Cyprus-Forum.com

[Robin Hood]

May not be what some regard as an ‘official’ source but going by the previous articles they were on the ball even before the official announcements. It looks like a Boeing problem all down the line!

Regulators Knew Of 737 MAX Trim Problems - Certification Demanded Training That Boeing Failed To Deliver

A recently discovered document proves that Boeing ignored requirements international regulators made when they certified Boeing's 737 MAX airplane.

After the recent Boeing 737 MAX incident in Ethiopia we explained why it happened. Even before the plane type was grounded by the FAA we wrote:

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/03/boeing-the-faa-and-why-two-737-max-planes-crashed.html

Our early take was confirmed by the reporting of other media which we also discussed:

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/03/flawed-safety-analysis-failed-oversight-why-two-737-max-planes-crashed.html

The basic problem:

For commercial reasons Boeing wanted the new 737 version to handle like the old ones. But changes in the new version required an additional system to handle certain flight situations. The development of that system and the safety analysis of its implications were rushed through. Pilots were not informed of it and not trained to counter its failure.

The added 'manoeuver characteristics augmentation system' (MCAS) depended on only one sensor. When the sensor provided false data MCAS engaged and pointed the planes towards the ground. Manual trim using the plane's trim wheel was required to regain flight stability. The pilots were not aware of that. The regulators who certified the plane as safe were unaware of the extend of the problem:

The MCAS system is poorly engineered and the design should never have been certified in the first place. But the issue is even worse. The certification that was given relied on false data.

The rest of the article ........

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/03/regulators-knew-of-737-max-trim-problems-certification-demanded-training-that-boeing-failed-to-deliv.html#more

[Lordo]

you are circling
around the fire
doing the rain dance
in the middle of the summer
in the shara

if you think a corporation like Boeing has the slightest interest in looking after people's safety, you clearly do not understand what these people are all about.

here is the comment of one man that expalins exactly how this happened.

The initial reaction from the European Authority EASA was a recommendation based on initial data. About 6 hours later this became an Alert (you must do it). In those 6 hours the operators may or may not have been caught stranded.

It is a very safe aircraft and in years to come, will prove it's worth (there are already orders for 2,000 of them placed with Boeing).
The issue is a mix of new (upgraded) technology, but not training the crew proportionally to the amount of technological change.
A maintenance engineer's training for the aircraft (to fix it), is a 13 day THEORY and 4 day PRACTICAL course on the upgrades from B737NG to MAX.
A pilot's training (to fly it), is a four hour cockpit familiarization course!

These four hour trainings (of accident crews) were done with crews in English, where that language is their 2nd or 3rd language.

Boeing told them "its all automatic now, you don't need to worry about things". So they literally did, watch it crash into the ground (twice), because they did not receive enough training on it

blooming cut out the bloody noise especially if you have no idea about what is going on. even if you do have a licence to fly scarnos or you have a native sounding name.

[Paphitis]

I know what Boeing are all about and they prioritize safety first. It's the first agenda at their board meetings and it is the same for all other companies like Boeing, such as Airbus and Bombardier. This is a big thing in Aviation. Business actually relies on this Safety Culture so much. The safety culture present in Aviation is like no other industry in the world. In fact, other industries like to emulate.

If they did not have this culture in safety, it would be disastrous for their business and reputation.

Safety is the first priority in most airlines as well.

Lordo, you are delusional. Aviation is the safest mode of transport because of all the technological breakthroughs and contributions made from corporations like Boeing, Airbus and many others.

Money does come but never at the expense of safety.

The most likely shortcuts occur from some operators or airlines, not really from Boeing. And even there, most 1st tier aviation companies are extremely meticulous about safety, with a few that are not as meticulous such as the ill-fated Helios Airlines from Cyprus as an example.

Boeing and Airbus employ thousands of engineers and Engine Analysts just looking at how to make their aircraft better and safer.

One more thing, I would have no problem flying and having my family fly on a B737 MAXI. I believe the B737 MAXI is a great plane. QANTAS has 50 on order.

What this accident is caused by is from a series of events. Boeing isn't the only company culpable here. There might be some things that will be pinned on Boeing with regard to the MCAS, software issues, faulty sensor, and from what I heard some training material - although I seen the training material and believed it was sufficient. Equipment on aircraft goes faulty all the time. There are always procedures to deal with this in-flight. The procedures were not followed because the pilots didn't know. And it isn't Boeing's responsibility to train pilots as has been mooted. Its the operators responsibility. Boeing only needs to provide material in the form of a Flight Manual, which according to my research they did and inside that manual issued by Boeing there was a procedure to disengage the MCAS in case of trim runaway. I think Boeing are reasonably well covered here. Which is what I would expect.

The main culpability here will be on Ethiopian because they took delivery of one of the first B737 MAXI simulators and they did not train their pilots on the new procedures. They had an MCAS event, and they could have disengaged it very easily. The procedure was published by Boeing.

This is why I don't jump to any conclusions and I don't read the hysterical media. Most of the journalists that write these articles don't even know how to check the oil in their own cars, and all of a sudden they are experts on B737 MAXI MCAS and Ar Crash Investigators.

The B737 MAXI will be flying very soon. Boeing was forced to ground them to appease the public sentiment and go into damage control on their reputation and appear pro-active. But you can be sure that Boeing will not wear the blame and they have already pointed fingers elsewhere and both Boeing and Ethiopian have been warned by the authorities that the tit for tat isn't helpful to the investigation.

There is definitely a lot going on here and it isn't as simple as saying Boeing is responsible or Ethiopian is responsible. there will be findings that will make both responsible in some way. I'm not prepared to speculate because I don't have all the facts or evidence and this investigation is going to take months.

There are many aspects here that point the finger at Ethiopian directly - Pilot Training, and not being familiar with the systems on the aircraft. This puts Ethiopian in the hot seat unless of course Boeing didn't provide the material which has been mentioned. My understanding is however, they did provide all the necessary material and also the tools to train the pilots properly. The operator for some reason did not follow through.

[Lordo]

I know what Boeing are all about and they prioritize safety first. It's the first agenda at their board meetings and it is the same for all other companies like Boeing, such as Airbus and Bombardier. This is a big thing in Aviation. Business actually relies on this Safety Culture so much. The safety culture present in Aviation is like no other industry in the world. In fact, other industries like to emulate.

If they did not have this culture in safety, it would be disastrous for their business and reputation.

Safety is the first priority in most airlines as well.

Lordo, you are delusional. Aviation is the safest mode of transport because of all the technological breakthroughs and contributions made from corporations like Boeing, Airbus and many others.

Money does come but never at the expense of safety.

The most likely shortcuts occur from some operators or airlines, not really from Boeing. And even there, most 1st tier aviation companies are extremely meticulous about safety, with a few that are not as meticulous such as the ill-fated Helios Airlines from Cyprus as an example.

Boeing and Airbus employ thousands of engineers and Engine Analysts just looking at how to make their aircraft better and safer.

One more thing, I would have no problem flying and having my family fly on a B737 MAXI. I believe the B737 MAXI is a great plane. QANTAS has 50 on order.

What this accident is caused by is from a series of events. Boeing isn't the only company culpable here. There might be some things that will be pinned on Boeing with regard to the MCAS, software issues, faulty sensor, and from what I heard some training material - although I seen the training material and believed it was sufficient. Equipment on aircraft goes faulty all the time. There are always procedures to deal with this in-flight. The procedures were not followed because the pilots didn't know. And it isn't Boeing's responsibility to train pilots as has been mooted. Its the operators responsibility. Boeing only needs to provide material in the form of a Flight Manual, which according to my research they did and inside that manual issued by Boeing there was a procedure to disengage the MCAS in case of trim runaway. I think Boeing are reasonably well covered here. Which is what I would expect.

The main culpability here will be on Ethiopian because they took delivery of one of the first B737 MAXI simulators and they did not train their pilots on the new procedures. They had an MCAS event, and they could have disengaged it very easily. The procedure was published by Boeing.

This is why I don't jump to any conclusions and I don't read the hysterical media. Most of the journalists that write these articles don't even know how to check the oil in their own cars, and all of a sudden they are experts on B737 MAXI MCAS and Ar Crash Investigators.

The B737 MAXI will be flying very soon. Boeing was forced to ground them to appease the public sentiment and go into damage control on their reputation and appear pro-active. But you can be sure that Boeing will not wear the blame and they have already pointed fingers elsewhere and both Boeing and Ethiopian have been warned by the authorities that the tit for tat isn't helpful to the investigation.

There is definitely a lot going on here and it isn't as simple as saying Boeing is responsible or Ethiopian is responsible. there will be findings that will make both responsible in some way. I'm not prepared to speculate because I don't have all the facts or evidence and this investigation is going to take months.

There are many aspects here that point the finger at Ethiopian directly - Pilot Training, and not being familiar with the systems on the aircraft. This puts Ethiopian in the hot seat unless of course Boeing didn't provide the material which has been mentioned. My understanding is however, they did provide all the necessary material and also the tools to train the pilots properly. The operator for some reason did not follow through.

and you are just about the most idiotic indivdual i have ever come across other that the old batcho yero. where did i say aviation is not safe. millions of more people die in road accidents than air accidents. i did not even say boeing makes unsafe aircraft. here is what i said
<<< It is a very safe aircraft and in years to come, will prove it's worth >>
which bit of the sentence did you not understand you stupid boy. i hope you have not propogated little stupid boys like you. you should have been bloody neutered gavole. enough of this torterous bloody posts.
the real issue is what boeing told airlines and how the pilots need to do nothing, the aircraft can fly itself. so airlines gave the pilots minimal training and the consequences were while the aircraft was nose-diving they were looking through their manual which is in a foreign language.

what was it you do did you say, fly planes? i hope there are no people in them. the only thing you should be allowed to fly is transporting manure. that would ineed be very apt for all the bullshit you spew in this forum and i suspect elswhere your pointless being resides.

[Paphitis]

I know what Boeing are all about and they prioritize safety first. It's the first agenda at their board meetings and it is the same for all other companies like Boeing, such as Airbus and Bombardier. This is a big thing in Aviation. Business actually relies on this Safety Culture so much. The safety culture present in Aviation is like no other industry in the world. In fact, other industries like to emulate.

If they did not have this culture in safety, it would be disastrous for their business and reputation.

Safety is the first priority in most airlines as well.

Lordo, you are delusional. Aviation is the safest mode of transport because of all the technological breakthroughs and contributions made from corporations like Boeing, Airbus and many others.

Money does come but never at the expense of safety.

The most likely shortcuts occur from some operators or airlines, not really from Boeing. And even there, most 1st tier aviation companies are extremely meticulous about safety, with a few that are not as meticulous such as the ill-fated Helios Airlines from Cyprus as an example.

Boeing and Airbus employ thousands of engineers and Engine Analysts just looking at how to make their aircraft better and safer.

One more thing, I would have no problem flying and having my family fly on a B737 MAXI. I believe the B737 MAXI is a great plane. QANTAS has 50 on order.

What this accident is caused by is from a series of events. Boeing isn't the only company culpable here. There might be some things that will be pinned on Boeing with regard to the MCAS, software issues, faulty sensor, and from what I heard some training material - although I seen the training material and believed it was sufficient. Equipment on aircraft goes faulty all the time. There are always procedures to deal with this in-flight. The procedures were not followed because the pilots didn't know. And it isn't Boeing's responsibility to train pilots as has been mooted. Its the operators responsibility. Boeing only needs to provide material in the form of a Flight Manual, which according to my research they did and inside that manual issued by Boeing there was a procedure to disengage the MCAS in case of trim runaway. I think Boeing are reasonably well covered here. Which is what I would expect.

The main culpability here will be on Ethiopian because they took delivery of one of the first B737 MAXI simulators and they did not train their pilots on the new procedures. They had an MCAS event, and they could have disengaged it very easily. The procedure was published by Boeing.

This is why I don't jump to any conclusions and I don't read the hysterical media. Most of the journalists that write these articles don't even know how to check the oil in their own cars, and all of a sudden they are experts on B737 MAXI MCAS and Ar Crash Investigators.

The B737 MAXI will be flying very soon. Boeing was forced to ground them to appease the public sentiment and go into damage control on their reputation and appear pro-active. But you can be sure that Boeing will not wear the blame and they have already pointed fingers elsewhere and both Boeing and Ethiopian have been warned by the authorities that the tit for tat isn't helpful to the investigation.

There is definitely a lot going on here and it isn't as simple as saying Boeing is responsible or Ethiopian is responsible. there will be findings that will make both responsible in some way. I'm not prepared to speculate because I don't have all the facts or evidence and this investigation is going to take months.

There are many aspects here that point the finger at Ethiopian directly - Pilot Training, and not being familiar with the systems on the aircraft. This puts Ethiopian in the hot seat unless of course Boeing didn't provide the material which has been mentioned. My understanding is however, they did provide all the necessary material and also the tools to train the pilots properly. The operator for some reason did not follow through.

and you are just about the most idiotic indivdual i have ever come across other that the old batcho yero. where did i say aviation is not safe. millions of more people die in road accidents than air accidents. i did not even say boeing makes unsafe aircraft. here is what i said
<<< It is a very safe aircraft and in years to come, will prove it's worth >>
which bit of the sentence did you not understand you stupid boy. i hope you have not propogated little stupid boys like you. you should have been bloody neutered gavole. enough of this torterous bloody posts.
the real issue is what boeing told airlines and how the pilots need to do nothing, the aircraft can fly itself. so airlines gave the pilots minimal training and the consequences were while the aircraft was nose-diving they were looking through their manual which is in a foreign language.

what was it you do did you say, fly planes? i hope there are no people in them. the only thing you should be allowed to fly is transporting manure. that would ineed be very apt for all the bullshit you spew in this forum and i suspect elswhere your pointless being resides.

Boeing didn't tell operators to do nothing and if they did tell operators to do nothing in the event of a trim runaway, that would have raised red flags.

In fact, trim runaway disengage is tested before engine start in every company I know. Same with Autopilot disengage.

Boeing issued a procedure alright.

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org ... c4cb07.jpg

Plus the plane can fly itself. Not a problem at all.

The problem with you Lordo is you believe everything you hear. Every bit of click bait.

[Robin Hood]

Paphitis:

The overriding consideration in any commercial enterprise is ....... PROFIT, not safety. That's capitalism for you! If it costs too much to make an aeroplane safe to fly, then they don't build the aeroplane!

Having made the initial commercial decision they would then concentrate on safety, but only to the point investigations do not damage the commercial prospects. The manufacturer can do so much to ensure safety but when a series of thousands of 'what ifs' needed to be investigated or situations of double jeopardy arise, then they will take the risk as the odds of these situations arising are in the region of tens of millions-to-one or even higher.

An investigation will determine whether it was Boeings fault or not ...... but the concept of safety warning lights/switches and other devices required to make the flight safe, as being provided at extra charge is a condemnation of Boeings commercial attitude to safety.

[Paphitis]

You can't have profit without safety. Not in this industry.

Boeing is an 80 year old company that has outlived many because of its innovation and safety record in the industry.

The industry has many principles from aircrew CRM Training to Safety right at the top at the board room level.

They are not allowed and will not discuss any business or money without opening with a safety occurrence report and discussing a safety initiative or closing out a safety item.

Without that, there is no reputation and there is no profit. Their reputation actually has a multi billion dollar value in the marketplace.

This is something that occurs at all reputable aviation companies, Boeing, Airbus and even at NASA. These fundamentals are handed down and passed on from company to company. They are discussed at conferences and shared between competitors because safety is the sacred cow of the entire industry. We have very high standards across the board in training and safety and its uncompromising.

Aviation companies (the reputable ones) prioritize safety. It occurs and starts at the CEO level.

Safety is prioritized against all other business and also profit. You will not have Boeing or QANTAS or NASA, or Lufthansa go the other way. This is what creates their reputation in the market, results in their longevity (because plenty come and go), and as a result creates the profits.

If it was the other way around, then they would fudge Maintenance releases and operate aircraft with unserviceablities. Instead planes are written up, grounded and fixed, signed off and then placed back into service. It's a very expensive business aviation, but the reputable companies don't cut corners.

I can tell you for a fact that Boeing don't start any business without addressing safety first. They always lead with safety and close out with safety. Every executive level meeting and at every toolbox meeting. And if you do not have that mentality in Boeing and others like Boeing, you are out the door.

Not to say that there are many aviation businesses around the globe that prioritize profit ahead of safety. They do exist. But Boeing and other businesses like Airbus are not among them. Airlines like QANTAS and so many more like QANTAS are mot among them. All the big reputable operators we know and love, are mot among them.

Cyprus Airways that went down was not among them either.

People think I am naive, but I have been in the industry all my life and the industry is more regulated than anything anyone has ever seen. The safety culture is beyond question and sacred. Boeing would literally be at the forefront. Not saying they don't make mistakes but you would be hard press to find anything sinister at Boeing.

[Robin Hood]

Paphitis:

I can tell you for a fact that Boeing don't start any business without addressing safety first. They always lead with safety and close out with safety.

Isn’t that exactly what I said?

Do you remember JFK’s response to Concorde? He said something on the lines ..... “We are going to build one that carries more passengers, faster, higher and further than Concorde!” They didn’t .... because someone tapped him on the shoulder and said “We can’t do it safely, the Brits and the French have shown us we can’t ..... with current technology!”

What you do not seem to understand that 100% safety is an impossible achievement .... no aircraft design would ever leave the drawing board!

Let’s be silly with an extreme hypothetical situation? .......... we have safety guy who asks “What if ...... the power fails completely, at night, in icing conditions, they loose all the avionics, one engine fails and they have just flow into a severe storm and ...... the captain has a heart attack ? What then? “ Do you see just how many man hours it would take to simulate those conditions and formulate corrective actions ...... and the cost? In that instance they would take the risk that it is a billion to one chance and not do such an in depth investigation and just accept the risk. The cost of safety is always balanced against commercial considerations, but safety is never knowingly compromised for profit!

That is what I was saying. Of course there are airlines that cut corners. A wing tip lamp on a light aircraft is no different from that you use in your car ....... but to get one that is certified for an aircraft, even though the two are identical, it will cost you ten times as much. Some will take the risk and buy one from a gas station ......... who would know the difference?

[Paphitis]

It's not that Boeing can't build a Concorde. They can do it alright, but such projects are not viable. They burn too much fuel. There isn't a market for it. Concorde was never a viable aircraft. it was just a novelty for the rich. Airline companies want efficient aircraft. All this stuff is market driven.

It's like the average family want to buy a fuel efficient car, not a car that will cost them a fortune to run.

In the end, the aim is still to make a profit, not burn your cash.

Boeing instead came up with the legends of the sky such as the B747, B737, B767, and B777. I leave out the B787 Dreamliner which still has not earned its stripes in the market place.

Other classics of yesteryear, the B707 and B727.

As for supersonic, the are also the manufacturers of the F-18, F-18F Super Hornet, the EW-18 Growler, and the F-15. So yeh...they are in that market too.

And the Locheed P-8A Poseidon is based on a B737 as well but built in collaboration with Lockheed Martin who are responsible for the F-35 and F-22

[Kikapu]

Just an observation.

If Boeing hasn‘t been able to fix the MCAS when it goes rouge on the B-737 MAX since it‘s global grounding in the last 3 weeks and counting, how the fuck did they expect the pilots of the two crashes related to the MCAS to have fixed the problem in 40 seconds whilst heading to earth at 400+ knots per/hr?