shmerik wrote:

morrisond wrote:

No that is not what I said - I said I expected they would have crashed an NG that had a control issue (anything out of the ordinary) that day as well. I would extend that to any aircraft that they flew with a control issue.

Stop misrepresenting what I said.

People still can't get the basic concept that the crash rate is going down because planes are getting more reliable - not because Pilot's are getting any better.

If Pilot's actually had the abilities they were supposed to have It's possible we might not have seen any fatal crashes for quite some time.

OK - same difference, as pilots still encounter control difficulties at the same rate that they have been, let's see if the accident rate shoots up due to inexperienced crews

sgbroimp wrote:

Listen folks, lets take a poll right now: Keeping the Max out of the picture, would you book your wife as a passenger on an NG or any other line aircraft with a Lion Air crew?
(I would not as there are serious doubts that the average LA crew could handle much of any curve ball the aircraft or the weatherman throws at them.)

bgm wrote:

sgbroimp wrote:

Listen folks, lets take a poll right now: Keeping the Max out of the picture, would you book your wife as a passenger on an NG or any other line aircraft with a Lion Air crew?
(I would not as there are serious doubts that the average LA crew could handle much of any curve ball the aircraft or the weatherman throws at them.)

What if you don't have a wife?

sgbroimp wrote:

Listen folks, lets take a poll right now: Keeping the Max out of the picture, would you book your wife as a passenger on an NG or any other line aircraft with a Lion Air crew?

morrisond wrote:

shmerik wrote:

767333ER wrote:

But should they not be in a cockpit that day or should they not be in the cockpit of a 737 MAX 8 that day? If they were flying a 737NG that day would they have crashed?

I look at it this way, a standard of training and quality exists in the pilot group of said airline long before the MAX has existed. It has lead to accidents over the years with some fatalities. It is logical to assume many lapses in safety happened that we will never find out about, this happens at every airline no matter how good or poor their training is. We can see over many years a statistical rate of how likely and incident is to happen and this has existed long before the MAX did.

Taking this notion, how has it changed with the introduction of the MAX? It seems to have gotten worse. The training quality was not good after the MAX and was not good with the MAX making it fairly constant and not as relevant in the discussion as the MAX itself because there is no evidence to show it has changed. What did happen is a new type was introduced that increased risk and we can see with poor training practices how badly it has. Again those poor practices are pre-existing so in the context of this crash it primarily is the MAX at fault and if we are talking strictly about ungrounding then it is Boeing that has to fulfill demands to achieve ungrounding, not airlines and their training. That is not to say that we can learn from this case about how to train and how not to train, but that’s something that there are plenty of examples of and really is nothing new. A new type shouldn't bring out failures in human factors that the outgoing design didn’t, especially In the context where they are considered the same. This is the issue that chiefly matters.

Well put.

It's as simple as this - if training has degraded to the point where there are crews are regularly put into the cockpit in a state in which they would crash any model aircraft (as morrison elaborated he believes the Lion Air crew would have crashed any plane they flew that day) then we should expect to see the accident rate skyrocket in the near future. As far as I'm aware there hasn't been any such increase after the MAX has been grounded, but time will tell...

No that is not what I said - I said I expected they would have crashed an NG that had a control issue (anything out of the ordinary) that day as well. I would extend that to any aircraft that they flew with a control issue.

Stop misrepresenting what I said.

People still can't get the basic concept that the crash rate is going down because planes are getting more reliable - not because Pilot's are getting any better.

If Pilot's actually had the abilities they were supposed to have It's possible we might not have seen any fatal crashes for quite some time.

morrisond wrote:

Yes I believe that crew on that day if they were faced with anything out of the ordinary that relied on memory procedures or taking manual control of an NG would have crashed it as well.

morrisond wrote:

sgbroimp wrote:

Listen folks, lets take a poll right now: Keeping the Max out of the picture, would you book your wife as a passenger on an NG or any other line aircraft with a Lion Air crew?
(I would not as there are serious doubts that the average LA crew could handle much of any curve ball the aircraft or the weatherman throws at them.)

NO

I'll be amazed but not surprised if anyone says Yes for if they don't that would destroy the narrative that Boeing is the only one to fault in these disasters.

If asked that question of many of the Boeing is the only one to fault crew and none of them will answer that question - which I take as a NO.

shmerik wrote:

morrisond wrote:

sgbroimp wrote:

Listen folks, lets take a poll right now: Keeping the Max out of the picture, would you book your wife as a passenger on an NG or any other line aircraft with a Lion Air crew?
(I would not as there are serious doubts that the average LA crew could handle much of any curve ball the aircraft or the weatherman throws at them.)

NO

I'll be amazed but not surprised if anyone says Yes for if they don't that would destroy the narrative that Boeing is the only one to fault in these disasters.

If asked that question of many of the Boeing is the only one to fault crew and none of them will answer that question - which I take as a NO.

After some brief searching on incidents at Lion Air and at Delta/Spirit (airlines I fly on most frequently) I'd say I'm fine with a family member or myself riding on a non-MAX Lion Air flight.

Seriously? Willing to write off an entire airline because a single crew crashed a plane that had an undocumented feature forcing the nose into the ground?

mmo wrote:

Again, having worked in countries similar to Indonesia, training, recurrent training and LPC/OPC process is very different than it is in more developed countries. Yes, Boeing dropped the ball on MCAS and the lack of system description. Perhaps their assumption of the situation would drive pilots to the NNC runaway trim checklist. But, MCAS malfunctions have occurred in developed countries without similar results and those countries have a very different approach to training than other regions of the world. And that's a good thing.

dtw2hyd wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Yes I believe that crew on that day if they were faced with anything out of the ordinary that relied on memory procedures or taking manual control of an NG would have crashed it as well.

The same captain flew 5100 hrs safely and FO flew 4000 hrs safely on NG. I am sure they faced and resolved their share of issues over 9000 hrs of combined NG flying.

Third world airlines don't write their own manual and train their crew on FSX. Civil aviation is one area where countries/airlines blindly follow manufacturers' recommendations. They may pick the easy options within recommended options. And, they spend $Millions on crew training.

You will have a hard time pinning blame on FO because of "one sneeze" and one "which memory item" phrase.

oschkosch wrote:

Second hearing is underway. DM just confirmed that he is to be held accountable but still earns 30 Million $ per year and has not had a pay cut!

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk

aerolimani wrote:

mmo wrote:

Again, having worked in countries similar to Indonesia, training, recurrent training and LPC/OPC process is very different than it is in more developed countries. Yes, Boeing dropped the ball on MCAS and the lack of system description. Perhaps their assumption of the situation would drive pilots to the NNC runaway trim checklist. But, MCAS malfunctions have occurred in developed countries without similar results and those countries have a very different approach to training than other regions of the world. And that's a good thing.

Do you have a source to back up that claim? I’ve not read about any other MCAS incidents having occurred besides the two accidents and the one other Lion Air flight.

Unless you can offer up some proof, then your claim is baseless.

Speaking of developed countries, let’s not forget that it was an Air Camada crew who very nearly caused the all-time worst civil aviation accident. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_759

767333ER wrote:

morrisond wrote:

shmerik wrote:

Well put.

It's as simple as this - if training has degraded to the point where there are crews are regularly put into the cockpit in a state in which they would crash any model aircraft (as morrison elaborated he believes the Lion Air crew would have crashed any plane they flew that day) then we should expect to see the accident rate skyrocket in the near future. As far as I'm aware there hasn't been any such increase after the MAX has been grounded, but time will tell...

No that is not what I said - I said I expected they would have crashed an NG that had a control issue (anything out of the ordinary) that day as well. I would extend that to any aircraft that they flew with a control issue.

Stop misrepresenting what I said.

People still can't get the basic concept that the crash rate is going down because planes are getting more reliable - not because Pilot's are getting any better.

If Pilot's actually had the abilities they were supposed to have It's possible we might not have seen any fatal crashes for quite some time.

You say you expect which is fair, but I do not expect such because a control failure on a 737NG for example will not involve a system that has no information published about it in the manual or malfunctions in a way that was not understood at the time. We cannot prove much by saying what if we changed the crew or what if the crew was on a different type of control failure. What we can prove is that if the MAX is taken out in the context of is accident and replaced by a 737NG for example an accident of this nature most certainly would not have happened. It would just follow the same level of rust any Lion Air flight goes by and that would most likely have not resulted in an accident.

Crash rates are going down because aircraft are getting designed with less allowance for risk, not necessarily because they are more reliable because that points more towards maintenance or issues that don’t cause accidents. Right now the A220 is unreliable due to engine issues, yet it it’s statistically safer than the 737 MAX.

I am reaffirming your statement that pilots are not getting better, although in some ways they are. You are mostly right which furthers my point that the chiefly relevant topic here is the 737 MAX design and not the crew because the MAX is the variable that has changed from the past.

morrisond wrote:

I highly doubt that on that day that crew could have handled a normal runaway elevator possibly brought upon by a mechanical failure on an NG. At the end of the flight - how did it not present as Runaway Elevator to the co-pilot? The elevator was all the way down, the controls were incredibly heavy - why was he not trimming more? Do you really think that after 22 times that the possibility it was something about the elevator not doing what it should do and turning it off is not a reasonable expectation? Or should the design have fault tolerant enough to get to 23?

bgm wrote:

sgbroimp wrote:

Listen folks, lets take a poll right now: Keeping the Max out of the picture, would you book your wife as a passenger on an NG or any other line aircraft with a Lion Air crew?
(I would not as there are serious doubts that the average LA crew could handle much of any curve ball the aircraft or the weatherman throws at them.)

What if you don't have a wife?

hivue wrote:

morrisond wrote:

I highly doubt that on that day that crew could have handled a normal runaway elevator possibly brought upon by a mechanical failure on an NG. At the end of the flight - how did it not present as Runaway Elevator to the co-pilot? The elevator was all the way down, the controls were incredibly heavy - why was he not trimming more? Do you really think that after 22 times that the possibility it was something about the elevator not doing what it should do and turning it off is not a reasonable expectation? Or should the design have fault tolerant enough to get to 23?

It's the pitch trim that "runs away," not the elevator.

This kind of gets to the heart of the matter, I think. In an NG with a case of runaway pitch trim it's likely that both the JT and ET crews would have gotten the airplanes on the ground safely, although it may very well have looked pretty ugly compared to what better trained crews at other airlines would have done. But with MCAS, no way. There was very little chance they would be able to cope with that, and in fact they didn't.

bgm wrote:

sgbroimp wrote:

Listen folks, lets take a poll right now: Keeping the Max out of the picture, would you book your wife as a passenger on an NG or any other line aircraft with a Lion Air crew?
(I would not as there are serious doubts that the average LA crew could handle much of any curve ball the aircraft or the weatherman throws at them.)

What if you don't have a wife?

morrisond wrote:

hivue wrote:

morrisond wrote:

I highly doubt that on that day that crew could have handled a normal runaway elevator possibly brought upon by a mechanical failure on an NG. At the end of the flight - how did it not present as Runaway Elevator to the co-pilot? The elevator was all the way down, the controls were incredibly heavy - why was he not trimming more? Do you really think that after 22 times that the possibility it was something about the elevator not doing what it should do and turning it off is not a reasonable expectation? Or should the design have fault tolerant enough to get to 23?

It's the pitch trim that "runs away," not the elevator.

This kind of gets to the heart of the matter, I think. In an NG with a case of runaway pitch trim it's likely that both the JT and ET crews would have gotten the airplanes on the ground safely, although it may very well have looked pretty ugly compared to what better trained crews at other airlines would have done. But with MCAS, no way. There was very little chance they would be able to cope with that, and in fact they didn't.

Yes - sorry runaway pitch trim.

I'll ignore JT for now as neither of us could say for sure what would have happened - we just have our beliefs.

ET is a lot easier though to say they would not have saved an NG with runaway trim either.

After MCAS had activated a few times on ET and they turned off the trim switches they would have been at the same condition as runaway trim on an NG with the Electric trim off - yet they did not save it.

Failure to put the plane back in trim before hitting switches/Failure to control airspeed/ possibly not being familiar with the backup trim system (same as on the NG), manual trim system possibly not working due to excessive speed would have caused them to crash an NG as well - for if they had turned the switches back on an NG the runaway pitch trim would have resumed resulting in putting them in the ground faster as it would have been one continuous pitch change motion.

They would not have saved an NG either.

morrisond wrote:

767333ER wrote:

morrisond wrote:

No that is not what I said - I said I expected they would have crashed an NG that had a control issue (anything out of the ordinary) that day as well. I would extend that to any aircraft that they flew with a control issue.

Stop misrepresenting what I said.

People still can't get the basic concept that the crash rate is going down because planes are getting more reliable - not because Pilot's are getting any better.

If Pilot's actually had the abilities they were supposed to have It's possible we might not have seen any fatal crashes for quite some time.

You say you expect which is fair, but I do not expect such because a control failure on a 737NG for example will not involve a system that has no information published about it in the manual or malfunctions in a way that was not understood at the time. We cannot prove much by saying what if we changed the crew or what if the crew was on a different type of control failure. What we can prove is that if the MAX is taken out in the context of is accident and replaced by a 737NG for example an accident of this nature most certainly would not have happened. It would just follow the same level of rust any Lion Air flight goes by and that would most likely have not resulted in an accident.

Crash rates are going down because aircraft are getting designed with less allowance for risk, not necessarily because they are more reliable because that points more towards maintenance or issues that don’t cause accidents. Right now the A220 is unreliable due to engine issues, yet it it’s statistically safer than the 737 MAX.

I am reaffirming your statement that pilots are not getting better, although in some ways they are. You are mostly right which furthers my point that the chiefly relevant topic here is the 737 MAX design and not the crew because the MAX is the variable that has changed from the past.

You can say if you take a particular plane out of the Equation on almost any accident the result would have been different.

I highly doubt that on that day that crew could have handled a normal runaway elevator possibly brought upon by a mechanical failure on an NG. At the end of the flight - how did it not present as Runaway Elevator to the co-pilot? The elevator was all the way down, the controls were incredibly heavy - why was he not trimming more? Do you really think that after 22 times that the possibility it was something about the elevator not doing what it should do and turning it off is not a reasonable expectation? Or should the design have fault tolerant enough to get to 23?

OK - designed with less allowance for risk instead of more reliable - I'm fine with that wording.

morrisond wrote:

PixelFlight wrote:

Simply false: ET409 did not have "Automation breaks".

PixelFlight wrote:

morrisond wrote:

PixelFlight wrote:

Simply false: ET409 did not have "Automation breaks".

I corrected what I wrote that one time saying ET409 was a failure of Automation - I must have been suffering from Brain fade at that particular time. I described it properly many other times. The ET409 Captain flew a perfectly good airplane with all systems working into the ground in manual flight which is even worse as there was no systems failures to blame the crash on. He went through training at about the same time as the ET302 Captain.

Your are just doing pure provocation on a thread where you perfectly known by the time that many contributors did not share your view. To make that you simply apply the definition you like to defend your point of view.

There is a lot of officials documents now that perfectly describes how the MCAS was not designed with enough safety and how that design did work exactly as badly designed. There was no break of automation, the automation was bad without any breakage of it.

MartijnNL wrote:

morrisond wrote:

I totally second the 1,500 Hour requirement - with at least a few hundred in an actual aircraft and recurring training as well.

Having 200 hours and being put into a 737 is insane.

Not this again.

Installing MCAS on the 737 without telling anyone, that's insane.

art wrote:

MartijnNL wrote:

morrisond wrote:

I totally second the 1,500 Hour requirement - with at least a few hundred in an actual aircraft and recurring training as well.

Having 200 hours and being put into a 737 is insane.

Not this again.

Installing MCAS on the 737 without telling anyone, that's insane.

Agreed. Were it any other OEM's product it would be equally condemnable.

What I find extremely tiresome is to read partisan nonsense critiicising/defending an OEM with no regard to being objective. It seems to me that there are many here incapable of objective analysis. For example, if an aircraft sadly crashes, there are many here whose first reaction is not to look at the facts and to attribute fault accordingly. Their first reaction is to identity the OEM and to respond positively or negatively accordingly. Such responses are more or less worthless.

Judgement determined by prejudice has little or no value.

AirBoat wrote:

The Lion air pilot with the flu was pulling 105lbs on the yoke at times. That is pretty impressive for a sick guy.
The answer is maybe more simple. The pilots simply got tired of pulling back on the yokes.
When you have to pull that hard on the yoke, I do not think you are in a position to think of much else.
I would suggest that a learning experience would be for anyone to go the the gym, pick up a barbell keeping your arms bent and see how long you can hold it. 60 seconds??

From what I could gather, stick shaker, increases yoke force by a factor of 4, mcas increases yoke force by unknown amount and being out of trim increases yoke force.

I guess only national side rugby forwards need apply to be 737 pilots. the 50kg ladies should stick to airbus.
Looking at the possible yoke forces, how many current 737 pilots are strong enough?

intrance wrote:

Oh man, the discussion here is hilarious about whether or not to fly on the MAX again if it is deemed safe, or whether or not you would fly on Lion Air.

Humans have preferences. They may be based on pure emotion, perceived facts, gut feelings, hearsay, or whatever. That's all fine. Just don't go stating your preferences as a precursor to a fact ("I'm would never fly Lion Air, they are not safe"). There are idiots of every level, in every single airline in every single country of the world. You may not be aware of it, because you have no access to their training records before taking the flight, or experienced their personalities before the flight. Yet I can assure you that even in the big three US airlines there are plenty of idiots flying around, and it is easier for corporations to let them keep flying than to make another investment in a new pilot. HR departments and training will definitely not filter out all the idiots. Some even showed up in the NASA database, taking planes into the air which they did not know the systems of after their 1-hour iPad training and who were basically spending their flight thinking those famous words "what is it doing now". But aside from those, there will be plenty who have failed their command checks multiple times, who have had trouble during training, who have made mistakes in flight that have never been reported...

So... keep feeling safe in your bubble of "would never happen here because training". All that shows is that you do not know aviation history and have not learned from it. Idiots have been around everywhere and will be around everywhere, and a bad day can happen anywhere to any single pilot roaming the skies.

aerolimani wrote:

Do you have a source to back up that claim? I’ve not read about any other MCAS incidents having occurred besides the two accidents and the one other Lion Air flight.

Unless you can offer up some proof, then your claim is baseless.

Speaking of developed countries, let’s not forget that it was an Air Camada crew who very nearly caused the all-time worst civil aviation accident. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_759

XRAYretired wrote:

]
No entity or source has come forward having found any MCAS/AoA Failed high MCAS events other than the two subject events. Additionally, we have a report post Lion Air:-

'FAA managers worked with U.S. airlines to scour MAX flight records over the more than two years. They didn’t find any event revealing an MCAS malfunction similar to the one in the Lion Air dive.'
https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/in-depth ... li=BBr5KbJ

P.S. There is only one identified 'similar event' identified by the JT investigation in the report. That is the ET event.

Ray

morrisond wrote:

Yes I believe that crew on that day if they were faced with anything out of the ordinary that relied on memory procedures or taking manual control of an NG would have crashed it as well

morrisond wrote:

Training is relevant to the grounding as does anything need to change in training before RTS is a valid topic of discussion.

morrisond wrote:

Ironically as the Lion Air crew was so bad that may suggest Boeing is right and type specific training in the sim for the MAX with MCAS 2.0 is not needed.

morrisond wrote:

As an airline you just have to make sure your crews could actually pass a real flight test including proper CRM procedures and not have the FLU before getting in the cockpit.

mmo wrote:

aerolimani wrote:

Do you have a source to back up that claim? I’ve not read about any other MCAS incidents having occurred besides the two accidents and the one other Lion Air flight.

Unless you can offer up some proof, then your claim is baseless.

Speaking of developed countries, let’s not forget that it was an Air Camada crew who very nearly caused the all-time worst civil aviation accident. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_759

If you want sources, take a look at the ASRS reporting system. I'm not going to do all the work just to have people disagree with me. But since the introduction of the MAX 8 is a good place to start. Interestingly enough, after the MCAS became know there were 4 incidents reported, all handled as runaway trim.

What does the Air Canada incident have to do with MCAS?

If you are naive enough to believe the training standards across the world are the same, I have a bridge in NY City I'd like to sell to you.

XRAYretired wrote:

]
No entity or source has come forward having found any MCAS/AoA Failed high MCAS events other than the two subject events. Additionally, we have a report post Lion Air:-

'FAA managers worked with U.S. airlines to scour MAX flight records over the more than two years. They didn’t find any event revealing an MCAS malfunction similar to the one in the Lion Air dive.'
https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/in-depth ... li=BBr5KbJ

P.S. There is only one identified 'similar event' identified by the JT investigation in the report. That is the ET event.

Ray

I would offer you the same response, check the ASRS and you will find what you are looking for.

XRAYretired wrote:

Forbes has, what appears to be' a good summary of the 'new' evidence presented in congress today.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremyboga ... d6ca004153

Ray

Under questioning, John Hamilton, chief engineer for Boeing’s commercial airplane division, who testified alongside Muilenburg, said that single points of failure are allowed in airplane design depending on the hazard assessment. Any dissent the committee could present on the final assessment that a single sensor was merited “highlights that our engineers do raise questions and it’s an open culture.”

In the event of an incorrect activation of MCAS, Boeing and FAA expected that pilots would be able to respond within four seconds to trim the stabilizer.
...
However, DeFazio noted that in the Ethiopian crash pilots are believed to have taken eight seconds to respond, and several outside reviews have suggested that Boeing’s assumptions of a uniform four-second response was unrealistic.
...
Hamilton acknowledged that engineers considered the impact of slow response times, but that simulator testing with a number of pilots supported its judgement that four seconds was a realistic expectation.

sgbroimp wrote:

Listen folks, lets take a poll right now: Keeping the Max out of the picture, would you book your wife as a passenger on an NG or any other line aircraft with a Lion Air crew?
(I would not as there are serious doubts that the average LA crew could handle much of any curve ball the aircraft or the weatherman throws at them.)

kalvado wrote:

mmo wrote:

aerolimani wrote:

Do you have a source to back up that claim? I’ve not read about any other MCAS incidents having occurred besides the two accidents and the one other Lion Air flight.

Unless you can offer up some proof, then your claim is baseless.

Speaking of developed countries, let’s not forget that it was an Air Camada crew who very nearly caused the all-time worst civil aviation accident. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_759

If you want sources, take a look at the ASRS reporting system. I'm not going to do all the work just to have people disagree with me. But since the introduction of the MAX 8 is a good place to start. Interestingly enough, after the MCAS became know there were 4 incidents reported, all handled as runaway trim.

What does the Air Canada incident have to do with MCAS?

If you are naive enough to believe the training standards across the world are the same, I have a bridge in NY City I'd like to sell to you.

XRAYretired wrote:

]
No entity or source has come forward having found any MCAS/AoA Failed high MCAS events other than the two subject events. Additionally, we have a report post Lion Air:-

'FAA managers worked with U.S. airlines to scour MAX flight records over the more than two years. They didn’t find any event revealing an MCAS malfunction similar to the one in the Lion Air dive.'
https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/in-depth ... li=BBr5KbJ

P.S. There is only one identified 'similar event' identified by the JT investigation in the report. That is the ET event.

Ray

I would offer you the same response, check the ASRS and you will find what you are looking for.

As far as I remember, none of those was a MCAS runaway event. But who said MAX has only one problem? We'll find out after the next crash, I'm afraid.

XRAYretired wrote:

Too much gun smoke to see the guns?

Saintor wrote:

Thanks for posting that.

Interesting extract.

Hamilton acknowledged that engineers considered the impact of slow response times, but that simulator testing with a number of pilots supported its judgement that four seconds was a realistic expectation.

zkojq wrote:

Chemist wrote:

1 - Exemption from some newer regulations is what grandfathering is all about. So lots of aircraft are exempt from all sorts of newer regulations. Are you suggesting that we cease producing any aircraft that have not been brought up to all current regulations?

Where on earth did I suggest that? I simply pointed out the fact that aircraft with more recent safety systems are safer than planes that don't have those safety systems.
.

AirBoat wrote:

The Lion air pilot with the flu was pulling 105lbs on the yoke at times. That is pretty impressive for a sick guy.
The answer is maybe more simple. The pilots simply got tired of pulling back on the yokes.

XRAYretired wrote:

Forbes has, what appears to be' a good summary of the 'new' evidence presented in congress today.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremyboga ... d6ca004153


Too much gun smoke to see the guns?

Ray

Among the documents: A Boeing engineer expressed concern in a 2015 email that a flight control system that Boeing was developing for the new version of its bestselling plane could be unsafe due to its reliance on a single sensor.

The email from a member of Boeing’s aero-stability and control group questioned whether the MAX was “vulnerable to single AoA sensor failures with the MCAS implementation, or is there some checking that occurs?”

shmerik wrote:

XRAYretired wrote:

Forbes has, what appears to be' a good summary of the 'new' evidence presented in congress today.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremyboga ... d6ca004153


Too much gun smoke to see the guns?

Ray

Among the documents: A Boeing engineer expressed concern in a 2015 email that a flight control system that Boeing was developing for the new version of its bestselling plane could be unsafe due to its reliance on a single sensor.

The email from a member of Boeing’s aero-stability and control group questioned whether the MAX was “vulnerable to single AoA sensor failures with the MCAS implementation, or is there some checking that occurs?”

So for the Forkner messages we got the excuse that it was an unfinished version of the simulator that they were referring to... will be interesting to see if there's an excuse for this one.

keesje wrote:

It seems there is/was a culture of resisting and ignoring alarm signals, warnings from their own people.

DenverTed wrote:

Where's justice? Back to the Code of Hammurabi builders bore some personal responsibility for their product. Felicity Huffman goes to jail two weeks for cheating on an SAT. They want to send Lori Loughlin to jail for a good bit longer to make an example of her for lying about her children on the college crew team. Contrast that with 346 people dead. What price will McNerney, Muilenburg, Connor, or other execs who were at the helm of Boeing during the design of MAX pay? Get paid the big money, take the responsibility. Money was the justice for O.J. Simpson. Is 346 million from the personal pockets of Boeing executives asking too much? Watching these hearings, part of me says, no justice, no ungrounding. The other part of me says that the employees and the economy shouldn't be held hostage. But what other leverage is there? Like the financial collapse, once it's over everyone sails away Sot-free.

BravoOne wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

Where's justice? Back to the Code of Hammurabi builders bore some personal responsibility for their product. Felicity Huffman goes to jail two weeks for cheating on an SAT. They want to send Lori Loughlin to jail for a good bit longer to make an example of her for lying about her children on the college crew team. Contrast that with 346 people dead. What price will McNerney, Muilenburg, Connor, or other execs who were at the helm of Boeing during the design of MAX pay? Get paid the big money, take the responsibility. Money was the justice for O.J. Simpson. Is 346 million from the personal pockets of Boeing executives asking too much? Watching these hearings, part of me says, no justice, no ungrounding. The other part of me says that the employees and the economy shouldn't be held hostage. But what other leverage is there? Like the financial collapse, once it's over everyone sails away Sot-free.

Ted, get a grip, and you will realize theses individuals are not, and cannot be held individualy responsible fore these events. OJ has nothing to do with this subject.