He can't seem to keep his story straight on this. One time he's saying the systems are too complicated to fly and next he says we have people flying big planes who don't know how to fly. Bottom line he is pushing for automation that allows idiots to fly planes?!?! I don't think that was his intention. Yes the airline industry is driven by consumer pricing and god only knows how many have gone bankrupt trying to survive in that industry. I have a whole lot more trust and support for Boeing than poorly educated and trained pilots and expecting Boeing to make their avionics system Idiot-proof is ludicrous. A shit hot naval F-18 aviator was once asked why don't they computer control carrier take-offs and landings since computers were so much more precise and faster than humans? His response was Who is going to do the maintenance and repair on them? Some 19-year-old kid who barely made it out of high school? I'm supposed to put my life in his hands? No thanks! I'm still waiting to hear just what sensors failed and why maintenance didn't repair them or just WTF happened? Was MCAS a complicated system? Yes, and it was last resort system that required a lot of things to go wrong first before it activated control. This just goes round and round with everyone pointing fingers at each other to lay the blame...

 

He can't seem to keep his story straight on this. One time he's saying the systems are too complicated to fly and next he says we have people flying big planes who don't know how to fly. Bottom line he is pushing for automation that allows idiots to fly planes?!?! I don't think that was his intention. Yes the airline industry is driven by consumer pricing and god only knows how many have gone bankrupt trying to survive in that industry. I have a whole lot more trust and support for Boeing than poorly educated and trained pilots and expecting Boeing to make their avionics system Idiot-proof is ludicrous. A shit hot naval F-18 aviator was once asked why don't they computer control carrier take-offs and landings since computers were so much more precise and faster than humans? His response was Who is going to do the maintenance and repair on them? Some 19-year-old kid who barely made it out of high school? I'm supposed to put my life in his hands? No thanks! I'm still waiting to hear just what sensors failed and why maintenance didn't repair them or just WTF happened? Was MCAS a complicated system? Yes, and it was last resort system that required a lot of things to go wrong first before it activated control. This just goes round and round with everyone pointing fingers at each other to lay the blame...

My reading of what he's talking about the several tiers of pilots and their capabilities. The naval aviator F-18 types that learn to fly a plane to stay alive, the types that live to fly and those that learn to fly for a living. To me, this is why Boeing originally made some MCAS related enhancements as options and minimized documentation about the system. Their test pilots most likely are in the first two tiers.

The pilots with the 'knack' don't need to see all those indicators to know that something very bad is happening and what needs to be done to fix it.

 

Hello,

Now I saw this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/business/boeing-737-max-crashes.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes

A senior Boeing engineer filed an internal ethics complaint this year saying that during the development of the 737 Max jet the company had rejected a safety system to minimize costs, equipment that he felt could have reduced risks that contributed to two fatal crashes.

Bertus

 

Hello,

Now I saw this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/business/boeing-737-max-crashes.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes

A senior Boeing engineer filed an internal ethics complaint this year saying that during the development of the 737 Max jet the company had rejected a safety system to minimize costs, equipment that he felt could have reduced risks that contributed to two fatal crashes.

Bertus

Working in healthcare I find myself following this very carefully. Hospital deaths are going to be climbing steadily with no accountability as staff is becoming less and less capable of dealing with real issues and we become equioment and software "managers" as opposed to actual practitioners. There is some good equipment out there, but you have to be an expert user to get the benefit out of it, and very few users are expert users. An arrogant surgeon can do more damage with a latest electrosurgery unit than with a scalpel unfortunately

 

Seems Ethopia's hands are a mite dirty...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...ecords-after-crash/ar-AAIpgFP?ocid=spartanntp

 

Seems Ethopia's hands are a mite dirty...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...ecords-after-crash/ar-AAIpgFP?ocid=spartanntp

I expected a finding of shoddy workmanship and poor piloting being factors in this case but this is much more than that.

 

Today on LinkedIn:

​

 

Just put the pilots in the rear of the airplane where they won't be in the way. Save those front seats for Platinum First Class.

 

Sully weighs in on the NYT article - spoiler alert, he's not having any of it.
http://www.sullysullenberger.com/my-letter-to-the-editor-of-new-york-times-magazine/

 

Sully weighs in on the NYT article - spoiler alert, he's not having any of it.
http://www.sullysullenberger.com/my-letter-to-the-editor-of-new-york-times-magazine/

I 100% agree that MCAS was a death trap but I'm pretty sure he would have handled the problem by flying the damn airplane like other experienced pilots did when the MCAS trap was sprung. As a expert witness in a court case is he going to say Recovery was not possible?

 

Today on LinkedIn:

​

 

This had been in the news already, but just for the sake of keeping the thread alive, here's an update.

Boeing is considering shutting down production of the 737 Max in January 2020. One engineering analyst who specializes in aeronautical problems commented that the FAA will not approve the fixes to the MCAS and 737 Max will be permanently grounded.

So Boeing and the airlines that bought the 737 Max are now the proud owners of 100s of tons of scrap aluminum. That's better than collecting beer cans for recycling.

 

More problems for Boeing.
Malfunctioning Capsule Atlas Starliner (MCAS)

 

Starliner update:
https://www.space.com/boeing-starliner-oft-fails-to-reach-correct-orbit.html

"During a full news conference later in the morning, Bridenstine and Chilton explained that the capsule's clock, which is programmed to govern the spacecraft's activities, somehow misinterpreted the stage of the mission. This error, which engineers refer to as an anomaly with the Mission Elapsed Time, triggered the capsule to over-control its location and burn too much fuel. "

Maybe three Timex clocks on board?

 

Starliner update:
https://www.space.com/boeing-starliner-oft-fails-to-reach-correct-orbit.html

"During a full news conference later in the morning, Bridenstine and Chilton explained that the capsule's clock, which is programmed to govern the spacecraft's activities, somehow misinterpreted the stage of the mission. This error, which engineers refer to as an anomaly with the Mission Elapsed Time, triggered the capsule to over-control its location and burn too much fuel. "

Maybe three Timex clocks on board?

It wanted to be home for Christmas.

 

Glad it landed safely.

I am reminded of the quips attributed to Shepard and Glenn about sitting on top of a rocket knowing every part was built by the lowest bidder. Might change that to being shot into space knowing the guidance and control software was written by Boeing.

 

I 100% agree that MCAS was a death trap but I'm pretty sure he would have handled the problem by flying the damn airplane like other experienced pilots did when the MCAS trap was sprung. As a expert witness in a court case is he going to say Recovery was not possible?

I doubt he would make that claim, but he doesn't have to in order to make the claim that the situation was one in which it is unreasonable to expect a typical aircrew to successfully manage.

It would be interesting to know about how well he managed the situation in the simulators, always keeping in mind that (1) he is NOT a typical pilot, and (2) no matter how much he might have tried to replicate the situation, he still knew what was coming and how to handle it.

 

The whole point of unmanned flight testing is to prove out whether the software is reliable or not. If not - nobody dies. Software can be revisited, adjusted or edited, or scrapped and a new set of software written. Testing happens again to prove out the system. If successful with no glitches then it's deemed safe for space travel. It's only when those hidden gremlins strike, like the foam strike on the space shuttle Discovery. Something nobody thought was a serious matter until that gremlin struck.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/23/business/Boeing-ceo-muilenburg.html

 

"Mr. Muilenburg has repeatedly made overly optimistic projections about how quickly the plane would return to service." (in @shortbus 's posted article) - That's what they all do.

After decades of bliss with public relations on Boeing's behalf, Boeing has finally come under fire. Back in the late 70's and early 80's it was Boeing who egged on the FAA and News media against the MacDonnell Douglas DC-10. A plane who in reality experienced a number of catastrophic failures and near misses, was largely more reliable than the 747, which routinely had numerous cockpit warnings of system failures. The DC-10 flown by Freddy Laker (Laker Airways) was the most reliable plane in the sky at the time. More reliable than the 747, 737 and the 727. Yet, swayed by the media, public opinion turned against the DC-10, forcing MacDonnell Douglas to make major changes, including the name from DC-10 to DC-11. Unfortunately the DC jets never made a comeback and Boeing bought them out.

"DC-10 crashes. Goes up in flames." was one headlines about a DC-10 that crashed in Mexico. Why did it crash? On landing, it struck a dump truck too close to the runway. Truth is - no plane could have survived that. But the media was so swayed against the DC jets that they could find nothing good to say.

It wasn't structural or design issues with the 10, it had more to do with airlines cutting costs by taking shortcuts during routine maintenance that lead to some of the more notable accidents. The engine that pulled off the wing was not poorly designed, it was the maintenance habits of using a fork lift instead of a crane with a weight scale to lift the weight of the engine so the engine could be removed from the pylon. Then the pylon was to be removed in the same manor. But most notably was American Airlines who decided it was quicker to take a fork lift and raise a cradle under the engine and then to unbolt the engine/pylon as a single unit and remove it from the plane. If they didn't get the weight right they'd apply huge amounts of torque to the aft bolt and the titanium fitting that held it in place. Those fittings were being cracked, which is why the one engine came loose and tore itself off over the top of the left wing, flipping the aircraft upside down and stuffing it into a Chicago neighborhood.

The 737 MAX is an otherwise good airplane. It's the software that has been the issue. That and Boeing's attitude of "Make the buck!" Well, they made their "Buck" and over 300 people died for it. Personally I don't care for ANY of the 737's out there. I've flown on many and have never liked their landing approach, it's like that of a floating leaf coming to the ground; rocks this way, then that way. But that's my personal opinion. Jets with T-tails are inherently more stable in flight because the horizontal stabilizer (back wings) are riding in clean air. And the main wings do not have engines on them to disturb air flow.

I would rather fly on a real DC jet any day over Boeing. Airbus - I don't have a lot of experience with them, so - - - .