the MAX.


Exactly, and if the posters who constantly bring up training issues would actually be interested in a serious discussion about that topic, then they would have started a separate thread to discuss it.


Well if people would stop insisting that Boeing's piss poor design was the only reason these two flights resulted in fatal crashes then people wouldn't keep reminding them that there are other factors as well.

Regulators that weren't doing their jobs and Training systems that are turning out inadequately trained pilots to deal with emergency situations were also significant contributors. This is not a third world issue only - this would apply to airlines like AF as well.

That stat on the MAX being about 50x more likely to crash is a fallacy. Yes that is the stat for the MAX up until the point it was grounded but after MCAS is fixed it will most likely return to NG levels going forward.

It will also be impossible to know what the stat would have been if the Boeing MCAS procedure had been successfully taught/learned and MCAS was never fixed either although that was never going to happen as Boeing started working on MCAS 2.0 right after Lionair.

Lionair was a real tragedy - ET should never have happened in a properly functioning worldwide training system. That needs to be fixed just as much as MCAS - however it will never happen before the ungrounding happens unless people make enough noise.

Yes there can be a separate discussion - however if people keep insisting that there are no other contributing factors People like myself will keep posting in here as we have every right too.
 
jwjsamster
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:12 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 11:09 pm

Don't know if this had already been posted but it looks like Boeing is compensating Icelandair for the MAX groundings, can we expect something similar for other MAX operators?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-to- ... 1569017157
 
sgrow787
Posts: 326
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 8:12 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 11:10 pm

pasen wrote:
n562wn wrote:
We have actual pilots with thousands of hours of experience flying planes telling you that the crews could have recovered the plane or not let it get into a state that was unrecoverable, but somehow people like you know better.


No you're not getting it. Nobody denies that "better" pilots could potentially have prevented the accidents. But what people are trying to explain to you is, it is completely irrelevant. From all the pilots that are certified to fly a 737, roughly half of them have above-average skills and the other half has below-average skills. That is simple statistics. But the airplane must be designed so that ANY certified pilot can fly it safely, not just the elite.

This! And I'll add that the reason the Max discussion is so binary is simple:
(1) We're at the apex of the saga where the Max is about to be ungrounded, Boeing and the FAA are positioning themselves to go It alone, ignoring EASA
(2) There's been no sign to date that Boeing and the FAA are backing down from their initial premise that pilot performance was a valid input for determining the safety assessment that allowed a one sensor design to be certified, and
(3) Because of (1) and (2) there is added push by the Boeing PR machine to get the idea out that competent pilots exist that could have saved the planes.

So, for those of us in engineering, aerospace especially, who know how safe systems get designed and implemented, its particularly important for us to stand up and point out the elephant in the room: two crashes happened on a plane that never should have been certified to begin with.
Just one sensor,
Oh just one se-en-sor,
Just one sensor,
Ooh ooh oo-ooh
Oo-oo-ooh.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9232
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Fri Sep 20, 2019 11:34 pm

NightStar wrote:
I find the idea that a computer can take control of a plane and leave little to no way to override it frightening. Emergency warnings and controls are one thing, but taking over the flight? Just wow.

All aspects of known potential emergency situations should be CRYSTAL clear to all pilots to the best of human possibility.

The 737 is probably the last commercial a/c that computers do not run, all other Boeing a/c are FBW, and if you look at Airbus a/c with their FBW system there are a number of LAW's , so what you are talking about already exist and in some cases, pilots do have to let the computer know that they want to do something or the computer won't let them. Actually they are safety measures to prevent pilots from doing things that are not safe for the pax onboard.
 
snowkarl
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri May 24, 2019 7:48 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Sat Sep 21, 2019 1:23 am

Revelation wrote:
MSPNWA wrote:
The NYT article has exposed the binary narrative we're seeing from certain parties. Even though the NYT author was highly critical of all parties involved, that's not acceptable to some. If you're not placing 100% of blame in one certain direction and 0% in every other, you're a PR man, hit piece author, not credible, etc. Sad. It's exposing extreme bias, but they don't care.

Indeed, it has exposed the "fear of absolution complex" present in the minds of many posters here.

Giving an inch with regard to questioning the pilot's actions is equated to giving a mile, so it's just not an option for some, despite it exposing their absence of objectivity.

For the millionth time: no one is saying the pilots could not have, by any stretch of the imagination, done anything better than they did.

But you very well know this, because it has been explained to you by dozens of posters, dozens of times, already.

The reason people don't want to give you and Morrisond (& co) this 'inch' is because you not only saying it was a small part of the crash, but the MAIN factor - when this is so obviously not the case and not even relevant to the discussion anymore.

The ONLY reason the plane crashed is the software and hardware design flaws that Boeing not only implemented, but lied about and hid from customers, airines and PILOTS. This is undeniable fact however you spin it.

Proof is in the extremely easy comparison to the similar NG aircraft: they are not crashing left and right like the MAX did - despite having THE SAME TRAINING AND PILOTS - it was the ENTIRE reason Boeing even designed the MAX with the flaws - so there would be no difference in practice.

I'd like to ask where the mods are in this thread? Thread ban for derailment should be on the cards at some point, surely.
 
sgrow787
Posts: 326
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 8:12 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q3 2019

Sat Sep 21, 2019 4:45 am

PixelFlight wrote:
Question about the horizontal stabilizer trim neutralization:

In both JT610 and ET302 the published flight data records shows that when the pilots used manual electrical stabilizer trim switches to command a nose up after a MCAS automated nose down command, there seem to have difficulties to trim nose up long enough to fully neutralize the horizontal stabilizer to the point where the yoke pitch can be relaxed by both pilots. I see this difficulty as one of the Emmental cheese holes that aligned in the crashes. My understanding is that the pilots very routinely use the electric stab trim switches in any flights, so there are perfectly familiar with them. But the JT610 and ET302 records suggests something like hesitations to continues the stab trim up, and/or a lack of perception on the necessity to continue the stab trim up. Do we have some explanations about this ?

I was speculating that maybe if both pilots applies pitch forces on the yoke, the one that switch the electrical stab trim up might stop when he feel that his pitch force on the yoke disappear, regardless of the pitch force that the other pilot can still apply to the yoke. In consequences the stab trim could not be easily fully neutralized in case both pilots applies pitch force on the yoke.


I believe I read somewhere that, as the Max hits higher and higher airspeed, it has a pitch up moment (from the engine nacelles?) that need counter stab trim (down) to keep desired flight path. This is evident in the down electric trim inputs made by the pilot of ET302 at 05:38:50 ~ :39:20, which is during climbout but before flaps retracted (ie before MCAS kicked in) Of course, the other reason for down trim is fear of stall as warned by the stick shaker. IIRC ET302 did not have a working AOA disagree light. If they had one, they could have immediately diagnosed a possible MCAS 1.0 before it started. Also, as far as I can tell, there's been no reports that Southwest got their current Max fleet retrofitted with the working AOA disagree light.
Just one sensor,
Oh just one se-en-sor,
Just one sensor,
Ooh ooh oo-ooh
Oo-oo-ooh.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos