Another Boeing 737 Max 8 Goes Down

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_12/attack_story.html

I'm not a pilot but have sat in the cockpit often enough and watched the pilot carry out height and course changes via a rotary switch on the control panel - presumably input to the autopilot so the pilots don't seem to have a lot of physical connection with the aircraft controls. This could lull them into a false sense of well-being which is very dangerous in the critical minutes after take-off especially in the new version of a very old and trusted airplane.

One point worth considering is the new 737 max aircraft has more powerful engines which would completely alter the aircraft control response during take-off especially in hot climates where the pilots would be used to applying higher power settings. The computer is possibly trying to keep the aircraft from pitching nose up and the pilots are applying more engine power to maintain the climb. This would probably induce a roll and more reaction from the MCAS until the stall warning activates causing more confusion while the pilot tried to regain control.

I hope this tragic circumstance is a wake-up call to all designers, not just in the aircraft industry - the next tragedies will probably come to a road near you as more and more new technology gets into our transport - software can be a killer.

I hope this tragic circumstance is a wake-up call to all designers, not just in the aircraft industry - the next tragedies will probably come to a road near you as more and more new technology gets into our transport - software can be a killer.

Yes, AI is not all-knowing (especially AI with only one sensor). Don't cut the driver/pilot out of the loop! Warnings are good, but keep its Mits off the controls. JMHO

...."One day before the deadly crash of a Lion Air plane on Oct. 29 last year, pilots flying that Boeing 737 Max 8 lost control of the aircraft — but they were saved by an off-duty colleague riding in the cockpit, Bloomberg reported on Wednesday.

That off-duty pilot correctly identified the problem the crew was facing and guided them to disable the flight control system in order to save the plane, according to the report, which cited two people familiar with the investigation in Indonesia.

Investigators said the flight control system malfunction that day was identical to what brought down the same aircraft the next day, according to the report. The Boeing plane, operated by a different crew, crashed into Indonesia’s Java Sea, killing all 189 on board."....

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/20/lion-air-boeing-737-saved-by-off-duty-pilot-a-day-before-crash-report.html

Ethiopian Airlines is one of the best well trained airline in the world. A very god safety record and very well maintained aircraft. Many pilots are trained in the latest simulators at Bole International airport by Boeing trained instructors.

However, very clear why the airline did not allow Boeing access to the black boxes, but opted for an independent investigation in France, due to Boeing misleading and perverting information from the last crash. So far, all information has lead to an issue in the software applied by Boeing on the Max 8 & 9. The Dreamliner is not trusted due to exploding batteries causing fires.

However, to state pilot error, panic etc., when the investigation is on going is in bad taste. And considering I knew some of the crew who were on that flight, it is better to await the actual facts before formulating conspiracies.

Let the crew and passengers rest in peace before conjecturing theories on this forum.

".... very clear why the airline did not allow Boeing access to the black boxes, but opted for an independent investigation in France, due to Boeing misleading and perverting information from the last crash. So far, all information has lead to an issue in the software applied by Boeing on the Max 8 & 9. ...."

How is this not exactly what you admonished others for, with, '... Let the crew and passengers rest in peace before conjecturing theories on this forum. ...."

.

Please accept my sincere condolences for the loss of the crew members you knew.

.

I don't share your sentiment that your connetion to the crew has any bearing on if it is reasonable to discuss possible causes in relation to the extent of official releases of information. Even though we disagree on that point, I still urge you to at least follow your own advice and lead by example concerning your own advice "... And considering I knew some of the crew who were on that flight, it is better to await the actual facts before formulating conspiracies..."

.

Your suggestion that Boeing is 'perverting' and 'misleading' as well as the clarity you claim in discerning that the airline has no dog in the figth and has secured a truly 'independent' investigation is exactly conjuring conspiracy and perverting information to align with the outcome you have already decided is true before actually viewing the same information you would insist others wait to view.

Confess, repent, and become unburdened of this.

if you've ever been lucky enough to sit in the copilot's seat on small aircraft you know what it's like when the pilot allows you to take control under their direction.

It's an incredible feeling being able to change altitude, bank, take off and land.

Exhilarating as it may be, there is very little fear because you know that the pilot can take full control if necessary. There is also very little fear because it is very intuitive. The fact that a commercial airline pilot could have a lack of training, panic and lose control shows a huge disconnect between the designers and programmers and the actual pilots. It doesn't say much for the "superior" safety control systems that have become part of this new generation of aircraft.

Understandably all planes will we'll have different controls and characteristics, but it would be nice if a pilot could use his intuition and confidently fly just about anything in an emergency.

The two graphs are not consistent with each other. Maybe it's the system that is confused, not the pilots.

Hear, hear.

I don't think it's too far off.

Most of the bottom graph shows that it's climbing at a variable rate and therefore gaining altitude somewhat slowly. You can see little variances and then it starts to decend momentarily towards the end before climbing again.

Agreed, I see a dip in the altitude right after 05:38:45 and I don't see a corresponding negative change in altitude in the lower graph.

The top graph is the actual change in altitude, the bottom is the calculated rate of descent according to angle of attack...it was a sharp downturn but very short in duration as can be seen by the minimal loss of altitude....Looks to me like a runaway trim control situation, with the pilot fighting the automatic control instead of disengaging it...It's possible that he was using the automatic trim control switch on the wheel, this doesn't shut the MCAS system off, it just pauses it....It looks to me like he just didn't understand what was happening....

It could be, or it could be hunting in the auto controls. It's hard to think it could work for all head-wind situations. In any case I think the software needs to be changed. Why not just have audible warnings to the pilot if stall conditions are getting close, and don't take control. That's the pilot's job.

Well it has audible warning and flashing lights...

If the overall collection of stuff called a "737 Max 8" only has a single failure in the single sensor reported then the 0.27 degrees per second of trim adjustment that can be turned off is what the pilots are dealing with. If any other hardware item or software flowchart path is failing then we don't really know what the pilots were dealing with.

I guess what bothers me is that the MCAS reportedly isn't covered in the Operations Manual (FCOM). A system that can automatically take control of the aircraft should be important enough to tell the pilots about, IMHO. Once it starts changing the aircraft configuration, the pilot may just be too busy maintaining control to analyze the situation.

Well a runaway trim control is and has been covered in emergency checklists for all pilots for a long time, you can just simply switch it off...

Then you have an electric trim control or the manual wheel on all planes...

https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/what-is-the-boeing-737-max-maneuvering-characteristics-augmentation-system-mcas-jt610/

Well a runaway trim control is and has been covered in emergency checklists for all pilots for a long time, you can just simply switch it off...

Well, the motorized trim might have worked fine on the preflight check, but the sensor(s) for the MCAS could have been faulty. I don't think you can check angle-of-attack sensors on the runway.

I've noticed that the trend in plane flight is where the, " pilot " operates flight controls, rather than actually, " flying " the plane. Perhaps we should call pilots, " system operators "

I've only been on four flights. In the first, the pilot was flying a lear jet, where I actually saw him flying the plane, everything after that was were the pilots, in the cockpit, " flew " the plane.

I've always felt that if a trucker could keep his hand on the wheel for 8 + hours, then a pilot could keep his hand on the stick for the three hours it takes to fly from ny to la.

Ever hear about the driver that left the cab to get a drink from his fridge and crashed?

Explanation? Was on cruise control.

I heard that it was a cup of tea, a sandwich, a doughnut, a slice of pizza, etc. Oh, and a cup of coffee.

Anyhow, " stupid is as stupid does " / Forrest Gump.

OH! You're sabsoluuutly right. ...sauciffer.. it was ...jelly. dounut.. sanwich .. huh

...Funny I too was thinking of all the variations earlier..

and wondering how many might be true.

I no longer remember what caused the need for MCAS. Was it dynamic instability caused by adding the larger engine? Is the "very bottom" root cause that when the nose goes up the larger and more forward engine assembly catches the air and forces the nose even higher?

If true do we have the same thing happening on nose down?

The change in engine design was at the heart of the change in control for trim...

..."It’s unique to the MAX because the 737 MAX no longer has the docile pitch characteristics of the 737NG at high Angles Of Attack (AOA). This is caused by the larger engine nacelles covering the higher bypass LEAP-1B engines.

The nacelles for the MAX are larger and placed higher and further forward of the wing, Figure 1."...

Figure 1. Boeing 737NG (left) and MAX (right) nacelles compared. Source: Boeing 737 MAX brochure.

By placing the nacelle further forward of the wing, it could be placed higher. Combined with a higher nose landing gear, which raises the nacelle further, the same ground clearance could be achieved for the nacelle as for the 737NG.

The drawback of a larger nacelle, placed further forward, is it destabilizes the aircraft in pitch. All objects on an aircraft placed ahead of the Center of Gravity (the line in Figure 2, around which the aircraft moves in pitch) will contribute to destabilize the aircraft in pitch.

https://leehamnews.com/2018/11/14/boeings-automatic-trim-for-the-737-max-was-not-disclosed-to-the-pilots/

https://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/125003/Lion-Air-Crash-Due-to-Malfunctioning-MCAS

That's very interesting and problematic. At first blush It seems efficiency is being chosen over safety? should there be regulation on how far forward and up an engine can be placed?

no wonder they need so much computation to keep the things stable.

I can ride a bike and I can ride a unicycle, but put a penny farthing in front of me and I wouldn't know what to do with it.

Another analogy..put a fixed sail on top of a Tesla with autopilot and see how well it's able to stay in it's lane on a windy day?

https://www.quora.com/How-does-gravity-not-cause-the-nose-of-an-airplane-to-dive-down-towards-the-surface-when-in-motion

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/16307/how-does-a-commercial-airliner-measure-its-weight-mass

All objects on an aircraft placed ahead of the Center of Gravity will contribute to destabilize the aircraft in pitch.

Sorry, but that is not intuitively obvious. An object placed ahead of the CG will simply shift the position of the CG.

The interest is in the direction of thrust. If the axis of the thrust is below the CG, then an increase in thrust will pitch the nose up irrespective of its position along the fuselage.

Moving the nacelle forwards may have increased the lever, particularly if the axis of thrust is not parallel to the axis of flight.

I am glad to see them grounded until the cause has been entirely sorted out.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/15/ethiopian-crash-investigators-find-piece-of-wreckage-with-similar-setting-to-lion-air-plane-sources.html

None of the arguments really matter.
If it can go wrong, it will go wrong.
If the pilot can be put in a situation where he loses control, it's bad design.
Whatever happened to "fail safe"?
I wouldn't knowingly fly in one.
Del

I agree.

1. The airplane can become unstable and crash into the ground.

2. The instability is caused by faulty software, or faulty sensors.

3. Boeing did not do proper fault analysis of the entire system.

4. Boeing should have issued the proper airworthiness training for this new control system.

5. Boeing is too in bed with former and current administrations and the FAA.

6. Boeing, in an act of arrogance, chose to let the plane fly the pilots, passengers and plane into the ground.

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2019/03/12/retired-boeing-pilot-explains-how-new-jet-training-process-works.html

No plane is any safer than the pilot flying it....

About autopilot and trim controls.... and trying to adjust trim while autopilot is engaged...

Regardless of how this situation turns out, it's a good chance that passengers in the future will choose to fly another airplane or airline rather than be in test group # 3.

Rubbish...... the Boeing 737 series is the safest most successful and well liked plane in the history of aviation...

..."Within five years of entering service, the worldwide fleet of Next-Generation 737s surpassed 10 million flight hours, a feat equal to one airplane flying more than 1,141 years nonstop. The Next-Generation 737 is the first and only commercial jetliner to reach this milestone so quickly."...

http://www.boeing.com/farnborough2014/pdf/BCA/fct%20-737%20Family%20Facts.pdf

..." The 737 has flown more than 119.0 billion miles; equivalent to approximately 640 round trips from the earth to the sun.

7. The 737 family has carried more than 16.8 billion passengers; that is equivalent to every single man, woman, and child flying at least twice.

8. On the average, about 1,000 737s are in the air at any one time."...

https://flyinganarchy.com/facts-boeing-737/

8. On the average, about 1,000 737s are in the air at any one time ". ...

not tonight.

You, and IQ are not paying attention to the FACTS!

The 737 fleet, with the exception of the MAX derivative with the larger, forward engines, are as safe as any airplane in the world.

Secondly, with 5,000 aircraft in the air at any given moment, I'll fly any time that I need to. How often to commercial planes crash? The odds are in my favor.

(Personal bitch: I flew on a new Airbus A320 twice this past week. They are THE MOST UNCOMFORTABLE piece of crap I've ever had the displeasure of sitting in.

The seats are hard and cramped, and the "life vest"
bag hangs below the front seat so that with my brief case stowed under the seat in front of me my feet were forced back into the damn bag. The "seat back tray' is now just a small appx. 5x9" that will hold only a can and glass. It is an insult to their customers) Allegiant is the name of the carrier.

Lyn, that is the carriers fault, by reconfiguring seats to cram passenger in to gain revenue. All airlines cram seat/passenger in. I have flown the new Dreamliner, maiden flight to a Nordic country and it was a pleasure to sit in. Plenty space. I flew out on it a few months later and sat in the exact same seat and it was uncomfortable, and I am not a giant of a person.

My friend works on Boeing, swears by them as long as its the 747. He will tell you that they have cheapend the news aircraft so much these days and over complicated them. Just like cars they have 'gadgetised' to sell them and forgotten about proving their new gadgets for safe use.

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

Nonsense...each change must go through a process of rigorous testing and certification by the FAA....Each pilot that fly's any new model airplane must earn certification for that particular type aircraft, and have it noted on their pilots license....

https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/

..."In 2017 there were 10 fatal airliner accidents, resulting in 44 occupant fatalities and 35 persons on the ground: the safest year ever for commercial aviation, both by the number of fatal accidents as well as in fatalities.^[6] By 2018, fatal accidents per million flights decreased 16 fold since 1970, from 6.35 to 0.39, and fatalities per trillion revenue passenger kilometre (RPK) decreased 54 fold from 3,218 to 59.^[7]"...

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety}

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Boeing_737

Pretty much from 1968 when the 737 first started, up until 2019. You can say as you wish, but it is not a good track record when you read this simplified version. Do read the reasons for aircraft failures, exploding fuel tanks on push back, collapsing nose gear that snaps the plane in half, metal fatigue before required inspection times.

Looking carefully, it is not a good track record from anyone's viewpoint.

This means little without comparison of other aircraft failures....since Boeing has more jets in service they will likely have the most incidents...I imagine a lot of the materials used in passenger airlines have suppliers in common...and are assembled and serviced all over the world...We don't live in a perfect world, bad stuff happens on a daily basis...when bad stuff happens we try to correct the problem, that's the best we can do...

http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/US-Commercial-Aircraft-Fleet.html

We all have our opinions.

I'll not hesitate to fly when I need, or want, to.

Allegiant has had no fatal crashes since its 2001 founding.

Get me on the ground alive and I'm happy.

Remember, the pilots saying, "any landing you can walk away from is a good one.

https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-fi-boeing-max-design-20190315-story.html

Interesting information.

Whether you feel equipment is more critical to safety or the pilot, either way, you probably want to avoid flying Allegiant.

Allegiant has the oldest fleet of aircraft of any US carrier...with an average age somewhere above 16 years.

Allegiant pilots are among if not the lowest paid in the industry and well below legacy airlines. Furthermore, almost 50% of Allegiant pilots in a survey said they would not allow their own families to fly the airline.

That last bit should give anyone thinking about flying Allegiant reason to pause and consider if the amount saved could be just compensation for the additional risks. If half the pilots actually flying the planes won't let their families fly (maybe the other half are in marriages sufficiently unhappy not to worry about potential crashes?).....

Not speaking on IQ's behalf, I'd say it appears that your yelling.

" the 737 fleet, with the exception of the MAX derivative with the larger, forward engines, are as safe as any plane in the world "

I think we should get the opinions of the relatives of the 189 and the 157, to comment on that statement.

Yeah, because they wouldn't have a biased opinion....and still be in shock....and have law suites pending...

Correction: Used to be. Currently they are death traps.

..." it is better to await the actual facts before formulating conspiracies."...

Reported on fox news today : Black box information initially shows similarities between failure of vehicle #1 and vehicle #2 . A preliminary report should be available in 30 days.

Looks like the path is leading to some collusion going on and that Boeing and the FAA are not to be trusted.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/failed-certification-faa-missed-safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/?amp=1&__twitter_impression=true

A shocking report. Again management put profit ahead of safety. They will pay dearly for this in lawsuits.

A game of Chess and Risk mixed, We are just the pawns and collateral damage in big business's games.

Really?...unnamed sources?....give me a break, they fail to mention that the MCAS system is easily deactivated by any number of methods at the pilots fingertips...and that pilots are trained to recognize trim runaway and the safety procedures to correct the situation...trim runaway is not exclusive to any aircraft...I might add that to fly this airplane the pilots would need certification in this particular model, and would be well aware of the MCAS system as well as any other systems that were exclusive to this plane....

Hmm! Its from your land where un-named sources are a way of life there. I feel maybe your Boeing shares are down or your patriotism is misplaced. There are only 2 major commercial airline suppliers in the world, Airbus and Boeing. Boeing has dominated and push an unsafe system through an assumed rigorous system of checking, and it failed in service and in the process by the FAA. It looks from the outside, Boeing has become too big for its boots and follows the trend of America, to dominate the world, for the $100b+ per year profitabilty. And it is showing the FAA did not do their job properly either

Flying internationally every 3 months, and many times to Ethiopia, I want to be 100% assured that the Boeing I am on will take off and land safely. If I want to eat dirt, I should like the pleasure of doing that myself. As they say, my dad died peacefully, not like the other passengers in the bus who were all screaming.

There are actually 5 major passenger aircraft suppliers....

http://aviationknowledge.wikidot.com/aviation:manufacturers

My apologies, I should have stated 'major' as 'dominant'. As in the rest of the world. My bad!

IQ, do you feel no cognitive dissonance (or save that, at least a need to imitate shame, lest a character unburdened by the more decent emotions be betrayed) typing out the comment above (to which this comment replies) when earlier above on this same page you typed out the following instructions:

"... And considering I knew some of the crew who were on that flight, it is better to await the actual facts before formulating conspiracies.
Let the crew and passengers rest in peace before conjecturing theories on this forum. ..."

.

Why are your own conspiracy theories not subject to your own instructions? How is it that other people's suggestions somehow disturb the deathrest of the crew and passengers but your own would seem to have no such effect?

It's a choice as to which airplane you fly in, but all commercial airplanes are 280,000 or so parts trying to kill ya.

This post has been left deliberately blank.
My previous posts have a great safety record.
It doesn't mean this one is any good.
Del

As a stop-gap measure, would it be sufficient to change the procedure to:

1. While stationary on tarmac, dis-engage (auto-controls);

2. Taxi, take-off, and rise to cruising altitude, all under direct pilot control;

3. Engage (auto-controls) and continue flight to destination, approaching at cruising altitude;

4. Dis-engage (auto-controls);

5. Complete destination approach under direct pilot control, descend, land, and taxi to tarmac.

?...

I doubt we have sufficient information to answer (with any helpful degree of certainty) whether or not what you propose would be sufficient.

Below what level of risk do you propose is sufficient for a stop gap measure? Alternately, if I have misjudged, if risk is not driving the determination of sufficiency in your estimation, what would be?

That's pretty much how it works now....there are at least 7 different ways to shut off the autopilot...

..."Generally, the pilot will handle takeoff and then initiate the autopilot to take over for most of the flight."...

https://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/26/autopilot-what-the-system-can-and-cant-do.html

The easiest way is just to shut the switch off....or you can just move the manual trim adjuster wheel with your hand, that also shows you visually what the angle of attack is...in the green is good....

So SolarEagle, are you saying that, if the pilot can wait until reaching cruising altitude, before turning on the automatic pilot, then I could be correct, up to seven different ways?...

(I'll settle for just one...)

You might be right, or you might be wrong....

If you disengage the auto system on the tarmack, the bells and whistles will scream bloody murder

This on Zerohedge:https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-17/best-analysis-what-really-happened-boeing-737-max-pilot-software-engineer

Tonyhemet is getting very close to what I would make a case for which is for some time now the Pilots are engaging with the reality of actual " control " less and less,and TOO MUCH automation is being introduced into the equation.

Star

Airbus had their fair share of problems in the early 1990s, apparently, nobody remembers the three different upsets of flights of the A-330 and A-340.

Faulty AOA sensors were to blame. Look how long it took to figure out what happened to Air France 447. And that was from iced up pitot tubes. ( Ice is not easily detected above 32°f temp.)

Let the Investigators do their jobs.

We all can be a sideline quarterback

dj is right, this is all just speculation, for all we know a bolt broke or something jammed...Hopefully they can figure it out, but there may not be a definitive answer...and if there is, there might not be anyone to blame....

I seem to remember that when an airline "landed" in the Hudson, it took quite some time and determination before it was determined not to be "pilot error".

Not the fact that the plane went down, but that landing at the two alternate airports was not an option when following the protocols.

Claims that they could have made landings at two alternate airports were strongly pushed even into the final hearings.

In this case, time will tell.

Who is the statistician here? What are the odds of two x two pilot crews working for two different airlines making what seems to be the same "error" in exactly the same model of plane, basically "new out of the box" and neither being able to recover?

When batteries in some cell phones caught on fire during charging, the manufacturer was quick to point to "nonstandard user conditions", but eventually ended in a worldwide recall based on independent evaluation.

When Challenger failed on launch, the manufacturer was the trusted specialist to investigate, but what would have been done if a second shuttle had failed the same way? Would you have expected a second independent opinion?

I love to see the patriotic defense of this manufacturer, but it would seem that the American car industry has overtaken on reacting to problems!

I'll say a few more things to address this matter.

I used to work with a guy named Jesse who would say..." Its a bad idea to have controls running controls....." He was correct on this point. It has been and was forseen that introducing too much automation into systems is a dangerous affair. There are a few people at large that " get it." We are in a system where everything has been " Monetized." This also in spite of anyones' naivete on the matter is also a " Weaponization " of everything under a fictional commercial system. This is exactly what starts the full compromise of all Engineering under the Sun. All of those layers of automation create an ever increasing disconnect between the operator and the machine. Just take a listen to what the F-16 Pilots said about that rig. There is a lot more that can be said on the subject along with the fact that all parties involved are going to have to start getting real when it comes to this kind of territory. This includes dropping all the flattering titles in front of legal fiction names and attempting to be right about things that are dubious in nature. MCAS - what this " idea" essentially says is the design cannot be controlled properly or with stability by standard, conventional means.

Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System [sounds like a bad idea from a Mechanics Perspective.]

Truthsayers will always be unpopular.

Let's ask a professional airline pilot....

https://liveandletsfly.boardingarea.com/2019/03/12/pilot-addresses-boeing-737-max-safety/

Let's ask a professional airline pilot....

..."NPR's Audie Cornish talks with Captain Dennis Tajer of the Allied Pilots Association about why the group of 15,000 American pilots maintains confidence in the Boeing 737 Max 8 after recent crashes."...

..."TAJER: Well, we understand the abundance of caution they're taking. And this new information that they have, we're not privy to, but we understand it. And we stand by our knowledge training that we received after the Lion Air tragedy about the system that was suspected to have been fed bad data and reacted such that the pilot struggled with that aircraft until its demise. So we had all the training. We have additional equipment on our aircraft that is unique to American. And our pilots felt confident because of our conversations with Boeing and our company support that we had the additional training after that tragedy.

This new one had put caution and concern in our pilots. But we had all the procedures so that if it was replicated, we would be able to safely bring the aircraft back. But now that's all going to be looked at in a different way. And we're glad to see that steps are being taken. We believe in the safety of the aircraft. But this is the prudent decision. And we're looking forward to seeing this mystery solved and getting back in the air safely."...

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/13/703162388/why-the-allied-pilots-association-still-has-confidence-in-boeings-737-max-8-jets

"... .Truthsayers will always be unpopular...."

.

I disagree. However even if this were true universally, it still would not imply the converse, i.e. noticing someone is unpopular is insufficient to establish the validity of any unrelated statements. Even if all truthsayers were unpopular, it would be foolish to believe a statement is true based solely on the speaker being unpopular.

There appears to be no shortage of unpopular people who are excluded from the possibility of being a truthsayer by some congenital or perhaps psychological factor presenting as an inability to exclusively make statements congruent with factual reality for more than very brief periods. It does seem that this very disability might be a major root of their unpopularity in many cases.

It's insanity to give control of the world's aircraft to teenage software writers from silicon valley.

They can't even get desktop computers to work reliably day after day after day.

So let's give 'em fully loaded aircraft to play with instead.

It's deranged incomprehensible insanity.

Don't even get me started on giving them 26 wheel cement trucks to program.

Out of control insane trucks coming right into your neighborhood.

..."Boeing jets in Ethiopia and Indonesia lacked two safety features in their cockpits because the company charged extra to install them.

The features could have helped pilots detect erroneous readings, which some experts believe might be connected to the planes’ failures, the New York Times reports.

Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, which crashed within five months of each other, were brand new but were not equipped with an angle of attack indicator or an angle of attack disagree light, the paper said. The angle of attack indicator determines how much the plane’s nose is tilted, and the disagree light is activated if the jet’s sensors are giving contradictory signals.

Boeing will now make the disagree light free of charge on all new 737 Max planes, after the deadly crashes caused all 737 planes to be grounded, according to the New York Times. The angle of attack indicator will remain an option that airlines can purchase, the report said. The company is also planning a new software update.

Neither safety feature was mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration, but experts say it is key to flight safety."...

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/21/crashed-boeing-jets-lacked-key-safety-features-that-were-add-ons.html

http://www.b737.org.uk/737maxdiffs.htm

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/boeing-737-max-plane-crash-company-to-make-standard-light-warning-pilots-of-sensor-malfunction/

A $ 2600.00 angle of attack indicator kit could of been installed.

A small price to pay, considering that a 737 costs anywhere from 55 to 87 Million Dollars.

Capt Sullenberger criticizing Boeing and FAA

Cockpit voice recorder of doomed Lion Air jet depicts pilots' frantic search for fix

So it seems that neither of the pilots flying the 737 max 8's that crashed were trained for operating that plane...and more specifically the MCAS system...Although I still don't understand why the autopilot was not disengaged to regain control of the airplane...The MCAS system is just another part of the autopilot control of the stabilizer trim, and as such the standard runaway trim procedure should have been followed...still need more information...

I work in the flight simulation industry. I have been in several non-first world countries and have heard US pilots state that if they (referring to the pilots of the country we were in) ever crash one of these birds it will probably be because they were relying on the autopilot from take off to landing.

I'm not suggesting that's what happened with the two 737 Max 8 accidents as I don't know enough about what actually happened. Also, the aircraft the US pilots were referring to were not commercial, were older models and it was known that the autopilot was not very good on approach and take off, thus the US pilots generally would either not engage it at all or only when in a cruise configuration. It may be that the non-first world countries trust the aircrafts' systems over their own ability to fly.

This does offer an explanation that possibly they were reluctant to disengage the autopilot, believing in it's infallibility...

"I have been in several non-first world countries and have heard US pilots state that if they (referring to the pilots of the country we were in) ever crash one of these birds it will probably be because they were relying on the autopilot from take off to landing".

Side Note: 'Non First World'. This is a new take on life. We know it as 3rd World.

If these trainers were aware of this, it raises a few questions; 1) If they knew this, do these trainers not have an obligation to inform the pilots of their erroneous belief and method?

2) If these 3rd world pilots relied on the auto pilot from take off to landing, it needs to be asked, who showed them this method? It could only have come from previous training or bad advice from trainers.

Interesting.

1. By trainers, I assume you mean their instructors. The instructors are local to the country (at least in the instances that I was referencing). The organizations within those countries set the training criteria. So those instructors were teaching what the organizations told decided was acceptable.
2. Again, it's being taught to those countries' preferences.

A small update: I know for a fact that the instructors/trainers who trained in Bole Intl, Ethiopian Airlines, are all from the USA, UK, Italy, and occasionally S. Africa and the training courses are compliant to Boeing approved syllabus which are the same for the USA as they are for all countries flying the plane. The only difference is the air rules which differ; however, the basics of flying the plane do not change in any airspace.

I find your comment most bewildering that pilots in another country are not trained to international standards for international flying.

"..Side Note: 'Non First World'. This is a new take on life. We know it as 3rd World. ..."

.

...what of the 2nd and 4th world? Even if you were previously unaware, it seems like the 1st to 3rd gap would have been enough to prompt a quick check, especially before calling out what you perceive as an error on someone else's part.

.

"...1) If they knew this, do these trainers not have an obligation to inform the pilots of their erroneous belief and method?
2) If these 3rd world pilots relied on the auto pilot from take off to landing, it needs to be asked, who showed them this method? It could only have come from previous training or bad advice from trainers. ..."

.

Have you no experience in instructing a group? Have you never encountered recalcitrant ideas counter to what is intended to be taught?

On the flip side, have you never been a student in a required course wherein you knew the expected answer and yet your own understanding differed meaningfully from what was expected?

You are working so hard to be divisive, it is as if someone is paying you to do so. Did Al-Shabab or Boko Haram take note of the effictiveness of Russian FSB online efforts to escalate divisiveness and decide to hire some of their own hacks to pull similar stunts?

If not, why all the name calling? Why all the effort at making us vs them? Why all the hate? What agenda of yours works better with everyone against everyone else instead of everyone working together?

"... from people who mistakenly believe they are so superior and think the world beyond your west, ..."

.

It is you who is grouping individuals via geography and assigning beliefs to the whole lot. Divisiveness is your paradigm it seems.

Individuals are just that. The groupings you see are not so much a characteristic inherent in those individuals as an unfortunate distortion of heuristics in your own scheme of classification.

You have grossly over simplified and made grossly inaccurate assumptions about the beliefs of vast numbers of individuals. Understand, I am not talking about any groups of people defined by their existence within certain geographical bounds, nor am I talking about groups that adhere to certain political or ideological precepts. I am not talking about groups at all. I am only talking about you in so much as you have made your biases and biggotry plainly evident through your hate riddled diatribe.

'I have been in several non-first world countries and have heard US pilots state that if they (referring to the pilots of the country we were in) ever crash one of these birds it will probably be because they were relying on the autopilot from take off to landing'.

Can you confirm this as posted on this site? Back on track now are we?

The US pilots have no need to point out an error in operation of an aircraft?

Would you now care to answer the question with minimal verbosity.

I did not write that. I am not responsible for everything posted on this site merely because I post here. It is this absurd wholesale grouping and assigning of beliefs and then blame (presumably so that you can feel righteous in your hate) that is a real problem.

You are taking one persons retelling of hearsay and demanding anyone (everyone excluding yourself) in this forum be accountable for the alll the extra wrongs you spin into the scenatio as fleshed out by your wild assumptions and hate filled imagination.

So I tend to be wordy. So what. At worst, you might have to open a dictionary. It is far less offensive that the problem with your own communication, i.e. the pervasive hatred.