PhantomHawk

Jeez.....I must suck at making a point, because you sure are missing it. In the Toyota example, you don’t need to be a trained professional. Any moron who knows how to shift out of drive could have prevented their own death.....yet people still died. Even though you could easily blame them for their own demise, the more important aspect was “why the h3ll were they in the situation to begin with?”

Answer: because of a $hitty design that was still produced.

If you don’t get it....it’s not for lack of explaining. Maybe I’ll try a little closer to home. We are all trained to do V1 cuts. All of us. Every year. Let’s say Airbus or Boeing makes a new model that has a tendency to lose an engine right at rotation. We are all trained for that.....no big deal, right? No way they should ground that plane and fix the problem, eh?!

FollowMe

I wouldn’t say you suck at making a point, maybe at choosing analogous scenarios for comparison. How a random, untrained car driver responds to an issue has absolutely no correlation to how a highly trained and skilled professional pilot responds to their aircraft.

You also appear to be conflating the question of whether these pilots lacked skills with somehow excusing Boeing. Boeing can be at fault for poor design, and the pilots can be at fault for poor handling of a known scenario. The two are not mutually exclusive.

In case you missed it I too will try to be as blunt as possible. Boeing has a design problem, that design problem was a link in the chain of errors that led to a loss of life. Boeing should be held responsible and should correct the issue which contributed. The pilots in the accident flights lacked the training, CRM, and basic airmanship to recover their aircraft. That fact is also a link in the error chain that contributed to the loss of life, and must no less be corrected than Boeing’s contribution.

Flytolive

The training, CRM and basic airmanship around the world has not changed dramatically with the advent of the MAX yet its accident rate is anomalously high albeit with a very small sample size. OEMs must build airliners that their customers can safely operate.


Fatal crash rates per million flights

Model/Rate/Flights/FLE*/Events
Airbus A318/9/A20/21/0.08/119.0/9.61/14
Boeing 727/0.50/76.61M/38.6/51
Boeing 737-1/200/0.62/58.29M/36.43/50
Boeing 737-3/4/500/0.14/79.60M/10.99/18
Boeing 737-6/7/8/900/0.06/100.3M/6.08/9
Boeing 737 MAX/3.08/0.65M/2.00/2
Boeing 737(all)/0.23/238.84M/55.5/79
Boeing 744/0.06/8.42M/0.50/2
Boeing 757/0.22/25.0M/5.41/9
Boeing 767/0.28/20.0M/5.50/6
Boeing 777/0.18/1.11M/2.01/3
Boeing DC9/0.58/62.59M/36.40/45
Boeing DC10/0.64/9.30M/5.91/15
Boeing MD11/0.37/2.79M/1.02/3
Boeing MD80/90/0.26/46.38M/11.94/18
Embraer E170/90/0.03/16.67M/0.44/1


FLE-Full loss of equipment

bigfatdaddy

Well you got that right at least.

Hyperbole much? No One on this thread excuses the manufacturer......so yes reading comprehension right back at ya! The part that you and the other manufacturer bashing folks don’t seem to want to talk about is the training piece, which IMHO is a larger part of the safety equation.

Flytolive

How was training so deficient with the MAX at these Boeing customers compared to 737NGs or A320 type airliners?


Model/Rate/Flights/FLE*/Events
Airbus A318/9/A20/21/0.08/119.0/9.61/14
Boeing 737-3/4/500/0.14/79.60M/10.99/18
Boeing 737-6/7/8/900/0.06/100.3M/6.08/9
Boeing 737 MAX/3.08/0.65M/2.00/2
Boeing 737(all)/0.23/238.84M/55.5/79

FLE-Full loss of equipment

Regularguy

I don't read any who have posted here who are “anti” pilot responsibility posters. What I read, was some who want to analyze and blame the failure on the pilots without regards to Boeing, FAA, certification methods, and foreign government certification standards.

Flytolive seems to be coming around to the idea design, training and certification requirements are at the center of the Max crashes. However, you have to be careful with stats, because Boeing uses them to decide how they will establish minimum training standards for their jets.

We seem to forget these two crashes killed more people than all certain politically incorrect weapons did in Baltimore during 2017 (latest crime statistics).

I guess neither of these issues is really in our back yard and it took the global market to ground the Max before the US did.

I'll let you all figure out how to solve the issues of the Max.

Flytolive

Not exactly.

What I am saying is that many of these customers around the world had training and experience issues long before the Max, but without having a fatal accident rate 40 times the previous generations of similar airlines in an admittedly small sample size. The pilots, their training and their experience levels don't explain the difference.

Regularguy

Ok let's play with stats and ideas.

Test #1

Which airplane requires more care and training to safely fly, a C150 or a B33/35?

They both only require a S/E Land rating and at one time there wasn't a sign off for complicated/high performance airplane.

Test #2

Which airplane requires more care and training to fly? C140 or a C150?

Again at one time they both only required a S/E land rating, while these days the C140 requires a tailwheel sign off.

Test #3

Which airplane should require more care and training, B737-200 or a B737 Max? Okay let's make it bit harder, the B737-9NG or the Max?

All of these share the same Type Rating and Boeing has approved difference courses between them with the last one NG - Max only required a CBT for a sign off.

Yes training standards count and all of these examples eventually required increased care and training for a pilot to be able to be certified to safely fly them. Why? because death and destruction followed them.

Boeing fell short on the Max. Pretty simple quotient.

Just quoting stats only gives a small image of the problem.

Flytolive

I think you'll have to play with yourself on this one as your analogy is nonsensical. I agree with one thing.

Regularguy

It's not "nonsensical" at all. You are trying to equate stats with a problem that are far more complex than the simplicity which you seem to implied. All one needs to do is throw a complex problem, not experienced before and the accident rates go up. Not real hard to figure out.

My analogy is at the lowest end of aviation where stats showed accident rates requiring required the FAA to step in with more training to operate the airplanes safely.

I have no idea what you piloting background is, but you may also be aware the insurance companies at some point, in general/civil aviation became the de-facto regulators often requiring greater training than FAA minimums. Again the stats showed pilots needed greater training than just relying on their good basic skills.

Nonsensical? Not at all.

BTW, do you have a tailwheel sign off or remember when you were trained and signed off in your first "complex/high performance" airplane? When I started it was as simple as going with the owner of the airplane and flying with them until they felt comfortable, no log book sign off required. Once one got their Multi if it was under 12,500 lbs same training requirements.

Back in the day when the 737-300/500 was introduced, we -200 pilots sat at a FMC trainer, no MCP, no EADI/EHSI (BTW, all of which the airplanes had), and practiced loading the "box," doing intercepts and direct to. We then went on a check flight with a LCA, (a revenue flight with paxs) and after two legs were good to go. Flew the old and new airplanes on the same day. There weren't any -300/500 sims yet and the fleets weren't split.

Maybe you can figure out a better answer for the Max issue. Mine is really simple, as I've stated it over and over again, Boeing is at fault for putting a sub-standard airplane on the market and the FAA for allowing the minimum training to be sub-standard. Fix both and the airplane will be a workhorse for decades to come.

Is your wrist a bit tired when you type all those stats?