GT says fatal 737 MAX crashes caused by 'incompetent crew.'
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Derry
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simple facts: Same crews, Same training, Same Angle of Attack vane (identical part number) for the NG and the MAX.
Fatal accident rate: NG 0.06 per million departures (100+ million departures), MAX 3.08 per million departures (0.65 million departures). No know flight control fatal accidents for NG.
Same everything EXCEPT additional software in the MAX controlling the stabiliser trim.
If we took out over-runs, undershoots, loss of control and a mid air due to human errors, the rate for the NG would be even lower, the NG is an amazingly safe aircraft. The MAX as certified was not regardless of where the accidents occurred. The NG is just as capable of killing when crewed by incompetent pilots. Ten fatal accidents for the NG since 1997, two for the MAX in less than 2 years.
Put yourself in the position of the airworthiness authorities with the above comparable accident rate. Would you allow it to fly in your jurisdiction based on those numbers? How could you have justify allowing this to fly if there was an accident on your watch?
That is why the MAX is still grounded.
Fatal accident rate: NG 0.06 per million departures (100+ million departures), MAX 3.08 per million departures (0.65 million departures). No know flight control fatal accidents for NG.
Same everything EXCEPT additional software in the MAX controlling the stabiliser trim.
If we took out over-runs, undershoots, loss of control and a mid air due to human errors, the rate for the NG would be even lower, the NG is an amazingly safe aircraft. The MAX as certified was not regardless of where the accidents occurred. The NG is just as capable of killing when crewed by incompetent pilots. Ten fatal accidents for the NG since 1997, two for the MAX in less than 2 years.
Put yourself in the position of the airworthiness authorities with the above comparable accident rate. Would you allow it to fly in your jurisdiction based on those numbers? How could you have justify allowing this to fly if there was an accident on your watch?
That is why the MAX is still grounded.
Another slant
The sample rate for Max is very small outside USA. So percentage crash rates are not comparable. How did the USA rate compare? What was the max accident rate per million USA departures where most of The flying took place?
The 737 100/200 had a poor start like the 727. Both went on to be a success. Reminds me of an ad in Ireland last year
” Dacia, Ireland’s biggest selling car since last year” . It’s true. They sold ten last year and 20 this year. That’s double. 200% increase ( figures not accurate but makes the point). Ford sold 50,000 or so.
Since 1997 you say. Well what has been the biggest change since then? It’s not MCAS . It’s the change in training requirements. In my view. But I do wear glasses.
all the best and thanks for your own viewpoint which I accept is a valuable to as mine is to me
R Guy
Emergency to be carried out by a single crew member - trim run away a memory item!! but needs two crew to crank the handle/s
And all simulators under stated the trim wheel forces (the only training crews ever get/got).
Retired Guy it was known well before the NG that the trim wheel was "marginal" and a procedure was put in the manuals - but that was removed and the wheel reduced in size.
But for certification (inc the MAX) up till VMO will need a single pilot to carry out the trim adjustment, not two or both.
That will be tricky I expect (even for an NG!).
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: France
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A level of experience would have gone a long way to fixing this issue, many times 737’s have experienced issues with the Elec pitch trim after takeoff ( either runaways, locked or failed trims ) and handled the situation to a successful outcome by disconnecting the elec stab trim and using manual trim. (..) There is no substitute for experience, full stop end of story.
If you, as you claim, walked the halls around Boeing engineering, you should know just how ridiculous that accusation is. There is absolutely no shortage of engineers of Asian descent and more than a few black/brown faces along with other "people of color" as the woke say these days.
Your groundless speculation knows no bounds...
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Southern Finland weather-wise
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi curtain twitcher
Another slant
The sample rate for Max is very small outside USA. So percentage crash rates are not comparable. How did the USA rate compare? What was the max accident rate per million USA departures where most of The flying took place?
The 737 100/200 had a poor start like the 727. Both went on to be a success.
Since 1997 you say. Well what has been the biggest change since then? It’s not MCAS . It’s the change in training requirements. In my view. But I do wear glasses.
all the best and thanks for your own viewpoint which I accept is a valuable to as mine is to me
R Guy
Another slant
The sample rate for Max is very small outside USA. So percentage crash rates are not comparable. How did the USA rate compare? What was the max accident rate per million USA departures where most of The flying took place?
The 737 100/200 had a poor start like the 727. Both went on to be a success.
Since 1997 you say. Well what has been the biggest change since then? It’s not MCAS . It’s the change in training requirements. In my view. But I do wear glasses.
all the best and thanks for your own viewpoint which I accept is a valuable to as mine is to me
R Guy
To answer your question: let's bend statistics and assume that 10% of the MAX and 30% of the 737-600/700/800/900 flights took place outside the US and all fatal MAX crashes and 50% of the pre-MAX fatal crashes were outside the US. The incredibly high significance level remains about the same. In other words, even outside the "well-trained-western-pilots"-US there is absolutely no uncertainty that the MAX has a way higher fatal accident rate.
Last edited by know_nothing_PPL; 26th Jan 2020 at 21:39.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The accident proportions for Boeing 737-600/700/800/900 and the Boeing 737 Max of 0.06 and 3,08 per million flights are different on the 0.000000000000001 level (two-tailed z-test for two proportions). That means that in saying the MAX is unsafer than the MAX, your risk to be wrong is 1:1000000000000000. I have never before seen such a significance level.
To answer your question: let's bend statistics and assume that 10% of the MAX and 30% of the 737-600/700/800/900 flights were outside the US and all fatal MAX crashes and 50% of the pre-MAX fatal crashes took place outside the US. The ridiculously high significance level remains the same, in other words, even outside the US there is no uncertainty that the MAX has a way higher fatal accident rate.
To answer your question: let's bend statistics and assume that 10% of the MAX and 30% of the 737-600/700/800/900 flights were outside the US and all fatal MAX crashes and 50% of the pre-MAX fatal crashes took place outside the US. The ridiculously high significance level remains the same, in other words, even outside the US there is no uncertainty that the MAX has a way higher fatal accident rate.
Good grief Sunfish, so now Boeing is racist because GT said something stupid.
If you, as you claim, walked the halls around Boeing engineering, you should know just how ridiculous that accusation is. There is absolutely no shortage of engineers of Asian descent and more than a few black/brown faces along with other "people of color" as the woke say these days.
Your groundless speculation knows no bounds...
If you, as you claim, walked the halls around Boeing engineering, you should know just how ridiculous that accusation is. There is absolutely no shortage of engineers of Asian descent and more than a few black/brown faces along with other "people of color" as the woke say these days.
Your groundless speculation knows no bounds...
I know Boeing’s workforce (or used to), that’s why the Thomas message is so degrading.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For all of Boeing’s business coups and innovation, one stark statistic has come to symbolize the company’s priorities: Over the past six years, Boeing spent $43.4 billion on stock buybacks, compared with $15.7 billion on research and development for commercial airplanes. The board even approved an additional $20 billion buyback in December 2018, less than two months after the first 737 Max crash, though it subsequently shelved that plan.
Have a read Geoffrey, there are actual journalists out there, not just dingle-berry types.
https://fortune.com/longform/boeing-...first-culture/
Much easier to blame deceased people for corporate negligence.
You seem to be under the impression that most of the MAX fleet is in the US. It's not. Out of 387 MAXs delivered only 76 are registered in the US, 69 of those shared between American, United and Southwest. There are more MAXs in China than the US. The overwhelming majority of the MAXs delivered are flown outside of the US.
Last edited by MickG0105; 27th Jan 2020 at 00:18. Reason: Correct FAA Registry count
The accident proportions for Boeing 737-600/700/800/900 and the Boeing 737 Max of 0.06 and 3,08 per million flights are different on the 0.000000000000001 level (two-tailed z-test for two proportions). That means that in saying the MAX is unsafer than the MAX, your risk to be wrong is 1:1000000000000000. I have never before seen such a significance level.
To answer your question: let's bend statistics and assume that 10% of the MAX and 30% of the 737-600/700/800/900 flights took place outside the US and all fatal MAX crashes and 50% of the pre-MAX fatal crashes were outside the US. The incredibly high significance level remains about the same. In other words, even outside the "well-trained-western-pilots"-US there is absolutely no uncertainty that the MAX has a way higher fatal accident rate.
To answer your question: let's bend statistics and assume that 10% of the MAX and 30% of the 737-600/700/800/900 flights took place outside the US and all fatal MAX crashes and 50% of the pre-MAX fatal crashes were outside the US. The incredibly high significance level remains about the same. In other words, even outside the "well-trained-western-pilots"-US there is absolutely no uncertainty that the MAX has a way higher fatal accident rate.
By grace, there is usually so few accidents that a normal or poisson distribution of any population does not occur. Comparing disparate populations with such low levels of events can be done by various methods, however the error or reliability of the methods tends to swamp the signal that is being looked at. Whenever looking at statistical data, the truth resides in the notes.
If a regional analysis is undertaken on all types, then the confounding factors include age of fleet, maintenance, ATC, terrain, weather etc, and these are not easy to filter out. If one wants to just look at exceptions, then ET 409 is a probable example of a crew losing spatial orientation, and having a bad day. The crew were from Ethiopia, the plane was likely serviceable to impact. Therefore Ethiopian training is "no good"? Thats 2010, In 2019, a serviceable B767-300F is parked in the water to the east of Houston, GTI3591. Does that indicate that the training and regulator of that flight is also incompetent? If ET and all other AFR/ME/SEA/NA are collectively shown to be incompetent on the basis of a single event, then the corollary has to also hold, that AA, DL, SWA etc are also collectively tainted by a single exceptional event, and that would obviously be considered unreasonable, as it indeed is, as is collectively arguing statistics of exceptional events as being a basis for a holier than thou position across national boundaries.
A valid analysis of the differences between the international populations that removes or at least quantifies the various factors meaningfully would take much more data than is thankfully at hand.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Melbourne
Age: 68
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_in_Indonesia
The name is Porter, check that out and then tell me there isn’t a problem.
Not racist, Just rational.
The name is Porter, check that out and then tell me there isn’t a problem.
Not racist, Just rational.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_in_Indonesia
The name is Porter, check that out and then tell me there isn’t a problem.
Not racist, Just rational.
The name is Porter, check that out and then tell me there isn’t a problem.
Not racist, Just rational.
Will show the USA higher than Indonesia.
Lion Air was trying for more simulator training for the MAX and any training is good - they were basically told they will look like fools if they mandated the training.
Don't tell me that's not a problem - the weak ask for help then get laughed at by people expecting $1,000 per phone call.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_in_Indonesia
The name is Porter, check that out and then tell me there isn’t a problem.
Not racist, Just rational.
The name is Porter, check that out and then tell me there isn’t a problem.
Not racist, Just rational.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Melbourne
Age: 68
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rated De , have you looked at the flight data recorder transcript of the Lion Air accident ? If so , did you understand it? Have you operated a B737 ? Have you operated in Indonesia ? Want me to bore you with “war stories” about my experiences there ? If you want to convince yourself that all carriers are equal on ideological grounds ,well, knock yourself out. I cant help you. Meanwhile I’ll stick to reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_in_Indonesia
The name is Porter, check that out and then tell me there isn’t a problem.
Not racist, Just rational.
The name is Porter, check that out and then tell me there isn’t a problem.
Not racist, Just rational.
The Adam Air B734 accident was directly attributable to the crews actions following lack of knowledge and training. A lot of runway excursions occurred over the years, from a toxic mix of bad weather, poor friction coefficients, unstable approaches etc. As often as those are crew related, they also reflect the management pressure and the environmental condition. Still, highest likely hood to own a Boeing is to buy some land off the end of a runway, or side sometimes.
Be that as it may, the problems of JT43/JT610 (and ET302) took over 6 months of investigation to become understood, and so far, the cure for it is still not in place. That doesn't gel with a causation being the crew only. At the point in time that the crew had their bad days, none of what is known now was known, and they were confronted with novel conditions. If the manufacturers TP's weren't aware of the system, how do we expect the crew to be able to work it out, while fighting for their lives? No pressure.... If the manufacturers TP had to have multiple goes to get a successful recovery from the same starting conditions, knowing what they did after the events, and knowing when it was going to occur, then it seems somewhat unreasonable to blame the crew.
The crew were not the designers of the ICAO standards for crew training or experience, nor part of personnel selection, nor the designers of the system that was added without any advice to the operators. The crew are victims of the system, not the cause of the system. That goes far higher up the food chain.
just sayin'
George, I think we are all aware of ‘cultural differences”between various countries, but I fail to see how they are relevant to a bizarre system failure in a badly designed model of the B737. My understanding is the FAA, Regulators and perhaps the FBI and major American law firms agree with me.
From memory USA has 209 pages of victims and Indonesia was in low double numbers - 20ish pages if that.
Check the wiki yourself - the same listing you posted to prove a point you wished to make.
I will concede that there is much more to take into consideration - but that is not what you did.
Lion Air wanted extra training for the MAX - Boeing stopped that happening.
P.S PNG has a poor aviation history- bloody expats!
Check the wiki yourself - the same listing you posted to prove a point you wished to make.
I will concede that there is much more to take into consideration - but that is not what you did.
Lion Air wanted extra training for the MAX - Boeing stopped that happening.
P.S PNG has a poor aviation history- bloody expats!
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
George, I think we are all aware of ‘cultural differences”between various countries, but I fail to see how they are relevant to a bizarre system failure in a badly designed model of the B737. My understanding is the FAA, Regulators and perhaps the FBI and major American law firms agree with me.
A logical fallacy no matter how cleverly constructed whether it be race, education,political or ethnic grounds does not excuse corporate malfeasance.
A non sequitur is just that and to suggest that nationality is the reason why the thing pitched itself vertical is a deductive failure.