737 max... what now?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by PimTac
I have tried over the ear headphones but for me personally the earbud style works best. I have Sony.

Those old 343's have a drone that will implant itself in your brain after sitting for many hours. On this route 14-16 hours. I always breathed a sigh of relief when I saw the 744 or the 773.


Yep … I meant buds … compact and easy to clean … I recall the drone on AF flights
 
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by AdmdeVilleneuve
A report published this evening indicates the EASA has a different idea than the FAA of what needs to be demonstrated in flight testing before the MAX returns to service.
https://www.seattletimes.com/busine...ct-demands-for-737-max-return-to-flight/


EASA will ultimately go along with whatever the FAA deems to be sufficient.
They really have no choice unless they want the FAA to begin requiring full US certification of everything with an Airbus label.
Neither authority wants to put the other in a position where their competence to certify a type is not accepted.

I would not bet on that. FAA was leading authority on Airbus too. It was leading authority on pretty much anything that flies. In addition, what about Chinese? Chinese might do something just because, to poke an eye.
f

Considering that this entire episode didn't exactly cover Boeing or the FAA in glory, I don't think there's much doubt that the aircraft will be perfectly fine once the FAA pulls the trigger and releases it for RTS. Boeing is also well aware that another accident involving this development of the type would be fatal not only to the crew and passengers but to Boeing's current narrow body program as well with a lasting legacy for Boeing for years to come.
You make a good point WRT China, but the back-channel whispering will be that there's nothing wrong with the aircraft that a reduction in tariffs wouldn't fix.

Well, I would not bet on the fact that someone in Boing might try to do something stupid, there is always that option. Never underestimate human stupidity.
My point is not whether Boeing will deliver good plane, my point is that this tarnished decades of building institutional capacity within FAA. EASA will not have same demands as FAA after this episode nor Chinese. They will try to set up their own procedures, rightly so considering that FAA is purposely underfunded and that Boeing, Lockheed etc. are having too much clout over agency, and then just because..
I would not bet that EASA is going to hold press conference after FAA approves it and say: yep, that will do.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by edyvw

Well, I would not bet on the fact that someone in Boing might try to do something stupid, there is always that option. Never underestimate human stupidity.
My point is not whether Boeing will deliver good plane, my point is that this tarnished decades of building institutional capacity within FAA. EASA will not have same demands as FAA after this episode nor Chinese. They will try to set up their own procedures, rightly so considering that FAA is purposely underfunded and that Boeing, Lockheed etc. are having too much clout over agency, and then just because..
I would not bet that EASA is going to hold press conference after FAA approves it and say: yep, that will do.


I'd take both bets.
Whatever other national authorities decide, their actions will be taken informed with the knowledge that this will be as much a political decision as it will be one involving air safety.
The Chinese could use some leverage in dealing with the current tariff situation and this will provide it.
The EU will be reluctant to take any action that might be perceived as picking a fight with this side of the Atlantic, particularly since they have their own local issues to deal with.
I suspect that EASA will announce that they've reviewed the work of Boeing and the FAA and found it sufficient while the Chinese will express some vague reservations requiring consultation with American authorities.
Nobody at Boeing is going to try anything stupid at this stage either. Quick and dirty got them to this point and they're well aware of that.
In any event, we'll have an answer within the next couple of months.
 
@fdcg27:
Here is one that goes along your line of thinking:
What "really" brought down Boeing 737 MX
I think article has some really good points that could contribute to the accident.
However, it would never pass peer review if it was submitted to some academic journal in the field.
His thinking is:
1. There are deep structural issues around training in Indonesia, Ethiopia etc. (agree). It is situation that got out of hand. Everyone is corrupted, they just look at the money etc.
2. Who knows what they were thinking in Boeing. [censored] happens. But they are really good people who would never do this intentionally (unlike those in indonesia and Ethiopia).

The comments section is fairly interesting.
 
Originally Posted by edyvw
@fdcg27:
Here is one that goes along your line of thinking:
What "really" brought down Boeing 737 MX
I think article has some really good points that could contribute to the accident.
However, it would never pass peer review if it was submitted to some academic journal in the field.
His thinking is:
1. There are deep structural issues around training in Indonesia, Ethiopia etc. (agree). It is situation that got out of hand. Everyone is corrupted, they just look at the money etc.
2. Who knows what they were thinking in Boeing. [censored] happens. But they are really good people who would never do this intentionally (unlike those in indonesia and Ethiopia).

The comments section is fairly interesting.



You, along with many of the commenters, have grossly oversimplified a well-written, thoughtful, honest article on this subject.

William Langewische has written another brilliant accident analysis.

His piece on Air France 447 in Vanity Fair a few years back was equally well done and equally well worth reading.
 
Originally Posted by Astro14
Originally Posted by edyvw
@fdcg27:
Here is one that goes along your line of thinking:
What "really" brought down Boeing 737 MX
I think article has some really good points that could contribute to the accident.
However, it would never pass peer review if it was submitted to some academic journal in the field.
His thinking is:
1. There are deep structural issues around training in Indonesia, Ethiopia etc. (agree). It is situation that got out of hand. Everyone is corrupted, they just look at the money etc.
2. Who knows what they were thinking in Boeing. [censored] happens. But they are really good people who would never do this intentionally (unlike those in indonesia and Ethiopia).

The comments section is fairly interesting.



You, along with many of the commenters, have grossly oversimplified a well-written, thoughtful, honest article on this subject.

William Langewische has written another brilliant accident analysis.

His piece on Air France 447 in Vanity Fair a few years back was equally well done and equally well worth reading.

I posted his analysis of AF447 here. I think that his work on AF447 is probably best analysis of that accident, period. However, he is not doing anyone a favor with this sensational title (compared to the title in Vanity Fair).
 
Originally Posted by edyvw
@fdcg27:
Here is one that goes along your line of thinking:
What "really" brought down Boeing 737 MX
I think article has some really good points that could contribute to the accident.
However, it would never pass peer review if it was submitted to some academic journal in the field.
His thinking is:
1. There are deep structural issues around training in Indonesia, Ethiopia etc. (agree). It is situation that got out of hand. Everyone is corrupted, they just look at the money etc.
2. Who knows what they were thinking in Boeing. [censored] happens. But they are really good people who would never do this intentionally (unlike those in indonesia and Ethiopia).
The comments section is fairly interesting.


Not so much my line of thinking as it is reality.
There aren't enough pilots who won their wings though either their militaries or by flying freight of one kind or another in crap aircraft in difficult conditions to man the world's narrow body fleet.
The military guys either get good or they get washed out while the civie freight dogs either get good or they get dead.
We instead have training academy guys with little real flying experience as a result.
Not good nor bad, but also not a recipe for really skilled airmen.
The NYT article points out the shortcomings of these crews in dealing with any real problem.
 
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by edyvw
@fdcg27:
Here is one that goes along your line of thinking:
What "really" brought down Boeing 737 MX
I think article has some really good points that could contribute to the accident.
However, it would never pass peer review if it was submitted to some academic journal in the field.
His thinking is:
1. There are deep structural issues around training in Indonesia, Ethiopia etc. (agree). It is situation that got out of hand. Everyone is corrupted, they just look at the money etc.
2. Who knows what they were thinking in Boeing. [censored] happens. But they are really good people who would never do this intentionally (unlike those in indonesia and Ethiopia).
The comments section is fairly interesting.


Not so much my line of thinking as it is reality.
There aren't enough pilots who won their wings though either their militaries or by flying freight of one kind or another in crap aircraft in difficult conditions to man the world's narrow body fleet.
The military guys either get good or they get washed out while the civie freight dogs either get good or they get dead.
We instead have training academy guys with little real flying experience as a result.
Not good nor bad, but also not a recipe for really skilled airmen.
The NYT article points out the shortcomings of these crews in dealing with any real problem.

I agree with that. However, most countries do not have USAF, or similar size airforce. Average US super carrier has more aircrafts than pretty much whole Central and Eastern Europe except Poland. So, these schools are of outmost importance in training pilots, and of course depends how they do it. The US has its own issues around this too. Remember Colgan flight?
However, problem with article and author is that author in general through his previous research is focused on CRM. He does acknowledge that Boeing messed it up, massively, but he let's it go. I think if he wanted to do due diligence he suppose to have series of article where he would separately address training, CRM, Boeing, FAA. In the end remember, Boeing pilots replicated Ethiopian flight and were unable to recover it. Also, he only ones mention aerodynamical stall specific to MAX in the beginning and never again.
 
You're agreeing with me?
Good thing I don't suffer any sort of heart disease.
What's the answer, then?
I think we might again agree that while the Airbus approach might work well under most circumstances, it can also lull crews into an unfortunate sense of invulnerability which then leads to events like AF447.
Maybe the answer lies in more rigorous training standards for airline training academies?
Work them hard and wash them out as needed. This will of course cost more, but the cost of an accident that might be avoided outweighs any marginal training cost.
Could a sharp crew overcome an MCAS runaway?
Well, one did, although with the helpful observations of a jumpseater. The accident Lion Air flight was also okay until the FO was given control and failed to use the thumb switch as aggressively as he needed to. The Ethiopian crew had lost the plot from the start.
Did Boeing make not one but a number of horrible mistakes in implementing MCAS?
I think we can agree on that.
Let's see, let's install a feel system that should be entirely transparent to the crews, so we don't need to tell them about it nor do we need to document it in any coherent way. It'll almost never activate anyway, since it only comes into play under flight regimes that no airline pilot will ever see.
Okay, but we then make the thing dependent upon one single AOA probe at a time, and that probe might well be wrong.
We've seen the outcome of this fatally flawed implementation and it isn't pretty.
Plenty of blame to go around here, and Boeing does bear its share, although no more than a share.
 
Originally Posted by fdcg27
You're agreeing with me?
Good thing I don't suffer any sort of heart disease.
What's the answer, then?
I think we might again agree that while the Airbus approach might work well under most circumstances, it can also lull crews into an unfortunate sense of invulnerability which then leads to events like AF447.
Maybe the answer lies in more rigorous training standards for airline training academies?
Work them hard and wash them out as needed. This will of course cost more, but the cost of an accident that might be avoided outweighs any marginal training cost.
Could a sharp crew overcome an MCAS runaway?
Well, one did, although with the helpful observations of a jumpseater. The accident Lion Air flight was also okay until the FO was given control and failed to use the thumb switch as aggressively as he needed to. The Ethiopian crew had lost the plot from the start.
Did Boeing make not one but a number of horrible mistakes in implementing MCAS?
I think we can agree on that.
Let's see, let's install a feel system that should be entirely transparent to the crews, so we don't need to tell them about it nor do we need to document it in any coherent way. It'll almost never activate anyway, since it only comes into play under flight regimes that no airline pilot will ever see.
Okay, but we then make the thing dependent upon one single AOA probe at a time, and that probe might well be wrong.
We've seen the outcome of this fatally flawed implementation and it isn't pretty.
Plenty of blame to go around here, and Boeing does bear its share, although no more than a share.

What's answer to it? They will have to reengineer this A LOT! They will offer MAX below current price, work out deals etc. and eventually introduce new plane down the road.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's what Boeing needs to do.

In the meantime:

We have "factories" churning out "pilots" who can't fly effectively when there is a problem with airplane.

They've never been over 30 degrees of bank.

They don't understand flying, much less crew resource management, effective thinking, or handling emergencies.

Regulatory authorities and airlines need to fundamentally change how pilots are trained.

Teach them to actually fly. To think.

Sadly, neither of those things will happen because they are both expensive and difficult.

Boeing will be the scapegoat.

The quick, specious, simple solution: blame the airplane and its manufacturer.

When the problem lies at the intersection of several factors, particularly pilot training and certification.
 
You've taken the broader view that I've tried to express. The Max is a Boeing problem, but the lack of basic airmanship skills among crews is an industry-wide one, as exemplified in the AF447 disaster which had nothing at all to do with any problem with the aircraft but was a matter of lack of situational awareness among the crew.
...and don't forget maintenance, as in let's just slap in this pick-n-pull AOA assembly, call it good and release the plane for revenue service.
 
Originally Posted by edyvw
... They will offer MAX below current price, work out deals etc. and eventually introduce new plane down the road.
Tab will be picked up by tax payers anyway. C17's, KC46's etc. name it.


Not with fixed price contracts.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by MolaKule
Originally Posted by edyvw
... They will offer MAX below current price, work out deals etc. and eventually introduce new plane down the road.
Tab will be picked up by tax payers anyway. C17's, KC46's etc. name it.


Not with fixed price contracts.

In 2009 we had 47% more C17's than we needed it. So, go figure...
 
Originally Posted by Astro14
That's what Boeing needs to do.

In the meantime:

We have "factories" churning out "pilots" who can't fly effectively when there is a problem with airplane.

They've never been over 30 degrees of bank.

They don't understand flying, much less crew resource management, effective thinking, or handling emergencies.

Regulatory authorities and airlines need to fundamentally change how pilots are trained.

Teach them to actually fly. To think.

Sadly, neither of those things will happen because they are both expensive and difficult.

Boeing will be the scapegoat.

The quick, specious, simple solution: blame the airplane and its manufacturer.

When the problem lies at the intersection of several factors, particularly pilot training and certification.

That is a problem across the board and not confined only to third world countries.
Main problem is that most of pilots coming from those schools think that once they are in cockpit their education stopped. I had an opportunity to sit on a flight from DEN to ATL next to first officer from FedEx flying on 757. By his opinion, he is in cockpit, and he is done with learning. He is product of these schools, just in the US.
And Boeing will pay the price, and they deserve that.
 
Originally Posted by sloinker
As an aside, I saw a documentary a couple years ago that showed some stark differences in the assembly of planes in South Carolina and Washington state. The machinists etc in Washington stating they wouldn't fly on a Carolina built Boeing. Don't remember the airframe(s) being discussed and the gripes were mostly about mechanical assembly by less than competent employees and approvals by unqualified inspectors. The 737 maxx will be back sooner or later and the hubbub will be mostly forgotten soon afterwards.


This statement, although posted in good faith is laughable.
First, its not even part of the thread here and assembly was not at fault here.

Second, typical internet hysteria, the "documentary" that you saw a couple years ago was a propaganda "documentary" by the Washington State Boeing union vs the NON Union South Carolina workers.
You do not think for a second that the union will give up trying to "discredit" the Boeing non union plant in SC do you?
They will be under constant attack, much like what is going on in Washington DC. Bad against Good, misinformation, lies and propaganda.

There is a new word for this in the last couple years = "Fake News"
 
Last edited:
The same kind of stuff was being pumped out when Boeing agreed to let Mitsubishi and Kawasaki in on building their new planes. The Dreamliner has been very successful.
 
Will Airbus pay off European regulators to find more problems and postpone the 737Max return ?

FAA will eventually clear it to fly in the USA, but in Europe might be a very difference story....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top