3 ms·

The 'unsafe culture' at Boeing is an overblown fear, IMO. The two crashes on the 737 MAX were both on airlines that are not known for adequate training or maint

The 'unsafe culture' at Boeing is an overblown fear, IMO. The two crashes on the 737 MAX were both on airlines that are not known for adequate training or maintenance. Everyone got on the "bash Boeing" train while ignoring the reality of what happened. The NY Times finally wrote about it, after numerous articles presenting a one-sided story: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/24/world/asia/lion-air-boeing-indonesia.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/24/world/asia/lion-air-boein... > Crash investigators were presented with photographs supposedly showing that a mandatory test was done after the vane had been replaced. But upon further inspection, investigators concluded the photos were from a different aircraft. > “This is a test that Lion Air was required to do, and they didn’t,” said John Cox, an aviation safety consultant. > If the test had been done, engineers likely would have realized the vane was calibrated incorrectly by 21 degrees. The misalignment would prove fatal because it mistakenly catalyzed Boeing’s anti-stall system, forcing the plane into its final plummet.

simion314 7y ago
Please stop with false information, one of the companies has a good record. The safety concerns are real, documented and were ignored. There are many more issues with the MAX then the one causing the crashes, as an example while trying to patch the current software issue a new software problem was found that delayed the update.
- throwawaysea 7y ago
  What part of my post is false? If you are going to label my comment as false information, the burden is on you to point out explicit falsehoods (not just mere differences of opinion). Your reference to unrelated issues such as the software patch can apply to numerous complex systems in many industries (not just aircraft), and I bet it applies to planes from other manufacturers as well. Your comment seems more like FUD, since it casts doubt in one instance (one aircraft) without a comprehensive understanding and comparison across other comparable aircraft or manufacturers. You can't just take one complex system, scrutinize it, come up with a wish list of things you would want (without knowing the tradeoffs/implications), and then say there is something systematically broken here.
  - simion314 7y ago
    Your argument was like this We know that both airlines are bad so this implies the airplane has no fault. First of all even if the pilot crashed the plane ntentionally this does not invalidate the reality: - MCAS was hidden and pilots were not trained because of economic reasons. - MCAS had too much autority then the regulation allowed , so basically this is a black and white situation no shifting the blame on a third-world country company - after the first crash and even after the second crash Boeing failed to consider the safety of people and ground the planes until the MCAS is fixed or pilots were trained. - the MAX can enter in a state where you don't have enough power to control, the warning messages were a paid DLC and there was no training on how to handle this cases. Even if you did not intended your comment is sounding racist, those poor country companies used the plane wrong. Maybe you can argue that Boeing has less then 100% blame but it is a lot more then 50%. If you care that much about this topic please put a reminder in your calendar and get back to me when the investigations are over and MAX is back in the air and tell me "I told you so"
    - throwawaysea 7y ago
      > Even if you did not intended your comment is sounding racist, those poor country companies used the plane wrong. This is an uncalled for exaggeration, and not based on anything I said. Lion Air lied about testing their angle of attack sensor, per that NYT article. It isn't racist to point out that fact. And Ethiopian also had issues - for example, the copilot had just 200 hours of experience (https://www.businessinsider.com/ethiopian-airlines-flight-302-co-pilot-200-flight-hours-2019-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/ethiopian-airlines-flight-30...). Pilots have commented on how the gap in experience between the pilot and copilot can be confusing in an anomalous situation. > Still, 200 hours of flying experience is far below the requirement to copilot a plane in countries including the US. In 2013, the FAA upped its copilot (also called first officer) qualification requirement to 1,500 hours from 250 hours, while European airlines often require at least 500 hours. > And having just 200 hours of experience is especially cumbersome when flying a massive jet like the Boeing 737 Max 8, which was the plane involved in the March 10 crash, said Ross Aimer, the CEO of the airline consulting and legal firm Aero Consulting Experts. > "Two-hundred hours is extremely low," Aimer told Business Insider. "In an emergency, it becomes a problem. If you have a complicated airplane and you basically put a student pilot in there, that's not a good thing. Even if the guy in the left seat has so much experience, if you have so much imbalance of experience, that can be a problem." ------- > Maybe you can argue that Boeing has less then 100% blame but it is a lot more then 50%. Yes I think there is blame on both sides. I don't think Boeing is "a lot more than 50%", personally. And I don't know that their safety culture is "completely broken" as is often claimed. I think there may be room for improvements, but these are highly-complex machines, and highly-complex organizations, that work hard to strike a balance between being economically-efficient and perfectly-safe (since no system is truly perfect). If we pull back the covers, I bet we will find similar tradeoffs and decisions being made regularly in most industries, for most manufacturers, and for most aircraft.

simion314 7y ago

Please stop with false information, one of the companies has a good record. The safety concerns are real, documented and were ignored. There are many more issues with the MAX then the one causing the crashes, as an example while trying to patch the current software issue a new software problem was found that delayed the update.

throwawaysea 7y ago
What part of my post is false? If you are going to label my comment as false information, the burden is on you to point out explicit falsehoods (not just mere differences of opinion). Your reference to unrelated issues such as the software patch can apply to numerous complex systems in many industries (not just aircraft), and I bet it applies to planes from other manufacturers as well. Your comment seems more like FUD, since it casts doubt in one instance (one aircraft) without a comprehensive understanding and comparison across other comparable aircraft or manufacturers. You can't just take one complex system, scrutinize it, come up with a wish list of things you would want (without knowing the tradeoffs/implications), and then say there is something systematically broken here.
- simion314 7y ago
  Your argument was like this We know that both airlines are bad so this implies the airplane has no fault. First of all even if the pilot crashed the plane ntentionally this does not invalidate the reality: - MCAS was hidden and pilots were not trained because of economic reasons. - MCAS had too much autority then the regulation allowed , so basically this is a black and white situation no shifting the blame on a third-world country company - after the first crash and even after the second crash Boeing failed to consider the safety of people and ground the planes until the MCAS is fixed or pilots were trained. - the MAX can enter in a state where you don't have enough power to control, the warning messages were a paid DLC and there was no training on how to handle this cases. Even if you did not intended your comment is sounding racist, those poor country companies used the plane wrong. Maybe you can argue that Boeing has less then 100% blame but it is a lot more then 50%. If you care that much about this topic please put a reminder in your calendar and get back to me when the investigations are over and MAX is back in the air and tell me "I told you so"
  - throwawaysea 7y ago
    > Even if you did not intended your comment is sounding racist, those poor country companies used the plane wrong. This is an uncalled for exaggeration, and not based on anything I said. Lion Air lied about testing their angle of attack sensor, per that NYT article. It isn't racist to point out that fact. And Ethiopian also had issues - for example, the copilot had just 200 hours of experience (https://www.businessinsider.com/ethiopian-airlines-flight-302-co-pilot-200-flight-hours-2019-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/ethiopian-airlines-flight-30...). Pilots have commented on how the gap in experience between the pilot and copilot can be confusing in an anomalous situation. > Still, 200 hours of flying experience is far below the requirement to copilot a plane in countries including the US. In 2013, the FAA upped its copilot (also called first officer) qualification requirement to 1,500 hours from 250 hours, while European airlines often require at least 500 hours. > And having just 200 hours of experience is especially cumbersome when flying a massive jet like the Boeing 737 Max 8, which was the plane involved in the March 10 crash, said Ross Aimer, the CEO of the airline consulting and legal firm Aero Consulting Experts. > "Two-hundred hours is extremely low," Aimer told Business Insider. "In an emergency, it becomes a problem. If you have a complicated airplane and you basically put a student pilot in there, that's not a good thing. Even if the guy in the left seat has so much experience, if you have so much imbalance of experience, that can be a problem." ------- > Maybe you can argue that Boeing has less then 100% blame but it is a lot more then 50%. Yes I think there is blame on both sides. I don't think Boeing is "a lot more than 50%", personally. And I don't know that their safety culture is "completely broken" as is often claimed. I think there may be room for improvements, but these are highly-complex machines, and highly-complex organizations, that work hard to strike a balance between being economically-efficient and perfectly-safe (since no system is truly perfect). If we pull back the covers, I bet we will find similar tradeoffs and decisions being made regularly in most industries, for most manufacturers, and for most aircraft.