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

[yoko1]

Originally Posted by Maninthebar

For the record, it was BOEING who decided that no extra training was required in order to fly the MAX.

For the record, the airlines clearly communicated that pilot training costs would be part of their purchasing decision. Boeing (and Airbus) want to sell airplanes. Airlines want to operate them as cheaply as they can. The same motivations to drive down costs that influenced the decisions at Boeing which resulted in the MCAS debacle are the same motivations that existed at the airlines to drive down their labor costs whether by arbitrage (i.e. outsourcing, union busting, short-term "independent contractor" employment agreements), lobbying for rules that allow for lower experience levels, minimizing investment in training, etc. All aided and abetted by regulatory agencies that are more beholden to the industries they regulate than the traveling public. So when a poorly designed aircraft intersects with a poorly prepared crew, why should we be surprised that the result is tragedy?

[yoko1]

Originally Posted by BDAttitude

And it was Ethopian who invested in one of the very few MAX simulators available - they found incapable of reproducing the MCAS behaviour.

And it is entirely possible to give substandard training in a brand new sim.

Long Before Boeing 737 Max Crash, Ethiopian Air Pilot Warned of Dangers

Ethiopian pilots raised safety concerns years before fatal crash, records show

[yoko1]

Originally Posted by MurphyWasRight

If Boeing is in fact trying to muddy the waters in a public forum, which may/may not be the case, they are taking a rather unsophisticated approach if the goal is evidence for lawsuits.

Personally, I find it amusing that anybody here thinks that anyone involved in legal actions against Boeing gives a hoot about what is said on PPruNe. No offense, but we are all relative amateurs. The legal teams can afford the best experts that money can buy.

Seriously, can you imagine testimony where the attorney leads with "According to this anonymous post I found on PPruNe....."

[BDAttitude]

Good guy,
requesting higher training standards, US legacy carriers obviously have.
(Remembering the IPad training done in Crew Bus before 1st MAX flight beeing a revenue flight with both pilots feeling bad prepared. Who decided on that?)

[Fly Aiprt]

Originally Posted by _Benjamin_

Would be great to see the e-cab/FAA test pilot video to help get this SLF back into any modern Boeing variant. Hopefully Boeing's confidence in the quality of their engineering and safe product design will shine through.. I see absolutely no reason why they could not do this unless there was something they wanted to hide.

Absolutely certain Boeing will NOT release those videos.

1) Boeing's competition would learn lots about the state of the art at Boeing. Not that they would be much impressed, btw, but learning how far B are lagging behind might be of interest for the rest of the world.

2) The sight of some pre-briefed trained-in-the-US pilots struggling with the machine, maybe making mistakes, and finally losing control of the aircraft might prove disturbing for the flying public, and the "wouldn't have happened here" people.

[Fly Aiprt]

Originally Posted by yoko1

All aided and abetted by regulatory agencies that are more beholden to the industries they regulate than the traveling public.

Why regulatory agencies ? Is this plural intentional ?
It is understood that FAA rubber-stamped the 737 MAX models.
Maybe other agencies only accepted FAA's standards, expecting them to be up to the task ?

[Peter H]

Originally Posted by Maninthebar

For the record, it was BOEING who decided that no extra training was required in order to fly the MAX.

Only SLF, but if I've understood the threads Boeing also:
... removed the information about the "roller coaster" technique from the manuals
... failed to model manual-trim forces properly in the sims
... tried to claim that the latest glitch was only "major" rather than "catastrophic" https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-s...ftware-glitch/
... ?

[yoko1]

Originally Posted by Fly Aiprt

Why regulatory agencies ? Is this plural intentional ?
It is understood that FAA rubber-stamped the 737 MAX models.
Maybe other agencies only accepted FAA's standards, expecting them to be up to expectation ?

Any certificate authority can require a higher standard, and as we are hearing in regards to MAX training, some likely will. Other agencies are more than willing to use the FAA or EASA as a de facto approval authority since they lack the resources to conduct their own approval process. And then you have groups like the Ethiopian Civil Aviation Authority (ECAA) who will gladly support even lower standards if it fits the business model of their national airline.

[Snyggapa]

Originally Posted by yoko1

So when a poorly designed aircraft intersects with a poorly prepared crew, why should we be surprised that the result is tragedy?

This neatly sums up the crux of the matter in my opinion. Both issues need fixing, it's not one or the other

[Fly Aiprt]

Originally Posted by yoko1

Other agencies are more than willing to use the FAA or EASA as a de facto approval authority since they lack the resources to conduct their own approval process.

The wording of the above sentence tends to associate the FAA with the EASA.
Acting administrator Elwell admitted that it's the FAA that lack the resources to conduct their own approval, hence the infamous ODA system that allowed Boeing to self certify it's own products.
This time the EASA or Canada CAA won't necessarily be so easily convinced.

BTW, you may now give Ethiopian a break : US-trained pilots just failed to control the MAX sim, so maybe there's also something wrong with the airplane, fixed or not ?
Or maybe NTPS is also to blame with substandard training ?

[vikingivesterled]

I for one find yoko's detailfilled comments of high interest, and even if he is from Boeing he could still have a current license because they do have some pilots there. He do however seem to not only have a very good handle on not only all the older and current relevant procedures, checklists and memory items, but also what was behind creating them including thinking and rationale. This leads to that he is more than a run of the mill pilot but one that have access to Boeing internals. Either as a direct employee or as a direct informed priviliged senior instructor pilot and procedure creator at one of the customers.

Specially his post on the memory items and the increase of the automated speed of the stabilizer changes was interesting. Before if slow = automation, if fast = manual. But now automation is faster than manual electric trim and therefore cut-out switches are changed to Primary and Backup to avoid pilots following the checklist and identifying it as the wrong type turning off the wrong switch. This is the first insightsfull and plausible explanation to why the function of the switches where changed. (His was better than my extracted short version)

After that one can just ignore any contributor's obsessions with blaming others than Boeing, as to own preferences. Only time will tell if all currently available negative feedback to Boeing are out in the open as yoko hints to. They haven't exactly been fast forthcoming with official non-lawyerspeak info so far.

[Tomaski]

Speaking as a mostly lurker who has enyoyed much of the information posted in these MAX threads, I really would like to see all the personal remarks and questioning of motives go away or this thread is going to get locked out like all the other MAX threads. Pleaz lets the facts speak for themselves and try to keep the tone respectful. Lots of good opinions and information even if we all don't agree. I think we all want to see safer skies.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Snyggapa

This neatly sums up the crux of the matter in my opinion. Both issues need fixing, it's not one or the other

As indeed our culprit suggested in an earlier post:

You are falling into the cognitive trap of believing that this must be an either/or proposition. Problems with design and problems with training are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I'm willing to bet that the final reports are going to have a long list of primary and contributory causes. It would be quite a shame to fix just one of them.

[fizz57]

Originally Posted by yoko1

And then you have groups like the Ethiopian Civil Aviation Authority (ECAA) who will gladly support even lower standards if it fits the business model of their national airline.

Interesting. Can you give an example of this?

[Lake1952]

Originally Posted by yoko1

For the record, the airlines clearly communicated that pilot training costs would be part of their purchasing decision. Boeing (and Airbus) want to sell airplanes. Airlines want to operate them as cheaply as they can. The same motivations to drive down costs that influenced the decisions at Boeing which resulted in the MCAS debacle are the same motivations that existed at the airlines to drive down their labor costs whether by arbitrage (i.e. outsourcing, union busting, short-term "independent contractor" employment agreements), lobbying for rules that allow for lower experience levels, minimizing investment in training, etc. All aided and abetted by regulatory agencies that are more beholden to the industries they regulate than the traveling public. So when a poorly designed aircraft intersects with a poorly prepared crew, why should we be surprised that the result is tragedy?

One of society's problems besides the Peter Principle is the fact that almost everything is built or operated by the lowest bidder. Running any corporate operation is kind of like surfing on a wave... too far in either direction, you will fall (fail). An airline that spends too much will fail in its business, but the airline that spends too little will potentially fail for other reasons (accidents, regulatory fines, poor customer service etc.). It is difficult to consistently maintain the sweet spot on the wave!

[Alchad]

Originally Posted by yoko1

You are falling into the cognitive trap of believing that this must be an either/or proposition. Problems with design and problems with training are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I'm willing to bet that the final reports are going to have a long list of primary and contributory causes. It would be quite a shame to fix just one of them.

Originally Posted by Alchad

Yoko, in a nutshell, additional time and energy expenditure is really superfluous. There are two opposite views which are diametrically opposed. Simply put, one view, which I think you subscribe to, is that inadequately trained pilots were to blame for the accidents. The other is that Boeing built a plane with design flaws as a result of a desire to regain a commercial advantage they were in danger of losing.

Alchad

Original post in reverse order, sorry can't figure how to reverse.

Yoko1, I know I'm labouring the point, but my view is concerned simply with the two accidents and the deaths of 300+ souls, not the now revealed general lack of training resulting in the latest FAA announcement. Had Boeing succeeded in simply attaching more efficient engines on the 737 air frame without affecting the rest of the aerodynamic design they would still be alive. The fact that they couldn't do it without additional design changes which - put charitably - in hindsight were not proof tested as rigorously as they should have been, then resulted in the pilots of planes being exposed to a scenario which they couldn't handle. You can argue that had they been more experienced, had better training they might have coped. But I repeat had the design been engineered to the standards it should have been they would not have been put in the position in the first place.

Perhaps the one good thing to come out of this is that the point you and others have made about the level and adequacy of training is now being raised to the top of the agenda and who knows how many lives might be saved because of this in the future.

Alchad

[Outofthefray]

Originally Posted by Snyggapa

This neatly sums up the crux of the matter in my opinion. Both issues need fixing, it's not one or the other

We used to say that good interaction design is the flip side of the training coin. They cannot be separated because they are a single entity – inter-face.

When the human/machine or human/computer interface is intuitive then training can be simple and clear too. But if the former is badly designed and confusing then NO amount of quality training will make the darn thing fly.

And I remember a time when Boeing not only understood this, but invested so heavily in the related research that their techniques were a reference point for anyone wishing to construct user laboratories and recording procedures outside the aviation industry.

But that was 30 years ago, and more. As I read these threads, I wonder how much of this thinking remains today?

[robocoder]

Originally Posted by yoko1

So when a poorly designed aircraft intersects with a poorly prepared crew, why should we be surprised that the result is tragedy?.

That's apparently very reasonable, and to some extent I agree. However, I also find it subtly loaded because it hints at a parallel or symmetry that isn't so. A proper design or fix will work for all subsequently produced items, whereas where humans are concerned there will always be greater deviation. Particularly when we are talking multiple levels of indirection from international bodies to local airlines.

That makes even more important getting right what can be got right, and that's why I find the above argument not that pertinent in the context of MCAS. The unsuitability of the MCAS is clear (or so it seems with the disclosed info). That it could have been contained by pilots trained to a higher standard takes a back seat, because on another day there will be another crew, perhaps less rested, or experienced, or whatever.

Or, in terms I've learned here: there is a hole in the cheese that should not have been there to begin with but that was carved out due to cost cutting, and another one that can never be completely removed because of the human factor. To me, these are not the same.

And, anticipating those that will argue that "you cannot have a perfect plane that never fails"... That's not what I'm saying.

Now, you could tell me that the human hole has become so big that even minuscule holes in the machine will result in crashes. That, if true, is truly worrying but would be an orthogonal issue that does not change my opinion of MCAS (although perhaps it would change the one about the industry).

[LowObservable]

Re: Corporate Posters

I'm with Wonkazoo that some of this stuff is deeply suspicious.

I believe that corporations do (through cutouts) engage in social media with sock puppets. I'd be surprised if they did not.

However... there are other actors with major interests in this issue, other than Boeing. Lots of them.

But....

If people paid by Boeing have been pushing the "Western [read: Caucasian] pilots would have handled this with ease because of airMANship" line, and that word gets out... then the company is ed.

[sadtraveller]

Originally Posted by yoko1

And then you have groups like the Ethiopian Civil Aviation Authority (ECAA) who will gladly support even lower standards if it fits the business model of their national airline.

Another implicitly racist suggestion that it is only those darn third worlders who could possibly have captured regulators. Unfortunate for you, as of right now, the FAA is the only regulatory authority that we can prove beyond doubt has been both captured and whose lower standards have contributed to the loss of over 300 lives. Unless you have any evidence that the ECAA made a similar contribution to these two crashes, perhaps it would be better to keep such racist dog whistles to yourself?