Lion Air Report

[Busher]

PUMA44. I did not fly in the Air Force. I have the utmost respect for those that did. I trained numerous pilots from both Fighter and Transport Command how to fly large airliners. And that was an easy job. The commitment to the discipline of "doing it right" made them, without exception, easy to train.

I spent many years of my career as a Check Airman/Instructor and a couple of years as Director of Flight Standards, so I have zero tolerance for any "crap" of any kind in the cockpit.

Maybe you can comment on USAF protocol but any kind of "cowboy antics" - even once - was a guaranteed trip out the door of my airline... no talking to... no additional training... just a pink slip. It only happened once to a cowboy in my airline - he died flying a DC3 in Sri Lanka a couple of years later. It was probably the only job he could get.

[Puma44]

PUMA44. I did not fly in the Air Force. I have the utmost respect for those that did. I trained numerous pilots from both Fighter and Transport Command how to fly large airliners. And that was an easy job. The commitment to the discipline of "doing it right" made them, without exception, easy to train.

I spent many years of my career as a Check Airman/Instructor and a couple of years as Director of Flight Standards, so I have zero tolerance for any "crap" of any kind in the cockpit.

Maybe you can comment on USAF protocol but any kind of "cowboy antics" - even once - was a guaranteed trip out the door of my airline... no talking to... no additional training... just a pink slip. It only happened once to a cowboy in my airline - he died flying a DC3 in Sri Lanka a couple of years later. It was probably the only job he could get.

If a USAF pilot commits a serious act of buffoonery, especially intentional, a Flying Evaluation Board (FEB) of senior officers is convened to determined if the pilot will keep that set of hard earned wings. 

On the other hand, the occasional cowboy who always seems to be doing a carpet dance, can be delt with during the annual OPR (Officer Performance Rating i.e., report card that is a permanent part of an officer’s records and weighs heavily during promotion board considerations).  A less than sterling OPR can send a subtle message that it’s time to separate from the USAF and move on.

These are the primary methods of dealing with frequent trouble makers.  For the random occurances, there are numerous other techniques, such as a time period sitting in the RSU (Runway Supervisory Unit) watching everyone else fly and checking that they have landing gear down and locked before landing.

[guncrasher]

This industry requires brutal honesty.    There is no place here for participation trophies.  Your point of view (not you personally) is ignorant and uninformed.    That's an assessment not a personal attack.

You don't know what you're talking about.   The bulk of the rest of us do, particularly those with relevant experience.  Simple as that.

you talk about brutal honesty, but you forget that the problem started with a software malfunction.  yes the pilots screwed up, I have never denied that.  but you hold on to the idea that a real pilot would have fixed that and there shouldnt have been cause for grounding the plane.  as a passenger, since I have no knowledge of how an airplane works, it bugs me to think there's pilots out there who think like you do, yes there's a problem with the software and I say that loosely , but a real pilot should manage it.  not like let's fix the software so the problem doesnt happen again.

have read reports of a pilot that all he had to do was to watch a video and was certified to fly that plane even though he wanted extra training.  he was denied based on he was certified to fly another version of it.  just like you mention, I have been certified in this plane and I can fly plane b and c since basically they're the same.  also read reports that and forgive me for not knowing the proper structure, that training manuals didnt have "what to do in case of this" whatever.  also 2 american airlines didnt even know the change in the plane software change, and again forgive me for not describing the right way.



semp

[Vraciu]

you talk about brutal honesty, but you forget that the problem started with a software malfunction.  yes the pilots screwed up, I have never denied that.  but you hold on to the idea that a real pilot would have fixed that and there shouldnt have been cause for grounding the plane.  as a passenger, since I have no knowledge of how an airplane works, it bugs me to think there's pilots out there who think like you do, yes there's a problem with the software and I say that loosely , but a real pilot should manage it.  not like let's fix the software so the problem doesnt happen again.

The software didn't crash the airplane, the crew did.   Things break.   It happens.   How you deal with it determines the outcome.

have read reports of a pilot that all he had to do was to watch a video and was certified to fly that plane even though he wanted extra training.  he was denied based on he was certified to fly another version of it.  just like you mention, I have been certified in this plane and I can fly plane b and c since basically they're the same.  also read reports that and forgive me for not knowing the proper structure, that training manuals didnt have "what to do in case of this" whatever.  also 2 american airlines didnt even know the change in the plane software change, and again forgive me for not describing the right way.



semp

He's grandstanding.    If you don't feel safe to operate the aircraft there's a simple solution: DON'T. 

I've talked to friends at both United and Southwest.  They say they were aware of the system long before this Lion Air fiasco.  I've posted screenshots of the Differences Manual where it is discussed. 

When the trim runs away FOR ANY CAUSE the procedure to deal with it is the same as it has been since the 737-100.  You turn it off* and trim manually.   EVERYONE typed on this jet should know that.

--
*We also do this in the Embraer and Falcon.  Turn it off and leave it off unless directed otherwise by the QRH.

[Puma44]

“....but you hold on to the idea that a real pilot would have fixed that....”

The basic point is made right here.  A real pilot would not have drilled his 737 into the ground at 500 PLUS KNOTS and the thrust levers at the forward stops.  These guys that did so transitioned from pilots to passengers when something out of the ordinary happened.  Real pilots would have taken the proper action and saved both of these 737s and their passengers.

[Mister Fork]

I think the problem is this. Planes have become so automated that inexperienced and undertrained pilots can now fly these complex aircraft by simply using these systems.

For third world countries, they can hire these types of junior pilots for their airlines giving the bubble impression that they are modern airlines flying modern “safe airplanes.” 

Then, when real sheit hits the fan with a technical problem, these pilots, who really have no business flying these complex aircraft, usually thunder in the planes. Even if you have thousands of hours flying these planes, you’re still a newb because it’s a very stale experience. It’s not like they started out as fighter pilots, or flying rubber chickens out of Hong Kong in a beat up DC-3. They’re still a  monkey pushing buttons and have zero technical experience in dealing with issues.

Question is - how much does Boeing own responsibility in selling their aircraft knowing the airline has basically junior pilots flying their airplanes?

[Puma44]

I think the problem is this. Planes have become so automated that inexperienced and undertrained pilots can now fly these complex aircraft by simply using these systems.

For third world countries, they can hire these types of junior pilots for their airlines giving the bubble impression that they are modern airlines flying modern “safe airplanes.” 

Then, when real sheit hits the fan with a technical problem, these pilots, who really have no business flying these complex aircraft, usually thunder in the planes. Even if you have thousands of hours flying these planes, you’re still a newb because it’s a very stale experience. It’s not like they started out as fighter pilots, or flying rubber chickens out of Hong Kong in a beat up DC-3. They’re still a  monkey pushing buttons and have zero technical experience in dealing with issues.

Question is - how much does Boeing own responsibility in selling their aircraft knowing the airline has basically junior pilots flying their airplanes?

Good point Fork.  Over the years, Boeing has done some “dummy down” things in the 737 pilot manual to take into account low time/experienced pilots.  One glaring example was in the description of how to land the jet in a crosswind.  Previously, it had prescribed the wing low method, i.e. Private Pilot 101.  The procedure was changed to fly down final in a crab and maintain the crab through the touchdown.  There was a lot of discussion within the pilot group about this change and why it had been made. Soon word came down from a source a Boeing that it was to accommodate low time/experience pilots in third world countries that had difficult with the 737 in the wing low crosswind method.  In time, I met a senior Captain who had just tried it.  He said that when the jet touched down in the crab, inertia jerked the nose to the centerline with such violence that he was “never going to do that again”.  He was going to continue with the tried and true wing low method.

[Vraciu]

Good point Fork.  Over the years, Boeing has done some “dummy down” things in the 737 pilot manual to take into account low time/experienced pilots.  One glaring example was in the description of how to land the jet in a crosswind.  Previously, it had prescribed the wing low method, i.e. Private Pilot 101.  The procedure was changed to fly down final in a crab and maintain the crab through the touchdown.  There was a lot of discussion within the pilot group about this change and why it had been made. Soon word came down from a source a Boeing that it was to accommodate low time/experience pilots in third world countries that had difficult with the 737 in the wing low crosswind method.  In time, I met a senior Captain who had just tried it.  He said that when the jet touched down in the crab, inertia jerked the nose to the centerline with such violence that he was “never going to do that again”.  He was going to continue with the tried and true wing low method.

Sadly the scimitar winglets are scaring people away from the wing low method. 

Thankfully Embraer 145s have plenty of room for that.   Makes crosswind work a breeze. 

[Vraciu]

I think the problem is this. Planes have become so automated that inexperienced and undertrained pilots can now fly these complex aircraft by simply using these systems.

For third world countries, they can hire these types of junior pilots for their airlines giving the bubble impression that they are modern airlines flying modern “safe airplanes.” 

Then, when real sheit hits the fan with a technical problem, these pilots, who really have no business flying these complex aircraft, usually thunder in the planes. Even if you have thousands of hours flying these planes, you’re still a newb because it’s a very stale experience. It’s not like they started out as fighter pilots, or flying rubber chickens out of Hong Kong in a beat up DC-3. They’re still a  monkey pushing buttons and have zero technical experience in dealing with issues.

Question is - how much does Boeing own responsibility in selling their aircraft knowing the airline has basically junior pilots flying their airplanes?

Automation has gone too far.   There’s no question about that. It’s easy for even experienced guys to find themselves out of the loop.   It’s a real problem.    But with arrival, departure, and approach procedures becoming maddeningly complex we are chasing our tails...

[FLS]

you talk about brutal honesty, but you forget that the problem started with a software malfunction.  ...

That's not correct. Everything except the pilots and the faulty AOA sensor worked as designed.

The problem was that those pilots weren't ready to fly the airplane.

[Vraciu]

That's not correct. Everything except the pilots and the faulty AOA sensor worked as designed.

The problem was that those pilots weren't ready to fly the airplane.

Good catch.

[Shuffler]

That's not correct. Everything except the pilots and the faulty AOA sensor worked as designed.

The problem was that those pilots weren't ready to fly the airplane.

Bingo

[guncrasher]

That's not correct. Everything except the pilots and the faulty AOA sensor worked as designed.

The problem was that those pilots weren't ready to fly the airplane.

yes sir, toyota had a problem with accelerator getting stuck and it was faulty along with the driver's being inexperienced enough.  but the rest of the car worked as designed.  90 people died just because the driver's didnt do one of two things, turn engine off or simply put the car in neutral.  it's driver's fault 100%, not the car.


semp

[FLS]

Toyota had a problem with some mats interfering with the gas pedal. After that they were accused of acceleration caused by pressing the brake pedal. That never happened but it still cost them because enough people will believe anything.

Your arguments are silly and have nothing to do with pilot proficiency standards. 

[Busher]

I think the problem is this. Planes have become so automated that inexperienced and undertrained pilots can now fly these complex aircraft by simply using these systems.

For third world countries, they can hire these types of junior pilots for their airlines giving the bubble impression that they are modern airlines flying modern “safe airplanes.” 

Then, when real sheit hits the fan with a technical problem, these pilots, who really have no business flying these complex aircraft, usually thunder in the planes. Even if you have thousands of hours flying these planes, you’re still a newb because it’s a very stale experience. It’s not like they started out as fighter pilots, or flying rubber chickens out of Hong Kong in a beat up DC-3. They’re still a  monkey pushing buttons and have zero technical experience in dealing with issues.

Question is - how much does Boeing own responsibility in selling their aircraft knowing the airline has basically junior pilots flying their airplanes?

Mister Fork, I agree with Puma44 that you have made an excellent point here.

I can't decide whether to make Boeing or a consortium of Aviation Regulators responsible for pilot standards; but someone has to be. You may recall that some years ago, as a result of a horrendous accident record, Garuda Indonesian Airlines was blocked from operating anywhere in the European Union. Garuda improved their standards proving actions such as this do help.
In the latest monthly issue of ALPA's magazine, the forecast for pilot demand by 2030 in the Asia Pacific area was almost 250000 new pilots. This number exceeded North America and Europe combined. If things do not change, the hull losses could become frightening.