The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Boeing 737 MAX+

Feel free to talk about anything that you want.

Re: Boeing 737 MAX+

Postby erolz66 » Fri Apr 05, 2019 3:39 pm

Paphitis do you, given all we now know, stand by this

The safety culture is beyond question and sacred.


Cause it sure seems to me, not as an expert, not as some one in the 'industry', that we absolutely do and must, in light of the deaths of over three hundred innocent people, need to question the 'safety culture', that allowed planes with such flaws designed in to them get certified and allowed to fly.

To be honest it worries me that someone 'in the industry' can have said that the 'safety culture' of that industry is so 'sacred' that it is 'beyond question'. To me this seems like exactly the kind of arrogance that can let these kind of things happen in the first place.

Can you not just say, actually in light of what has come out since , I probably do have to reconsider that statement ?
erolz66
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4340
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2013 8:31 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX+

Postby Paphitis » Fri Apr 05, 2019 3:46 pm

BTW, the FAA didn't put out the procedure. Also, there are plenty of darker skin pilots working for the US majors such as Continental and AA. Darker skin pilots are well represented.

The color of their skin is irrelevant. But in my opinion, the experience of the FO isn't. 360 hours Total Time is not unheard of, but its certainly is in the US, and Australia. You can't even get an Airline Transport Pilot License > 5700KG if you had 360 hours total time. You need 750 hours of Pilot in Command on multi engine aircraft, with a minimum of 100 hours at night and 100 hours of Instrument Flight and pass a flight test to get an ATPL from the US FAA, Australian CASA or Europe's EASA.

I'm 100% certain that the colour of the skin of the pilots is irrelevant as far as the FAA and Boeing are concerned. Plenty people of colour in the FAA and Boeing as well, as all they care about is the person's qualifications, not their ethnicity.

So the article is hyperbole.
User avatar
Paphitis
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 29831
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:06 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX+

Postby Paphitis » Fri Apr 05, 2019 3:52 pm

erolz66 wrote:Paphitis do you, given all we now know, stand by this

The safety culture is beyond question and sacred.


Cause it sure seems to me, not as an expert, not as some one in the 'industry', that we absolutely do and must, in light of the deaths of over three hundred innocent people, need to question the 'safety culture', that allowed planes with such flaws designed in to them get certified and allowed to fly.

To be honest it worries me that someone 'in the industry' can have said that the 'safety culture' of that industry is so 'sacred' that it is 'beyond question'. To me this seems like exactly the kind of arrogance that can let these kind of things happen in the first place.

Can you not just say, actually in light of what has come out since , I probably do have to reconsider that statement ?


I don't think anyone can easily question the safety culture of Boeing. To do so is to basically say that Boeing has a terrible safety culture. that is a very big call. You can try, but Boeing has all the processes and safety mechanism in place to be considered to be at the forefront of aviation safety, which they most definitely are. The are trusted by so many airlines around the world. That will not change anytime soon, not even after this crash. QANTAS will still take delivery of 50 B737 MAXI aircraft. QANTAS love Boeing. That won't change.

They set the bar very high. They have always done that throughout their history.

The FAA will not question their safety culture. Standards are so high and over regulated. You can question all you like, but Boeing is one of the highest scrutinized and regulated businesses on the planet with very sophisticated practices. They don't cut corners. Their aircraft pass airworthiness tests and certification in many jurisdictions around the globe and Boeing is very good at meeting all the legislated criteria.

That is what people seem to forget. Boeing builds planes. The regulators certify and issue airworthiness certificates. If Boeing is suspect, so is every single regulator around the globe. These aircraft have been under development for years and have undergone thousands of hours of airworthiness trials.

It's not an easy thing to point the finger at Boeing. They will take some of the blame if there is a software and sensor issue with the MCAS technology. But that does not apportion the blame against them 100% There are going to be many contributing factors to this accident. And this accident does not mean that Boeing has a suspect safety culture anymore than we can say that Ethiopian or Air France or Airbus have a suspect safety culture. These are 2 different things.

It is completely possible to have a great safety culture and lose an aircraft with 300 odd passengers. Many airlines with a great culture have had major air disasters.

QANTAS is one of the few that have had no jet Air Disaster through their long history. They pride themselves on that safety record. But there is still no guarantee that tomorrow they won't have one with let's say an Airbus 380 with 550 passengers on board,despite their safety culture. And if that does one day happen, it doesn't actually mean that their safety culture was necessarily lacking in any way.

Both Boeing and Airbus are increasing the automation on their aircraft but out of the 2, Boeing seem to be the most conservative. There is a saying that Airbus pilots are computer programmers whilst Boeing Pilots are still pilots. But the inevitability is that over the next 50 years, automation will exponentially be on the rise, and that is going to create its own issues. Planes will drop out of the sky like the Air France A330 in the Atlantic and now the B737 MAXI. The aviation industry knows that this is going to occur, but it's bnot a question of "safety culture"
User avatar
Paphitis
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 29831
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:06 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX+

Postby erolz66 » Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:26 pm

So in your view as someone 'in the industry' you are STILL saying we should not and do not need to

look at what went wrong in Boeing in terms of design and in house testing of these planes and see if it can be avoided in the future. Look at what went wrong in the certification process / regulators that certified these planes as safe to fly and see if we can avoid such failures in the future. That neither of these things should be or need to be looked at and reviewed in light of these two tragedies, because the 'safety culture' of the industry (those who make planes and those who certify them as safe) is 'beyond question' ? 350 dead people and you still claim the 'safety culture' is 'beyond question ?

Something went horribly wrong. You instantly, before any investigation or information came out, pushed a narrative that 'it can not be Boeing, it has to be the pilots, MACS would only kick in in the first place because of a pilot error, that MACS had done exactly what it was designed to do and that and that the plane could never have got certified if MACS was not easy to disable. "

Do you have any idea what a twat you appear to be from where I am sitting ?
erolz66
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4340
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2013 8:31 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX+

Postby Paphitis » Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:29 pm

erolz66 wrote:So in your view as someone 'in the industry' you are STILL saying we should not and do not need to

look at what went wrong in Boeing in terms of design and in house testing of these planes and see if it can be avoided in the future. Look at what went wrong in the certification process / regulators that certified these planes as safe to fly and see if we can avoid such failures in the future. That neither of these things should be or need to be looked at and reviewed in light of these two tragedies, because the 'safety culture' of the industry (those who make planes and those who certify them as safe) is 'beyond question' ? 350 dead people and you still claim the 'safety culture' is 'beyond question ?

Something went horribly wrong. You instantly, before any investigation or information came out, pushed a narrative that 'it can not be Boeing, it has to be the pilots, MACS would only kick in in the first place because of a pilot error, that MACS had done exactly what it was designed to do and that and that the plane could never have got certified if MACS was not easy to disable. "

Do you have any idea what a twat you appear to be from where I am sitting ?


Absolutely not! That is not what I said.

Every accident is investigated. But it isn't investigated in the rudimentary fashion people on here seem to think.

All investigations are conducted in a no blame fashion. The investigation will identify a number of causes and contributory factors in the name of safety and they are likely to come up with a number of recommendations that they believe will improve safety. they will not turn around and say Boeing is at fault, or Ethiopian are at fault, however the findings can possibly imply a level of blame. For instance, the sensor fault can be identified as a contributory factor, and one can reasonably imply from that some form of culpability or responsibility of Boeing. They can also come up with the finding that the STAB TRIM runaway procedure was not completed in a more timely manner, which implies a level of pilot culpability. The investigation will not come out and say however that Boeing are responsible for A, B and C and Ethiopian are responsible for D, E and F. This is the type of safety culture we have in the aviation industry.

All accidents are open to investigation. But that does not imply any questions over the safety culture of either Ethiopian or Boeing. To imply such a thing is a very serious accusation.

We have a no blame culture. You can also self report yourself for doing something completely wrong in our industry and because you self reported, it is just culture that disciplinary action cannot be taken as you. Even for serious matters, the company is obligated to offer retraining and has a duty of care.

We have a very strong culture of self reporting. I self reported myself on a Missed Approach only 2 weeks ago. This is the kind of culture that exists globally in the aviation industry and at Boeing. Naturally, there are some companies that do have suspect safety culture but Boeing are far from being one of these companies.
User avatar
Paphitis
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 29831
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:06 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX+

Postby erolz66 » Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:42 pm

Paphitis wrote:Every accident is investigated. But it isn't investigated in the rudimentary fashion people on here seem to think.


Do you think it should be investigated by people who start from a position that

- the safety culture of the industry, all of it makers, flyers, regulators, is 'beyond question' ?
- This tragedy could not have been caused in any significant degree by failure in Boeing's design, manufacture or testing processes.
- MACS can only kick in if a pilot makes an error first.
- in this incident MACS had done exactly what it was designed to do.
- MACS must have been easy to disable and not just kick straight back in again once disabled, because if it was not the plane would never have got certified in the first place.

All I can say is thank fuck you have nothing to do with such investigations. Even then it scares me that you have anything to do with the 'industry'.
erolz66
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4340
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2013 8:31 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX+

Postby Paphitis » Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:51 pm

erolz66 wrote:
Paphitis wrote:Every accident is investigated. But it isn't investigated in the rudimentary fashion people on here seem to think.


Do you think it should be investigated by people who start from a position that

- the safety culture of the industry, all of it makers, flyers, regulators, is 'beyond question' ?
- This tragedy could not have been caused in any significant degree by failure in Boeing's design, manufacture or testing processes.
- MACS can only kick in if a pilot makes an error first.
- in this incident MACS had done exactly what it was designed to do.
- MACS must have been easy to disable and not just kick straight back in again once disabled, because if it was not the plane would never have got certified in the first place.

All I can say is thank fuck you have nothing to do with such investigations. Even then it scares me that you have anything to do with the 'industry'.


I think the investigations should be completed in accordance with ICAO rules. There are international treaties in place to actually protect the safety culture that already exists and has been cultivated over many decades.

Yes, I believe the the investigation process needs to be non-adversarial and maintain a no blame outlook to allow total and complete cooperation from all parties. The second this changes, will result in a total break down of our safety culture as it exists today. Parties will not be as cooperative, we will lose our no blame culture and we will lose important things such as self reporting, as well as many other things.

Our no blame culture is a very important aspect.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/24560/sia121108.pdf

Once we depart from these principles, we will lose much of our safety culture. At the moment we have experts from Boeing cooperating with the investigation, and Boeing understand they have a lot to gain by cooperating. If the investigation changes its focus, Boeing will not be a willing participant and will hide behind its top lawyers and silks. That would be a very sad day for aviation.

Boeing are pulling the apple cart of safety and that is the way we would like to keep it. It's the way the industry has always operated. We don't want to change that.
User avatar
Paphitis
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 29831
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:06 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX+

Postby erolz66 » Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:12 pm

Paphitis wrote:Our no blame culture is a very important aspect.


I have no issue with a 'no blame culture' per se.

My issues is with someone 'in the industry' who before any evidence had come out, stated things like

MACS can only kick in if a pilot makes an error first.


When we now know that it kicked in not because of pilot error but because of a faulty sensor and who then is pathologically unable to just say 'er yeah actually I was wrong when I said that and now realise I was wrong'. My problem is with people 'in the industry' for whom protecting their own egos is more important than peoples lives. To me with every post you make you just reinforce the idea in my head that your are just such a twat. My fear is that you might be in any way indicative of people in the aviation industry and regulators over seeing it.
erolz66
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4340
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2013 8:31 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX+

Postby Paphitis » Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:17 pm

erolz66 wrote:
Paphitis wrote:Our no blame culture is a very important aspect.


I have no issue with a 'no blame culture' per se.

My issues is with someone 'in the industry' who before any evidence had come out, stated things like

MACS can only kick in if a pilot makes an error first.


When we now know that it kicked in not because of pilot error but because of a faulty sensor and who then is pathologically unable to just say 'er yeah actually I was wrong when I said that and now realise I was wrong'. My problem is with people 'in the industry' for whom protecting their own egos is more important than peoples lives. To me with every post you make you just reinforce the idea in my head that your are just such a twat. My fear is that you might be in any way indicative of people in the aviation industry and regulators over seeing it.


I accepted the finding about the possible faulty sensor. It has been mentioned in the pre-liminary but it still lacks a lot of detail because its only the pre-liminary report.

But yes, ordinarily, Stall Avoidance Systems are designed to counteract a possible stall. That is what SAS is designed to do.

Apart from that, we also need to understand all the events tat resulted in no manual trim and why this was also the case.

What I was unprepared to do, and still am unprepared to do is jump to any conclusions. We still do not know what caused this accident or the faulty sensor. These are highly complex systems.

The faulty sensor can be caused by many things and not all of them are as a result of Boeing. For instance, what are the testing regime? SAS is tested before every take off in our company. How are these systems maintained and how are they signed off. Was the runway trim disengage tested in Pre Start? How did the pilots know it was operational? There are so many factors here.

Also, what did the pilots do and why was the manual trim ineffective.
Last edited by Paphitis on Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Paphitis
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 29831
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:06 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX+

Postby Robin Hood » Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:20 pm

erolz66 wrote:
Paphitis wrote:Every accident is investigated. But it isn't investigated in the rudimentary fashion people on here seem to think.


Do you think it should be investigated by people who start from a position that

- the safety culture of the industry, all of it makers, flyers, regulators, is 'beyond question' ?
- This tragedy could not have been caused in any significant degree by failure in Boeing's design, manufacture or testing processes.
- MACS can only kick in if a pilot makes an error first.
- in this incident MACS had done exactly what it was designed to do.
- MACS must have been easy to disable and not just kick straight back in again once disabled, because if it was not the plane would never have got certified in the first place.

All I can say is thank fuck you have nothing to do with such investigations. Even then it scares me that you have anything to do with the 'industry'.


Now you know why the biggest cause of air accidents ...... is pilot error. The manufacturers are trying to eliminate this factor by designing planes that don't need pilots! A pilot in most cases in a modern aircraft is to keep the passengers content. If pilots are the major cause and the guy up front was assumed to have the mentality of Paphitis ..... then they would revert to supplying parachutes? They don't do that ..... they design out the pilot, as pilots like Paphitis clearly lack the qualities of the cool, calm, reliable and pragmatic professional normally associate with the position. :roll:
Robin Hood
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 3865
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: Limassol

PreviousNext

Return to General Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests