Originally Posted by
Takwis
I remember discussions in one or more of the closed MAX threads, about Synthetic Airspeed, and how it could be used to supply a third airspeed reference for comparison. Well right here on the first page of the emails, we find that the technical pilots had a problem with that:
The second page shows that they are actually skirting FAA oversight, by planning to hide things from them.
How can the FAA provide oversight if Boeing is deliberately hiding things from them?
Hi there Takwis
I agree that things should not be hidden, but should be the subject of robust discussion between the regulator and the design team. If the designers are correct, then the regulator should accept that. Likewise management should listen to comment from line pilots and take note of what is being suggested.
A lot of those email exchanges are in my view perfectly normal disagreements which are bound to occur between all the design people and test pilots about how to proceed.
Take the one about "we won't be forced by FAA to bring in simulator training for the MAX". What is wrong with that I wonder? I would say the same. The two planes fly pretty much the same so a sim ride in a MAX simulator,, while nice to do, is not going to make much difference. Imagine there had been MAX simulators available to Lionair and ET and that those pilots had say a two hour session? It would have made no difference at all to the two crashes, would it? An NG sim can perfectly well simulate pretty much anything that is going to happen on a MAX in terms of handling, (and could even be programmed to be more like a MAX) including MCAS if that had been known about. I could simulate MCAS today on any 737 sim by just introducing runaway stab, and the removing the fault after 10 seconds. And then repeatedly introducing it if that were something that we wish to demonstrate.
Then exchange between the two technical pilots about "....this is egregious....". He was referring to a sim ride and some aspect of the simulation - not about MCAS itself. The style of the exchange was friendly banter. Yet the exchange was presented as proof that MCAS design flaws were being hidden.
Over the years in my own airline I have heard and seen far more disparaging remarks, even ugly ones, about the "management", from line pilots than those we have seen in these exchanges - many of them unprintable. Yet the airline made money for decades and has an impeccable safety record.
What is important is that management do not refuse to listen to complaints no matter how much they seem to be a "whinge", because it might be true.
The only stupid question is the one that is not asked.
Synthetic airspeed/. This is a great idea in principle but is fitted to very few aircraft world wide, and does need a total rethink on how you train pilots for a total loss of airspeed scenario. You probably could not fly a dual fleet with half of them fitted with synthetic airspeed, or indeed half of them with AOA displays.
So I fully see why this is a major issue. Now fit it to
all your fleet, NG and MAX and retrain
all the pilots, then you have a solution that works. In the absence of synthetic airspeed we have well understood pitch power settings which work perfectly well. If LN and ET had set 4 deg NU and 70% N1 at 1000 aal, and sat down for a while to review what was actually going on things might have turned out differently, and you don' t need synthetic airspeed to do that.
Lots of good stuff coming out of these exchanges.
Talk soon
R Guy