Ethiopian Airlines 737 Max crashes killing 157

[Homercles 10,206]

I continue to marvel at people arguing some key points and ignoring others by the pilots in this thread...who are not only professionals in this arena, but (even if they don’t fly the 73), have a much higher risk of suffering a crash than 99.999% of the public out there.

Your Mom has the reasoning behind MCAS (while fully acknowledging it was done very poorly) well covered in layman’s terms and Bobby points out that there are other factors at play that leads to these bombastic articles...makes sense to me, then again I’m a dedicated enough nerd on aviation that I like reading FCOMs and approach plates, but y’all keep on keeping on I guess.

[4th and 5 4,915]

              Size   

44 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

The pilot error advocates have grown tired of trying to educate rubes on the realities of the planes they fly in, and have acknowledged all along that the whole thing was f’d up. What you can’t get through your thick skull is that correct pilot action likely saves the day. 

Now feel free to tell me that I don’t know about how aviation unions interact with management groups, and how they use public pronouncements to apply pressure to those bodies. You kindly STFU quick there didn’t you. I can keep talking intelligently about the subject at hand. You can only parrot articles and jump up and down like a trained monkey trying to prove a point you still don’t understand. There was no magic bullet. There seldom is in any accident. 

 

 

You sound like my brother who flies the 73 for AA

I'm like...this is an outrage, Boeing should fry!

him: shitty third world pilots, no experience

me: you’d know what to do quickly, from memory?

him: yes, bad pilots. No experience

me: you’d fly the MAX tomorrow? Bet your life on it?

him: sure, no problem

 

 

 

Edited May 19, 2019 by 4th and 5

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

1 minute ago, 4th and 5 said:

You sound like my brother who flies the 73 for AA

I'm like...this is an outrage, Boeing should fry!

him: shitty third world pilots, no experience

me: you’d know what to do quickly, from memory?

him: yes, bad pilots. No experience

me: you’d fly the MAX tomorrow? Bet your life on it?

him: sure, no problem

 

 

 

That just doesn't make me feel one bit better....

[Bobby_Batronic 1,994]

1 minute ago, 4th and 5 said:

You sound like my brother who flies the 73 for AA

I'm like...this is an outrage, Boeing should fry!

him: shitty third world pilots, no experience

me: you’d know what to do quickly, from memory?

him: yes, bad pilots. No experience

me: you’d fly the MAX tomorrow? Bet your life on it?

him: sure, no problem

 

 

 

I would suspect most professional pilots feel the same. Every link in the accident chain contains a boatload or fail. It’s fine to fly today now that the system and it’s limitations are brought to light. With dual sourcing and a comparator it’s a no brainer. 

[Pato del Muerto 52,571]

Let me try. 

The max configuration performance characteristics aren’t bad, they are just different. Any bad airframe talk is ignorant or bullshit. 

But to save on training, they programmed the MCAS to behave in such a way that the plane would mimic previous 737 behavior. 

Not an inherently bad idea. However, there ended up being faults in the system that were not discovered, or were known but not dealt with by engineering controls. That’s being investigated currently, and as always certain things are being leaked to the public strategically by all sides.

there was also a routine for the pilot to follow in the event of a MCAS incorrect input.  The routine was either not performed, or was deviated from during the events.  For at least one event, it appears the maximum airspeed was being exceeded, which could have had an adverse effect on the pilots’ ability to use the routine to gain control of the aircraft.  This too is still under investigation.

 

 

[Homercles 10,206]

That just doesn't make me feel one bit better....

So what would?

[Asithappens 974]

2 hours ago, 4th and 5 said:

              Size   

 

 

You sound like my brother who flies the 73 for AA

I'm like...this is an outrage, Boeing should fry!

him: shitty third world pilots, no experience

me: you’d know what to do quickly, from memory?

him: yes, bad pilots. No experience

me: you’d fly the MAX tomorrow? Bet your life on it?

him: sure, no problem

 

 

 

That's all well and good, I guess, but there is some (more than some?) evidence that shows this isn't just an inexperienced third-world pilot issue. 

The WSJ has had plenty of articles showing that Boeing has made some significant errors in this debacle.

And, not to downplay the confidence (or overconfidence) of a particular pilot, but that's kind of what pilots do. They are like surgeons in that regard: very high confidence in their abilities, whether it's warranted or not. 

 

[Braff Zacklin 13,652]

1 hour ago, Asithappens said:

That's all well and good, I guess, but there is some (more than some?) evidence that shows this isn't just an inexperienced third-world pilot issue.

You're manufacturing a strawman, as there doesn't seem to be anyone making that claim.

[Asithappens 974]

1 hour ago, Braff Zacklin said:

You're manufacturing a strawman, as there doesn't seem to be anyone making that claim.

That dude's broheim was making that claim.

You're manufacturing a strawman on a strawman.

[Bobby_Batronic 1,994]

1 hour ago, Braff Zacklin said:

You're manufacturing a strawman, as there doesn't seem to be anyone making that claim.

 

3 hours ago, Asithappens said:

That's all well and good, I guess, but there is some (more than some?) evidence that shows this isn't just an inexperienced third-world pilot issue. 

The WSJ has had plenty of articles showing that Boeing has made some significant errors in this debacle.

And, not to downplay the confidence (or overconfidence) of a particular pilot, but that's kind of what pilots do. They are like surgeons in that regard: very high confidence in their abilities, whether it's warranted or not. 

 

Literally no one has said it’s only a poor pilot problem. Particularly when the specifics were brought to light. However, one crew never ran the procedure, and the other so grossly over-sped the plane that the prescribed procedure didn’t work. That’s before they diverted from the prescribed procedure and wandered into test pilot land. 

The onus of public scrutiny should fall most heavily on Boeing and the FAA. The purchasing airlines chipped into the failure with gusto.  

[Hagbard Celine 10,910]

8 hours ago, RPM said:

From the uninformed everyday passenger POV, Boeing tried to stretch a profitable airframe beyond it's capabilities so they installed a F-117/B-2-esque computer pilot input override and didn't tell anyone because the 737 Max is really profitable and pilots don't need to know about that stuff.

Kinda like the MD-11 we know it's fucked design and will deal with it eventually but it's new and we gotta make money now syndrome.

i repped this, but the max/mcas/moment-arm problem and how it was dealt with were KNOWN in advance and/or deliberately obfuscated, while the respective issues with the MD-11, DC-10, 732, L-188, and Comet 1 & 1A problems were not known in advance and/or deliberately obfuscated.  Especially for commercial purposes, like it is clear happened with MAX/MCAS.

[Hagbard Celine 10,910]

8 hours ago, Your Mom said:

There is nothing unclear about that.  ALL big jets do it.  Every airliner you have ever ridden on in your life (except maybe Armybrat) has some some version of automatic speed trim to account for it.

The new design and adding the LEAP engines added 8 pounds of stick force to recover from that near-stall speed.  MCAS is there to alleviate that 8 pounds of stick force so they could still certify it as a 737.  Had they certified it as anything other than a 737 nobody would have cared about that 8 pounds.  The 8 pounds of extra force is not a huge problem and the only reason it was deemed necessary to remove it is the keep the name 737 on it.

All that's great, and entirely true, but you left out the part about not putting it in the manuals, or telling anyone about it.  Especially pilots at BIG4 US airlines, not to mention various 3rd world customers.  That's shenanigans.

[RPM 26,342]

The MD-11 cargo door was a known issue, but McDonnell Douglass talked the FAA into not issuing a directive by promising to voluntarily fix the latch issue. 2 years later they hadn't done shit and another plane crashed.

[Hagbard Celine 10,910]

8 hours ago, Your Mom said:

Are you retarded?  No, it hasn't killed anyone.  I'm talking apples, you're talking oranges.  

I'm talking about the basic airframe and engine set up.  You're talking about the AOA failure and MCAS activation.  The basic airframe set up and location of the engines and didn't kill anyone.  A completely fucked up design of the MCAS logic and a failed AOA probe had a large hand in killing many people.  The post you quoted me on was talking about extra stick force to recover from a stall.  Neither of these airplanes was any where near a stall, quite the opposite in fact. 

Calm down Mom.  I repped you here, but only to restate the public's take.  If the engines didn't have to be mounted forward to create the 8-lbs stick force, then there is no MCAS in the first place.  That's true.  You are right, the airframe is fundamentally sound.   Without engines it flies like a dream in the wind tunnel and in the computer.  I'm sure the fidelity model gives blowjobs.

But it does have engines, and Boeing had to build a hack to compensate for their location. Then they didn't tell anyone about it.  Including pilots at US BIG4 airlines.

[Braff Zacklin 13,652]

1 hour ago, Asithappens said:

That dude's broheim was making that claim.

You're manufacturing a strawman on a strawman.

Well, fuck. Time for me to see the wizard, apparently.

[Hagbard Celine 10,910]

8 hours ago, Your Mom said:

The engines are only considered too large, too high, and too far forward when you are trying to keep the exact same characteristics of the older 737s.  Had they named the airplane anything other than a 737 they could have left MCAS off the airplane altogether.  If this were a brand new type of airplane the pitch-up tendency from the engine location would not have been considered excessive.

Yes.  And Boeing built a system to compensate for this, which they lied to the FAA about (6 degrees vs. 1.5 degrees (4x) corrective force + instantaneous reversal of pilot inputs) then didn't tell the customers about (i.e. the pilots of the airlines that bought the planes.)

[Hagbard Celine 10,910]

8 hours ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

The pilot error advocates have grown tired of trying to educate rubes on the realities of the planes they fly in, and have acknowledged all along that the whole thing was f’d up. What you can’t get through your thick skull is that correct pilot action likely saves the day.

I repped you because this is true.

But the Lion Air and Ethiopian pilots did not know about the system and were not smart enough to turn off the autopilot and aviate.  They didn't know what they didn't know.  If they had known, then they could have been held accountable for taking correct pilot action and saving the day.

But they didn't.

Because Boeing didn't tell them.  There is no way out of this circular argument.

[retread 2,951]

There are at least a few people at Boeing who knew that the software was capable of 2.5 degrees of action vs. 0.6 degrees. Then, they failed to include it in the paperwork that the FAA reviewed themselves.

Quote

Whenever it adds a new airplane to a type certificate, the FAA lists where that airplane does or does not differ from other models in the same type. In the case of the 737 Max, the FAA’s list extends to 30 pages, reviewing everything from engine noise to de-icing systems, aluminum fatigue to security doors.

Yet this document dedicated to minutiae does not mention MCAS once — not by name, not by description — which is kind of astonishing when you consider that even the seat belts get a mention.

Quote

Worse still: the FAA did not catch the fact that the version of MCAS actually installed on the 737 Max was much more powerful than the version described in the design specifications. On paper, MCAS was only supposed to move the horizontal stabilizer 0.6 degrees at a time. In reality, it could move the stabilizer as much as 2.5 degrees at a time, making it significantly more powerful when forcing the nose of the airplane down.

“Although officials were aware of the changes,” The New York Times reported, “none were fully examined by the FAA.”

So had anyone checked, they might have flagged MCAS for one of several reasons, including its lack of redundancy, its unacceptably high risk of failure, or its significant increase in power to the point that it was no longer just a “hazardous failure” kind of system.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/2/18518176/boeing-737-max-crash-problems-human-error-mcas-faa

[Hagbard Celine 10,910]

19 minutes ago, RPM said:

The MD-11 cargo door was a known issue, but McDonnell Douglass talked the FAA into not issuing a directive by promising to voluntarily fix the latch issue. 2 years later they hadn't done shit and another plane crashed.

I think you are remembering the DC-10-10 cargo door problems.

Here's a great writeup on the operational history of the MD-11: http://www.airlinesafety.com/faq/faq9.htm

[Bobby_Batronic 1,994]

47 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

I repped you because this is true.

But the Lion Air and Ethiopian pilots did not know about the system and were not smart enough to turn off the autopilot and aviate.  They didn't know what they didn't know.  If they had known, then they could have been held accountable for taking correct pilot action and saving the day.

But they didn't.

Because Boeing didn't tell them.  There is no way out of this circular argument.

The Ethiopian crew should have known something about it. And a pilot saved a Lion Air crash days before the actual crash by reacting properly without knowing about it. 

This is not a chicken or the egg deal. The genesis is clearly with Boeing and the FAA. But those eggs were ultimately cracked by the pilots even though the Boeing and Feds birthed them and the purchasing airlines hand delivered.

The accident chain was straight. And every link failed.  

[RPM 26,342]

59 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

I think you are remembering the DC-10-10 cargo door problems.

Yep. Went down a rabbit hole last night with the MD-11 and somehow got it confused with DC-10 crashes.

Same story, just wrong aircraft.

Edited May 19, 2019 by RPM

[ChickenSandwich 9,849]

1 hour ago, Hagbard Celine said:

Calm down Mom.  I repped you here, but only to restate the public's take.  If the engines didn't have to be mounted forward to create the 8-lbs stick force, then there is no MCAS in the first place.  That's true.  You are right, the airframe is fundamentally sound.   Without engines it flies like a dream in the wind tunnel and in the computer.  I'm sure the fidelity model gives blowjobs.

But it does have engines, and Boeing had to build a hack to compensate for their location. Then they didn't tell anyone about it.  Including pilots at US BIG4 airlines.

The MCAS has nothing to do with the airworthiness of the plane or the engines etc etc. The plane appears to be fine without the MCAS at all, it would just require more training  

The MCAS was exclusively a cost cutting measure to avoid all training, certification, simulator time required for a NEW airplane. The MCAS was created just so it would behave the same way at the old airplane did and they could sell it as THE SAME plane as the 737 and could just “plug and play” their pilot staff to their new fleet and not miss a beat.  No added training costs and better fuel economy. Follow the money

*non pilot take on info provided. 

Edited May 19, 2019 by ChickenSandwich

[JimmyJames 12,271]

1 hour ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

The Ethiopian crew should have known something about it. And a pilot saved a Lion Air crash days before the actual crash by reacting properly without knowing about it. 

This is not a chicken or the egg deal. The genesis is clearly with Boeing and the FAA. But those eggs were ultimately cracked by the pilots even though the Boeing and Feds birthed them and the purchasing airlines hand delivered.

The accident chain was straight. And every link failed.  

Should the Lion Air crew have known about it?

How many times a week should a pilot be required to save an airplane from an imminent crash?

Why do you constantly post to deflect blame away from the clearly culpable party here?

[Bobby_Batronic 1,994]

1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

Should the Lion Air crew have known about it?

How many times a week should a pilot be required to save an airplane from an imminent crash?

Why do you constantly post to deflect blame away from the clearly culpable party here?

 

4 hours ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

The onus of public scrutiny should fall most heavily on Boeing and the FAA. The purchasing airlines chipped into the failure with gusto.  

I think the question you should be asking is why do you struggle so badly with reading comprehension.

I posted the above quote on this very page. I explained in detail to you why I’ve discussed the pilot portion so thoroughly in the recent past. The pilots failed badly themselves. A previous Lion Air flight was saved by the jumpseater knowing what to do. He didn’t know about MCAS either. Kinda blows up your poor helpless pilot crap right there. But I don’t expect you to understand. You’re either unwilling or incapable of it. 

[Telegraph_it 3,359]

Automation beyond the scenes is something standard in aviation nowadays. Airbus has it as well. Just google Qantas Flight 72. 

Edited May 20, 2019 by Telegraph_it

[Bobby_Batronic 1,994]

Just now, Telegraph_it said:

Automation beyond the scenes is something standard in aviation nowadays. Airbus has it as well. Just google Qantas Flight 72. 

They don’t want to hear it. Not even from an airbus pilot. 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

19 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

 

I think the question you should be asking is why do you struggle so badly with reading comprehension.

I posted the above quote on this very page. I explained in detail to you why I’ve discussed the pilot portion so thoroughly in the recent past. The pilots failed badly themselves. A previous Lion Air flight was saved by the jumpseater knowing what to do. He didn’t know about MCAS either. Kinda blows up your poor helpless pilot crap right there. But I don’t expect you to understand. You’re either unwilling or incapable of it. 

You didn’t answer a single question I asked you, apparently because you can’t. Maybe you should practice some reading comprehension. Your insults notwithstanding, Boeing apologist. 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

25 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

 

I think the question you should be asking is why do you struggle so badly with reading comprehension.

I posted the above quote on this very page. I explained in detail to you why I’ve discussed the pilot portion so thoroughly in the recent past. The pilots failed badly themselves. A previous Lion Air flight was saved by the jumpseater knowing what to do. He didn’t know about MCAS either. Kinda blows up your poor helpless pilot crap right there. But I don’t expect you to understand. You’re either unwilling or incapable of it. 

Here’s the first question again. In case you missed it. 

Should the lion air crew have known about the system? Yes or no? 

[Bobby_Batronic 1,994]

4 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

You didn’t answer a single question I asked you, apparently because you can’t. Maybe you should practice some reading comprehension. Your insults notwithstanding, Boeing apologist. 

You’re being insulted because you’ve gone out of your way to show your ass in this thread. Mainly by talking out of it. The answers to all of your questions are in this very thread. Again, either you are incapable or unwilling to understand. 

[Hanrahan 1,306]

Should the Lion Air crew have known about it?
How many times a week should a pilot be required to save an airplane from an imminent crash?
Why do you constantly post to deflect blame away from the clearly culpable party here?

Because he knows orders of magnitude more about this subject than you do. You’re embarrassing yourself.

[EE2B 1,565]

Jesus Christ. Some of you mother fuckers would argue with a brick wall. I’m not sure how the guys that are actually pilots still post in this thread. I would have already quit reading this shit show.

[Bobby_Batronic 1,994]

On 3/15/2019 at 7:30 PM, Bobby_Batronic said:

Now, did Boeing screw up by not highlighting this programming addition with great emphasis for potential buyers?  Yes, they absolutley should have mentioned that the plane would pitch down on its own if it detected a stall situation.

 

[XYZ 2,154]

JimmyJames has to be a troll

[Hagbard Celine 10,910]

6 hours ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

The accident chain was straight. And every link failed.  

That's very CRM-sounding.  For the gallery:

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

[InkaUtexas 26,080]

11 hours ago, EE2B said:

Jesus Christ. Some of you mother fuckers would argue with a brick wall. I’m not sure how the guys that are actually pilots still post in this thread. I would have already quit reading this shit show.

You have to kill some time when not nailing flight attendants and beating up Hare Krishna somehow. 

[Skipper 6,195]

16 hours ago, EE2B said:

Jesus Christ. Some of you mother fuckers would argue with a brick wall. I’m not sure how the guys that are actually pilots still post in this thread. I would have already quit reading this shit show.

Seriously.  Most of us appreciate the pilots providing actually educated opinions in this thread despite the dumbass takes galore.  

[Captainant 27,736]

18 hours ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

I posted the above quote on this very page. I explained in detail to you why I’ve discussed the pilot portion so thoroughly in the recent past. The pilots failed badly themselves. A previous Lion Air flight was saved by the jumpseater knowing what to do. He didn’t know about MCAS either. Kinda blows up your poor helpless pilot crap right there. But I don’t expect you to understand. You’re either unwilling or incapable of it. 

So what if, say, Boeing's simulators were incapable of replicating the flight conditions that contributed to the fatal crashes?

Quote

The US-based aerospace company said its simulators were incapable of replicating certain flight conditions that contributed to the Ethiopian Airlines crash in March, or the Lion Air accident off Indonesia last October.

"Boeing has made corrections to the 737 MAX simulator software and has provided additional information to device operators to ensure that the simulator experience is representative across different flight conditions," Boeing said in a statement on Saturday. 

The company did not indicate when it first became aware of the problem, and whether it informed regulators.

But yeah fuck those dumbass third world pilots for failing to handle the design flaws that not even boeing was able to replicate. Those pilots should have trained more on the simulators that wouldn't have trained them for that scenario.

I'm glad you're focusing on the real issues here rather than the company knowingly selling a malfunctioning aircraft that they didn't even test the AOA sensors on.

[Telegraph_it 3,359]

There is a lot of blame being thrown around here. We need to also blame Southwest and American Airlines who wanted a more fuel efficient plane but did not want to pay for a type change. 

What is different here:

 

[Captainant 27,736]

3 minutes ago, Telegraph_it said:

There is a lot of blame being thrown around here. We need to also blame Southwest and American Airlines who wanted a more fuel efficient plane but did not want to pay for a type change. 

I'm not inclined to blame the carriers or pilots to the same degree as I blame boeing and the FAA. Boeing made the airplane in response to airbus competition, pushed it through certification thanks to regulatory capture with the FAA, and then knowingly hid the flaws that their engineers had highlighted internally.

It's not wrong to want lower costs if you're an airline. It is wrong to knowingly sell an aircraft that hasn't been fully tested and evaluated. The airlines don't have any say over that, and frankly it's not their job to. Nothing stopped boeing from saying "sorry, we can't provide what you're asking for at the price you're asking" other than sheer greed and valuing shareholders bank accounts over customers lives. Shit, I frequently have to tell my customers that the silver bullet they're asking for doesn't exist or is wildly impractical/expensive. I don't understand the need to blame everyone BUT the company that made the airplane and hid its deadly flaws from the public.

[Bobby_Batronic 1,994]

26 minutes ago, Captainant said:

So what if, say, Boeing's simulators were incapable of replicating the flight conditions that contributed to the fatal crashes?

But yeah fuck those dumbass third world pilots for failing to handle the design flaws that not even boeing was able to replicate. Those pilots should have trained more on the simulators that wouldn't have trained them for that scenario.

I'm glad you're focusing on the real issues here rather than the company knowingly selling a malfunctioning aircraft that they didn't even test the AOA sensors on.

I know you don’t realize this, because, well, let’s be honest, you’re a poorly informed poster, but pilots don’t train for the majority of malfunctions and emergencies we might face in the plane. You just kinda have to know how to fly and shit. 

Feel free to find a simulator syllabus with “ AOA failure leading to erroneous nose down commands” for any airplane. The PTS calls for very specific items to be trained and tested, and most companies aren’t throwing extra simulator sessions at pilots to just try stuff. The sim time is in high demand and they aren’t cheap to operate. 

AQP gives some flexibility, and this will now be a part of 737 training, but dealing with stuff you haven’t ever seen before is the majority of what happens emergency and abnormal situations. 

I had never practiced a total electrical failure after takeoff leading to frozen trim in the sim before. I just knew the memory items when it happened.  

I had never practiced a jacked up ADC causing erroneous nose up commands followed by the CPC dumping pressurization before either. But I knew the system  well enough to revert ADC’s (kosher at the time before they decided they wanted you to go the QRM) and do the emergency descent memory items. 

I never practiced a fouled up mixture control creating a fuel rich situation that stalled the motor during approach to landing stalls training with a student leading to an off airport landing because the prescribed restart procedure didn’t cover that eventuality. 

In fact, I’ve never had the emergencies I’ve practiced in a simulator or the real airplane actually happen in real life. I would bet 99% of all pilots fall in that category.  But you tout that article as though you’ve found a damning kernel of truth. Both of those crews did practice a erroneous trim input scenario guaranteed. And both of them failed to manage it appropriately even if it didn’t feel like something they’d don’t before. That doesn’t absolve the FAA, Boeing or the purchasing airlines from their culpability, but it does mean that, much like jimmy james, you’re being a monkey jumping up and down pointing to an article covering a subject that you’ve demonstrated little comprehension of. 

Edited May 20, 2019 by Bobby_Batronic

[Bobby_Batronic 1,994]

6 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I don't understand the need to blame everyone BUT the company that made the airplane and hid its deadly flaws from the public.

Well, that settles it. You’re an idiot. 

[Captainant 27,736]

3 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

Well, that settles it. You’re an idiot. 

You're right. I'm an idiot for expecting airplanes to be sold with redundant AOA sensors that are tested, especially when a single bad AOA reading can cause hundreds of fatalities.

[Bobby_Batronic 1,994]

20 minutes ago, Captainant said:

You're right. I'm an idiot for expecting airplanes to be sold with redundant AOA sensors that are tested, especially when a single bad AOA reading can cause hundreds of fatalities.

No. You’re an idiot because you posted that Boeing isn’t blamed for their part in this. That they aren’t being blamed for the majority of this along with the FAA. Never mind the fact that there are numerous posts by numerous posters on the last two pages doing just that. 

So does your reading comprehension suck that bad, or are you issued a helmet before leaving the house each day?

[Telegraph_it 3,359]

Anytime there is an air disaster, there is usually lots of blame to go around. That's a testament to how safe flying is. 

[Captainant 27,736]

7 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

So does your reading comprehension suck that bad, or are you issued a helmet before leaving the house each day?

No, I'm saying that it's extremely disingenuous to apply whataboutism to the airlines and pilots for what is purely a failure of the FAA and boeing. It's not the job of the airlines and pilots to produce airworthy planes. Saying that they share culpability is watering down the FAA and boeing's disregard for safety.

[Bobby_Batronic 1,994]

Just now, Captainant said:

No, I'm saying that it's extremely disingenuous to apply whataboutism to the airlines and pilots for what is purely a failure of the FAA and boeing. It's not the job of the airlines and pilots to produce airworthy planes. Saying that they share culpability is watering down the FAA and boeing's disregard for safety.

No. It doesn’t. The history of a aviation is replete with companies not purchasing adequate safety features on planes to save a few bucks. Any single sourced safety system should have been a huge red flag to the purchasing airlines. Funny how US airlines opted for both. And I’m sorry, but the pilots absolutely do share blame. If they had followed procedure and crashed then I wouldn’t make a peep. One crew didn’t follow it at all, and the other grossly deviated from it. They f’d up too. 

[Pato del Muerto 52,571]

53 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

I know you don’t realize this, because, well, let’s be honest, you’re a poorly informed poster, but pilots don’t train for the majority of malfunctions and emergencies we might face in the plane. You just kinda have to know how to fly and shit. 

Feel free to find a simulator syllabus with “ AOA failure leading to erroneous nose down commands” for any airplane. The PTS calls for very specific items to be trained and tested, and most companies aren’t throwing extra simulator sessions at pilots to just try stuff. The sim time is in high demand and they aren’t cheap to operate. 

AQP gives some flexibility, and this will now be a part of 737 training, but dealing with stuff you haven’t ever seen before is the majority of what happens emergency and abnormal situations. 

I had never practiced a total electrical failure after takeoff leading to frozen trim in the sim before. I just knew the memory items when it happened.  

I had never practiced a jacked up ADC causing erroneous nose up commands followed by the CPC dumping pressurization before either. But I knew the system  well enough to revert ADC’s (kosher at the time before they decided they wanted you to go the QRM) and do the emergency descent memory items. 

I never practiced a fouled up mixture control creating a fuel rich situation that stalled the motor during approach to landing stalls training with a student leading to an off airport landing because the prescribed restart procedure didn’t cover that eventuality. 

In fact, I’ve never had the emergencies I’ve practiced in a simulator or the real airplane actually happen in real life. I would bet 99% of all pilots fall in that category.  But you tout that article as though you’ve found a damning kernel of truth. Both of those crews did practice a erroneous trim input scenario guaranteed. And both of them failed to manage it appropriately even if it didn’t feel like something they’d don’t before. That doesn’t absolve the FAA, Boeing or the purchasing airlines from their culpability, but it does mean that, much like jimmy james, you’re being a monkey jumping up and down pointing to an article covering a subject that you’ve demonstrated little comprehension of. 

Um, how often does shit go pear shaped mid flight?

and another question for the pilots:  if the crashes never happen but MCAS incidents happen at whatever frequency, does Boeing ever get around to fixing it and does it ever get grounded?

i assume it is a land ASAP issue and not a fix it at the destination issue. 

Edited May 20, 2019 by Pato del Muerto

[C-Man 27,254]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

No, I'm saying that it's extremely disingenuous to apply whataboutism to the airlines and pilots for what is purely a failure of the FAA and boeing. It's not the job of the airlines and pilots to produce airworthy planes. Saying that they share culpability is watering down the FAA and boeing's disregard for safety.

Boeing -- or its insurance -- is probably going to pay north of $1B to the victims in both crashes families so I'd say they're going to get their share of the blame here.

[Moby Ric 2,058]

On 5/19/2019 at 8:51 AM, 4th and 5 said:

              Size   

 

 

You sound like my brother who flies the 73 for AA

I'm like...this is an outrage, Boeing should fry!

him: shitty third world pilots, no experience

me: you’d know what to do quickly, from memory?

him: yes, bad pilots. No experience

me: you’d fly the MAX tomorrow? Bet your life on it?

him: sure, no problem

 

 

 

My bud who flies the 737 for United basically explained it this way to me at dinner.  

[retread 2,951]

Whoever at Boeing decided to leave the MCAS documentation out of the final 'type' document (whatever it's called) should be put in jail.