CAA bans Boeing 737 max 8

In a great many cases the level of training is set by Boeing, a very large number of airlines use Boeing to actually do that training. The difference in my level of knowledge between the first Type Rating course I did 25 odd years ago and the last, 4 years ago is staggering. The first was in house and the tech stuff in the classroom had 3 instructors for 10 guys and lasted 3 weeks. The last was sat in front of a computer with an instructor who showed us how to switch the computer on and handed us an exam paper 8 days later. We never saw him in between. The course was run by Boeing. Since then I’ve spent untold hours getting to a level I rather than the accountants am happy with.

The QRH @Lardbeast refers to now specifically includes instructions for the crew to not troubleshoot (it’s a list of checklists for abnormal situations, lots of other stuff to, Quick Reference Handbook). The rest of his post is bang on too..
God forbid you should think for yourself and survive, eh? Funny thing, if the crew survive, the pax have a pretty good chance of doing so as well.
 
It'll be O'Leary positioning for a compo claim from Boeing.
Or doing what he did with the volcanoes - insisting the Authorities are wrong and bombarding the media and threatening to fly** from a safe place towards the closed airspace - partly as a gamble that it would be open - but partly to put pressure on to open it as aircraft were approaching -

Oh please be this - please let him be posturing for the ban to be overturned by declaring (again) the authorities no not what of which they speak and likewise intimidating his flight deck crews with fly it or face the sack type statements.

Then let the full wrath of all descend upon the odious shit.


**I cant recall if he actually did it - I forget the details now but I recall him being an arse.
 

DAS

Old-Salt
It'll be O'Leary positioning for a compo claim from Boeing.
I'd say that's already in the pipeline for sure as RyanAir are Boeings biggest 737 customer and they've already announced route closures due to capacity issues.
 
God forbid you should think for yourself and survive, eh? Funny thing, if the crew survive, the pax have a pretty good chance of doing so as well.
Quite so. These pax who are saying they won't fly on these aircraft must surely think that the aircrew have a death wish and would fly them even if they thought they couldn't fly them/cope with emergencies/peculiar behaviour/unforeseen instances.
 
Quite so. These pax who are saying they won't fly on these aircraft must surely think that the aircrew have a death wish and would fly them even if they thought they couldn't fly them/cope with emergencies/peculiar behaviour/unforeseen instances.
True, but if the aircrew were told "it's ok, your X hours on a flight sim qualifies you" by the manufacturer, would the aircrew question it ? TBH, I can see both sides.
 
True, but if the aircrew were told "it's ok, your X hours on a flight sim qualifies you" by the manufacturer, would the aircrew question it ? TBH, I can see both sides.
Just because you're qualified doesn't mean you are confident and if you don't feel confident then you have to say no. That's how it works in ATC anyway.
 
And then of course there's Dunning Kruger - lots of confidence and zero idea.

 
The following story is too long to summarise adequately, but it's well worth reading as it shows some very disturbing signs of how Boeing has been willing to compromise safety in order to cut costs, and how the US authorities have been willing to let them do so under the guise of "deregulation".
Internal Boeing messages detail how pressure to cut costs eroded company's renowned safety culture
The messages showed a concerted effort by employees, under pressure from their managers, to deceive safety regulators from the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration in an effort to save money and improve short-term financial performance.
As one example, a Boeing official bragged about "Jedi mind-tricking regulators" with regards to whether additional pilot training was required for the Boeing 737 Max.
In one striking email, Boeing's chief technical pilot Mark Forkner bragged about "Jedi mind-tricking regulators" to convince them that no serious pilot training was required in the introduction of the 737 Max model.
In December, a leaked email from a Transport Canada official suggested that the MCAS system should be removed altogether and pilots trained to handle the plane without it.



One internal Boeing engineering study said that pilots would only have 4 seconds to recognise a problem and only 10 seconds to respond to it to avoid a "catastrophic" crash.
One engineering study showed that pilots would have only four seconds to recognize a problem with the flight-control system, and only 10 seconds to respond to it, otherwise there would be a "catastrophic" crash.
I would suggest reading the whole article for more details.
 

MoleBath

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
True, but if the aircrew were told "it's ok, your X hours on a flight sim qualifies you" by the manufacturer, would the aircrew question it ? TBH, I can see both sides.
As the paying customer call me mr old fashioned but I will choose a safer aeroplane
 
Flight crew don’t (generally) have a death wish.
If they’re prepared to go up the steps, I’ll follow them.
I wonder how you'd have felt being ordered to fly one of the first Lynx to be cleared after the fleet had been grounded due to the blades came off one a few months earlier killing two of your friends?

I'll stick to an aircraft without the provenance of the 737 Max 8, thank you.
 
I wonder how you'd have felt being ordered to fly one of the first Lynx to be cleared after the fleet had been grounded due to the blades came off one a few months earlier killing two of your friends?

I'll stick to an aircraft without the provenance of the 737 Max 8, thank you.
I’ll give it a bit for the dust to settle first, obviously.

But would an experienced captain really just think “Sod it. What’s the worst that can happen?” & just go?
 
I’ll give it a bit for the dust to settle first, obviously.

But would an experienced captain really just think “Sod it. What’s the worst that can happen?” & just go?
Personally, if an aircraft has been known to have had an issue - and qualified engineers and technicians have investigated, fixed and tested the aircraft - I’d be happy to accept it on the flight line.

Can catch you out though. My avatar refers.
 
I’ll give it a bit for the dust to settle first, obviously.

But would an experienced captain really just think “Sod it. What’s the worst that can happen?” & just go?
You'll have to ask @Toastie whether commercial airline pilots can be forced to fly an aircraft they have no faith in, or whether the company can order you to fly/sack you for refusing.

I've been on both sides of that coin in the army.
 

TamH70

MIA
You'll have to ask @Toastie whether commercial airline pilots can be forced to fly an aircraft they have no faith in, or whether the company can order you to fly/sack you for refusing.

I've been on both sides of that coin in the army.
I've been fortunate to never have been ordered to fly in a Chinook, post the unscheduled interface with a gurt big hill on Mull which cost dozens of lives. Mainly because if I had been I would have chinned it off in short order. I'd rather have been given the sack than trust my life to an airframe type that I had no trust whatsoever in.
 
Personally, if an aircraft has been known to have had an issue - and qualified engineers and technicians have investigated, fixed and tested the aircraft - I’d be happy to accept it on the flight line.

Can catch you out though. My avatar refers.
In that particular instance, no one thought to give a fatigue life to the flexible tie bars holding the rotor blades on. While this problem was identified and remedied, it does leave you wondering what else might have been ‘overlooked’...
 
You'll have to ask @Toastie whether commercial airline pilots can be forced to fly an aircraft they have no faith in, or whether the company can order you to fly/sack you for refusing.

I've been on both sides of that coin in the army.
There’s only one person that makes the final decision. Me. Any airline that forced the issue would be on very thin ice legally both from a straight authorisation point of view and from an employment law POV if they hoofed the pilot. Apart from anything else the Air Navigation Order and our Ops Manuals are explicitly clear on my primary role; the safe conduct of the flight.

In making that decision I’d seek guidance from Engineering and ask the view of my oppo. If either have any doubts, there is no doubt. I’m firmly of the opinion that being around to be told I was wrong is a better option than not being around.

I’ve actually been in the situation where I’ve binned it based on the best info I could get and was subsequently found to have called it wrong. I got given some tech feedback which was useful knowledge gained but the only feedback I got on my decision was “wrong call but for the right reasons, keep it up”. Long may that continue.

I can’t speak for other operators but in the developed world there are varying levels of subtle pressure applied but I’d very much doubt anyone would get disciplined for it. Any Captain that folded shouldn’t be in the left seat anyway.

I get @CrashTestDummy ’s point about being the first up but again, it’s a personal call and re the Max, my management are under no illusion that many will take some convincing. As for someone ordering you to get in a Lynx and fly following the death of friends, that shows an appalling lack of awareness on a man management level and IMHO, a disgraceful abuse of authority worthy of Court Martial at the command level. That said, I’m wholly unfamiliar with the incident in question.
 
As the paying customer call me mr old fashioned but I will choose a safer aeroplane
And how would you know which is safer? Media hysteria is hardly a reliable combat indicator.
 

Top