Note the admission that the move of corporate headquarters to Chicago didn’t help:
Board Level Committee Established at Boeing
Earl
If some airlines are dialing back on pilot qualifications and Boeing is at the same time selling planes that require a higher level of pilot skill it should be no surprise if accidents occur at the intersection of the two.
…especially when institutional corruption of the investigating authorities combines with commercial pressure within Boeing to not hold said airlines accountable.
I know squat about airplanes but is this really true though? I thought the article said the Ethiopian incident actually got it right but could not move the manual wheel. This being later confirmed in a simulator? Or am I mixing it up?
I don’t think that’s the case. I don’t know that airlines are dialing back on pilot qualifications. Boeing shot itself in the foot trying to skirt around requirements for additional training for the 737 MAX to make acquisition more attractive.
I’m old enough to remember when I was a pilot that pilots of longer range airplanes derisively called the early 737s FLUFs (Fucking Little Ugly Fuckers). Nevertheless the original 737 was a brilliant design. The lower nacelles was a huge selling point as it made them easy to service and they were solid money makers for short range airlines like Southwest.
Trying to modernize them to compete with the Airbus for long range service instead of spending the time and money to design a new airframe was a mistake that could sink the company.
My point was that if it was in fact just a matter of pilot training, everything else being equal, it would be expected that an increase in accidents would be seen across the board rather than on just on one type of aircraft. I’ve haven’t seen anyone make that case.
Yes, that’s the other point. If it’s a pilot training issue why did Boeing itself make the argument no further training was needed.?
In any case here’s what Capt Sully says:Pilots Criticize Boeing, Saying 737 Max ‘Should Never Have Been Approved’
Retired Capt. Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger told a congressional subcommittee Wednesday that an automated flight control system on the 737 Max “was fatally flawed and should never have been approved.”
Because training time on a simulator equals time and money. Either Boeing would have to pay for it by adding it to the sales price or pass the cost on to the buyer. All things being equal, the airlines are going to buy a plane that doesn’t require a new type rating or simulator time over one that does, especially if they have to pay for it.
Grandfather rears his ugly head yet again…did the a/c and pilots need a new type rating, or were changes minor enough to continue with the original one? Lessee, there’s still one rivet in the left-seat sun visor mounting that hasn’t changed, so I reckon we’re good to go.
Moving the engines was a pretty fundamental change, so it’s not a surprise they didn’t like talking about it much. Shades of El Faro refit but at the design level.
I just read Captain Sullenberger’s testimony, a man whose opinion I respect. I like what he said about the startle factor. It’s real and it’s huge, although it’s rarely mentioned in the aftermath of both aircraft and ship accidents, if at all. He has first hand experience. Plus he actually tested the same conditions on a 737 MAX simulator.
For Boeing to fight the training issue and omit specific instructions about what to do in case a hidden critical widget goes south is egregious.
I think you’re right that there are strong parallels between the symbiotic nature of Boeing’s relationship with the FAA and the CG and the El Farro. You probably can’t point a finger at any single individual, nor would it serve any purpose. As to Boeing’s corporate ethos, j’accuse.
With regard to Captainn Sollenberger and the startle theory reminds me of what happened with a wire guided missile in the past. The operater was so startled by the noise when the missile fired that if he was holding onto the joy stick the missile was lost. Hands off until after launch then gather control and everything worked.
The relevance to this to this forum is the aircraft like a yacht should be inherently balanced. The pilot and the software was trying to balance a brick.
The Swiss cheese theory so ably illustrated by Dutchie is a standard example of accident prevention used throughout the offshore world.
I think KC’s error trapping concept applies more here than the cheese slice theory which does not account for hidden design flaws.
The Eryx simulator I worked with had a little speaker built into the launch tube, which made such a noise that we had to use hearing protectors. The reason never struck me until now 
</OT>
if those pilots read the ipad training notes they would know turning on the autopilot will disable the mcas ( but you need to be in stable flight to get the autopilot on)
In both crashes the pilots acted as they they never read up on mcas and both cases they let the plane overspeed so in both cases they werent very skilled
You must work for Boeing.
You really should read the Maureen Tkacik New Republic article from at the link above. Here I copied down here for you.
You seem to be deceiving yourself as Boeing would want you to.
I’d love to see a copy of the iPad training notes. Do you have one you can share?
sure boeing made a huge cock up but only 3rd world pilots crashed them as you would expect…
I dont work in the aviation industry but plenty of my mates do
i’ll see if I can get the mcas training notes for pilots in area where the mcas is not in their sims
That’s a great narrative you can keep telling yourself but the facts as people have gone on record with indicate this could easily have happened on any carrier.
Even if the argument with regards to so-called third world pilots is accepted it still doesn’t make sense because the planes are crashing. So that would raise the question do more skilled pilots have sufficent margin?
If it’s assumed U.S pilots for example are 1000 times better then the pilots that are crashing is that acceptable odds? Plus even good pilots can have a bad day.
That is a very stupid comment. Since when did nationality or race become a proof of qualifications??
Living and working in a multi-racial place like Singapore I’m surprised that you still harbour such ideas.