I think it’s slightly erroneous to blame the crew so heavily. Could they have done differently, maybe. But the idea is is that Boeing designed a plane with a single-point of failure on a catastrophically pivotal system and then marketed and sold it to countries that are well known to do ab-initio training and throw kids in a jet with 250 hours and wet certs. They should have known better. BUT, on top of that, they then went one step further and profited on the safety mechanism that should have been implemented in the first place, as redundancy in aircraft design is almost outright expected nowadays. Blame the crew, don’t blame the crew, Boeing seriously messed up. They have a duty when the sell airplanes to those airlines.

If it were just the max incidents, it’d be one thing. But it’s a little bit of a common straw man to pick apart the max accidents as a way to defend what is so very clearly wrong at Boeing.

 

Boeing was hugely at fault for design and not disclosing that mcas existed. But once again, nothing more really then a trim runaway. It's was completely screwed up by both crews horribly.

 

Flew it for years. How did it get to such an out of trim situation ?? Takeoff power and over 325 kias. Any aerodynamic problem ypu ha e , slow down, take the load off.

 

What's the procedure for trim runaway??
trimming 33 times and not telling the other guy what's the plane doing or never pulling power back out of takeoff?? Which is as trained by boeing??

 

I fly - they manage.

 

How did it get so out of trim?? Because the MCAS trims extremely fast and the pilots were distracted by warnings blaring and completely erroneous airspeed indications all while close to the ground with a fairly new FO flying the plane.

 

737 is an obsolete design. It's been outdated since the 90s, and obsolete for at least a decade now. It's not just the max disaster. There's was the rudder handover disaster which led to 2 crashes back in the day. It's system design is woefully inadequate in today's design standards. It's a 60 year old design and technology airplane. It's the best they knew back then. It's ridiculous to still insist on what's clearly superceded since the 80s when 757/767 design was out. The 320 at least is 30 year old design and technology, not 60. The aerodynamics of the 737 is the very first design boeing had, IN THE 1950s. The 720 model which later became the 707. Those crude flat panel windshields because they couldn't make aerodynamics curved ones back then. The same too narrow by today's standards fuselage. No EICAS which is a huge improvement to safety and efficient identification of system status and failures. That ridiculous electric stableizer team with its 2 miles of cables instead of a much more reliable hydraulic trim system which is what boeing designed for its newer designs. The list is long. I could go on and on. And don't tell me it's so reliable. It isn't. You just don't know what's failed or about to fail because it doesn't have a monitoring system like the later boeing and airbus designs. No systems self test in the background, no status messages.

Whoever decided to order these things for the last 20 years should give their bonuses back. Especially the max order decision. This has greatly crippled the united next plans which is no doubt damaging financially.

The 320 should have been ordered instead of 737 max and 350 should have been in the mix with the 787, it's one gouge heavier longer range airplane the 787 just can't match.

Bad decisions have consequences. We're feeling those consequences today.

Look at Lufthansa. They have a wide mix of aircraft and no problem making money with each and every one of them. Always the right fit aircraft on the right market route. None of this less fleet types to an extreme is more efficient is correct. It's nonsense.

 

Wasn't there a BA jumpseater who essentially saved them?

 

The MCAS trims ar normal speed and only for a limited time. It also can be instantly overridden by opposite yoke trim or disconnected with the pedestal trim switches as the per the procedures in effect at the time and properly done by the crew flying the aircraft the day prior.

 

This is completely incorrect. Like, actually 100% wrong. Not normal speed, not overridden with opposite yoke.

For anyone placing blame primarily on crew actions, do you really think that a dozen or so of those incidents under Boeing's original design and with their original generous system description would have left any airline without high risk of the exact same result? It's fine now but Boeing destroyed its reputation with their design of that single point failure system and how they handled it after the first crash.