MAX’s Return Delayed by FAA Reevaluation of 737 Safety Procedures

[fdr]

Originally Posted by boofhead

I flew for several airlines that had a reputation (well deserved) for a high accident rate while flying perfectly serviceable airplanes and it was only after the problem was recognized as pilot error and action was taken to rectify that cause that the accident rates dropped. The point is that it is necessary to identify the root cause no matter how unpalatable it might be and to address it with actions that will reduce the risk. Going after Boeing as if their aircraft was the sole cause of the accidents is not going to help. I mentioned the previous accidents in 1996 that were caused by a loss of static information to the flight instruments for example. Neither of these were failures in the aircraft and both could still be safely flown but hundreds of people died.

80 percent of all accidents are pilot error. These accidents are no different. Burying your head in the sand does not help.

1. That the flightcrew were proximate to the event does not make them the primary cause of the event.
2. Under no stretch of the imagination did the aircraft meet the standards to be certified as presented to the crew.
3. The first event, the crew did not know about the fitment of the defective system, yet you place causation on their shoulders?
4. On the second event, the crew were not provided useable information or training on the weasel words that exist in the FCTM on the operational curiosities of the manual trim.
5. The manual trim as discussed in the FCTM does not by any reasonable stretch of the imagination meet the standards of certification.
6. Post all of the rhetoric, the issue remains a problem for a crew that is alerted to the issue. When simulations conducted with more generous start points than the events and with prior knowledge of the issues, and the fact that the session is going to evaluate the specific problem, when that setup nearly buries in the ground, then it is unreasonable and incorrect to assume that the events come under the all encompassing catch all of pilot error/human error/"80% of all...." for causation.

The design is done by humans, and certification is as well, that is where the problem developed here, and it was exacerbated by assumptions of goodness in the knowledge that the average crew operating the aircraft have.

If the industry does not desire to provide training in the off the wall events such as the manual trim constraints, don't blame the damned messenger who is stuck in the smoking hole and unable to defend themselves. If the industry is happy to put in service deficient designs that don't meet the standards of the day, again, don't blame the messenger.

You and all the other parties that follow this thread and the news on this tragedy have information that should improve your ability to cope with this particular abnormality, hopefully it will also provides some heuristics towards other anomalous conditions that would benefit from similar knowledge, however, nature has a way of reminding us of the limitations of our constructs; blaming the crew as a primary cause is incorrect under any fault analysis such as a W-B, or herringbone or otherwise, and does not cure the problem.

If the crew are the cause, then pray tell why the plane is still grounded, and will be going through what is in effect a full design review not only by the FAA as state of manufacturer regulator, but by almost all other regulators that will have any relationship with the aircraft.

TBC has a continued whiffiness emanating from the head of the fish. The poor schmuck at the design table is the symptom of the problem that had developed there, and the corporate response to this debacle stands in mute testimony of the problems that beset the OEM. Want to be a great corporation again? look in the mirror or listen to what you espouse, and sort your damn act out. Joe Sutter is rolling over in his grave in disgust at the corporate response that is detrimental to the entity.