|
The bad news continues for Boeing.
First they were hammered with an article for outsourcing their engineering software development for as little as $9 an hour. and now they just lost a big order https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48899588 worth 5.9 Billion for 20 more 737 Max. |
Airbus now has the superior aircraft with the A321 Neo. More comfortable for both pilots and customers, better range, more seats, more cabin space and storage. More everything. Also helps training as the A320, A330, A350 are very similar in set ups.
Being really needs to start from scratch. The basic 737 design is from the 60s. |
Originally Posted by cosmomiller
(Post 24614630)
From some pilot blogs (I have not verified)
It is interesting the AF A330 (my plane) that went down after unreliable airspeed/altitude, the non-military first officer flying had 2000 total time, almost all autopilot. He managed to override the safety systems putting the plane in the stalled configuration it was at ocean impact. All, ALL, of my company's pilots successfully recovered that scenario in the simulator. B-737 MCAS System (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) But, of course, we already knew this……… Subject: 737 MAX...The rest of the story. For those interested in the recent spate of accidents involving Boeing's newest 737 variant, the real story of what is going on behind the scenes is largely not being reported. It was interesting to note that President Trump alluded to the problem in a round about way, but unless you are a pilot you probably missed the point. In essence, President Trump was saying that technology is a poor substitute for a qualified pilot in command. One of the most basic skills a pilot learns from day one is energy management of the airplane. If the plane is too slow, it will literally drop from the sky. Too fast and the wings/airframe can come apart with disastrous consequences. In the history of commercial aviation in the US and western countries, the first crop of pilots to enter commercial service were the post world war two pilots. Those guys were the real deal and not only hand flew almost all of their hours but also in some of the most demanding conditions. The second wave were the airport kids who just fell in love with the idea of being a pilot and scrimped and saved to take lessons. Both categories of pilots were skilled in the art of aviation. With the explosion of second and third world travel, there were nowhere near the number of skilled pilots to fly the thousands of new generation planes coming out of Airbus and Boeing. Unlike Cathay Pacific, a Hong Kong airline that was almost exclusively piloted by British pilots, the new Asian airlines wanted Asian pilots to man the cockpits...often with disastrous results. Asiana flight 214 crashed in SFO in 2014 because the pilots did not know how to hand fly the plane when the ground-based approach ILS (Instrument Landing System) was out of service. Boeing, the FAA and worldwide aviation agencies track not only accidents, but also INCIDENTS...crap that was going sideways but didn't result in a crash. The number of unqualified pilots from Asia and Africa was plain to see in the number of errors being committed on a daily basis. To make a long story short, airbus saw this eventuality decades ago and implemented automatic safety systems in anticipation of unqualified aircrews. Boeing resisted for a lot of very good reasons...but after the Asiana crash, the Chinese government basically told Boeing to "idiot-proof" the 737 as China would end up being the biggest purchaser of that model. Since Boeing had opted not to add automated control systems (which often override pilot's inputs) they were forced to apply a band-aid solution which, unfortunately was not done well. Only one sensor was driving some very complicated algorithms which worked against the pilot's decision-making inputs. The fact that the Asian and African pilots were essentially unqualified is highly embarrassing to the respective governments and Boeing kept it quiet. When ALPA, the pilot's union reps, found the system was added without informing the pilots, they went insane... However, what they DON'T know, is that the MCAS system can be enabled or disabled per plane, and can be done remotely on a real time basis via uplink. The US airlines management, due to the superior training and piloting skills of their pilots, opted NOT to activate MCAS...but the Asian/African carriers DID. That is why most of the " crappy" airlines self-grounded while all the major US airlines initially continued to fly without a problem. Its a very PC issue, but basically comes down to 30-40% of the global pilot population are really not qualified to be pilots, but more just data input managers. |
Originally Posted by ssbfgc
(Post 24620111)
As written by American pilots? Yes, no bias there...
Japan Airline Flt 2 in 1968 had a Japanese captain and American first officer. During the approach the American co-pilot called out deviations and recommended a go around. The cockpit voice recorder had it all. The captain called the F/O a discourteous name in native Japanese and continued the approach to water impact. Fortunately all survived. I can tell you that (fuel and certain other factors excepting) just about any American major airline crew that calls out a "go around" during an approach WILL result in a go around being flown. You can always talk about it later over dinner. |
I fly the 737 for a major airline flagged in the United States, and have flown the 737 MAX once before the airplane was grounded. There are certainly some differences between it and the 737-800 which is what I normally fly, but the flying characteristics were essentially the same. After the second mishap I contacted the labor union to which I belong and stated that the plane should be grounded, period. I felt the FAA, Boeing, and the United States flagged domestic airlines were doing the flying public a disservice by refusing to ground the airplanes, and shook my head when only after the Europeans, Chinese, Canadians, and essentially every other major country said that the airplanes were unsafe and should not be flying until the problems with the aircraft were rectified that the FAA FINALLY did the same. They need to take their time, correct the problem, and adequately train everyone flying the MAX before putting them back in service.
|
Originally Posted by ssbfgc
(Post 24620111)
As written by American pilots? Yes, no bias there...
The pilots have litle to no reason to spout biased info. They do not make the planes, they do not sell the planes. THEY are at more risk from dying due to a crash than any of us, since they spend far more time in the air than we do. It could just be that the comments made are based upon what those people actually saw, not some deep "bias" that everyone likes to blame everything on. This in no way excuses the issues on board the aircraft but points to potential issues with training that will exaggerate these issues. Regulations vary wildly in various countries and it is absurd to think there would NOT be gaps in experience and training from country to country. |
I never brought up “bias”, you did.
|
Originally Posted by engifineer
(Post 24620698)
So if Candadian pilots said those things it woudl be less biased to you? How about German pilots? Which group has the right to tell the facts as they see them without you seeing bias in the words? "Bias" is thrown around to a disgusting degree and it is a lazy way out of a disagreement in my opinion.
The pilots have litle to no reason to spout biased info. They do not make the planes, they do not sell the planes. THEY are at more risk from dying due to a crash than any of us, since they spend far more time in the air than we do. It could just be that the comments made are based upon what those people actually saw, not some deep "bias" that everyone likes to blame everything on. This in no way excuses the issues on board the aircraft but points to potential issues with training that will exaggerate these issues. Regulations vary wildly in various countries and it is absurd to think there would NOT be gaps in experience and training from country to country. |
While I don't disagree with the likelihood that the MAX doesn't have some serious fundamental issues, I have to disagree on fundamental point.
EVERY modern aircraft ( potentially excluding ultralights) has to have software to fly. it's been a while since cables ran back to the rudder. |
Originally Posted by cosmomiller
(Post 24620380)
I cannot speak for African pilots (NOT African American) but I have seen cultural differences between some Asian cultures and American culture that does not work well in aviation. The classic Asian respect for elders and those in authority often preclude junior pilots from speaking up when they recognize unsafe situations. This has been well documented in a number of accidents. Our (former airline) pilots who work for some Asian companies report that culture clash. When those pilots are in the Captain or PIC- pilot in command position, they often feel "alone" in the cockpit with very little input from the rest of the flight crew. One friend of mine (Singapore Cargo) said his copilots are extremely inexperienced and all he does is order them to actuate some control or system. He cannot rely on them to provide the kind of input that is common and expected in American (not AA airline but USA) airlines.
Japan Airline Flt 2 in 1968 had a Japanese captain and American first officer. During the approach the American co-pilot called out deviations and recommended a go around. The cockpit voice recorder had it all. The captain called the F/O a discourteous name in native Japanese and continued the approach to water impact. Fortunately all survived. I can tell you that (fuel and certain other factors excepting) just about any American major airline crew that calls out a "go around" during an approach WILL result in a go around being flown. You can always talk about it later over dinner. https://www.csmonitor.com/1999/0804/p1s4.html |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:27 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands