Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Boeing to Recommend Sim Training for MAX Pilots

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Boeing to Recommend Sim Training for MAX Pilots

Old 8th Jan 2020, 15:10
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by tdracer View Post
The flight deck differences between the NG and the MAX are minor enough that a new s/w load should be adequate to allow an NG simulator to be used as a MAX simulator.
Such multiple use simulators are already common - they simply select whatever aircraft version is wanted when booting up the simulator.
Do you know that for a fact regarding the MAX vs..NG? If that were the case one has to wonder why Boeing had a stand alone MAX sim built by TRU for their MIA training center? Ditto for ET and SWA. I agree that multi use sims do exist, and again in the case of Boeing, there is a 747-8 and 747-400 sim in MIA, but it take a significant amount of time to convert. Not simply a matter of throwing a switch. More like a day or more as I recall.

Last edited by Spooky 2; 8th Jan 2020 at 19:40.
Spooky 2 is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2020, 15:18
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by jdawg View Post
You're giving a huge vote of confidence to the FAA and Boeing if suggesting they won't try the NG sim route. They will try to pass this off as a "procedural" or "muscle memory" box to check in a sim. The NG sim can accomplish that.
As for me? I have no faith in the FAA or Boeing right now so I'm going to I assume they recommend the NG sim. Obviously I've been paying closer attention to this subject matter than you.
For the record, MCAS needs to be removed from the MAX and crews segregated for training and operational purposes.
I believe I read awhile back that SWA 1st MAX sim was to ne delivered last summer and be ready for training by November. Of course this was before all the MCAS issues started to be defined. I believe SWA is using a CAE device, and if anyone can bring this to closure, CAE would be my first choice.
Spooky 2 is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2020, 15:27
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ZFT View Post
Spooky 2 Maybe you don't understand either as sims are not certified. They are uniquely qualified as an individual device. (Don't let the door hit you on the way out either ...Also just kidding)

Got you ZFT. I understand perfectly well that the airplane has to be certified before the sim in this case. FWIW though there are cases where the sim is certified for training prior to the airplane having even flown. The 787 is but one example. Maybe you are not thinking along the lines of the FAA, but perhaps some other regulatory body? Or, mybe we just use different words to describe the same regulatory process?
Spooky 2 is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2020, 19:36
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 67
Posts: 3,793
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by Water pilot View Post
If it was part of the right solution, it would not take 20 years to come up with a regulatory fix. It is in nobody's interest (except perhaps China's) to have this fleet remain grounded for a long time, assuming that it is basically a safe aircraft. It would help if the political situation were more normal, but aside from that everybody knows what is going on and what doc fixes are required for this "one time situation". That is much easier to process than regulations/specifications that are supposed to guide several decades of future development.
Water - what you're suggesting would be the exemption route (or possibly an Equivalent Level of Safety - ELOS) for the stick force gradient. The catch is that pretty much all the regulators (not just the FAA and EASA) need to agree that an exemption is the right thing to do. I was involved in a few partial exemptions, and they were such that everyone agreed it was probably the right thing to do (sometimes stick compliance with a regulation can actually make things worse). Although SOP is to initially certify with the FAA and EASA, countries not represented by those two still do their own assessment before approving it, and one of the things that pay special attention to are any Exemptions or ELOS in the cert basis - it's generally not a rubber stamp.
In the case of the MAX, there has been one lonely Canadian regulator who's suggested an exemption might be a better path than MCAS. I've yet to hear of any other regulators (even in Canada) agreeing with his assessment.
tdracer is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2020, 19:43
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Spooky 2 View Post
I believe I read awhile back that SWA 1st MAX sim was to ne delivered last summer and be ready for training by November. Of course this was before all the MCAS issues started to be defined. I believe SWA is using a CAE device, and if anyone can bring this to closure, CAE would be my first choice.
Just a question.
Since nobody knows what the final accepted version of MCAS will be, nor whether some hardware mods will be mandated or not, how could a MAX simulator be designed and programmed at the moment ?
Fly Aiprt is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2020, 19:58
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Fly Aiprt View Post
Just a question.
Since nobody knows what the final accepted version of MCAS will be, nor whether some hardware mods will be mandated or not, how could a MAX simulator be designed and programmed at the moment ?

I think the answer to that is that when the MAX sims were ordered, the MCAS was not an issue and was not even addressed. Since then as we know, it has become a point of concern and will have be included in the final version of the sim loads. Harware is not likely in the emulation as software can be used to effectively create the simulation which is the way many sims are built to begin with. Smoke and mirrors make everything seem real1 Your assuming that the sim manufactures and FAA/Boeing and other regulatory authorities don't have a good idea what's required at this hour, but in all likelyhood they are probably pretty close to the final fix.

Last edited by Spooky 2; 8th Jan 2020 at 20:02. Reason: EASA
Spooky 2 is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2020, 02:33
  #47 (permalink)  
ZFT
N4790P
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Asia
Age: 72
Posts: 2,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Spooky 2 View Post
Got you ZFT. I understand perfectly well that the airplane has to be certified before the sim in this case. FWIW though there are cases where the sim is certified for training prior to the airplane having even flown. The 787 is but one example. Maybe you are not thinking along the lines of the FAA, but perhaps some other regulatory body? Or, mybe we just use different words to describe the same regulatory process?
Actually I meant that product ranges i.e aircraft are certified. FSTDs (simulators) are individually tested (by FAA, EASA etc) and are qualified and issued their own unique qualification certificate.
ZFT is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2020, 03:17
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eagles Nest
Posts: 485
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Set the pilots up for the blame !

When next one spears in at 500 knots because of its poor design . Boeing been run for the shareholders only not operators or traveling public , all fingers can safely be pointed at the pilot because “ he had the legal training “ .

just fix the bloody thing !!!!
Toruk Macto is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2020, 14:48
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ZFT View Post
Actually I meant that product ranges i.e aircraft are certified. FSTDs (simulators) are individually tested (by FAA, EASA etc) and are qualified and issued their own unique qualification certificate.

Okay I see wha you are saying. Thanks!
Spooky 2 is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2020, 16:27
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Spooky 2 View Post
Your assuming that the sim manufactures and FAA/Boeing and other regulatory authorities don't have a good idea what's required at this hour, but in all likelyhood they are probably pretty close to the final fix.
Understand.
On the other hand, maybe the "bare aircraft" test flight has not yet be performed to EASA's satisfaction, and one might not be sure that the Boeing/FAA fix will suffice ?
Fly Aiprt is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2020, 18:08
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: USVI
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Would this be simply a type rating update and utilize an FTD, not an FS? After all, the first round was an iPad.

On using the NG FS, it was shown it could not replicate the MAX issues...simple programming, but didnt they try that already?
turbidus is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2020, 19:36
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by turbidus View Post
Would this be simply a type rating update and utilize an FTD, not an FS? After all, the first round was an iPad.

On using the NG FS, it was shown it could not replicate the MAX issues...simple programming, but didnt they try that already?
Don't know the answer to that. Boeing did the initial cadre of sim instructors by only using a fairly advanced FTD. The instructors we all previously 777 qualified.
This was done as a proof of concept for minimal 777 to 787 conversion training. I don't think and airlines are actually using that footprint for there flight crews.
Spooky 2 is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2020, 07:34
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: 900m
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
CNN now reporting “new and worrying“ documents released by Boeing relating to Max sim development two years back. A covering note contains an apology to FAA and the public.
Twitter is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2020, 09:34
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Maningrida
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Some very good points in here. Good food for thought.

Despite the aeroplanes sitting idle and orders, it’s going to be interesting to see what success this aeroplane has after its shaky start.

If the max indeed gets back in the air (and is accepted by airlines and the public), surely it will be known perpetually for this sad start.
dontgive2FACs is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2020, 09:45
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Derry
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by dontgive2FACs View Post
Some very good points in here. Good food for thought.

Despite the aeroplanes sitting idle and orders, it’s going to be interesting to see what success this aeroplane has after its shaky start.

If the max indeed gets back in the air (and is accepted by airlines and the public), surely it will be known perpetually for this sad start.
Hi there
The public have incredibly short memories about such things and are easily misled by renaming for example.
DC10 +MD!!
Spantax + Spanair
Swissair = Swiss
German wirings becomes Euro Wings
Then there is just the fact that they have short memories. None of my friends have any idea what plane they flew on this year on holidays and care less. OK, there will be an initial "Is this a MAX" reaction for a few months but then it will disappear..
The damage to Boeing is still massive but the 737 may yet become the first plane to reach 100 years in service mostly in its origin guise as a 707 from 1958! Same fuselage and main design features including STAB trim system. Can still be flown "by wire" meaning 10mm stainless steel cables connected from controls to the surfaces that control the plane.
Manual Reversion.
Happy new year to all
R.Guy
retired guy is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2020, 09:57
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Derry
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SIMULATORS
Having worked with sims for years and seen how quickly the engineers can change the characteristics I see no problem using a NG sim to replicate near enough the issues arising from the MAX MCAS debacle. Which were mainly total lack of knowledge of basic flying skills.
Lots of sims can be programmed. on the fly to replicate variants of the same plane even down to the flight deck displays and handling.
The main thing it to teach the current and future generation of pilots how to fly in basic modes - stick and rudder skills and basic airmanship such as LOSS OF ALL AIRSPEED = simple reversion to pitch and power = something like 4 deg pitch and 70% N1 after takeoff. This did not happen in Lionair or ET.
My worry is that this new debate about 'training" is a band aid to paper over the lack of basic skills and will only focus on the issues directly related to the LN and ET crashes so that the next major multiple failure will see the pilots equally unable to cope. And it is getting worse.
The voice recording of Lionair is remarkable in that at no stage did the Captain or First Officer really address the issue that would kill them - the gradual and insidious ND movement of the STAB. No drills were carried out for LOSS of AIRSPEED (memory followed by QRH) and the STAB issue never got a look in other than the fact that the plane was becoming harder and harder to hold level. The reference on the CVR to "noises of pages being turned" in a manual is the final thing for me. Looking in a book for solutions to a basic flying skill just after takeoff
Safe flying folks
R.Guy
retired guy is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2020, 12:24
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Derry
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Big Pistons Forever View Post
Seems to me the lack of MAX Simulators is not a problem that is going to go away soon so airlines will now have to have a segregated pool of 737MAX pilots. Those pilots will get the extra training and only fly the MAX with maybe a bit of fill in 737NG work while most of the current NG pilots at the big airlines won't see the MAX for a long time if ever. The airline bean counters are not going to happy about that

On another note I was in YVR the other day and a WestJet 737Max was parked on the South ramp. I noticed that the tail logo was 737-8, seems to me it used to say 737 Max.....
Hi Pistons
In the 90 s we flew 757/767 concurrently on short haul and extended ETOPS long haul flights, often on the same day. Two more different planes is hard to imagine. One nearly twice the size of the other and quite different handling and even control panels. Landing totally different with a flare height 20 foot apart.
Didn't seem to be a problem then. So to fly an NG and a MAX would seem simple enough by comparison.
Cheers
R Guy
retired guy is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2020, 14:08
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by tdracer View Post
Water - what you're suggesting would be the exemption route (or possibly an Equivalent Level of Safety - ELOS) for the stick force gradient. The catch is that pretty much all the regulators (not just the FAA and EASA) need to agree that an exemption is the right thing to do. I was involved in a few partial exemptions, and they were such that everyone agreed it was probably the right thing to do (sometimes stick compliance with a regulation can actually make things worse). Although SOP is to initially certify with the FAA and EASA, countries not represented by those two still do their own assessment before approving it, and one of the things that pay special attention to are any Exemptions or ELOS in the cert basis - it's generally not a rubber stamp.
In the case of the MAX, there has been one lonely Canadian regulator who's suggested an exemption might be a better path than MCAS. I've yet to hear of any other regulators (even in Canada) agreeing with his assessment.
That approach has seemed at least an option since I first discovered the MCAS and its nefarious raison d'etre and histoire.
Surely it should be seriously examined ?


Last edited by HarryMann; 10th Jan 2020 at 17:17.
HarryMann is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2020, 14:47
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm sure I remember this coming up in the early days of the grounding, and it being described there were nothing like 34 Max simulators - which went along with it being portrayed as the same as an NG, plus a Powerpoint presentation. Air Canada had one, as the 737 was new to them, and Ethiopian had one as well, but there weren't many others.

I also recall the established 737 crew who had done the Powerpoint and were suddenly presented in a rearrangement with their first Max flight, and said afterwards it was notably different to what they had been given to believe.

I presume the sims will need new software to replicate accurately whatever MCAS or its replacement does, this being a key part of the training. As we know it hasn't even been certified yet what those changes are, once agreed the sim manufacturers are going to have to then develop, test and deploy the new sim software, and train instructors, before training can even start.
WHBM is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2020, 16:59
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by WHBM View Post
I'm sure I remember this coming up in the early days of the grounding, and it being described there were nothing like 34 Max simulators - which went along with it being portrayed as the same as an NG, plus a Powerpoint presentation. Air Canada had one, as the 737 was new to them, and Ethiopian had one as well, but there weren't many others.

I also recall the established 737 crew who had done the Powerpoint and were suddenly presented in a rearrangement with their first Max flight, and said afterwards it was notably different to what they had been given to believe.

I presume the sims will need new software to replicate accurately whatever MCAS or its replacement does, this being a key part of the training. As we know it hasn't even been certified yet what those changes are, once agreed the sim manufacturers are going to have to then develop, test and deploy the new sim software, and train instructors, before training can even start.
Evidently AC has 2, CAE has also said they can speed up production of more if there is a demand. I wonder how many of the carriers have .Only 34 certified Max flight simulators currently exist globally, the New York Times and the Seattle Times reported Tuesday.

CAE builds extra Boeing 737 Max simulators, expecting pent ...


https://business.financialpost.com › transportation › cae-builds-extra-boeing-...
Nov 13, 2019 - CAE Inc. has built extra simulators for the Boeing 737 Max series as it anticipates high demand for training products once the grounded aircraft ...
https://montrealgazette.com/business...-help-airlines
Longtimer is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.