Cyprus-Forum.com

[Robin Hood]

Paphitis:

Just goes to show that your source is nonsense because they would have grounded the entire global fleet if there was anything amiss with the EPs. Not only that but pilots would need to be retrained with the new EPs.

Looks like your junk source is the only outlet running the story. No one else is and no one in the industry is aware of any greater problems with the NG.

MoA – “This was known in pilot circles for some time but will only now receive wider public attention:” You didn’t read the MoA article as those who needed to know are fully aware ...... didn’t you get the MEMO?

This failure came to light with the Max but it also exists on the NG and Boeing knew about it! A similar incident has not happened yet ..... but it could. The FAA know about it, Boeing know about it, the WSJ knows about it, the Business Insider DE knows about it ..... and Moon of Alabama knows about it ! You it appears were obviously not ‘in the loop’.

WSJ .... that is one of your reliable sources isn’t it? (Referenced by MoA article)

https://www.businessinsider.de/boeing-737-max-return-delayed-737-ng-pilot-procedure-review-2019-5

This video explains the problem (also referenced in MoA article)....... he is has four gold bars so I assume he is a Captain? How many gold bars do you have?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoNOVlxJmow

Boeing whistle blowers ? Reported by SBS dateline Australia – YouTube. (Don’t know who/what SBS is) Note .......

Published on 12 Jun 2011 WARNING: BOEING did the report to the FAA of its non compliance 31min 02 second in the video (This video is not for united states viewers as it is censored from us citizens ..... apparently )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWxxtzBTxGU


Just because you don’t know about it does not mean it isn’t true, unlike your predictions and claims, MoA makes reference to reliable sources and is consistently correct in his reporting. If you are waiting for the Sidney Herald, Alice Springs Gazette or the Daily Mail to inform you, you could have a bloody long wait!

Your problem is you are a very loud ‘know-all’ and it is pilots with your attitude that crash aeroplanes because you think you are smarter than anyone else. A far better pilot is one who keeps himself updated with developments and listens to others who could know more than he/she does.

[Paphitis]

It's not the regulators that are looking into Boeing NG procedures. It is Boeing itself. The regulator is not allowed to get involved with Boeing or Airline Operating procedures or EPs. It's not in their scope at all. They do not have the knowledge or the know how to get involved.

Boeing and operators review procedures all the time (it's a never ending process). Not because the MAXI MCAS is in anyway related to the NG (which it isn't) but because Boeing wants to reduce its risk scores (they want to protect themselves in other words). But you are insinuating that there is something wrong with Boeing EPs. There isn't. The procedures are being reviewed and are continuously reviewed every year for best practice.

And pilots would not be speaking to the media about anything so stupid. All this is just another day at the office. Proceures have chaanged drastically from the day the first B737 flew.

This is standard procedure for all aircraft types not just Boeing, to review procedures. We have a Performance Department that looks at all these procedures continuously.

FCOM's and QRHs are reviewed on average every 3 months and even amended multiple times per year. We have a document controller that does this for us and protects the integrity of our publications and manuals.

Our FCOM is up to version 8 already. The last update occurred about a month ago.

You know, I do not read the media when it comes to this stuff. they have a very big habit of creating drama because it sells.

The big thing to watch out for is when Boeing issue urgent Air directives. And they have not done such a thing.

The NG does not have an MCAS. The 2 types are not related at all.

As for whistleblowers and non compliance. Procedures are audited all the time by third party providers and consultants. The reason for audits is to find any potential non compliance. The fact that there is a non compliance with a certain procedure is an airline shortcoming, not a Boeing issue. And the fact that a non compliance was found, means that the system actually works. Boeing issue a Flight Manual and airlines need to comply with the procedures. Airlines write their own procedures. the procedures for flying a QANTAS B737 and an American Airlines B737 are not exactly the same. Each company has its own Standard Operating Procedures and as long as the comply with the Boeing Flight Manual then it is ok.

Boeing only needs to comply with certification requirements from the regulator. Airlines need to comply with the manufacturers procedures.

I went flying in a B737NG today. No problems at all. One of the safest planes in the sky if not the safest type in the world.

And no one is questioning the safety record of the NG. And that is NOT the reason why the FAA has delayed the certification of the MCAS. The process actually takes 90 days and they are still within that window. The MAX isn't due to fly till late July.

There is no FAA or regulatory issue with the B737 NG. If there was, we would know about it.

[Robin Hood]

Paphitis:

It's not the regulators that are looking into Boeing NG procedures. It is Boeing itself. The regulator is not allowed to get involved with Boeing or Airline Operating procedures or EPs. It's not in their scope at all. They do not have the knowledge or the know how to get involved.

All MoA says is that there is a problem that has been identified, neither he or I said the FAA were investigating it ..... they are AWARE and that is a fact

They do this all the time (it's a never ending process) but and they may be doing it more thoroughly right now because of recent events. Not because the MAXI MCAS is in anyway related to the NG (which it isn't) but because Boeing wants to reduce its risk scores (they want to protect themselves in other words). But you are insinuating that there is something wrong with Boeing EPs. there isn't. The procedures are being reviewed and are continuously reviewed every year

.
All MoA says is that there is a problem that has been identified ..... they are AWARE of the problem and it is a fact that revised crew training will be required.

The Boeing 737 is a line of aircraft based on an original concept that has been continually uprated and upgraded over the intervening years. To say the NG and the MAX or not in ‘anyway related’ ..... is to bend the facts. They are certainly not the same aircraft but versions based on the original 737.

And pilots would not be speaking to the media about anything so stupid.

Who said they did? MoA said that pilots were aware ...... but he obviously didn’t ask you!

This is standard procedure for all aircraft types not just Boeing.

I have no argument with that.

FCOM's and QRHs are reviewed on average every 3 months and even amended. Our FCOM is up to version 8 already. The last update occurred about a month ago.

If you say so ..... I wouldn’t know an FCOM or QRH if I fell over it, but I know that QFH and QNE’s change all the time but FL is a constant. So I’m not completely stupid!

You know, I do not read the media when it comes to this stuff, they have a very big habit of creating drama because it sells.

NOW .... you are getting the picture! But they did the same with Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Venezuela .... well you get the picture I’m sure but you believed that without question!

The big thing to watch out for is when Boeing issue urgent Air directives. And they have not done such a thing.

I somehow don’t think I am on the mailing list for that, so I will have to wait for Moon of Alabama to tell me when they do!

The NG does not have an MCAS. The 2 types are not related at all.

They are similar and serve a similar purpose as I understand the article and the video referenced.

As for whistleblowers and non compliance. Procedures are audited all the time by third party providers and consultants. The reason for audits is to find any potential non compliance. The fact that there is a non compliance with a certain procedure is an airline shortcoming, not a Boeing issue. And the fact that a non compliance was found, means that the system actually works. Boeing issue a Flight Manual and airlines need to comply with the procedures.

But if ‘non-compliance’ is found during the supply of parts process and the finder is told to keep his/her mouth shut or else .......... then a crime has been committed and I don’t mean the whistle blower!

Boeing only needs to comply with certification requirements from the regulator. Airlines need to comply with the manufacturers procedures.

Manufacturers for Boeing need to comply with defined and approved specs and procedures. Airline compliance is a factor AFTER delivery.

I went flying in a B737NG today. No problems at all. One of the safest planes in the sky if not the safest type in the world

.
In your opinion ..... that is what the Captain on the Titanic said to the passengers, because he was completely unaware of fundamental design flaws. Not his fault ..... he only pointed it in the right direction he didn’t design it. It is always easy to find the answer to the problem after the event than to predict the probability!

There is no FAA or regulatory issue with the B737 NG. If there was, we would know about it.

That appears not to be true as the MAX is still on the ground, if there were no issues it would be back in the air. The issues with the NG are ..... lets say ‘.... within acceptable limits' at the moment ? But you know now there are issues ..... MoA has called it to your attention. You should thank him, not ridicule him as he is obviously better informed than you or I!

[Paphitis]

Nope, there is no problem that has been identified or that is known in the industry.

The NGs safety record is beyond question and speaks for itself.Over 200 million flying hours so far. No issue at all.

There is an NG taking off or landing every second of the day. And they will be doing this for the next 30 odd years.

There have always been issues with the supply of bogus parts. This is not a Boeing issue or a problem associated with the NG. Bogus counterfeit parts have at times infiltrated the industry. There are probably dodgy companies that use them, but heaven forbid they have a crash because every part installed is meticulously recorded. There have even been instances where these parts have made it on top tier airlines by mistake. It's like having a real rolex compared to a cheap imitation rolex.

Boeing has nothing at all do to with this industry. They are against it and are trying to police it because they make a lot of money from after sales support and service.

[Kikapu]

It is getting more and more difficult for the pilots to keep up with more automation to fly the planes safely. It is going to take automation to manage automation to understand the situation and to solve it efficiently and effectively, lets say something like "HAL" (2001 Space Odyssey).
cyprus46756-140.html

On autopilot: 'Pilots are losing their basic flying skills,' some fear after Boeing 737 Max crashes

Automation has made planes safer and more efficient, but the crashes of two Boeing 737 Max jets lead some to wonder if there is a dangerous flip side.

Though advanced autopilots and computers are an integral part of any modern jetliner, many pilots worry that the systems detract from developing and maintaining their own abilities.

"We’ve been talking about this in the industry for years. Pilots are losing their basic flying skills, and there’s an overreliance on automation," Les Westbrooks, an associate professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, said after the latest 737 Max crash, an Ethiopian Airlines flight in March.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/autopilot-ap ... 33982.html

[Paphitis]

It is getting more and more difficult for the pilots to keep up with more automation to fly the planes safely. It is going to take automation to manage automation to understand the situation and to solve it efficiently and effectively, lets say something like "HAL" (2001 Space Odyssey).
cyprus46756-140.html

On autopilot: 'Pilots are losing their basic flying skills,' some fear after Boeing 737 Max crashes

Automation has made planes safer and more efficient, but the crashes of two Boeing 737 Max jets lead some to wonder if there is a dangerous flip side.

Though advanced autopilots and computers are an integral part of any modern jetliner, many pilots worry that the systems detract from developing and maintaining their own abilities.

"We’ve been talking about this in the industry for years. Pilots are losing their basic flying skills, and there’s an overreliance on automation," Les Westbrooks, an associate professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, said after the latest 737 Max crash, an Ethiopian Airlines flight in March.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/autopilot-ap ... 33982.html

The industry has known about the dangerous flip side for decades. We study all the psychological aspects and shortcomings of automation, and there are many. Just being in the wrong mode or situationally unaware of the correct mode and flight configuration, will kill people and there have been many examples of this. It is far safer in my opinion for an aircraft to be hand flown on an approach and landed rather than rely on the technology. The technology is indeed as fallible as the human element if not more. One incorrect mode selection is all it takes for a disaster. But it is unlikely for a pilot to botch a landing.

Just today I had an FMS Sequencing error where I was arriving at a waypoint and because I had the emergency standard departure procedure in the box in case of an emergency, I get to the first way-point shortly after TO on a Southerly Heading 182M and the autopilot interrogates a reciprocal heading from 182 to 002 and the aircraft started turning. So basically, if unchecked, I would have turned back towards the runway or departure airport as other aircraft were departing creating traffic conflicts, and I would have broken clearance in Class C Airspace (High Density Controlled Airspace).

There have been crashes that have occurred because of stuff like this, including many mid air collisions.

The reason why the FMS didn't sequence was because I was being vectored by the controller for traffic separation so I wasn't cleared to go to a particular point.

Now, believe it or not, that this technology does result in a massive loss of situational awareness.

The Departures controller would have been pretty upset and a Cirrus Report would have been lodged - basically an Aviation Safety Incident and that results in lots of paperwork, some bruised egos and slaps on the wrists all-round.

It is also true that it is much harder for pilots to maintain their skills. The job is ever evolving and changing but we are a very long way and I mean a very very long way before we are able to construct the AI to replace pilots. Most people doubt that this will ever happen.

[Paphitis]

With time and better technology for single pilot with full automation, it will become acceptable to the public, just like now the Subway in Singapore is fully Automated. A single pilot would still have a second pilot on the ground for cross checks. Since only one pilot is required to physically land a plane or take-off, the pilot on the ground will just replace the second pilot in the cockpit, until the plane is fully automated where it will take off and land by itself, in which case, only one pilot will be needed in the cockpit and eventually non in the cockpit, but just one on the ground. The cockpits will not look like cockpits we know today in the future. They will very much be like any other UAV. As to when passenger planes will be like the UAVs in the future, it is anyone’s guess, but future generations will be more accepting to these futuristic changes than the present and the next generation, but the work on futuristic changes are already happening little by little today.

Official statement from Boeing is that their new MMA (B797) which they plan to officially announce or launch in 2020, will be a 2 Pilot aircraft. They do not believe that passneger RPT and Single Pilot Ops are compatible with safety or the regulatory environment at this point in time.

That is correct, Paphitis, as far as passenger planes are concerned, but for cargo planes, they can still have a one pilot cockpit configured to have the second pilot on the ground. No one expects to have a one pilot cockpit for passenger planes until the one pilot system has been tried and tested over many years.

Kikapu,

let me introduce you to Captain Roger Victor. He may seem like a puppet but let me tell you a couple of things about this puppet. His creator is from the industry. He works for a major US carrier.

here is his take on it. He hits the nail on the head.

Any Airline company that supports single pilot operations, is basically supporting taking out an important layer of safety. The only reason why they would do that is to save on costs. But is the cost substantial enough to warrant the extra risk? My answer is a firm no. There would not be many Airlines out there eager to admit this or advocate single pilot operations. Will the traveling public support it? I highly doubt it.

He is also correct when he says that companies do sometimes push the limits with regards to safety, what is legal and what is not. Even top tier airline companies like BA, QANTAS, Cathay, Emirates, Etihad, Air France and so on have ops departments that chase the dollar or the profit. Captains have the final call. Sometimes its the captain that say's "NO, we are not going" or "NO, we are not going to do that because it's illegal".

Not only does this happen in commercial airliners but it also happens in the military, especially when the tempo is very high and there is a war. Believe it or not, military pilots are governed by the law as well, and there are even more stringent requirements. Most pilots however are very mission specific and are sometimes eager to get the job done. It is basic human nature. And sometimes they take risks in completing a mission because they don't want to let the team down. But this increases the chances of your demise and that does let their team down and the regulations are in place in the civil arena to protect pilots and crew as well as the traveling public and in the military arena to protect pilots and crew from getting killed. Yes, we don't send our boys to Syria and write their Death certificates. We send them in and we want all of them out and we didn't lose any of them. We don't care about our 100 million dollar EW-18G or F-35 aircraft. They are expendable pieces of metal but our pilots are not expendable at all. I think everyone agrees with that, including our top politicians and Government.

Single Pilot Operations in my opinion is not going to take off for Regular Public Transport. I find it hard to believe that the FAA will certify such a thing and even if they do, I doubt other countries will follow.

Boeing isn't for it either. They don't actually believe it is a safe thing to do. The savings in pilot wages I do not believe can justify the cost in safety. The top tier businesses will not be eager either. Pilot wages are literally a drop in the ocean when you weigh up all the other overheads. An Airline business is not going to be saved by going to single pilot.

Now, here is the definitive source from an industry insider. He may be an industry send up, but a lot of his stop give you an insight of how things work in a very funny way.

[Kikapu]

Paphitis,

Like most changes in life, first an idea is formed, then proposed, then debated, then acted upon. From start to finish there are many obstacles to get over, and most of the time, the new idea becomes normal into our daily lives. We are now at the idea stage.

A single pilot idea in the cockpit now and no pilot idea in the future is not just about saving pilots salaries as one crash can sink an airliners through legal cases, that is assuming any insurance company would even write out a policy on one/no pilot cockpit airliners, even if and when government regulators re-write rules to allow such proposals on such ideas of one/no pilot cockpits. However, if it can be proven in time that it is safer to have one pilot/no pilot in the cockpit than it is now through advance technology, in a generation or two, it can happen where we do not have a “pilot” an board, but instead, some computer programmer who can configure the entire flight from start to finish from his iPad relaxing in his private cabin without any hands on flying.

Also, do not forget, that the main force to go for one pilot system now, is to help the industry to be more efficient in finding crew to fly the planes as there is a major shortages of pilot in the whole industry, where many pilots with relatively few hours are flying planes who do not have the experience to handle situations that are hard to first understand and then solve. Even very experienced pilots crash by getting confused sometimes. Making flying safer with technology is what would sell to the flying public and not because to save money, which of course the airlines will save money, but as a by-product.

[Londonrake]

Not wishing to get involved in a contentious argument on this particular aspect but may I suggest, the day will surely come (a very long after we’re all pushing up daisies, I’m sure) when air travellers will be horrified at the thought lives were once in the hands of Human beings, sat at the front of the plane?

Perhaps as we now recoil at the realisation people once went to a barber for surgery.

[Paphitis]

There is no argument here.

Pointless arguing over something no one really has a clue about because no one can predict the future.

Hundreds of years ago people would have found today's current advances in technology as being unbelievable so in a 100 or 200 or 300 years from now, no one really knows how far humanity will progress. Humans have come a long way in just the last 100 years and advances seem to be accelerating.

However, the argument about removing a level safety is valid and stands for now and the foreseeable future. There is no Artificial Intelligence (AI) that is able to be the Safety catch that pilots provide and yes if you remove pilots then what you are in affect saying is that profits are more important than passenger safety. That is the bottom line.

It also is anti-intuitive on where the Aviation Industry has built its foundations upon. Despite what people think, Aviation has developed a phenomenal balance and a safety system that is the envy of all other industries. We at this point in time place a very big emphasis on safety. We are the safest industry on the planet, even ahead of the medical Profession by a long shot.

There are always 2 sides to an Aviation Company or business. You have the executives, the bean counters, accountants, business development managers, and share holders and the operations departments, who sometimes fail to see or forget that their companies safety record and reputation is a bankable commodity which translates to share price. They are profit centric. They are the capitalists in the company. Has anyone noticed the drop in the Boeing Share price? It will recover I am sure but this is what happens when the bean counters have their way and cut a small corner for extra profit. They also cut away a corner of the safety model that has been put in place. If it backfires, then there are no profits, just loss of life and loss of several Billions of Dollars (now is the time to buy Boeing shares). So safety costs money, but its also a valuable commodity too.

The other side of the ledger are the pilots, engineers, technicians and maintainers. These guys usually push back against the bean counters in order to maintain their standards, maintain the fleet, train pilots and conduct flights in absolute safety and without contravening the regulations.

So you can imagine, these 2 sides are in perpetual tug of war. One side wants to cut costs and chase profits, and conduct revenue flights even when it may be unsafe to so, or even illegal. Every pilot is asked by their company to do illegal stuff. Even in reputable companies. People play dumb and turn a blind eye, hoping that the Captain is mission centric, or will tow the line. When the Captain does not toe the line, then the buck stops right there.

The crew however are the filter. It's the Captain's license on the line as well. And the executives can't interfere with the Captain's decision. The Captain is the CEO of the aircraft. Ultimate responsibility for safety falls at their feet.

So shhhhhh! Don't tell anyone. But the advocates of single pilot are profit orientated. Pilots are not. The regulators like FAA and EASA or CASA are not either.

And the problem here is that they would need to certify such an operation. At the moment there is a regulation that all Regular Public Transport operation on aircraft greater than 5700 KG is multi crew.

Chances of that piece of legislation being repealed is ZERO - unless they can develop some form of AI or computer that is able to make Threat and Error management decisions and push back on the commercial forces of an airline, otherwise you are reducing safety and there will be more crashes and more people being killed for the dollar. That is just the way it is. I don't believe the regulator (FAA) will go for it. What is happening here is that we are putting a cost of safety. Safety is AOK as long as it doesn't cost which actually means profits first, safety second.

If you have pilotless planes, who is making those decisions about thunderstorms, wind shear or aircraft performance and serviceability? Do you want a human pilot who wants to live, or some form of programmable AI super computer that will put profit ahead of reason? Will we ever develop AI that is capable of reason and risk assessment in a very fluid environment? Star Trek doesn't seem to think so.

We still have a Captain Kirk on the Starship Enterprise who wasn't a very good captain btw. Later on we had Captain Think of the KLM narcissist at Teneriffe!

Later we had Captain Jean-Luc Picard who would make the ideal Airline Captain. He got the best out of his entire team. He consulted, weighed up his options carefully and made decisions carefully. The Airline Industries Crew Resource Management ideals were adopted by Star Trek, finally! A great example of Airmanship, discipline, professionalism and Threat and Error management.

You would have thought they would have been miles ahead since Star trek was in the year 2500 or something. But apparently not. They were like back in the 60s.