737 History

It's nothing short of a tragedy that a company with such a stellar history as Boeing has, could make such a fundamental error as they have done in this instance.

Every single one of the management that approved the decision to save money by taking such a drastic and ill thought out shortcut need to be held accountable for the unnecessary loss of life and the irretrievable damage done to the company's reputation.

There is no place in an industry like aviation for such abysmally short sighted thinking.

Shame on them for ruining the reputation of such a heretofore outstanding example of engineering excellence.

Error and malfunction are inherent in complex systems. Boeing has their system, Airbus has their system. One innovative steeped in history, one, an innovative new system. Both systems state of the art. Pilots 'fly' because they love it, and have trained themselves well enough to where they belong in that front seat. If you took away all the auto part of todays piloting experience, THEY would still fly the airplane. (Although I believe that The Boeing is a bit easier to fly because it is 'old school') The passengers would not know the difference. Whenever there is a malfunction or something breaks on the airplane,(any airplane) the pilots immediately figure it out and recover. Aviate, navagate, communicate. (Most of the time) . Some times the airplane confuses the pilots at a critical time and they get tunnel vision and bad things happen. Most first officers will call "I've got the airplane", and let the co-pilot fix whatever is wrong. In these past crashes the pilots came so close to recovering, but the MCAS system was turned back on and it is a very powerful input to the flight controls. I believe that The new Boeing 737-MAX, with its upgrades, will carry on the incredible legacy of the Boeing Aircraft Company. Airbus has also upgraded their systems after losing airplanes. Either way, we are in good hands whenever we climb aboard these magnificent flying machines.

Perfection is an admirable goal, but to hold people to that standard is not realistic...and if history has proved anything at all, it's that fear as a model, is not a reliable motivator....Success is the goal we stumble towards, like a drunken man transversing a dark alley filled with obstacles, we trip we fall, we crawl on our knees at times, but we continue on because we know at the end of this alley, there is a bar open all night....

If you produce an airplane that pilots cannot hand fly in an emergency and that plane kills over 300 people when the pilots are following the manual's procedures, That's arrogant negligence.

The pilots didn't want to die, the airplane killed them!

You can't take an airplane past its design speed and expect it to perform properly... We still don't have all the facts yet, we can't be sure what happened past what has been disclosed...You are forming conclusions prematurely...as far as what has been disclosed so far it looks like the pilot was not properly trained on the MACS system...but more information might come out......Now who is responsible for training pilots ...

"You can't take an airplane past its design speed and expect it to perform properly..."

The pilots didn't take their airplanes past the design speed.

The software did that by taking the plane out of the control of the pilots.

Why do you think they've been grounded if everything is working correctly, which is what you're implying?

They've been grounded because the MCAS system is not reliable enough....I believe the sensors were too vulnerable to damage, and the software assumed the sensors were infallible...and that the pilots were not properly trained to override the system in a safe manner...

Your implication is that it's the pilots' fault for not having the rquired training but we know that the maker did not enforce that training so it's not the pilots' fault.

OK and were you trained by Ford or GM to drive your car? ....or maybe you were trained by reading the owner's manual? There is clearly more than one issue here, this appears to have been a series of failures...

To quote you, "You are forming conclusions prematurely."

".I believe the sensors were too vulnerable to damage, and the software assumed the sensors were infallible."

What ever happened to redundancy?

They just need to learn the new incidentspeak of today: "Somebody did something to the planes." That should take care of it.

jhammond

I first flew on a 737 in 1969. Fine airplane. Since that time practically everything about the aircraft has been changed except the model number '737'. After all, why change a popular name? However, trying to 'disguise' the consequences of a newly introduced fundamental flight instability by using software is highly suspicious.

If you do your research, you'll find that Airbus has lost airplanes due to equipment malfunction and pilot confusion, just like boeing. No matter what airplane you fly, pilot training is key , and again if you do your research, American trained and American airspaces are (so far) much safer, no matter what airplane is flown.

"American trained and American airspaces are (so far) much safer, no matter what airplane is flown........

Did you do the research or randomly pick an idea that sounded and read good.

HAL...... "open the Pod bay doors"

Airbus A320 crash at Habsheim airshow , France 1988 - YouTube

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/61480/what-are-the-checklist-items-for-a-runaway-stab-trim-on-a-b737-max-8-and-max-9

Video and media in a simulator can not recreate the actions and feelings of pilots during a runaway stab trim event. When you're looking at the ground at over 300 knots, and everybody (including the plane) is yelling "pull up...pull up" there are just a few seconds to rreact. and tunnel vision takes over. If you keep pulling back on the yoke, the MCAS and trim stabilizer Jack Screw are overpowering. A slight push forward on the yoke, and manual trim can be accomplished. Of course no need to do this if the FO calls "I've got the airplane" and the co pilot shuts off the MCAS and autothrottle. By the book, which is practiced, and practiced. In the States, a 200 hour co pilot would never have been in the right seat. I believe it is a 1,000 + hours minimum. If the original post is correct, the 737 (which is the DC-3 of the industry) is 52 years old today.

Seems pretty clear to me, you use the electric trim control to correct the AOA and then shut off the trim stab control....

Again, "You are forming conclusions prematurely." Your words to me!

I was quoting from the instructions... they seem clear enough to me....

The checklists from Boeing are quite clear as you say, written in english of course. (Thanks for finding this from boeing, and posting it) Maybe things were missed in translation, when foreign airlines wrote their checklists in their language. International pilots must learn english, but local air carriers dont, and also, local carriers allow for pilots in training. Either way, language has nothing to do with "stick and rudder".