Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-07-2020, 05:55 PM   #11  
Line Holder
 
Texasbound's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2019
Posts: 84
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FXLAX View Post
So much for the theory that well trained, experienced American pilots wouldíve done any better.
So much for being able to read...

"In the tests, which were part of the work involved in evaluating the software update, many of the pilots did not use the correct procedures to handle emergencies, instead relying on their flying skills. Those results raised questions about whether simply informing pilots of which procedures to use would be sufficient to prepare them to fly the plane."

They handled it just fine, they just relied more on their skill and not the checklist.

Thus indicating, pilots with less skill would not do as well.
Texasbound is offline  
Old 01-07-2020, 06:28 PM   #12  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Sluggo_63's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2005
Posts: 1,009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Texasbound View Post
So much for being able to read...

"In the tests, which were part of the work involved in evaluating the software update, many of the pilots did not use the correct procedures to handle emergencies, instead relying on their flying skills. Those results raised questions about whether simply informing pilots of which procedures to use would be sufficient to prepare them to fly the plane."

They handled it just fine, they just relied more on their skill and not the checklist.

Thus indicating, pilots with less skill would not do as well.
Nowhere does it say they handled it "fine." In fact I've been hearing (albeit second-hand) that the sim test was a CF with a significant portion of the pilots (low double-digit percentages) who knew what they were going in to face were unable to safely handle the situation.
Sluggo_63 is offline  
Old 01-07-2020, 07:02 PM   #13  
Gets Weekends Off
 
ShyGuy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: French Bus Capn'
Posts: 6,978
Default

Apparently the sim excercises involve AOA disagreements on takeoff. Even without MCAS running. Guys are messing this up. What does this have to do with the MAX? This is just 737 stuff. This explains last month when EASA was saying they want Boeing to change already established procedures/checklist.
ShyGuy is offline  
Old 01-07-2020, 09:04 PM   #14  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Avroman's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: FIRE ALPA
Posts: 2,972
Default

This is why the 737 should have been redesigned (either into a new type, or at least like the DC-9/B-717) so that modern technology could be used instead of being faked to replicate the 1960s.... 99.8% of pilots flying this thing weren't even born when it was first built at this point. That's a recipe for disaster here... that's guaranteed disaster in Asia/Africa
Avroman is offline  
Old 01-07-2020, 10:39 PM   #15  
Gets Weekends Off
 
FXLAX's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 411
Default Boeing recommends 737 Max Sim for all

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baradium View Post
That doesn't really say anything on the theory one way or another. Boeing can't well recommend training requirements by country either.



I won't be surprised if the max is renamed though.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Texasbound View Post
So much for being able to read...



"In the tests, which were part of the work involved in evaluating the software update, many of the pilots did not use the correct procedures to handle emergencies, instead relying on their flying skills. Those results raised questions about whether simply informing pilots of which procedures to use would be sufficient to prepare them to fly the plane."



They handled it just fine, they just relied more on their skill and not the checklist.



Thus indicating, pilots with less skill would not do as well.



I stand by what I said. The article says pilots from AA, UA, SW (presumably all experienced and well trained) had issues. And presumably all knew ahead of time what they were going to deal with. Something the accident pilots didnít know ahead of time.

Iím not blaming pilots. This is obviously an issue with the design that needs specific simulator training. Iím positive all those pilots would handle it better if they had gone through specific sim training.
FXLAX is offline  
Old 01-08-2020, 12:11 AM   #16  
Gets Weekends Off
 
ShyGuy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: French Bus Capn'
Posts: 6,978
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FXLAX View Post
I stand by what I said. The article says pilots from AA, UA, SW (presumably all experienced and well trained) had issues. And presumably all knew ahead of time what they were going to deal with. Something the accident pilots didnít know ahead of time.

Iím not blaming pilots. This is obviously an issue with the design that needs specific simulator training. Iím positive all those pilots would handle it better if they had gone through specific sim training.
Iím not buying it. MCAS has been fixed to run off both AOA sensors reading high, and then fire a limited amount only once. No more tug of war. ďThose in the knowĒ are being quoted in articles saying the issues guys are having is dealing with an AOA disagree after takeoff. Thatís already an established procedure right? Why the problems?

I wonder what they mean by guys using flying skills versus going to checklists. Well newsflash, if the stick shaker is going off then this isnít the time to throw the AP on. The ETH Capt asked for AP on 3 times with the shaker going off.


So here we are. I still think this whole fiasco being dragged out is because EASA is flexing their muscles over the FAA and Boeing. Letís be honest, the world wonít look at the FAA to clear this airplane until EASA (Europe) certifies it too.
ShyGuy is offline  
Old 01-08-2020, 05:35 AM   #17  
Gets Weekends Off
 
e6bpilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Position: TACAMO
Posts: 1,680
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by docav8tor View Post
Southwest Airlines wanted another 737 and did not want simulator training. Their contract allowed for $1M rebate if simulator training was required.


The Max was born because AA was making a massive airbus order. Boeing met with AA and offered an airplane that would improve fuel burn and keep the same type as their already sizable 800 fleet. They struck a deal. SWA then ordered a boatload of them with the simulator stipulation mostly because the NG line was being shut down.
And here we are....
The blame here lies squarely with Boeing management. They have been in MBA cost cutting mode since the MD merger. This is what happens when you stop building airplanes and start paying shareholders as your primary business.
e6bpilot is offline  
Old 01-08-2020, 06:25 AM   #18  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 24,437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShyGuy View Post
Iím not buying it. MCAS has been fixed to run off both AOA sensors reading high, and then fire a limited amount only once. No more tug of war. ďThose in the knowĒ are being quoted in articles saying the issues guys are having is dealing with an AOA disagree after takeoff. Thatís already an established procedure right? Why the problems?

I wonder what they mean by guys using flying skills versus going to checklists. Well newsflash, if the stick shaker is going off then this isnít the time to throw the AP on. The ETH Capt asked for AP on 3 times with the shaker going off.


So here we are. I still think this whole fiasco being dragged out is because EASA is flexing their muscles over the FAA and Boeing. Letís be honest, the world wonít look at the FAA to clear this airplane until EASA (Europe) certifies it too.

Yes, it would be awkward for the FAA to go their own way without EASA on this. They dug that hole for themselves though.


I doubt they'll have universal consensus from all regulatory agencies but they probably need EASA and Canada onboard, and maybe Oz too.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 01-08-2020, 06:29 AM   #19  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 24,437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShyGuy View Post
Apparently the sim excercises involve AOA disagreements on takeoff. Even without MCAS running. Guys are messing this up. What does this have to do with the MAX? This is just 737 stuff. This explains last month when EASA was saying they want Boeing to change already established procedures/checklist.
Pitch indication disagree (of any sort) can rapidly become a CF.

Same with AS.

Personally I think US major airline pilots could handle a trim runaway fine. But if you don't know which way the airplane is pointing or what AS is doing it can go very wrong, very quickly. For anyone. My personal philosophy is cross-check all three AI's if anything suddenly goes wrong with no warning. Unlike pitot tubes, all three attitude systems cannot fail at once (the standby is a completely different and separate system).


Recent example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_A...den_Flight_294
rickair7777 is offline  
 
 
 

 
Post Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Boeing Pilot Complained of ĎEgregiousí Issue docav8tor Safety 3 11-13-2019 09:48 PM
Former Boeing official subpoenaed in 737 MAX Winston Southwest 17 11-12-2019 05:05 PM
737 MAX TNR Article. deltabound Delta 9 10-10-2019 03:09 PM
Boeing 737 Max's Autopilot Has Problem docav8tor Safety 7 07-10-2019 11:20 AM
Boeing launches new 737 SWAjet Major 2 07-22-2005 05:51 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:32 AM.