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.
Related Stories
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/17/788775642/boeing-will-temporarily-stop-making-its-737-max-jetliners
Production will stop in January. The jets were grounded after two crashes that killed nearly 350 people. Despite being grounded, Boeing continued cranking the planes out at its factory near Seattle.
(The interview had more good information, but at time of submission, the transcript wasn't available. There may be better articles out there.)
There are. Here's one:
Boeing will suspend 737 Max production in January at CNBC:
Boeing is planning to suspend production of its beleaguered 737 Max planes next month, the company said Monday, a drastic step after the Federal Aviation Administration said its review of the planes would continue into next year, dashing the manufacturer's forecast.
Boeing's decision to temporarily shut down production, made after months of a cash-draining global grounding of its best-selling aircraft, worsens one of the most severe crises in the history of the century-old manufacturer. It is ramping up pressure on CEO Dennis Muilenburg, whom the board stripped of his chairmanship in October as the crisis wore on.
The measure is set to ripple through the aerospace giant's supply chain and broader economy. It also presents further problems for airlines, which have lost hundreds of millions of dollars and canceled thousands of flights without the fuel-efficient planes in their fleets.
Boeing said it does not plan to lay off or furlough workers at the Renton, Washington, factory where the 737 Max is produced during the production pause. Some of the 12,000 workers there will be temporarily reassigned.
Previously:
Boeing's 737 Max Troubles Deepen, Taking Airlines, Suppliers With It
Review of 737 Max Certification Finds Fault With Boeing and F.A.A.
American Airlines Says It Will Resume Flights With Boeing’s 737 Max Jets in January
AP Sources: Boeing Changing 737 Max Software to Use 2 Computers
Boeing Falsified Records for 787 Jet Sold to Air Canada
Boeing Pledges $100M to Families of 737 Max Crash Victims
Capt. 'Sully' Sullenberger and Boeing 737 Max News
Boeing’s Own Test Pilots Lacked Key Details Of 737 Max Flight-Control System
Boeing CEO Defends 737 Max Flight Control System
Analysis: Why FAA-Approved Emergency Procedures Failed to Save ET302
Initial Findings Put Boeing's Software at Center of Ethiopian 737 Crash
Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 Max Flight Makes Emergency Landing (While Carrying No Passengers)
Airline Cancels $4.9 Billion Boeing 737 MAX Order; Doomed Planes Lacked Optional Safety Features
Pilot Who Hitched a Ride Saved Lion Air 737 Day Before Deadly Crash
DoJ Issues Subpoenas in 737 Max Investigation
Boeing 737 Max Aircraft Grounded in the U.S. and Dozens of Other Countries
Second 737 MAX8 Airplane Crash Reinforces Speculation on Flying System Problems
Boeing's promised 737 Max production halt begins:
The airline manufacturer had announced last month it would stop making the troubled craft at least until it was no longer grounded, but hadn't set a date. However the line has officially stopped producing planes while Boeing officials wait for regulators to give it the OK to fly again.
[...] The latest update estimated the grounding would last through at least mid-2020, Boeing said in a statement Tuesday.
Boeing will reassign 3,000 workers after 737 MAX production halt
Boeing Co said it will reassign 3,000 workers to other jobs as it halts production of the grounded best-selling 737 MAX jet in mid-January.
The announcement came after American Airlines Group Inc and Mexico's Aeromexico disclosed they were the latest carriers to reach settlements with Boeing over losses resulting from the grounding of the 737 MAX aircraft.
Neither airline disclosed the compensation. A number of airlines have struck confidential settlements with Boeing in recent weeks. Boeing said it does not comment on discussions with airlines.
Boeing's biggest supplier lays off 2,800 workers because of 737 Max production suspension:
Spirit AeroSystems (SPR), which makes fuselages for the Max as well as other items for Boeing, announced Friday that it is furloughing approximately 2,800 workers. Shares of the Wichita, Kansas-based company fell more than 1% in trading.
"The difficult decision announced today is a necessary step given the uncertainty related to both the timing for resuming 737 Max production and the overall production levels that can be expected following the production suspension," Spirit AeroSystems CEO Tom Gentile said in a press release.
Boeing wants to resume 737 Max production months before regulators sign off on the planes:
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 22 2019, @11:21AM (17 children)
These planes cost $100 million for the low-end model. When "extra" safety features cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars more, and when adequate training for new planes or new features cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars more, it's obvious that Boeing is trying to squeeze every penny out of its customers.
No safety features should ever be optional. If that increases the cost of the plane then so be it, but trying to lowball customers with insufficient safety systems just to try to make the price appear lower is criminal. The same can be said for training. Every plane should include at least one simulator included in the price. If that increases the cost of the plane then so be it. But make sure every customer gets all safety features and enough simulators to ensure the pilots are more than adequately trained.
The question I want Kevin McAllister to answer is, "Would you let your children and grandchildren fly on a Boeing 737 MAX without all safety features, and with pilots who have not been trained on the MCAS system?" We all know his answer, yet he'll let millions of air travelers to fly on these planes.
(Score: 2) by Rupert Pupnick on Saturday June 22 2019, @12:47PM (6 children)
Also, the people in charge of Boeing’s system of aircraft design and certification have failed us.
Why haven’t they been fired?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 22 2019, @01:48PM (1 child)
> Why haven’t they been fired?
The FAA employees who review designs and do the certification? Pretty hard to fire a gov't employee.
(Score: 2) by Rupert Pupnick on Sunday June 23 2019, @01:30PM
I was talking about Boeing employees, mostly the ones at the top, but if there’s FAA personnel implicated, fire them too... if you can even identify them.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by RS3 on Saturday June 22 2019, @02:07PM (1 child)
> Also, the people in charge of Boeing’s system of aircraft design and certification have failed us.
Absolutely agree.
>Why haven’t they been fired?
I feel that firing is much too soft. They need to spend time behind bars.
I wonder how many of them are pilots themselves? I'd like all of them to be at least private plane pilots.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 25 2019, @09:33AM
While we randomly fail systems on them to see if they crash. If they live through the experience then no jail time is needed. If they don't, well, we've saved government funds on attempting to rehabilitate them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 22 2019, @04:03PM (1 child)
Because profits are up, even allowing for a billion or two for lawsuits, settlements and fines.
(Score: 4, Informative) by SpockLogic on Saturday June 22 2019, @07:09PM
MBA's Vs Engineers
MBA's win.
Profit over people.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(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]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 23 2019, @05:00AM (1 child)
Nonsense. Safety devices have cost too. Adding very expensive safety devices can make something so expensive it's not worth doing. After all, you haven't waterproofed your computer yet so it is less of a safety hazard, right?
And that's not counting safety devices that actually make the situation less safe, such as fire systems that result in a high frequency of false alarms or creating a bureaucratic web of safety reporting and analysis that slows down responses to safety issues.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 24 2019, @06:29PM
Quite right, but I have put a warning label that reads "Not to be taken internally. Some portion of some components are known to the state of California to cause cancer." so I think we're good.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 22 2019, @01:59PM (2 children)
This plane is too big of a story for any one story to capture it. The CEO apologizes, huh? Well, apologies aren't bringing anyone back from the grave, are they?
This thing has to cost Boeing, and it needs to cost them a lot. Early on, I kinda sided with them, but there is just too much bullshit from too many directions. Boeing screwed the pooch here.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 22 2019, @04:56PM (1 child)
But they're our only remaining civil aviation manufacturer. The government will not hurt them too badly.
(Score: 4, Funny) by kazzie on Saturday June 22 2019, @08:15PM
Yeah, the other aviation manufacturers are far too impolite.