Another 737 MAX-8 down

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

And yet, in countries that require more training, despite seeing that same pitch down, nothing even came close to happening. But yeah, it's all the design's fault.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Zaphod, you know what, I've ridden on hundreds of airlines on thousands of flights around the globe. I can think of dozens, possibly hundreds of times I' looked at the country I was in, the airplane and the flight crew and just knew that things probably weren't up to snuff training wise, maintenance wise and crew wise. I wasn't flying on them for some kind of personal adventure, I was flying on them because I needed to get somewhere. I didn't have the luxury of sitting in my chair and pontificating about "training" on the internet until I could fly on a United, or a Delta. I had to take the Garuda's, the China Air's, the Thai Airways, the Air India's, etc. The 737 was probably singularly the most regularly used piece of equipment next to possibly the 747-400 for the flying I was doing (with some Airbus A300's thrown in).

The 737 has a pretty remarkable safety record. The 737 in some variety has been flying for 54 years, and in that time there have been 184 crashes with 4,862 fatalities. (Note - many of the early ones involved terrorism, but we won't get into the minutiae). That works out to an average of 26 souls lost per hull loss. The 737 original had a hull loss rate of 1.75/m departures (again, many due to terrorism), the Classic series brought that number down to 0.54/m departures and the NG Series brought the number down even further to 0.27/m departures. With the 737 Max this number is now up over 2.0. This alone should tell you there's a problem with the design! But let's keep going.

The 737 MAX alone accounts for fully 7% of all the fatalities for the entire generation of 737's, all 54 years of them...and it's only been flying for less than 2 years! Doesn't this bother you? This includes the 100/200, the 300/400/500 and the NG 600/700 and 800 series. Tens of millions upon millions of cycles, and in less than 1m cycles the MAX racks up 2 hull losses and 338 fatalities. This too is a pretty good indicator of a design issue, but "no, it's all training", right?

I always felt a little bit safer when I saw I was going on a 737, I knew it would get me there...safely. It was a forgiving aircraft, and it was reliable. Not so with the MAX, but it's a training issue. I worried less, even when I knew crew training or experience might be an issue. Why? Because it didn't take a rocket scientist to fly a 737. And, because I didn't have any other choice.

So you can sit there and stick up for your beloved Boeing (which you know you do) and yammer on about it being a "training issue" while refusing to acknowledge there's a serious software and sensor issue with the "design" of the MAX, but the facts are: Two 737 MAX's have crashed in less than the span of one year, both of them exhibiting similar flight problems...and 338 people are dead. The Boeing 737 hull loss numbers are now heavily skewed upwards by the MAX. AND, much of the free world actually "barred" the MAX from their airspace before Boeing or the FAA would lift a finger about it! (Note - They didn't bar the airlines, the ones with "training issues"...no, they barred the airplane itself! But the rest of the world is ill informed and ignorant of this "training issue", right?)

The 737 MAX isn't "all that" for an airliner anyway, it's a product of Boeing's bending to airline GREED! It's a horrible plane. Have you ever even flown on one? I have...a week before they were grounded! Did you try to use the lav? Could you close the door? Could you fit in your seat? NO. Oh, and we had mechanicals at the gate on pushback, and had something go wrong climbing out of DEN (which they said they were "straightening out"). The 737 Captain sitting next to me deadheading said "that's not real good", and I agreed.

How many more people have to die before you'll stop sticking up for Boeing and instead taking them to task for...wait for it...a serious "DESIGN FLAW"????

ETA - An aircraft manufacturer shouldn't have to offer up "training" as a solution for aircraft which suddenly "pitch down" with no control input from the flight crew! That's absurd! Frankly, I'd say it would be laughable...if people weren't dying because of it.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Reading some of Zaphs posts over the years I would hardly say he's Boeings biggest fan tbh.

a reply to: Woody510

I would disagree, but okay, then maybe he shouldn't offer up as justification Boeing's solution to a known problem as being acceptable, and just chalking it up to "training".

Summary - The technology is screwed up, so let's require some more training so we can blame the human, because we all know the technology is better than the human, right? They're just not trained well enough.

Guess what? There will always be airlines and crews who could use additional training. If we're a smart culture, we will develop things in which technology makes things easier, not harder. Technology should work for US, we shouldn't work for IT.

How about this instead...let's disable the MCAS system on all 737 MAX aircraft completely and fly them for a year. Then let's look at the results. Oh, and let's put another angle of attack sensor on that airplane while we're at it.

originally posted by: charlyv
a reply to: Zaphod58

...read the data from a bad sensor.

That is just it though... it is a system. A combination of software and hardware that must work as a whole. The sensors should be redundant and backed up with watchdogs. There should be zero tolerance for bad or corrupted data from any part of a system.

Thank you. Again, I'm just a rube but I am bewildered about some experts in this thread suddenly taking issue with people taking issue with the faulty elements being discussed in the thread.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

It's funny how doing anything but jumping on the Blame Boeing bus is now "defending my beloved Boeing". If I responded to that the way I'd like to, it would break T&C, so I'll leave it at that.

If you had actually read, I've never once said Boeing was totally clear, but all the blame shouldn't be placed on the aircraft. But I forgot, we can't blame the poor crews anymore. It's GOT to be all on Boeing.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Try actually reading. I didn't justify it ot chalk it up to "just training". I've said repeatedly that it's a combination of the design AND training.

a reply to: KansasGirl

Except that we aren't. There's a hell of a gap between what you're claiming here, and what we're saying. What is ACTUALLY being said is let's spread the blame everywhere it belongs. You don't fix a pilot training issue by burying your head in the sand and applying software patches. You have to know everything that went wrong, to know what needs fixing.

a reply to: Zaphod58

There is only one thing to do …..!!

BRING BACK THE DC-3 !!

(actually flown on one of these number years ago on trip from Ft Lauderdale to one out islands in Bahamas )

Was a fun trip ……….

a reply to: firerescue

I love the DC-3. There used to be one going between the islands every morning just as I got to work. Thing was flying pretty much every day, no matter what.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Two simple questions for you...

1. Do you deny there is a serious software and sensor problem on the 737 MAX, which to overcome the Boeing design problem, requires additional training beyond that which another 737 pilot would get?

2. Have you ever flown on a 737 MAX?

Bonus question - Why is this additional training required on the 737 MAX? To train up for what problem?

DBL

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Again, read. I have been saying most of this thread that there's an issue with it.

Whether I've flown one or not is irrelevant. Or are you going to claim that only people that have flown them have the right to give an opinion.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Okay, so you're wrong, and you're backing up.

OOPs!!

You don't like to be wrong, and you will fight to no end to prove you are not wrong...even when you are.

Fair enough. Feel better?

The 737 MAX has a serious design flaw...Stop deflecting...do you agree or not????????

Zaphod, FSME of "aviation" was WRONG...and can't admit it!!

Sorry.

In 54 years of flight the 737 is legend, and one design, one system besmirches that. Yet you will continue to argue, just to prove Zaphod is right. Above all else. I'm very disappointed. You're not objective; you're biased.

And, in the end, when the MCAS system is proven to be a problem, and proven to be the only thing which could certify the aircraft for flight, will you then admit you were wrong? No, you won't. Your ego precedes you. It is impossible to prove the all knowing Zaphod wrong...just cuz.

You're wrong, Zaphod...this airplane is bad, and no amount of "training" will make it good. It's a bad design...and you simply cannot admit this!

Can it be made good? Perhaps. But the current situation is bad, and it SHOULD stay on the ground until it's FIXED!! It's broken...sorry you don't want to admit this.

BTW...while you may have 20 years of being with airplanes...I have 32 years with them, every single day (except for Saturday and Sunday). I'm still with them every day...every single day.

ETA - Oh, and BTW, stop telling me to "read"...I read just fine!

a reply to: KansasGirl

Oh, you're not a "rube", girl!

Words of wisdom...don't fly on a Boeing 737 MAX!

It might take control away from the pilots in command and suddenly "pitch down"...just cuz. (just hope they've been "trained" to deal with the aircraft taking control away from them before CRASHING...because...training). All planes take control away from the command pilots and plummet into the earth before they can be recovered. It's just the modern design "thing"...all the rage.

It's a broken platform...and Boeing won't admit it.

(Neither will Zaphod)

Note - Am I angry about this? Yes, as a matter of fact, I am! I am genuinely saddened by some of the defenses here. This is a travesty, and it's wrong. In a day when maintenance standards are at an all time low, when corners are being cut at every turn, suddenly a new aircraft comes on the market, a brand new plane...and it just dives out of the sky, on its own, into the ground, killing everyone. Great!

Damn those inexperienced pilots!!

Nothing to see here, folks...move along!

ETA - Man, Zaph is going to have to pull his truck over to the side of the road to reply to this one. Probably steam shooting out if his ears!!

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

How am I backing up? I said on the 13th that there's some kind of software issue in the aircraft. And I've said since then that there's something wrong with it repeatedly. Saying that training also played a role isn't saying that there's nothing wrong with the aircraft.

I've admitted before when I'm wrong. Accusing me of backing up on something I've been saying doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense though. But don't let that stop you!

a reply to: Zaphod58

Not so fast...

Just at the top of this page alone..

And yet, in countries that require more training, despite seeing that same pitch down, nothing even came close to happening. But yeah, it's all the design's fault.

Sure looks like defending the "system", and the company who built it, to me!

In your statement, you acknowledge the aircraft performs unreliably, without control inputs, yet you attribute it to "countries that require more training".

C'mon man.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

No, I simply said that requiring more training before putting a pilot in the cockpit makes a difference, and MIGHT have made a difference here. That still isn't saying the aircraft is perfect, or that I think it doesn't have any problems. You can't deny that countries that are expanding fast and have been putting less trained pilots in the cockpit, and working maintenance, have seen more incidents.

Would more training have saved these aircraft, we'll never know. Would it have hurt? Hell no. Does that mean that I think the Max is perfectly safe, if a well trained crew is flying? Of course not. It could happen to them too. The POINT that was being made is that we have to look at all factors, from the flaws in the aircraft, to crew training, and take them all into consideration.

On another note, pilots from Southwest, American, United, and two non-US customers were in Renton for a meeting with Boeing, that included testing the software upgrade. Pilots were put in the simulator, into a situation similar to JT610, with the updated software. According to a source, all of the pilots landed safely.

CNN