boeing's greed ( Archived) (21)

They cerainy knew.
The aircraft uses a new ant-stall system which requires retraining of the pilots. This was done in a rushed manner so as not to concern any would be buyers.
Many pilots claimed the training was not thorough enough saying in many instances it was not much more than one hour.
Boeing of course deny this, saying all pilots received the appropriate training, but, it does make you wonder.

Check out what airline Capt Ches (Sully) Sullenberger has to say about the matter ... it's very revealing and insightful!

Insightful as no one is more aware that the FAA and Aircraft makers do their absolute best to 'pin it on the pilot' whenever there's a disaster.

Most times of course the pilot dies in the wreck and is unable to defend him ... Sully is the guy who succeeded in making a soft landing on the Hudson river - which was only possible because of his thorough, to the point of intimate, awareness of the capabilities of the plane he was flying and his skill in handling it.

The movie was very revealing ...

Following on from that and my reply ...

Transpires that Boeing persuaded the FAA that the 737AX was NOT a ' new aircraft model' which would have required all pilots operating them to gain a Type Rating before being authorised to fly them but merely a update of an existing model for which pilots already the required TR.

The 'BIG ISSUE' and the cause of the crash (though yet to be 'officially' confirmed) appears to have been centred round the fact that the engines are mounted far further forward on the wings than was the case with previous craft.

This of course changes ALL of the dynamics of balance and handling and effectivelly negates the value of training on previous models 'Handling' being the responses to given control inputs by the pilots and the expected outcomes in terms of craft behaviour (ie doing what it's supposed to do, and what it's EXPECTED to do)
That new 'far forward' engine position and weight distribution change means the craft will tend to go 'nose high' (which reduces airspeed & creates the risk of 'stalling' (stalling for dummies - loss of lift, big plane fall outta sky)
Then as well the MCAS computer system (which Boeing didn't tell pilots about or train them on) was supposed / intended to counter this nose high tendency by adjusting the taileron position thus pushing the nose down and countering the deadly stall. This the plane acted with a mind of it's own and did not, could not in fact, respond to the pilot's control input as the computer was putting the plane into a dive while announcing 'Don't Sink - Don't Sink' leading the pilots to try and pull the nose UP to which the computers responded by pushing the nose down again...
The solution apparently is to turn off MCAS ... but as nobody mentioned that to the pilots ... how could they know to turn it off or how to turn it off

Word has it that the 13 page product update for pilots was written even before the 737Max was flying and did not include anything about MCAS (arguably because mentioning the novel flight control system would itself have triggered the requirement for a new Type rating and all that entailed (as earlier) ...

And, reliable sources (US Pilots Union etc) have said the 'Boeing Training' consisted of a 2 hours self directed learning delivered vi an iPad ... still no mention of MCAS ?

Typically the gaining of a new model TR by a Comm Pilot requires 30/40 hours of technical school class room training and 30 plush hours in a simulator ... so, that's every pilot away from flight duties for 70 hours costing money rather than making money, plus the costs of training facilities, trainers, simulator time etc etc. Suppose each craft had a roster of 4 aircrew ie 2 pilots per crew (min) per aircraft in service.
At the time of the Air Ethiopia crash there were approx 300 737MAX in service

(4crew * 2pilots * 70 hours direct cost) + (4crew * 2pilots * 70 hours substitute crew costs ie overtime) + (4crew * 2pilots * 70 hours simulator and ground training cost) and at tis point the number runs into hundreds of billions additional cost to the airline operators!

And then there's the challenges of certifying thousands of aircraft technicians across the world while maintaining cover for the maintenance needs of the existing fleets...

Those additional new vs upgrade costs, had the truth been told might well have deterred sales to the airlines ... and, even if the 737MAX is quickly brought back into service. Those costs will most likely now have to be borne ... perhaps by Boeing ?

Many in the USA are now comparing this with the Ford Pinto Scandal that was unearthed by ralph Nader ... Ford accountants decided to NOT recall the pinto model for a known fuel pipe defect that caused the vehicle to explode in a ball of flames after quite minor rear end impacts 'Cheaper they said to pay out a few death suits than to recall all the Pintos on the planet'

Nader had quite a job as he was following a 'paper trail' ... electronic documents are somewhat easier to trail than paper and, IF Boeing are found to have made a similar decision ... it will cist them many billions, not to mention lost sales, loss of reputation and perhaps even loss of entire markets for decades to come ... Russia and China being two of their biggest customers to date!

Before 'The Usual Muppets' start their flame throwing ... I'm not claiming to be an airline industry expert, nor claiming that these post contains 'everything' that's known to date ... however it HAS been compiled from a number of reliable sources (inc Boeing, FAA, Pilots Union, Industry experts) and the basic principles of flight follow simple maths / physics rules such as apply to levers, vectors, forces, inputs and reactions ... anyone with a reasonable IQ and a modicum of desire can learn sufficient to understand sufficient to get the gist of this!

Essentially, if you're a halfway decent pool player you use these things intuitively !!!!

But for sure ... they're NOT likely to get away with blaming the pilot this time ...