3 ms·

Every time we blame a crash on pilots, we are blaming it on training. Aside from some truly exceptional cases,* pilots who contribute to a crash are having is

by kayfox 7y ago

Every time we blame a crash on pilots, we are blaming it on training. Aside from some truly exceptional cases,* pilots who contribute to a crash are having issues because they have not been trained adequately in dealing with the situation. I believe that these two crashes indicate there is a need for reinforcement of the CRM training and also more training on unexpected situations. We can try to blame Boeing for the lack of this training, but Boeing cant force airlines to do anything but the type specific training. They cant force airlines to do recurring training, they in-fact rely on the regulators to setup structures to make sure this all happens. I don't have a personal stake in Boeing, I have a personal stake in not dying because someone decided breaking one link in the failure chain was adequate. * These would be the cases where the pilot crashes the plane on purpose, for which some airlines have dealt with systematically and with associated training on prevention.

computerex 7y ago
Who is "we"? People are blaming Boeing for trying to pass an airplane that's significantly different from a 737 as a 737. Pilots are rightly pissed off. MCAS is a completely new invention that's exclusive to 737 Max. Boeing was ethically in the wrong for passing the plane off as any old 737, because they wanted to save money due to re-certification costs. The flying characteristics of the 737 Max are different from 737, due to the bigger engines (another cost cutting measure as the engine efficiency is proportional to the size). They introduced dynamic instability, in that the airplane has a tendency to pitch up at an increasing rate when increasing power at take off. Boeing, rather than addressing this issue early on, created MCAS as a bandaid, another cost saving measure. The AoA sensor sampling wasn't redundant, a neglectful cost saving measure and oversight. The sensor disagreement light, a critical safety feature, was sold as an optional package. My point is, there are a lot of technical and ethical oversights you are glossing over. There is a reason why all the 737 Max are grounded and have been grounded for months. These crashes weren't simply due to lack of pilot training. There were multiple ethical and technical oversights and negligence by Boeing that resulted in these tragedies.

by kayfox 7y ago

computerex 7y ago

Who is "we"? People are blaming Boeing for trying to pass an airplane that's significantly different from a 737 as a 737. Pilots are rightly pissed off. MCAS is a completely new invention that's exclusive to 737 Max. Boeing was ethically in the wrong for passing the plane off as any old 737, because they wanted to save money due to re-certification costs. The flying characteristics of the 737 Max are different from 737, due to the bigger engines (another cost cutting measure as the engine efficiency is proportional to the size). They introduced dynamic instability, in that the airplane has a tendency to pitch up at an increasing rate when increasing power at take off. Boeing, rather than addressing this issue early on, created MCAS as a bandaid, another cost saving measure. The AoA sensor sampling wasn't redundant, a neglectful cost saving measure and oversight. The sensor disagreement light, a critical safety feature, was sold as an optional package. My point is, there are a lot of technical and ethical oversights you are glossing over. There is a reason why all the 737 Max are grounded and have been grounded for months. These crashes weren't simply due to lack of pilot training. There were multiple ethical and technical oversights and negligence by Boeing that resulted in these tragedies.