Aeromexico still flying 737 max?

The Bottom Line is ...............

Quote: Originally posted by MrBillM

........... The Bottom Line ? Seriously, though, it's a FACT that proper pilot training and competent pilot reactions would most likely have avoided the (2) disastrous crashes given the many "incidents" that were handled. This entire grounding fiasco seems a potentially financially-ruinous gross over-reaction.

A question for pilots

Quote: Originally posted by AKgringo

Are the differences between the standard 737, and the Max significant enough that it should have undergone more thorough trials before being certified?

Ignorance is NOT Bliss ...........

weebray - 7-10-2019 at 09:09 AM

This problem is far more complex than some armchair pilots grant. As a pilot, I have been tested to the max with multiple problems with dire consequences for error. The grounding by Boeing is proof that their systems were a MAJOR factor. Better trained pilots with more experience may have handled things differently but let's not oversimplify and "with an air of superiority" blame it on pilot error.

---

Ron in BC - 7-10-2019 at 08:25 PM

I agree. I belong to a flying club with a couple of Max 8 captains and an FAA Max 8 test pilot. My impression is that their skill and training would have let them have a better outcome. But it's still a big deal. Really amazing and shocking in some ways.

What a mess, hope the situation gets back on track but the repercussions and damage will be very long lasting.

Ron

---

SFandH - 7-10-2019 at 08:40 PM

All Southwest Airlines airplanes are 737s, 34 are grounded, the most of any airline. I bet that eventually costs Boeing a bundle.

---

pacificobob - 7-10-2019 at 08:59 PM

flight standards and training are to blame here. if the crew understood the system, we wouldn't be having this chat. too bad this blew back on Boeing. this is what happens when they sell a/c to underfunded airlines in developing countries.

---

LancairDriver - 7-10-2019 at 10:41 PM

Here is an example of the type of skills that are being taught and required to fly today’s modern aircraft. Unfortunately this has come at some erosion of the basic physical flying skills that are still necessary but less attention is directed today. This is becoming more recognized in the industry and is hopefully being integrated into the training. Here is a link to a ultra modern Lufthansa A380 landing at San Francisco.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENe89j89tBA

---

weebray - 7-11-2019 at 07:41 AM

Quote: Originally posted by pacificobob

flight standards and training are to blame here. if the crew understood the system, we wouldn't be having this chat. too bad this blew back on Boeing. this is what happens when they sell a/c to underfunded airlines in developing countries.

Well, I just knew someone from Seattle would pop up here to give us their uninformed opinion. Boeing is not just culpable here they are responsible. Fact is, the rush to compete with Airbus and do so without creating a new "type" was a management decision based on profit. Read the facts before you start waving the Boeing flag. Changes are being made. More problems are being found. People are dead because of corporate profit motives. Boing is in shame.

[Edited on 7-11-2019 by weebray]

---

unbob - 7-11-2019 at 07:44 AM

How the Boeing 737 Max Disaster Looks to a Software Developer

https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/how-the-boeing-...

---

weebray - 7-12-2019 at 08:36 AM

No one will actually read this article. I guess I've got too much time on my hands. But, if you did, you would see why Boeing is in shame. Not their fault, it's a corporate "merica" thing. When you pour the meal to her the computer takes over for the pilot. As a pilot I think that's a bad idea. Sure, there's a button.....
"Like someone with narcissistic personality disorder, MCAS gaslights the pilots. And it turns out badly for everyone. 'Raise the nose, HAL.'I’m sorry, Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that.' ”

---

SFandH - 7-12-2019 at 08:57 AM

I read the article, twice.

I think this is where the author pins the blame:

"It is astounding that no one who wrote the MCAS software for the 737 Max seems even to have raised the possibility of using multiple inputs, including the opposite angle-of-attack sensor, in the computer’s determination of an impending stall."

His point being a failure of a single sensor would not initiate the nose down automatic command, as was the case, if there were multiple inputs.

People who write software do it as specified in the software requirements specification. The specification is written by senior engineers, not the folks doing the coding.

The fundamental blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the engineers that failed to specify a more robust, redundant system, which is typical of aircraft systems and could have been easily implemented since multiple sensors already exist.

IMHO



[Edited on 7-12-2019 by SFandH]

---

OK - MCAS BAD !

MrBillM - 7-12-2019 at 10:49 AM

Focusing on the design deficiencies of the MCAS system is NOT really the point. There is general agreement regarding that problem. Those deficiencies (including relying on a single sensor) do not change the FACT that flight crew awareness and training would have likely avoided the consequences of the failure.

Virtually, EVERY current Airliner design (Boeing and Airbus) have been found to have design deficiencies which were encountered and addressed during their respective duty-cycles. Assumptions made during design often didn't hold up in the real world. Most (but not all) were corrected without loss of life.

That loss of life has been an unfortunate (Unavoidable) fact of life since commercial aviation began and will continue.

Destroying Boeing won't accomplish anything other than boost Airbus at the expense of U.S. jobs. People will still die. Design errors will still occur. Maintenance and pilot errors will still kill far more passengers and crew than design problems. Deregulation and competition to fly the cheapest seat make cost-cutting de regueur. Especially, with third-world airlines more likely to cut corners in maintenance and expensive simulator time. The ONLY place where today's flight crew get to practice their skills.

---

weebray - 7-13-2019 at 07:54 AM

Shame on Boeing. Shame on Bill. This is not a normal minor design deficiency. People died by a calculated decision by management to save the bottom line. Wall Street rules. There was no better training for one reason. A new "type" aircraft was created sidestepping the inconvenience of certifying it so. The Boeing flag has mud on it, deservedly so.

---

Shame ?

MrBillM - 7-13-2019 at 08:55 AM

Bull.

---

BajaTed - 7-13-2019 at 10:17 AM

Retired Boeing IT guy here.
Being a legacy SoCal Rockwell IT guy, we found out quick that Boeing Commercial Aircraft Systems (BCAS) Seattle were always resistant to adopting anything SoCal based; Hughes, McDonnell Douglas or Rockwell did better within Boeing Defense Systems. When we suggested they adopt some of the award winning IT quality and testing practices used with the Hellfire missile, they basically told us were the tail that wags the dog, go away.
So, here we are today with MCAS and all its unknown fault trees.

---

LancairDriver - 7-13-2019 at 10:51 AM

Corporate consolidation in both the commercial sector as well as the aerospace sector has resulted in exposing the myth of “bigger is better” philosophy. It is better for corporate bottom line in the short run, by huge reductions of people and duplication of jobs. In the long run we are increasingly seeing the reduction of quality and services. The government loves it as they don’t have the hassle of fighting with as many competitors in the bidding process, particularly in the defense sector. Good example shown in the Iraq war debacle with the no bid contracts in the billions of dollars to Halliburton, and Brown and Root among many others. Most pilots who flew the Douglas aircraft thought they were the best and noted the reduction in quality in the newer aircraft that were the products of both US and European consolidation. Of course, the advances in GPS and other computer and space based technology has been game changing in every sector, making many things from driving your automobile to flying more efficiently but of course ultimately not without some price to be paid.

---

weebray - 7-13-2019 at 12:25 PM

My corporate dealings with Brown and Root, Halliburton, RMK-BRJ etc. only goes back to the war in Vietnam. I assume it goes back and back and back even farther. Open checkbook days. We couldn't bank it fast enough. In retrospect grossly sad - but - the really sad thing is that it still goes on. One of the smartest comments I ever heard from George W. was his warning about using our troops for nation-building. Boeing, here, is using passengers as corporate profit fodder.

---

BajaBill74 - 7-15-2019 at 03:20 PM

I haven't seen an answer to the original question "Aeromexico still flying 737 max?"

---

JoeJustJoe - 7-15-2019 at 06:02 PM

I haven't seen any changes since Aeromexico, suspended the 737 MAX.
____________________

Mexico's Aeromexico suspends Boeing 737 MAX planes

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ethiopia-airplane-aeromex...

---