Breaking news: Ethiopian Airlines flight has crashed on way to Nairobi

[TeeVee]

i'm gonna give them the benefit of the doubt and go with: editorial error. maybe, an uninformed editor did some chop work and left the offending section somewhat nonsensical

[Gabriel]

i guess you missed the rather large, although grey, text above the article title which says, "Opinion". eh, not so important right?

Right, I missed that. Even then, when substantiating one's opinion, it is a good practice to do it in a neutral way, i.e not cherry-picking the pieces of information and their interpretation.

"Jim Hall was chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board from 1994 to 2001. Peter Goelz was managing director of the board from 1996 to 2000"

i guess they are just two "fake news" makers, so we should ignore what they say.

Well, then maybe not intentional. We are all subject to falling in the trap of confirmation bias.

i will admit that parts of the article are not well written, including the part quoted by Gabe. It is missing info about 7 generations of the model, and that, to the uninformed person, might be important or not. It's pretty unimaginable that there is anyone reading the NYT today that would believe that the max was a single direct upgrade from the 1st gen 737 from the 60's.

That's not the point. The article seems to suggest that a pilot can jump from a 1969 737-100 to a Max with nothing more than reading a pamphlet and, in particular, no specific flight taring in the Max (or in a sim of the Max). This is misleading. A 737-100 pilot would not be able to start the engine in the Max, let alone fly the plane. On the other hand, a 737 NG (which is barely shorter and carries barely fewer pax than the Max) would be able to fly the Max with no problem and no training beyond a couple-hours-iPad differences training, as long as the MCAS doesn't kick in. And even if the MCAS does kick in... I will probably never understand why the pilots of the 2 accident flights stopped using the thumb switch as they had been doing to correct for the MCAS inputs.

If you ask me if anything more than a computer-based differences training should be required to a 737-NG pilot to fly the Max, I would start looking at how different they behave (i.e. the reason for the existence of the MCAS in the first place) rather than the MCAS itself. And I would seriously look into the trim wheel lock issue, but that is beyond the scope of the Max and it has been a mostly hidden issue since the -100 and it still is with the Max. Perhaps a -100 or a -200 pilot, who had the roller-coaster maneuver in their training manuals, were better prepared than an NG pilot to deal with a trim wheel lock situation (derived from an MCAS issue or not).

[TeeVee]

Because it's their job?

i guess you missed the rather large, although grey, text above the article title which says, "Opinion". eh, not so important right?



"Jim Hall was chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board from 1994 to 2001. Peter Goelz was managing director of the board from 1996 to 2000"

i guess they are just two "fake news" makers, so we should ignore what they say.

i will admit that parts of the article are not well written, including the part quoted by Gabe. It is missing info about 7 generations of the model, and that, to the uninformed person, might be important or not. It's pretty unimaginable that there is anyone reading the NYT today that would believe that the max was a single direct upgrade from the 1st gen 737 from the 60's.

[Evan]

I agree, the agenda that I was referring to was a smaller one: That the differences between the Max and the predecessors were so huge that a limited differences training without actual sim is unacceptable. I mean, it might have been unacceptable, but not because the Max is 50% longer and carries 2x the PAXes. This is something they unfairly used to reinforce their point that a differences training without simulator was unacceptable.

Very true. They got that part wrong. There are reasons why the transition needed an accurate type-specific SIM, but that is not one of them. Does that technical inaccuracy exculpate them in any way. No.

[Gabriel]

Fact-checking is their job, and they failed at that here, as the general media often does with technical aspects of aviation, but I don't see that as reason to accuse them of having an "agenda". The essence of the report is true, and the importance of placing emphasis on the failings of senior management is crucial to understanding what happened with the -Max (and why the -Max existed in the first place) and why Boeing failed to take the side of caution by grounding the -Max after the first crash. Call that an agenda if you like, I call it calling out the problem and making it publically known. That is their job.

BTW - after announcing the staggeriing $5B hit Boeing will take for their negligence and lack of vision, their stock actually rose over 2% and continues to rise. This alone should reveal where the problem actually lies.

I agree, the agenda that I was referring to was a smaller one: That the differences between the Max and the predecessors were so huge that a limited differences training without actual sim is unacceptable. I mean, it might have been unacceptable, but not because the Max is 50% longer and carries 2x the PAXes. This is something they unfairly used to reinforce their point that a differences training without simulator was unacceptable.

[Evan]

Because it's their job?

Fact-checking is their job, and they failed at that here, as the general media often does with technical aspects of aviation, but I don't see that as reason to accuse them of having an "agenda". The essence of the report is true, and the importance of placing emphasis on the failings of senior management is crucial to understanding what happened with the -Max (and why the -Max existed in the first place) and why Boeing failed to take the side of caution by grounding the -Max after the first crash. Call that an agenda if you like, I call it calling out the problem and making it publically known. That is their job.

BTW - after announcing the staggeriing $5B hit Boeing will take for their negligence and lack of vision, their stock actually rose over 2% and continues to rise. This alone should reveal where the problem actually lies.

[3WE]

Because it's their job?

Such stuff generates fewer clicks...

[ATLcrew]

why be neutral?

Because it's their job?

[Gabriel]

name a news/media source that doesn't "push agendas."

why be neutral? why is it not more than ok to call boeing and the faa out? we should be talking about criminal prosecutions at this point not calling out a newspaper for leaning on the side of the people that died.

The difference between neutral and pushing an agenda means when you have an objective or position a priory and then select, prioritize, and interpret the data to fit that objective and position, you are not being neutral, you are pushing an agenda.

I have nothing against calling out Boeing and the FAA for their actions and omissions. I do have an issue when a news source says:

The 737 Max of today — a 143-foot-long plane seating more than 230 people — is a very different aircraft from the humble 737 of the 1960s, which was only 94 feet long and seated no more than 118. But the current regulatory system allows for significant modifications of an aircraft design without requiring a new certification review. Even though the new plane had different flight characteristics, larger engines and a new flight management system, no simulator training was required for pilots familiar with older model 737s

That is misleading to say the least and it is redacted in a way not to be plain lie but to fit a position. The position can be justified with accurate information.

[TeeVee]

Well...New York Times has been pushing agendas since long before "these days"...

name a news/media source that doesn't "push agendas."

why be neutral? why is it not more than ok to call boeing and the faa out? we should be talking about criminal prosecutions at this point not calling out a newspaper for leaning on the side of the people that died.

[ATLcrew]

I agree with the article in general, but why can't anybody be neutral these days and everybody pushes an agenda instead?

Well...New York Times has been pushing agendas since long before "these days"...

[Evan]

So the people at Boeing are deadbeats because they failed to do what the NTSB recommended that the FAA do?

Why should Boeing need an FAA mandate to address a design with a safety issue? The mechanism was susceptible to jamming, leading to rudder reversal. That was plainly obvious. The danger was eventually removed by adding a second actuator. This is the endemic issue at Boeing (particularly with the 737): a philosophy of convenience that insists that pilots can be the only redundancy against critical system or mechanical failures, until enough people die to overcome that idea and force their hand into adding designed redundancy. They knew about the issue with the rudder reversals. They knew about the issue with the autothrottle logic. They knew about the issue with MCAS. In each case their solution was left to correct pilot actions alone. They also knew thiat doesn't always work.

[Evan]

I agree with the article in general, but why can't anybody be neutral these days and everybody pushes an agenda instead?



This is misleading to say the least. A pilot flying a 737 classic (-300, -400, -500) cannot fly a Max without simulator training. Let alone one coming from the -200 or, as the article suggests, the original 737-100. Only a pilot coming from the NG can move to the Max with a basic differences training without actual training in the plane or SIM. And know what? Unlike what the article suggests, the NG is very similar to the Max in size, capacity, performance, weight, systems and handling characteristics.

Before you reply to this message, please read it carefully and pay attention to what I am saying and what I am NOT saying.

You're right, that part is ill-informed. Just skip that part. It doesn't alter the point being made. The problem at Boeing is a cancer of upper management, a culture that, for decades, has put short-term financial performance over the quality--and safety--of the product. Yet, they remain the management...

[elaw]

I also generally liked the article but got a kick out of this part:

The agency recommended that the Federal Aviation Administration require airlines to install a modified part, to prevent future rudder reversals, as soon as Boeing made them available, but Boeing failed to do that.

So the people at Boeing are deadbeats because they failed to do what the NTSB recommended that the FAA do?

[Gabriel]

I agree with the article in general, but why can't anybody be neutral these days and everybody pushes an agenda instead?

The 737 Max of today — a 143-foot-long plane seating more than 230 people — is a very different aircraft from the humble 737 of the 1960s, which was only 94 feet long and seated no more than 118. But the current regulatory system allows for significant modifications of an aircraft design without requiring a new certification review. Even though the new plane had different flight characteristics, larger engines and a new flight management system, no simulator training was required for pilots familiar with older model 737s

This is misleading to say the least. A pilot flying a 737 classic (-300, -400, -500) cannot fly a Max without simulator training. Let alone one coming from the -200 or, as the article suggests, the original 737-100. Only a pilot coming from the NG can move to the Max with a basic differences training without actual training in the plane or SIM. And know what? Unlike what the article suggests, the NG is very similar to the Max in size, capacity, performance, weight, systems and handling characteristics.

Before you reply to this message, please read it carefully and pay attention to what I am saying and what I am NOT saying.