BF263533

Both.

There is no way Boeing should have sold the 737MAX outside the United States. The pilots in the US are “so superior” that they can safely fly a high risk aircraft like the 737 MAX. The FAA should put the 737 MAX back in the air now, and Boeing should accept the fact that 737 MAX should never operate outside of the United States. Boeing should take back all non United States 737 MAXes, and concentrate on their sales in the United States only where high risk aircraft can be safely flown.

It appears that the only know recovery of a MCAS failure was when there were three pilots in the cockpit. It appears that no 737 MAX MCAS failure plane has recovered with only two pilots.

https://www.thestranger.com/slog/201...ying-737-max-8

Desperate Boeing Bets on American Racism Being More Powerful Than the Fear of Flying 737 MAX 8, by Charles Mudede • May 20, 2019 at 1:31 pm



https://www.heraldnet.com/business/w...7-max-crashes/


“Reenactment in a flight simulator

Countering the notion that U.S. pilots could have overcome the emergencies that brought down the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines jets, the latest issue of trade magazine Aviation Week describes a simulator test flown as part of recurrent training by a U.S.-based 737 Max crew that re-created a critical part of the crashed Ethiopian flight. The simulation indicated that the pilots “faced a near-impossible task of getting their 737 Max 8 under control.”

Starting from the point where the Ethiopian pilots hit the cut-off switches and stopped MCAS from operating, the U.S. Max crew tried in the simulator to recover.

Even though the U.S. crew performed the simulator experiment at a normal speed of 250 knots instead of the more than 350 knots of the Ethiopian jet, the forces on the jet’s tail still prevented them from moving the manual wheel in the cockpit that would have corrected the nose-down attitude.

To get out of it, the pilots used an old aviator technique called the “roller coaster” — letting the yoke go to relieve the forces on the tail, then cranking the wheel, and repeating this many times.

This technique has not been in U.S. pilot manuals for decades, and pilots today are not typically trained on it. Using it in the simulator, the U.S. Max crew managed to save the aircraft but lost 8,000 feet of altitude in the process. The Ethiopian Max never rose higher than 8,000 feet, indicating that from that point in the flight, the crew couldn’t have saved it.

A similar experiment, though without the use of the roller-coaster technique, was performed by a European airline pilot and 737 flight instructor who runs a popular You Tube channel called Mentour Pilot about aviator skills.”

jsloan

This is utter nonsense. If the plane isn't safe enough to be flown worldwide, it shouldn't be sold in the US either. Conversely, if US pilots can fly it safely, pilots from other countries should be expected to do the same.

Furthermore, to whatever extent any of this nonsense about US vs non-US pilots is true, it comes down to the training requirements and safety cultures of the airlines involved, not the pilots themselves or their nationality. Your article claiming that Boeing is counting on "racism" in order to keep the MAX flying is conflating these things.

It seems to me I remember hearing about similar situations, after the ET crash, that hadn't led to accidents. In fact, it was those incidents that were allegedly the reason that the Chinese grounded the MAX; then, similar reports from some AA pilots came out. You don't tend to hear about system failures that don't lead to serious emergency situations.

According to the preliminary investigation, by the time they finally realized that they had a runaway stabilizer, they were severely out of trim, and they turned off the electric trim control at the worst possible time. If the simulator was started from that situation, it's possible that the fatal mistakes had already been made. In other words, it sounds like a test of the worst possible scenario. If they'd started the simulator earlier -- presumably, intending to model pilots who identified the problem more quickly -- an entirely different result is likely.

There are valid reasons to be critical of the MAX. There's no need to invent more.

VegasGambler

This is a fair point.

But...

Do you really feel safe flying in a plane which came be recovered from this situation? Really? Wouldn't you rather be on a plane where this is not an issue?

Even taking different pilots' skill levels into account, commercial passenger plane crashes are 1 in 11 million event. MAX-8 crashes are a 1-in-200,000 event. Now, that 1-in-200,000 is based on a much smaller sample size, but that is too big of a difference to be ignored. Remember, even if we are to believe that the problem is that pilots in third-world African and South Asian pilots are unskilled / untrained / generally inferior... they are flying other planes too. You still have a 55x crash rate to explain, with the same set of pilots.

ETA: These are numbers that I have seen on FT and various media sources. I have not validated them. My apologies if they are incorrect. However, the point stands -- MAX-8s have crashed at a higher rate than "the set of all planes", and that needs to be explained, and cannot be explained by pilot skill.

jsloan

I'm not aware of any plane available where it is impossible to get into an unrecoverable situation. Regardless of the media coverage, while the MCAS is new, a runaway stabilizer is not. A 737NG that suffered a runaway stabilizer could end up in the same position as the MAX.

I've never claimed that these arilines' pilots are unskilled or inferior. Poorly trained is a possibility that needs to be investigated.

You've actually identified the problem with your own numbers. The sample size is too small for calculations to be meaningful. Mathematically, it is within the realm of possibility that the 737 MAX -- unaltered -- is no more prone to crashing than the NG. A one in 11-million chance can happen twice within 200K events. It's not likely, but unlikely doesn't mean impossible.

Now, to be clear, I don't intend to reduce passengers' deaths to statistics. To the extent that Boeing can make adjustments to help ensure that the MAX is as safe -- or, better yet, even safer -- than the NG, they absolutely should do so. I'm perfectly happy to hold Boeing accountable for their failures; I just don't think we need to be inventing any.

I continue to believe that the final accident reports will split blame between pilot error and mechanical malfunction. I've maintained since soon after the ET crash that the MAX appears (again, small sample size) to go into more runaway stabilizer situations than the NG. I believe that tendency should be corrected, because while I can say "the pilots are trained for that type of emergency," we can all agree that the fewer emergencies that occur, the better.

VegasGambler

This is really my whole point. This is why I continue to believe that MCAS is not the problem; it's an attempt to solve the problem. The problem is poor engineering w.r.t. weight distribution. The solution is not to make MCAS better; it's to design a plane where it's unnecessary. I believe that boeing has been VERY successful in controlling the narrative on this topic. I fear that it will cost at least one more planeful of lives, and I have no intention on being one of those lives. If I'm wrong and we go some years without another crash, I'll admit that I'm wrong and board one. Until then, it's not happening.

ExplorerWannabe

Utter hogwash. From the facts that have come out to date, the problems started before MCAS was even activated because the plane was going too fast and had runaway stab, both of which have remedies and procedures known for decades and available to pilots worldwide. We are fortunate in the US that a large number of our commercial pilots have already amassed considerable flying experience (as opposed to 360 hours) while in the military (or did so historically, I don't know what current demographics are like).
Boeing took responsibility for adding their software adding confusion in the cockpit during trying circumstances and is rectifying that but there is nothing about flying too fast or letting trim get out of control that is a "US ONLY" procedure -- or a Boeing-only situation. Neither of these conditions requires a third pilot in the cockpit, they both require the pilots in the cockpit to recognize the conditions. The captains on both doomed flights were apparently quite experienced so I would still be asking if there was something in how information was presented that distracted them or persuaded them to let a bad situation grow to the point it did before the electrics were reactivated. Just why were they overspeed to begin with -- were there weather or other conditions that would have led other experienced pilots to follow a similar profile?
What the third pilot did on the flight that DIDN'T crash was recognize the other two were letting a bad situation get worse by NOT executing the appropriate procedure and directing their attention accordingly.
I don't blame you for avoiding the plane if you don't think the accidents have been investigated thoroughly (I don't) or that the fixes being applied are inadequate (I don't know enough here) but let's not spread falderal. I would avoid the MAX because of the lavatory configurations but that's on the airlines ordering the aircraft with specific configurations. A lot of the nonsense being stated online is right up there with Streep's testimony to Congress about Alar.

goodeats21

Headline:

United CEO says he’s not sure travelers will want to fly a Boeing 737 Max — even after a fix

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/30/unit...x-returns.html

spin88

The key "news" in my book is that Oscar said "we will allow any type of rebooking if required" if a MAX9 is assigned (see 2 min mark in the video). And let me be clear, the statement that Oscar made - how people feel is important, and we are not going to make anyone fly this plane for any reason, is exactly the right approach.

While Oscar is not in day to day control at UA, I really do have to give him credit for turning around the approach and beginning to undo some of the massive damage done to UA by Dear Leader Smisik. I can't imagine Smisik wiping the smirk off his face long enough to recognize the (justified or unjustified, take your pick) customer fears about the MAX and making a statement that anyone can make flight changes to avoid the MAX9 if that aircraft is assigned to your flight.

Will be interesting to see what AA and WN do.

halls120

I see easier upgrades - or cheaper P fares - in the future once the Max is back in the air.

VegasGambler

I'd really like to see the DOT step up and force carriers to waive change or cancellation fees in case of equipment swap. UA already does (kudos to them) this but some other carriers don't.

If you book a flight on the MAX I don't think that you should get any special consideration, but if you book an aircraft that you are comfortable flying in, the airline should not have the right to swap to one that you don't, and then use that to extract change fees or fare differences from you.

uastarflyer

IAH-OIL-TRASH

The MAXs are currently scheduled in heavy between west coast and Hawaii in October. It'll be interesting to see how bookings react. Easier upgrades would be OK w/ me.. I'll have no problem boarding one once pilots OK solution/training and aren't adverse to flying one.

UA sure is being stingy w/ advance PZ. My mid-June flight OGG-SFO just went from PN3 to PN9 w/ still no PZ. Seriously? Toss non-GS a bone, UA.

VegasGambler

I just don't think that airlines should be able to engage in bait and switch tactics. If they see that people are not comfortable flying in the MAX, airlines could book all flights in other places and make last minute equipment swaps to the MAX. That would be fraud, but it wouldn't surprise me to see certain airlines (not UA) engaging in such tactics.

Also, I don't think that this is MAX-specific. If I book a flight on a lie-flat I don't think that they should be able to move me to a crappy recliner either. DOT is there, in part, to make sure that customers get what they pay for. It's just that now we are moving from matters of comfort to matters of life and death, so this has become far more critical.

Note that UA already waives fees if there is an equipment swap that is "not to your liking", so this is moot for UA. Other, more shady carriers, don't allow this.

spin88

While I agree that their ought to be a rule about swaps from lie flats to domestic First, is there an airline that will not switch you in that situation? As to A/C types, it is just not going to happen. Boeing for one would not let the current Boeing-captive federal government do it.

I do think UA is going the right thing, will be interested to see what it does as far as book away. I for one would much rather take an airbus, but that is because the A321 is a much more comfortable aircraft than the MAX. I think the "safety" issues will be sourted out before they fly it again, if only because multiple regulators, not just the captive FAA, are going to have to approve it as well.

emcampbe