Pilots Confront Boeing: 737 Max Crashes Were NOT Pilot Error

Money Maven ^ | May 2019 | Mike Shedlock

[MeganC]

What’s illogical about noting the fact that the FBI is investigating potential criminal activity with regards to how Boeing got their aircraft certified with the FAA?

Is the FBI investigating potential criminal conduct at Boeing?

Yes, they are.

And I imagine they have good reason to do so and I observed that it may well be true that criminal activity occurred.

They may also be exonerated of wrong doing.

I’m not in the FBI so I don’t know.

Neither do you.

[CFIIIMEIATP737]

There are three separate attitude (artificial horizon) indicators in the B737. Seeing the natural horizon would not be required to recover from an unusual attitude. Even if one attitude indicator was inoperative, the first thing pilots are trained to do is to compare and see which attitude is wrong, and if the supporting instruments (altitude, airspeed, vertical speed, heading) support the conclusion.

And manual control was possible. The problem was with the automation.

[A strike]

Where is your scientific/engineering analysis vice just assertion?
Still not even remotely proven.

[A strike]

But you stated that the FBI thinks that criminal activity may well have occurred and so do you.

[A strike]

This is well known. My point is that if there were outside horizon and total manual control avail/in use, the aircraft should have been recoverable.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

Oh thats a trustworthy bunch for sure.

[cymbeline]

“The problem is when the plane thinks it is stalling because the angle of attack is high during take-off.”

I believe what you’re saying but why would the plane’s autopilot think it was stalling. Wouldn’t it understand that that’s part of the plane’s behavior?

[_Jim]

YES.

[FtrPilot]

There is zero path to airworthiness certification with a known single point of failure, period.

I believe the governing paragraph in FAR Part 25 is §25.671. Here's a link:

FAR §25.671

I believe Boeing and possibly the FAA are going to hang their hat on §25.671(c)(3) which states:

(3) Any jam in a control position normally encountered during takeoff, climb, cruise, normal turns, descent, and landing unless the jam is shown to be extremely improbable, or can be alleviated. A runaway of a flight control to an adverse position and jam must be accounted for if such runaway and subsequent jamming is not extremely improbable.

Personally, I believe there was malfeasance. However, I expect that Boeing's lawyers will admit to misfeasance and pay a fine.

[Political Junkie Too]

That's why people say the fault is that only one sensor was used. If the sensor fails, the plane doesn't know what to do, so defaults to stabilizing the stall.

The pilots didn't know about the system, so didn't know how to turn it off.

-PJ

[gogeo]

*****Boeing’s mistake is not having an idiot proof airplane.*****

THIS

[HamiltonJay]

It will be.

I have done government certification for software before, there is ZERO chance criminal activity will not be found when the investigation is complete.

[A strike]

So, your government employment in software proves your assertion of criminal activity in this case?

Still NOT proven.

[logi_cal869]

Exactly. It would also have delayed certification.

Oops...did I mean to type that? /s

[logi_cal869]

You’re being awfully-dismissive of culpability by FAA in this fiasco: The FAA granted Boeing the ability to certify the aircraft itself.

“The problems were apparently compounded by FAA rules allowing manufacturers to essentially self-certify aircraft. Boeing reportedly tried to speed up the process in order to catch to rival Airbus’ A320neo, and pushed the FAA to give it more responsibility. “There wasn’t a complete and proper review of the documents,” a former Boeing engineer said. “[The] review was rushed to reach certain certification dates.” “

You can read more here.

https://www.engadget.com/2019/03/18/boeing-737-max-faa-certification-flaws/

[trebb]

Yep - to claim pilot error would be like saying Mario Andretti (I date myself) could have pulled it off but Mrs Smith just didn’t know enough about her Ford Pinto to save herself when the wheel fell off.

[cymbeline]

“That’s why people say the fault is that only one sensor was used. If the sensor fails, the plane doesn’t know what to do, so defaults to stabilizing the stall.

The pilots didn’t know about the system, so didn’t know how to turn it off.”

Yep, and you paid extra for a feature that would detect the bad sensor, correct?

Bizarre that pilots didn’t know how to turn off an autopilot system that they knew was mishandling the plane.

[Political Junkie Too]

They didn't know that the system was there. Boeing didn't include it in the MAX documentation.

-PJ

[TalBlack]

It takes a certain amount of guts for an instructor get out and say good luck! I mean think about that. A probably nervous know nothing being given a plane to take up and back for the first time. Doubt I’d have the stomach...

Now that I recall, my first solo landing I was low on final. From the instructors perspective at mid field I’d disappeared behind the treeline. He said his heart sank. In the plane I saw the prob and gunned it, keeping the nose down (full flaps) That flatland the descent and then even had me pop up like a helicopter behind the trees. He asked me where I’d gotten that move. I said beats me, seems like the thing to do at the time...

[cymbeline]

“They didn’t know that the system was there.”

Are you saying there’s a switch to disable it, but the pilots, who must have seen the switch on the console, didn’t know what it was for. Could the switch have been lacking an identification label?

My “something strange” indicator is still flashing brightly.