[Sutripta]

All this is expected. Something similar is needed for the FAA.

Question is what are they going to do about the existing planes.

It is well worth it chronologically arranging all the NYT articles about the 737 Max and going through them. The latest (pilots to blame) will warm your heart.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by Sutripta

.

Question is what are they going to do about the existing planes.

The likely outcome of all of this is:
All existing planes out there with the various carriers need to be modified before returning to service.
All new, existing planes, currently parked at Boeing, need to be modified before the carriers will take delivery and or before returning to service.
Pilots need to be trained on MCAS which will means there need to be simulators available. Those simulators need to be certified as well!

I would be surprised if anybody is willing or capable of putting a 737 MAX into the air without all modifications and crew properly trained.

It is going to be a while, do not hold your breath!

Jeroen

[Jeroen]

Meanwhile, DGCA strutting its stuff,

2 Pawan Hans, 3 IndiGo pilots suspended in a day as DGCA cracks down on air safety breach https://theprint.in/india/2-pawan-hans-3-indigo-pilots-suspended-in-a-day-as-dgca-cracks-down-on-air-safety-breach/293610/

[Sutripta]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

The likely outcome of all of this is:
All existing planes out there with the various carriers need to be modified before returning to service.

This is where I think 'irreconcilable' differences between the FAA and EASA will arise. EASA will I think insist that existing planes be upgraded to the same standard as new ones. And FAA will push for a lower level - the 'good enough'. Or a very phased approach. Like during the 'heavy check'. Modifying the existing planes is going to be very expensive.

Regards
Sutripta

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by Sutripta

This is where I think 'irreconcilable' differences between the FAA and EASA will arise. EASA will I think insist that existing planes be upgraded to the same standard as new ones. And FAA will push for a lower level - the 'good enough'. Or a very phased approach. Like during the 'heavy check'. Modifying the existing planes is going to be very expensive.

We will see. I think it will be impossible for the FAA to declare the current fleet of 737 Max all of a sudden airworthy without any modifications. I do not think they can get away with just some additional pilot training on a non modified aircraft.

Also, the FAA is under pressure to align itself with EASA. If they want to restore confidence they can not just decide in splendid isolation. It will further increase the lack of confidence the other regulators have as it is. So everybody needs to make up their own undefended mind, fully in sync, so everybody comes out with what will be essentially the same ruling.

But again, time will tell. I for one, would not be surprised if this whole thing drags out for several more months. For no other reason, that nobody is likely to want to jump the gun. A 737 Max with only FAA certification and no recognition of that certification by other is still a huge problem.

Look at where the existing 737 Max were delivered. Out of 376 planes, more than 80% is with non - USA carriers!

Jeroen

[dodge3p]

Another interesting perspective of Max crashes. To me, it comes out as an effort to whitewash Boeing, but those knowledgeable can help to validate the observations. (Warning: A very detailed and long read)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/m...gtype=Homepage

[Sutripta]

Originally Posted by dodge3p

Another interesting perspective of Max crashes. To me, it comes out as an effort to whitewash Boeing, but those knowledgeable can help to validate the observations. (Warning: A very detailed and long read)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/m...gtype=Homepage

This is the article I was referring to

Originally Posted by Sutripta

The latest (pilots to blame) will warm your heart.

The author has lots of books and articles. So a lot of quotes. One of which is
“Some of the pilots are superb, but most are average, and a few are simply bad. To make matters worse, with the exception of the best, all of them think they are better than they are.”

An accident is normally the result of a series of misevents. Meaning there is enough blame to go around. The pilot is the last line of defence. In case of Lion Air the pilots should have been able to control the plane. So some of the blame falls on the pilot. This is then almost always spun into 'and so no one else is to blame'. And the pilots are not around to defend themselves.

I might be wrong but I think in case of the Hudson river landing he said that the credit should go to the aircraft.

For an equally opinionated (in the other direction) article see
https://amp.theguardian.com/commenti...m-deregulation

Regards
Sutripta

[Sutripta]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

We will see. I think it will be impossible for the FAA to declare the current fleet of 737 Max all of a sudden airworthy without any modifications. I do not think they can get away with just some additional pilot training on a non modified aircraft.

Not 'no change' pretty obviously. But change like a software patch here and an instrumentation change there.

But I think EASA is going to demand much more. At the very least MCAS will no longer be a secondary system. No matter how much the trim capacity is reduced by. This alone is going to cause a ripple effect. Starting with three AoA sensors. With the physical wiring and the logical software integration.

And I feel the deep dive into the innards of the Max, and Boeing's of late cavalier attitude would have unearthed a host of issues. (eg. positioning of some control cables). EASA will want every unearthed issue to be fixed. FAA will try to say 'come on, this is not really necessary for the existing fleet'. Will not be able to say it openly, but behind closed doors, with Boeing as partner, it is still a very formidable heavyweight.

Regards
Sutripta

[pganapathy]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/m...x-crashes.html

I was just wondering if any pilots can comment on this article. Makes a lot of sense but seems to be written in a way that absolves Boeing of a lot of the blame. No doubt the MCAS is partly at fault, but makes it seem pilot error and maintenance is the major cause

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by pganapathy

Makes a lot of sense but seems to be written in a way that absolves Boeing of a lot of the blame. No doubt the MCAS is partly at fault, but makes it seem pilot error and maintenance is the major cause

Mr Langewiesche is a well known writer and I seem to recall he, in a former life, was a pilot too. However, the problem is, his articles are written as novels almost. That does make it more readable and accessible to the public at large. But it is often a very loose interpretation of reality, rather than factual information.

What is worse, other media are picking up this article and are calling it a report. I would not call it a report. It is a story written to attract a large audience with limited aviation insights.

https://www.businessinsider.nl/737-m...onal=true&r=US

Details aside, Langewiesche points out that the 737 max had several inherent design flaws and the Boeing FAA relationship was not what it was supposed to be.

Next he points out to the various errors made by the pilots involved, their likely background and training and the sloppy maintenance. I have always said that every accident, including this one, need a full integral approach. Just bashing Boeing is not enough. All other issues need to looked into in full and addressed.

Langewiesche claims Boeings are more difficult to fly than Airbuses. I don’t think so. They both come with specific handling charateristics. Some favour Boeing, some Airbus. I don’t think based on incidents or accident report you can come to any conclusions. Other that the Airbus seems to have more incidents/accidents related to crews not understanding the automated systems. (At least that is my gut feeling, I have never checked it)

Langewiesche makes some interesting observations on the level of training and experience of current pilots. If you visit the pilot forums (e.g. PRuNE) just about everybody would agree that the current generation of pilots lacks basic pilot skills, especially in manual flying.

Based on his point of view you could argue that the pilots need to be better trained and more experienced. Or you could argue planes need to be designed in such a way that all pilots can handle them without to much problems (whatever that means, but I hope you get my drift).

I would say both points of view are legitimate and need to be addressed. Interestingly, towards the very end of his article, Langewiesche also suggest that Boeing needs to start planes that are easier to fly.

Jeroen

[Sutripta]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Based on his point of view you could argue that the pilots need to be better trained and more experienced. Or you could argue planes need to be designed in such a way that all pilots can handle them without to much problems.

As long as there are pilots, both points are always a truism, isn't it? Can't go wrong stating it. With as much emphasis as you want.

Regards
Sutripta

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by Sutripta

As long as there are pilots, both points are always a truism, isn't it? Can't go wrong stating it. With as much emphasis as you want.

True, and I would say if you look back at aviation history that has always been the case. With notable ups and downs of course. The article written by Langewiesche suggests that designing planes in a different way (more automation?) could help reduce pilot training and experience requirements.

I am not so sure about that. Although the number of (fatal) accidents has come down tremendously over the last couple of decades, the root cause has not. (Loss of control in one shape, format or the other remains the largest contributing cause).

A lot of it is down to very basic piloting and aeronautical decision making, following procedure, attitude etc. So the essential stuff that could/should be considered for becoming a proficient pilot, seems be lacking as it is in quite a number of cases. Automation will only get you so far. There is always going to be the case where the automation is not sufficient, or fails and a pilot needs to step in. In many cases, when the chips are down, only hardcore basic pilot skills might safe the day. But guess what, part of those skills are also ensuring you never get yourself in these difficult situations.

Training and experience is not about how much, but about how effective it is in becoming/making a better (safer) pilot. A very different approach altogether.

But it does bring us to a different approach; Fewer pilots or no pilots.

Global forecast put the number of new airplanes in the next 20 years well over 42.000. Which require 600-800.000 pilots, on top of those retiring.

The pilot training and (lack of) experience are going to be a major issue going forward.

Having said all of that, so far aviation safety has been increasing year over year. But scaling up operations, be it training pilots, or increasing production is rarely easy and tends to come with some major hick ups!

[Sutripta]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

suggests that designing planes in a different way (more automation?) could help reduce pilot training and experience requirements.

Automation? Not really.
Consistency of behaviour. Which should follow intuitive expectations.
Presenting relevant prioritised information to the pilot. Don't overwhelm him with information, calling everything a critical alarm.

But it does bring us to a different approach; Fewer pilots or no pilots.

No pilots will happen when people don't bat an eye at automated cars.

[pganapathy]

Originally Posted by Sutripta

Automation? Not really.
No pilots will happen when people don't bat an eye at automated cars.

I don't think that will ever happen. People are skeptical by nature. Any error in one system is enough to cause an accident. The basic problem with a completely automated system is what is the fail-safe. Human beings may be more error-prone, but psychologically we feel safer knowing someone is there in case there is an error in tech.

[Sutripta]

Originally Posted by Sutripta

On another note slightly old news, but EASA has apparently laid down five areas of concern.

First spelled out here

and now more formally

Originally Posted by Jeroen

As was to be expected, European aviation regulator will not accept FAA re certification of the 737 Max as sufficient to clear it for operation in Europe.

They have made their own demands on Boeing.

Now Australia too joins in. Both EASA and CASA (Australia) were members of the JATR. And the time to submit its report is almost up.
Guess FAA is proving to be recalcitrant!

DGCA has already said so, but as others have said, DGCA will likely follow somebody else's (ie not FAA) lead. It will be interesting to see what other regulators do.

The fracturing of the regulatory world is not good news.

Regards
Sutripta