Boeing, and FAA oversight
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Lost, but often Indonesia
Posts: 652
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies if this has already been cited (I looked but didn't find it in the thread.) From the Seattle Times story:
I find this rather mind-boggling. Not content to assure customers who didn't want training requirements, Boeing apparently felt it necessary to discourage those who did.
I find this rather mind-boggling. Not content to assure customers who didn't want training requirements, Boeing apparently felt it necessary to discourage those who did.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,904
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They talk a lot about the LGW Max simulator. I had about an hour in that as part of a company sim ride late 2017. I remember it requiring enormous inputs to bring the nose back down/up following climbs and descents. The trim switches also did nothing initially and then 5 seconds later would put in an almighty input. Quite a hairy experience.
They talk a lot about the LGW Max simulator. I had about an hour in that as part of a company sim ride late 2017. I remember it requiring enormous inputs to bring the nose back down/up following climbs and descents. The trim switches also did nothing initially and then 5 seconds later would put in an almighty input. Quite a hairy experience.
Or were you made to look stupid or inexperienced?
Genuine question due the email releases.
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: EDSP
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to make sure ... we are talking about this facility?
You did fly the actual real thing? Did it behave the same way?
Or was it part of a pre sales evaluation?
You did fly the actual real thing? Did it behave the same way?
Or was it part of a pre sales evaluation?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,904
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, Boeing Training Centre in Crawley (formerly Alteon). My group of candidates were the first people asked to use it for the assessment and it was new at the time, or newly worked on. The assessor did ask at the end 'how was it?' I said 'difficult'. He then made a remark about the sim with his colleague, can't remember but it wasn't positive. I passed the assessment anyway.
Well one of the Boeing people mentioned in this thread seem to have done OK for themselves:-
Former Boeing chief Dennis Muilenburg leaves with $62m
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51089287Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They talk a lot about the LGW Max simulator. I had about an hour in that as part of a company sim ride late 2017. I remember it requiring enormous inputs to bring the nose back down/up following climbs and descents. The trim switches also did nothing initially and then 5 seconds later would put in an almighty input. Quite a hairy experience.
The man who has just replaced the fired Boeing CEO, Dennis Muilenburg, has sent his employees an interesting email, which the company has chosen to publish.
In it, Dave (as he signs himself) Calhoun, talks about "return[ing] the 737 MAX to service safely", "rebuild[ing] trust", and "maintain[ing] production health", among other things. He ends with "My sleeves are rolled up. I know yours are, too."
https://www.boeing.com/features/2020...employees.page
airsound
In it, Dave (as he signs himself) Calhoun, talks about "return[ing] the 737 MAX to service safely", "rebuild[ing] trust", and "maintain[ing] production health", among other things. He ends with "My sleeves are rolled up. I know yours are, too."
https://www.boeing.com/features/2020...employees.page
airsound
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to make sure ... we are talking about this facility?
You did fly the actual real thing? Did it behave the same way?
Or was it part of a pre sales evaluation?
You did fly the actual real thing? Did it behave the same way?
Or was it part of a pre sales evaluation?
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: leftcoast
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In it, Dave (as he signs himself) Calhoun, talks about "return[ing] the 737 MAX to service safely", "rebuild[ing] trust", and "maintain[ing] production health", among other things. He ends with "My sleeves are rolled up. I know yours are, too."
To show our respect for dennis m- we suggest employees contribute sufficient funds to assure he can get a extra large tent to pitch on peoples park for his retirement.
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: EDSP
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the critical issue - many of these comments are about the simulator behavior and not about the actual aircraft. It is really important that simulator errors and faults are not ascribed to the real aircraft. I haven't seen any thread that says that the original MCAS and failure of one AoA vane was something that could even be simulated. So 'technical pilots' talking about assessing simulator behavior cannot have been talking about the MCAS failure problems, and probably not even about MCAS operating correctly.
MAX’s Return Delayed by FAA Reevaluation of 737 Safety Procedures
I think we have to differentiate
a) Engineering sims which hopefully have represented the aircraft well enough to fulfill their purpose in expedited development and certification (not sure).
b) Commercial full motion sims, that seem to have issues and program delays themselves which might just be another reason why mandated sim training was a no go for BA.
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: 900m
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you speak with forked tongue...
The quotes from and to TP Forkner put him and Boeing in quite a pickle, which while it has nothing to do with pickle forks as such, does amount to a fork-ing problem...
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: USVI
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a) Engineering sims which hopefully have represented the aircraft well enough to fulfill their purpose in expedited development and certification (not sure).
b) Commercial full motion sims, that seem to have issues and program delays themselves which might just be another reason why mandated sim training was a no go for BA.
b) Commercial full motion sims, that seem to have issues and program delays themselves which might just be another reason why mandated sim training was a no go for BA.
I mean there are enough differences on the flightdeck where you really cannot use an NG sim.
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, it keeps getting worse and Boeing/Forkner keep sinking deeper. Remembering that there was (is?) a DOJ criminal investigation and that there definitely are a number of very expensive civil suits pending, it looks like Boeing is going to remain deep in this stuff for a very long time.
This is the critical issue - many of these comments are about the simulator behavior and not about the actual aircraft. It is really important that simulator errors and faults are not ascribed to the real aircraft. I haven't seen any thread that says that the original MCAS and failure of one AoA vane was something that could even be simulated. So 'technical pilots' talking about assessing simulator behavior cannot have been talking about the MCAS failure problems, and probably not even about MCAS operating correctly.
First big issue is that, the now 34 MAX simulators will actually need to simulate correctly. It seems that they have been substandard for some time, I expect that the simulators have received far less FAA oversight and scrutiny than the MAX ever did.
Should the MAX simulator be required to accurately simulate the full envelope with and without MCAS and accurately replicate the trim wheel forces, and should the simulator be compared to the aircraft independently of Boeing and the FAA to verify it simulates true aircraft performance?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 603
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, they made many comments about simulator issues but - "Would you allow your family to fly in a MAX aircraft" clearly is not talk about a simulator issue.
First big issue is that, the now 34 MAX simulators will actually need to simulate correctly. It seems that they have been substandard for some time, I expect that the simulators have received far less FAA oversight and scrutiny than the MAX ever did.
Should the MAX simulator be required to accurately simulate the full envelope with and without MCAS and accurately replicate the trim wheel forces, and should the simulator be compared to the aircraft independently of Boeing and the FAA to verify it simulates true aircraft performance?
First big issue is that, the now 34 MAX simulators will actually need to simulate correctly. It seems that they have been substandard for some time, I expect that the simulators have received far less FAA oversight and scrutiny than the MAX ever did.
Should the MAX simulator be required to accurately simulate the full envelope with and without MCAS and accurately replicate the trim wheel forces, and should the simulator be compared to the aircraft independently of Boeing and the FAA to verify it simulates true aircraft performance?
Last edited by Longtimer; 14th Jan 2020 at 00:20.
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Tana
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the midst of the Boeing 737 disaster, I'm thinking about the coming certification of 777X. The new folding-wings system would require an enormous amount of trust between Boeing and the FAA which is now lost. It would also require a whole range of previously undeveloped tests for civilian airliners with folding wings, a task that requires trust between the public and the FAA, which is also lost. And FAA wants to gain back the public trust as well as its international credibility. All that considered, will 777X be certified at all, or will it just drown in overcautiousness?
Moderator
or will it just drown in overcautiousness?