Jump to content

Interesting Article on 737MAX and Related Issues


Recommended Posts

A very well done article in the NY Times on the issues with the 737MAX.   It goes beyond the technical problems associated with the MCAS system and discusses in detail problems with the lack of basic airmanship skills found in many of today's airline pilots.

 

Worth spending some time reading....

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/magazine/boeing-737-max-crashes.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab

 

The conclusion of the article - Airbus was right, you need to design aircraft to protect themselves from their pilots.

Edited by 11bee
Link to post
Share on other sites

If there was a any justice, Boeing would be sued out of existence for such malfeasance.

 

I have yet to see anything that justifies their actions or absolves them of responsibility.

 

A text-book case of terrible, criminal management.

 

Bri2k

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bri2k said:

If there was a any justice, Boeing would be sued out of existence for such malfeasance.

 

I have yet to see anything that justifies their actions or absolves them of responsibility.

 

A text-book case of terrible, criminal management.

 

Bri2k

Agreed that they are culpable and should be held fully accountable.   Don't agree that they should be "sued out of existence",   This issue arose from the decisions made by a pretty small group of high-level managers.  Unfortunately, aside from the hit to quarterly revenues and a token fine / slap on the wrist, nothing else will happen.   Even their CEO will still keep his job.   

 

The point of the article that I found most interesting was that despite the horribly designed MCAS system, in both cases, those planes should have made it back for a safe landing, if it wasn't for the low standards of basic piloting skills demonstrated by the flight crews.  To me, that's ultimately the larger issue.   MCAS will get fixed.   Nothing will change with regard to the airmanship issue. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean the guy that was drunk at the stick or the one that spilled his coffee in the controls of the

cockpit? What next, video games for the flight attendants? Real professionalism today, isn't there?

I haven't flown in 3 years and avoid it at all costs. jon

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, jonwinn said:

You mean the guy that was drunk at the stick or the one that spilled his coffee in the controls of the

cockpit? What next, video games for the flight attendants? Real professionalism today, isn't there?

I haven't flown in 3 years and avoid it at all costs. jon

Still have some “good sticks” but they seem to be in the minority.   It’s ironic that Airbus’s approach may be the solution but that to some extent, they also contributed to the problem due to their design philosophy.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally had time to read the article. Wow. Very well-written.

 

The US had similar problems back in the '80s, where commuters were hiring pilots with 250 hrs total time. I heard and can tell lots of horror stories, and there were a few smoking holes in the ground, too. The training system in one type I flew was a lot like that described in the article, where it's "do this at this time," "mash this button if that light comes on," and "autopilot on at 600 ft; off at 200 ft," so some of the FOs I later flew with were trained by rote and were actually hesitant to fly with the autopilot off.   

 

Ben

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Ben Brown said:

I finally had time to read the article. Wow. Very well-written.

 

The US had similar problems back in the '80s, where commuters were hiring pilots with 250 hrs total time. I heard and can tell lots of horror stories, and there were a few smoking holes in the ground, too. The training system in one type I flew was a lot like that described in the article, where it's "do this at this time," "mash this button if that light comes on," and "autopilot on at 600 ft; off at 200 ft," so some of the FOs I later flew with were trained by rote and were actually hesitant to fly with the autopilot off.   

 

Ben

 

Yeah, that icing stall-spin near Buffalo a few years ago comes to mind as a good example. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Airmanship seems to be a large part of the equation. Do you guys remember the amount of ex military pilots that went to the airlines after WWII, the Korean War and Viet Nam? Airmanship was running rampant at airlines in those days. We just don't have the numbers of Vets doing that today. How about Sully Sullenberger for one?

Link to post
Share on other sites

True, and it’s not just a lack of vets. With so many people going through these Cessna to airline programs these days, I don’t know if many civilians are getting the kind of training I was lucky enough to get when I was learning back in the early 80s. I got some aerobatics training (enough to be dangerous!), I hopped rides with anyone I could learn something from, and spent a lot of time in the hangar, holding wrenches and learning from the A&Ps. You can’t get that kind of education in airmanship and systems with a lot of these current high-volume flight schools.

 

Oddly enough, one of the ads that popped up within the article was for a Cessna to airline school in Wisconsin.

 

Ben

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that being a "vet" equates to better airmanship.  I've flown with plenty of military pilots who's airmanship was questionable at best.  And I've also flown with plenty of "civilian" pilots who could fly the heck out of the plane with one hand tied behind their backs.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Charlie D. said:

 

Disgusting.... this is what happens when a company's bottom line isn't how we can build the best aircraft on the planet but instead it's how can we cut even more costs so we can return even more money to our shareholders next quarter.   

 

Can't believe that CEO is still employed.  BA has suffered a comedy of errors, aside from the MAX.   The KC-46 is a joke of still unfix-able design issues and quality problems, the 777X is now off it's already delayed schedule with no relief in sight (cargo door blew off the fuselage during final testing), the window for announcing the NMA, 757-replacement has closed (while BA waffled on building it for close to a decade)  and BA is suffering a slew of quality and labor problems from it's showcase (non-union) Charleston, SC plant.   In the mean time, Airbus keeps picking up market share.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2019 at 4:26 PM, 11bee said:

A very well done article in the NY Times on the issues with the 737MAX.   It goes beyond the technical problems associated with the MCAS system and discusses in detail problems with the lack of basic airmanship skills found in many of today's airline pilots.

 

Worth spending some time reading....

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/magazine/boeing-737-max-crashes.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab

 

The conclusion of the article - Airbus was right, you need to design aircraft to protect themselves from their pilots.

Airbus has had more then 1 plane go in after the computer over rode the pilots inputs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Da SWO said:

Airbus has had more then 1 plane go in after the computer over rode the pilots inputs.

If you look into those accidents (such as the AF/A330 crash), there was much more to them than simply a rogue computer overriding the flight crew.     The bottom line (if you believe the conclusion of the article) is that if pilot’s basic airmanship skills are declining, maybe Airbus’s philosophy of having computers with the final say is the prudent one, vrs BA’s of giving final authority to the pilots.  

Edited by 11bee
Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for those saying that the computer was the cause for the crash, if the program was the reason for the crash why weren't there any crashes involving the 75+ other users of the aircraft?

 

As of Feb 2019, over 2700 have been delivered and yet there have only been 2 crashes, both involving foreign airlines who's flight training programs can be considered questionable.

 

If the program is causing crashes then I would think that there would be a lot more birds in the dirt then just the 2 that have gone down.

 

The biggest reason for the crashes isn't the computer program, its the pilot training (or lack of) that is the direct results of the crashes, the computer program is just a contributing factor.

 

And in just about every modern aircraft, the pilot/aircrew are "voting" members when it comes to controlling the aircraft, the aircraft's flight control computer always has veto power but can be overridden with additional procedures, you just have to know what those procedures are (ie, knowing more about the aircraft you are flying than what's in the sales procure).

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, GW8345 said:

Question for those saying that the computer was the cause for the crash, if the program was the reason for the crash why weren't there any crashes involving the 75+ other users of the aircraft?

 

As of Feb 2019, over 2700 have been delivered and yet there have only been 2 crashes, both involving foreign airlines who's flight training programs can be considered questionable.

 

If the program is causing crashes then I would think that there would be a lot more birds in the dirt then just the 2 that have gone down.

 

The biggest reason for the crashes isn't the computer program, its the pilot training (or lack of) that is the direct results of the crashes, the computer program is just a contributing factor.

 

And in just about every modern aircraft, the pilot/aircrew are "voting" members when it comes to controlling the aircraft, the aircraft's flight control computer always has veto power but can be overridden with additional procedures, you just have to know what those procedures are (ie, knowing more about the aircraft you are flying than what's in the sales procure).

How did you come up with 2,700 Max’s delivered?  

 

Out of those “only” 2 crashed.  Maybe more haven’t crashed because those jets hadn’t yet lost an AOA probe at take-off?   

 

Lack of airmanship isn’t unknown in the US either.   The icing crash in Buffalo and that RJ that took off on the wrong runway come to mind as good examples of domestic pilots lacking some basic skills. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, GW8345 said:

As of Feb 2019, over 2700 have been delivered and yet there have only been 2 crashes, both involving foreign airlines who's flight training programs can be considered questionable.

 

Are you still referring to the 737 MAX? Just checking, since Airbus also came up in the thread. I'm not sure where you get 2700. The MCAS that resulted in the two accidents (Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines) was only introduced in the MAX model, which has been operational since 2017 and only 393 had been built in total (of which 387 had been delivered). The particular problem would only manifest itself after a specific sequence of events and failures, so it is not at all surprising that the first accident happened only about 1.5 years after the MAX started service.

 

Two accidents to the same cause after less than 2 years of operational service of the aircraft and out of a fleet of less than 400 is completely unacceptable for a modern airliner. Of course each accident had additional cause factors - that is the nature of all aircraft accidents. Training, familiarity with the systems, experience, etc. are always relevant factors. But in this case there was a common root cause which was clearly aircraft related.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mfezi said:

 

Are you still referring to the 737 MAX? Just checking, since Airbus also came up in the thread. I'm not sure where you get 2700. The MCAS that resulted in the two accidents (Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines) was only introduced in the MAX model, which has been operational since 2017 and only 393 had been built in total (of which 387 had been delivered). The particular problem would only manifest itself after a specific sequence of events and failures, so it is not at all surprising that the first accident happened only about 1.5 years after the MAX started service.

 

Two accidents to the same cause after less than 2 years of operational service of the aircraft and out of a fleet of less than 400 is completely unacceptable for a modern airliner. Of course each accident had additional cause factors - that is the nature of all aircraft accidents. Training, familiarity with the systems, experience, etc. are always relevant factors. But in this case there was a common root cause which was clearly aircraft related.

My source

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders_and_deliveries

Link to post
Share on other sites

I fly twice a month, if not more. 

Customer Service and airmanship is very poor. Landings are typically hard, flights delayed more than on time, in-flight service is garbage and minimal. Overcrowded airplanes.

The 737 Max issues just highlight the lack of training on the airline's half of this. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, 11bee said:

How did you come up with 2,700 Max’s delivered?  

 

Out of those “only” 2 crashed.  Maybe more haven’t crashed because those jets hadn’t yet lost an AOA probe at take-off?   

 

Lack of airmanship isn’t unknown in the US either.   The icing crash in Buffalo and that RJ that took off on the wrong runway come to mind as good examples of domestic pilots lacking some basic skills. 

That Buffalo crash was how long ago and you also have to look at the number of flights that occur here in the US as compared to the number of flights in the countries involved with the crash.

Link to post
Share on other sites

wrt airmanship, I thought the issue with MCAS was that, when the computers activated the automatic stall recovery, there was no indicator or warning light or sound informing the pilot it was in effect. Isthat not correct?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...