SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Bytram
Capt. 'Sully' Sullenberger Slams Boeing for Inadequate Pilot Training on the Troubled 737 Max
Airline union leaders and a famed former pilot said Wednesday that Boeing made mistakes while developing the 737 Max, and the biggest was not telling anybody about new flight-control software so pilots could train for it.
Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger, who landed a crippled airliner safely on the Hudson River in 2009, said he doubted that any U.S. pilots practiced handling a specific malfunction until it happened on two Max jets that crashed, killing 346 people. Max pilots should train for such emergencies in simulators—not just on computers, as Boeing proposes, he said.
"We should all want pilots to experience these challenging situations for the first time in a simulator, not in flight, with passengers and crew on board," Sullenberger said, adding that "reading about it on an iPad is not even close to sufficient."
Sullenberger's comments to the House aviation subcommittee came during the third congressional hearing on Boeing's troubled plane, which has been grounded for three months.
Daniel Carey, the president of the pilots' union at American Airlines, said Boeing's zeal to minimize pilot-training costs for airlines buying the 737 Max jet contributed to design errors and inadequate training. That has left a "crisis of trust" around aviation safety, he said.
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
Sullenberger, who has blasted Boeing Co and the Federal Aviation Administration for their roles in the two 737 MAX crashes since October that killed 346 people, also said the U.S. system of certifying new aircraft is not working.
"Our current system of aircraft design and certification has failed us," he said.
Submitted via IRC for Bytram
Defying expectations, Boeing wins interest for 737 Max at Paris Air Show
There's still no schedule for getting the grounded 737 Max back in the air, but Boeing's troubled airliner won a huge and unexpected lift on Tuesday when a major airline group promised to buy 200 737 Max 8s and 10s. International Airlines Group (IAG), a London-based holding company that includes British Airways, Aer Lingus, Iberia and the Spanish low-cost carriers Vueling and Level, signed the letter at the Paris Air Show, one of the most important events in the aviation world.
"We are truly honored and humbled by the leadership at International Airlines Group for placing their trust and confidence in the 737 MAX and, ultimately, in the people of Boeing and our deep commitment to quality and safety above all else," Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO Kevin McAllister, said in a statement.
Though the letter doesn't guarantee that IAG will eventually place Max orders, it's still a win for Boeing following two crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia that killed 346 people. Prior to the crashes, the Max was the fastest selling airplane in the company's history. As of the end of May, Boeing still has 4,550 Max orders on its books.
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow4463
"We are very sorry"—Boeing division CEO apologizes for 737 Max deaths
On Monday, Boeing's head of commercial aircraft, Kevin McAllister, apologized for the deaths of 346 people in a pair of recent airplane crashes. Speaking at the Paris Air Show, McAllister told a press conference that "we are very sorry for the loss of lives as a result of the tragic accidents," referring to the October 2018 crash of a Lion Air 737 Max into the Java Sea and the March 2019 crash of an Ethiopian Air 737 Max. "Our priority is doing everything to get this plane safely returned to service. It is a pivotal moment for all of us," he said.
Additionally, McAllister apologized to his airline customers. "I'm sorry for the disruption," he said. Air travel authorities around the world—including in the US, European Union, and China—have grounded Boeing 737 Max airliners while the company works to fix the problem.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Saturday June 22 2019, @10:47PM (7 children)
Then why did the customers buy the planes without them? Isn't it like choosing to buy a 300-seat car without (to stretch the analogy) antilock brakes? You'd think the purchasers should share some liability if it was offered as a 'safety option' that they chose not to buy.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Saturday June 22 2019, @11:38PM (6 children)
You haven't stretched the analogy far enough. It's more akin to choosing to buy a 300 seat taxi with the steering liable to randomly disconnect at high speed, and then not telling the driver (1) that it will happen at some stage, and (2) when it happens they just need to press that button over there.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Sunday June 23 2019, @04:07AM (4 children)
I like your analogy, but know that when you press that button, you also lose power steering, and what you have now will take 2 people a great deal of effort and many many many turns of the steering wheel just to negotiate a slight curve in the road.
(Score: 3, Funny) by bob_super on Sunday June 23 2019, @05:42AM (3 children)
Actually, pushing the button means that the car will try to rollover every time you press the gas pedal, so you need to always be ready to counter-steer.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Sunday June 23 2019, @06:18AM (1 child)
I keep forgetting how easy it is to misdesign software-controlled user interfaces, even critical ones. I retract my question :-|
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Sunday June 23 2019, @09:22PM
I empathize with your sentiment, but you can not retract your question- it is forever etched in the stone bits of the Internets.
I think it was a great question, pointing to a core philosophical flaw in the "thinking" that goes on too much: "overly-automated", everything (IMHO). (I could rant on about that topic, but I'll spare the readers.)
I get that engineers and programmers think their gizmo is the best. That's why there are design review TEAMS, product managers, safety testers, etc.
I know I'm restating the obvious, but something is very very systemically wrong that design flaws of this magnitude could happen in modern airplane design.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Sunday June 23 2019, @09:13PM
Yes, but remember in a plane you _must_ press the gas pedal or you fall out of the sky.
Yes, but also remember how stunningly difficult steering is now- 50 turns of the steering wheel to just veer a bit.
Your only choice at that point is which way you want to die.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 24 2019, @06:42AM
Actually no. It's more like buying a larger taxi with a larger engine where the steering is designed to override the driver in some cases because the new taxi's handling is significantly different from the older models, AND the manufacturer only used ONE sensor[1] to detect those cases (AND such types of sensors have already been known in the industry to fail).
But the manufacturer doesn't publicize it (it's probably in some manual(s) somewhere but not highlighted) because the main selling point is "it works just like the old taxi, no new training or certification required".
So most typical taxi drivers wouldn't know what to do when they get overridden - since the old taxis would NEVER do such stuff and who the heck has time to study all the manuals etc in their entirety and understand the full implications especially when you're told "it's just like the old taxis".
What crime is it if you design an airliner that's dangerous and deliberately mislead someone about it for your profit and people die as result?
[1] https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/a-lack-of-redundancies-on-737-max-system-has-baffled-even-those-who-worked-on-the-jet/ [seattletimes.com]