7 ms·

Wow... I wonder how much of this could have been avoided if the 737-Max had just been given an entirely new model name like "738". I'd assume that when the 777

• cjbprime 8y ago
  Boeing fought extremely hard to avoid having this happen, since then any pilot wanting to fly the Max would have to first achieve a type rating certificate for the new type of plane, and the FAA would have to test and certify it instead of Boeing "self-certifying" that it was a type of 737. The determination to shoehorn what aerodynamically kind of is a new type of plane into the 737's type rating seems likely to be the root cause of these deaths.
  • lixtra 8y ago
    > seems likely to be the root cause of these deaths. Given that investigation in both accidents is still ongoing and all we know is wild speculation your conclusion is premature even though it finally may turn out to be true.
    • cjbprime 8y ago
      You're quoting the phrase "seems likely". It's not a conclusion. It's my guess at what's most probable based on what we know today. (Also, I don't agree that we only know "wild speculation" about the Lion Air crash. The investigators have told us much about the proximate cause of the crash, even though their final investigation is not yet complete.)
      • lixtra 8y ago
        Maybe it’s my English. What probability do you assign to “seems likely”? Above 50% (the way I read it)? Or does it mean it’s a possible outcome among many others, all with very low probability?
        • cerebellum42 8y ago
          I would read it the same way, but personally I would want to attach an additional qualifier: It's likely that this is one of the causes. There may or may not be something inherently problematic about the way the MCAS works, but more thorough training would likely have lowered the chance of these accidents happening - having the same type rating was one of the root causes for the lacking training
    • pbhjpbhj 8y ago
      Flip that around: would you expect that pilots flying a new aeroplane without any conversion training would be more likely to cause an accident. It's a damning indictment of Boeing, and whichever authorities let them get away with it, that they pushed through an aircraft with a different pilot UI/UX knowing that pilots would then be under trained when using it: like someone said we train baristas better. I've driven minibuses before and always ensure to get an hour of driving a new model before taking passengers.
      • ethbro 8y ago
        At least in this particular instance... how is it Boeing and aviation authority's faults that pilots are given an hour's notification they'll be flying a new model of plane? That would seem to fall directly on the operator / carrier. Boeing takes responsibility if the training manuals were not comprehensive. Aviation authorities take responsibility if they under-mandated training. But ultimately neither know a given carrier's scheduling and pilot allocation.
        • JshWright 8y ago
          I assume an hours notice is quite typical for pilots to find out which specific airplane they will be flying. If the carrier was told by Boeing and the FAA that no additional training was needed, why would they use any different procedure.
          • ethbro 8y ago
            Because their pilots had previously told them they didn't feel comfortable? (See report) At some point this falls back on nannyism. Either you have a functional company, where your employees are empowered to communicate internally, and your company does something about it... or you don't. Boeing's job is to engineer the billion things required to keep an airplane flying. The government's job is to validate Boeing performed due diligence and mandate what training is required to the carriers. The carriers have a job too. I wouldn't be surprised if Boeing pushed hard to have it same type certified. Why wouldn't they? Ultimately, regulatory agencies agreed. Maybe that was correct, maybe not. But absolving the pilots' direct parent company of responsibility is bullshit. Aerospace is a different industry, but it's not that different vis what a healthy, functioning company does.
  • VBprogrammer 8y ago
    To be fair, this is extremely common, this isn't something Boeing invented yesterday. The whole series of Cessna business jets are on the same type rating. The A330/A340/A350 share a type rating. The 757/767 share a type rating. There are almost certainly more differences between a 757 and a 767 than a 737-800 and a Max. Not that 90 minutes on a tablet constitutes a reasonable level of training though.
  • hyperbovine 8y ago
    Initial eyewitness reports are of fire, smoke and debris trailing the aircraft before it went down. I would caution against the use of the word "likely" here.
    • magnamerc 8y ago
      Engine flame outs could occur at high AoA due to stall turbulence in the inlet.
    • callmeal 8y ago
      Eyewitness testimony is some of the most unreliable there is. See the gorilla experiment for instance. It's likely that people rewrote their memories of the event. It's also likely that the MCAS induced stresses on the plane caused a turbine flameout.
    • cjbprime 8y ago
      The Ethiopian Airlines CEO has disclosed that the pilot experienced a control issue. So a fire, if one existed, was probably a consequence, not a cause. It wouldn't even be surprising if the aerodymanic stress had caused a breakup, though that doesn't seem to have happened judging by the crater.
  • kayfox 8y ago
    Boeing was doing what the airlines wanted, which is provide a new more efficient airplane that requires minimal training for existing 737 pilots to fly, much like the A320neo. Airlines are the ones who schedule the pilots and their training, and from what we have heard, there _is_ training for pilots new to the Max that apparently some airlines have not administered. Ultimately Boeing and the airlines share responsibility for ensuring the training is adequate, thats why many airlines have lots of training that goes above and beyond what Boeing supplies.
• hlecuanda 8y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that this is one of the reasons Airbus aircraft are popular with airlines and pilots: their fky-by-wire common cockpit allows a pilot certified on say the A320 to safely fly an A330 since all instruments, displays, controls and what-nots are exactly the same, only a quick "refresher" certification is required, so pilots get a feel for the aerodynamics and response of the bigger/smaller model they are certifying for.. Why would boeings shuffle around such critical human+machine interfaces?
  • rbanffy 8y ago
    Even if Boeing didn't change anything in the UIs, different models have different features and pilots need to know these differences before the airline can say they can safely fly a given plane.
• jsjohnst 8y ago
  > if the 737-Max had just been given an entirely new model name like "738" That model name would’ve been worse. The 737-800 is very commonly abbreviated to 738 in the industry (739 being 737-900, 744 being the 747-400, etc).
  • kiallmacinnes 8y ago
    That's just awful practice! It's got a name, use it! (Yes, that sorta stuff annoys me ;) e.g. people talking about v2.04 of $project, when they really mean v0.204 - sure, I get it, but at some point the searchability for issues on the internet is going to be screwed!)
    • dx034 8y ago
      It's not in this case. B738 is the official icao code for the aircraft, just like B38M is for the max.
      • kiallmacinnes 8y ago
        Oh, well that's totally different then. Still feels weird to "consume" other potential model numbers like that though :)
        • kayfox 8y ago
          When you have limited space to show some information, sometimes the space it takes up needs to be reduced.
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
• black-tea 8y ago
  Generally airline pilots only fly one type of aircraft at a time. So yeah, when 777 came out some would have become 777 pilots.