5 ms·

Indonesia to Fault 737 MAX Design, U.S. Oversight in Lion Air Crash Report

38 points by cmurf 7y ago

zelienople 7y ago
Well we couldn't expect them to blame the former airport hustler who made billions ignoring safety and bribing government investigators now, could we? Nor could we expect them to blame the pilots for being so poorly trained and under-prepared for a simple runaway trim situation that they allowed aircraft to fly fast enough that any control input would fatally damage the control surfaces, could we? Noooo. We don't let the facts interfere with our opinions here. We just dance to the tune set by our masters in St. Petersburg and destroy the second largest US defence contractor. Because facts are soooo tired. I can't possibly be expected to read and understand complex technical material before having an opinion. Nooo. We don't want that.
- simion314 7y ago
  So all the faults that Boeing are fixing now are imaginary, you do not absolve Boeing of it's fault because some super pilots would have saved the plane. Maybe you should have followed your advice and read about all the mismanagement of the project and how important details were hidden from the pilots.
- cmurf 7y ago
  What facts demonstrate the pilots are poorly trained? What facts demonstrate this was a case of simple runaway trim? What facts indicate control surfaces were damaged, let alone related to speed or improper control input? What we do know is MCAS can so rapidly induce mistrim, that it's not possible to recover from at low altitude. No one was informed of or trained on this possible failure vector and it's not at all clear it looks like the kind of runaway trim they are trained for. United 585, US Air 427, Eastwind 517. The facts there are this was the result of PCU malfunction causing rudder reversal. In the case of US Air 427 the pilots pulled back on the yoke the entire time, progressing the stall, and making recovery impossible. But the direct cause of the accident is still Boeing's responsibility, the instigating action that led to the crashes was rudder hardover due to a mechanical defect. Just because pilots may have, with perfect information, been able to recover the plane, does not absolve Boeing's defective design and implementation for MCAS, the deception from the FAA, the lack of documentation about its function and malfunction in the flight manual or training materials, the lack of any procedure for its malfunction that would require additional training. And now they're changing the behavior of MCAS in the case of angle of attack sensor disagreement, such that MCAS is disabled. That's a very clear sign that the previous behavior is inappropriate. And the ensuing change in airplane behavior without MCAS will certainly require additional training, the very thing they sought to avoid.
grecy 7y ago
I'm calling it now: The US Government will pass a law protecting Boeing from litigation over this, or they will bail them out, because "too big to fail".
- sschueller 7y ago
  At least I as the consumer can avoid any airline using Boeing or flights that are operated with boeings. It's small potatoes but I did what I could and if everyone does the same it will hurt Boeing.
  - Kirby64 7y ago
    Good luck. At least in the US, the vast majority of airlines use Boeing planes in most, if not all of their fleets. In Europe it's a different story, but that limits you to almost no carrier in the US.
shmooth 7y ago
Haven’t seen that massive NYT report show up here It blamed pilot error
amluto 7y ago
For a counterpoint: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/magazine/boeing-737-max-crashes.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/magazine/boeing-737-max-c...
- cmurf 7y ago
  It's a useful article. But as a pilot and former CFII, I do not agree with Langewiesche's assertion that AF447 was "an exercise in poor airmanship". That's a callous disregard for the final report that put blame on Airbus and Air France, for training deficiency, simulator deficiency, and cockpit UI/Ux confusion contributing to the problem of pilot panic. Is it poor airmanship that resulted in US Air 427? How is what happened on AF447, Lion Air 610, Ethiopian Airlines 302, anything to do with pilot competency and airmanship, while US Air 427 pilots don't get any of that criticism? Is it American pilot versus foreign pilot bias? It would seem so, but it's also a distraction from the question of pilot role: is it really appropriate to consider them the last line of defense as if the airplane and now automated flight systems are capriciously trying to kill everyone at any moment and if the pilot can't intervene that "airmanship" has to be brought into the discussion? I just think it's a cheap shot. Only from the mistakes of these dead pilots, and a bunch of dead people, is their the concern that leads to fixes from manufacturers. And Langewiesche didn't bother to bring up Boeing's previous track record with 737 defects either, and how unconscionable their intentional misdirection was.
  - o-__-o 7y ago
    as a CFII you are well aware that US has the most strict regulations around livery pilot training requirements. you cannot fly a large jet without 2000+ hours. LA610 and EA302 had copilots with <2000 hours. Boeing even said they need to redesign their planes to account for lesser skilled pilots. sounds like culpability of the foreign government, boeing, airlines, and pilots.. in that order. and yeah pilots will always get the final blame because they're the ones ultimately in control. or, dead (wo)men can't defend themselves.
    - cmurf 7y ago
      I don't understand your point. You throw out a factoid thinking it's relevant, and that it speaks for itself. How is experience related to these two crashes? Only FAR 121 operations require ATP certification, which has a 1500 hour total time experience attached. And that ATP certification requirement follows the Colgan Air 3407 crash, just ten years ago. And the extra time experience probably wouldn't have made any difference in that crash, because the NTSB dinged the captain more than the first officer, and the inadequacy of training overall. It was the captain flying, he was the one apparently startled by the stall warning, and he was the one who did the exact opposite of what his training should have told him. And he met the newer experience and certification requirements already. https://www.flyingmag.com/safety/accident-investigations/aftermath-mystery-colgan-3407/ https://www.flyingmag.com/safety/accident-investigations/aft...
dang 7y ago
Url changed from https://thehill.com/policy/transportation/462541-indonesia-to-blame-plane-design-oversight-in-fatal-boeing-737-max-jet https://thehill.com/policy/transportation/462541-indonesia-t..., which points to this.

38 points by cmurf 7y ago

Well we couldn't expect them to blame the former airport hustler who made billions ignoring safety and bribing government investigators now, could we? Nor could we expect them to blame the pilots for being so poorly trained and under-prepared for a simple runaway trim situation that they allowed aircraft to fly fast enough that any control input would fatally damage the control surfaces, could we? Noooo. We don't let the facts interfere with our opinions here. We just dance to the tune set by our masters in St. Petersburg and destroy the second largest US defence contractor. Because facts are soooo tired. I can't possibly be expected to read and understand complex technical material before having an opinion. Nooo. We don't want that.

simion314 7y ago
So all the faults that Boeing are fixing now are imaginary, you do not absolve Boeing of it's fault because some super pilots would have saved the plane. Maybe you should have followed your advice and read about all the mismanagement of the project and how important details were hidden from the pilots.
cmurf 7y ago
What facts demonstrate the pilots are poorly trained? What facts demonstrate this was a case of simple runaway trim? What facts indicate control surfaces were damaged, let alone related to speed or improper control input? What we do know is MCAS can so rapidly induce mistrim, that it's not possible to recover from at low altitude. No one was informed of or trained on this possible failure vector and it's not at all clear it looks like the kind of runaway trim they are trained for. United 585, US Air 427, Eastwind 517. The facts there are this was the result of PCU malfunction causing rudder reversal. In the case of US Air 427 the pilots pulled back on the yoke the entire time, progressing the stall, and making recovery impossible. But the direct cause of the accident is still Boeing's responsibility, the instigating action that led to the crashes was rudder hardover due to a mechanical defect. Just because pilots may have, with perfect information, been able to recover the plane, does not absolve Boeing's defective design and implementation for MCAS, the deception from the FAA, the lack of documentation about its function and malfunction in the flight manual or training materials, the lack of any procedure for its malfunction that would require additional training. And now they're changing the behavior of MCAS in the case of angle of attack sensor disagreement, such that MCAS is disabled. That's a very clear sign that the previous behavior is inappropriate. And the ensuing change in airplane behavior without MCAS will certainly require additional training, the very thing they sought to avoid.

grecy 7y ago

I'm calling it now: The US Government will pass a law protecting Boeing from litigation over this, or they will bail them out, because "too big to fail".

sschueller 7y ago
At least I as the consumer can avoid any airline using Boeing or flights that are operated with boeings. It's small potatoes but I did what I could and if everyone does the same it will hurt Boeing.
- Kirby64 7y ago
  Good luck. At least in the US, the vast majority of airlines use Boeing planes in most, if not all of their fleets. In Europe it's a different story, but that limits you to almost no carrier in the US.

shmooth 7y ago

Haven’t seen that massive NYT report show up here It blamed pilot error

amluto 7y ago

For a counterpoint: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/magazine/boeing-737-max-crashes.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/magazine/boeing-737-max-c...

cmurf 7y ago
It's a useful article. But as a pilot and former CFII, I do not agree with Langewiesche's assertion that AF447 was "an exercise in poor airmanship". That's a callous disregard for the final report that put blame on Airbus and Air France, for training deficiency, simulator deficiency, and cockpit UI/Ux confusion contributing to the problem of pilot panic. Is it poor airmanship that resulted in US Air 427? How is what happened on AF447, Lion Air 610, Ethiopian Airlines 302, anything to do with pilot competency and airmanship, while US Air 427 pilots don't get any of that criticism? Is it American pilot versus foreign pilot bias? It would seem so, but it's also a distraction from the question of pilot role: is it really appropriate to consider them the last line of defense as if the airplane and now automated flight systems are capriciously trying to kill everyone at any moment and if the pilot can't intervene that "airmanship" has to be brought into the discussion? I just think it's a cheap shot. Only from the mistakes of these dead pilots, and a bunch of dead people, is their the concern that leads to fixes from manufacturers. And Langewiesche didn't bother to bring up Boeing's previous track record with 737 defects either, and how unconscionable their intentional misdirection was.
- o-__-o 7y ago
  as a CFII you are well aware that US has the most strict regulations around livery pilot training requirements. you cannot fly a large jet without 2000+ hours. LA610 and EA302 had copilots with <2000 hours. Boeing even said they need to redesign their planes to account for lesser skilled pilots. sounds like culpability of the foreign government, boeing, airlines, and pilots.. in that order. and yeah pilots will always get the final blame because they're the ones ultimately in control. or, dead (wo)men can't defend themselves.
  - cmurf 7y ago
    I don't understand your point. You throw out a factoid thinking it's relevant, and that it speaks for itself. How is experience related to these two crashes? Only FAR 121 operations require ATP certification, which has a 1500 hour total time experience attached. And that ATP certification requirement follows the Colgan Air 3407 crash, just ten years ago. And the extra time experience probably wouldn't have made any difference in that crash, because the NTSB dinged the captain more than the first officer, and the inadequacy of training overall. It was the captain flying, he was the one apparently startled by the stall warning, and he was the one who did the exact opposite of what his training should have told him. And he met the newer experience and certification requirements already. https://www.flyingmag.com/safety/accident-investigations/aftermath-mystery-colgan-3407/ https://www.flyingmag.com/safety/accident-investigations/aft...

dang 7y ago

Url changed from https://thehill.com/policy/transportation/462541-indonesia-to-blame-plane-design-oversight-in-fatal-boeing-737-max-jet https://thehill.com/policy/transportation/462541-indonesia-t..., which points to this.