More MAX information

[TyFoo]

Would the light have made a difference? There's going to be discussion on whether or not this should be optional. I think one of the mandated changes may well be to install this option on every one of the MAX aircraft.

I saw another article where Southwest is putting the AOA display into the PFD.  Picture in the article linked below. It's already in the HUD of every MAX apparently. (  https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/southwest-airlines-is-adding-new-angle-of-attack-indicators-to-its-737-max-fleet/  )

The crew reacted to the situation as they did right or wrong (and I am not bashing these guys). I personally do not think with regards to this particular incident that adding another indication would have helped.

They were in VMC conditions. In the absence of an AOA gauge, CAS message, light, aural warning, chime, ring a ding a ding, etc they still had outside visual cues. Inside they had all of the air data needed to keep the blue sky above and the brown/ green ground below.

When things start going wrong and you add limited altitude, time, and physical input it would not take long for the crew involved, to be overwhelmed trying to assess all the information coming at them. Flying the aircraft is the most important issue, which they obviously were trying to do.

“If" they were unable to work through the information already coming at them, and control the aircraft in VMC conditions what would the added gadgetry fix?

[Shuffler]

The crew reacted to the situation as they did right or wrong (and I am not bashing these guys). I personally do not think with regards to this particular incident that adding another indication would have helped.

They were in VMC conditions. In the absence of an AOA gauge, CAS message, light, aural warning, chime, ring a ding a ding, etc they still had outside visual cues. Inside they had all of the air data needed to keep the blue sky above and the brown/ green ground below.

When things start going wrong and you add limited altitude, time, and physical input it would not take long for the crew involved, to be overwhelmed trying to assess all the information coming at them. Flying the aircraft is the most important issue, which they obviously were trying to do.

“If" they were unable to work through the information already coming at them, and control the aircraft in VMC conditions what would the added gadgetry fix?

So you are saying they were not capable of flying the aircraft?

[Toad]

“If" they were unable to work through the information already coming at them, and control the aircraft in VMC conditions what would the added gadgetry fix?

It would be a major step in fulfilling the demand from the media that Boeing "DO SOMETHING!!!!" Whether or not it fixed the problem is immaterial to the media.

 

If I were the Boeing CEO, I'd roll out a free program to upgrade the software to include this feature on all MAX aircraft immediately. Just for the sake of good optics. I think in any event they'll have to do it as part of getting the grounding lifted. Might as well volunteer it.

[Ciaphas]

So you are saying they were not capable of flying the aircraft?

I believe what is being said is that under normal operating conditions sure, the pilots could go through the motions to keep her in the air but under abnormal conditions, they lack the experience needed to respond quickly with accurate remedies.

This can be said of just about any trade where emergency situations can pop up out of nowhere and require years of hands on experience to quickly fix or make safe.

The most dangerous people are those armed with only enough information to operate a system or platform. Often times having to much information and not enough practical hands on experience is just as dangerous if not more dangerous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Puma44]

So you are saying they were not capable of flying the aircraft?

They are capable of flying the aircraft or they wouldn’t be in the seat.  It comes down to experience, judgement, and reaction time.  A new pilot just isn’t going have the experience and situational awareness to make a decision and react to a perfect storm type of event in a timely manner, in most cases.  The learning curve as a new pilot in the 737 was, for me, nearly vertical for the first few months.

[Puma44]

It would be a major step in fulfilling the demand from the media that Boeing "DO SOMETHING!!!!" Whether or not it fixed the problem is immaterial to the media.

 

Ain’t that the truth! To make it really stick, “they” will probably use the military technique of shotgun blasting everyone in sight.  Of course, there will have to be some new regulations to prevent this from ever happening again, whatever “this” happens to be.

[Shuffler]

I was waiting on Tyfoo but I do agree. Just keeping the plane in the air on a sunny day does not a pilot make.

[Vraciu]

They are capable of flying the aircraft or they wouldn’t be in the seat.  It comes down to experience, judgement, and reaction time.  A new pilot just isn’t going have the experience and situational awareness to make a decision and react to a perfect storm type of event in a timely manner, in most cases.  The learning curve as a new pilot in the 737 was, for me, nearly vertical for the first few months.

There is a difference between minimally capable and fully competent. 

Karen Black can fly a 747 as long as the autopilot is working.  What does she do when it quits?  (Beg for Charleton Heston to get there first I guess.)

[Busher]

Just tying in with what Puma said. I am wondering if some high time pilots might have just gotten to the point where they have forgotten how to "fly" the plane rather than the instrument package and auto pilot? I am not trying to be snarkey, just mentioning that a newer pilot with fewer hours might be a tad more closer to his / her training in actual hand flying than an old head who has spent years twisting nobs on the autopilot. In short I think there can be good points to both sides. The high time pilot has the experience if they recall the basics as well. The newer pilot is less jaded / complacent perhaps and more into hands on. Just a thought.

I found this comment quite interesting but keep in mind, when I welcomed new First Officers to my "office" the least experienced typically had been flying high performance turboprops in a regional or freight carrier for a year or more. There's an ocean of room between that background and 200 hours.
As to hand flying, you have heard me say that it was manufacturer and airline policy to use the automation as much as possible. But, I knew not one pilot that didn't love the ATC call "If you can keep it in tight I'll make you number 1 to land, you're cleared the visual". In other words, we ALL loved to hand fly it.

[TyFoo]

So you are saying they were not capable of flying the aircraft?

No, I said they were obviously trying to fly the aircraft. Toad, Ciaphas and Puma basically expanded on what I was trying to convey.

I was commenting more on the idea what Toad wrote about - with regards to the media. The media says just about anything to reach the reader/ watcher and come off sounding like experts or at the least acting like they have insider information. Unfortunately too many people form opinions based more on emotion than fact pressuring politicians and officials to “react” to a problem yet to be identified. Was it the Plane? Or was it the Crew? Or was it a combination of both? I don’t know. However, like everybody else I would like to know.

There is a lot going on - on a flight deck. Especially after takeoff. All while going 287.5 mph. It takes two good crew members to manage that kind of mass moving that fast. When an “Uh Oh” happens it takes two well trained, cognizant, understanding, intelligent crew members to work through a problem and get the aircraft safely back. Put a crimp into any of this on a good day and it takes away from the best possible outcome you can ask for.

Despite all the conjecture, and a true lack of any “Official” published data, I wouldn’t comment on the crews performance until all the facts are in. Yes I have my opinion, and for the most part align with others in the business here. But I'll wait as I would like to know what happened and take away any lesson that can be learned.

Having said that. . . . And not to Hijack the thread......
This is a link from the NTSB on the Learjet crash last year at Teterboro.  If you want to listen and watch something that will make you question a persons thought process, a companies hiring practice and work policy, training, lack of situational awareness, procedure, and a lack of piloting then this is it.

I want to say that you should be amazed that something like this could happen, but unfortunately there are many more out there like this and companies that think its ok to hire people that act this way.

And No, the final report has not been released on this particular accident, but the video speaks volumes.

https://youtu.be/67Yw87l3Atw

[Busher]

Puma said "The learning curve as a new pilot in the 737 was, for me, nearly vertical for the first few months."

With all respect Sir I have to call you on this one. I spent some time as a line check airman and former jet fighter pilots were a joy to line indoc. You had long developed the feel for a jet wing and jet engine behaviour. I bet the 737 felt like a gutless slug after the phantom. I never flew military jets but would have loved to try one. But sadly an airforce pilot's job in Canada is 4 to 5 years of flying followed by 20 more on a desk; hence I never applied.

[Vraciu]

Puma said "The learning curve as a new pilot in the 737 was, for me, nearly vertical for the first few months."

With all respect Sir I have to call you on this one. I spent some time as a line check airman and former jet fighter pilots were a joy to line indoc. You had long developed the feel for a jet wing and jet engine behaviour. I bet the 737 felt like a gutless slug after the phantom. I never flew military jets but would have loved to try one. But sadly an airforce pilot's job in Canada is 4 to 5 years of flying followed by 20 more on a desk; hence I never applied.

I'll just say that the single seat fighter guys were GREAT, but, they learned as much from me as I learned from them.    They were certainly out of their element going from a Viper to a Falcon 50/900 or Legacy 600/650. 

But they tended to be willing to learn and also to share what they knew.   I've put the many things they talked about into my toolkit.

[Busher]

No, I said they were obviously trying to fly the aircraft. Toad, Ciaphas and Puma basically expanded on what I was trying to convey.

I was commenting more on the idea what Toad wrote about - with regards to the media. The media says just about anything to reach the reader/ watcher and come off sounding like experts or at the least acting like they have insider information. Unfortunately too many people form opinions based more on emotion than fact pressuring politicians and officials to “react” to a problem yet to be identified. Was it the Plane? Or was it the Crew? Or was it a combination of both? I don’t know. However, like everybody else I would like to know.

There is a lot going on - on a flight deck. Especially after takeoff. All while going 287.5 mph. It takes two good crew members to manage that kind of mass moving that fast. When an “Uh Oh” happens it takes two well trained, cognizant, understanding, intelligent crew members to work through a problem and get the aircraft safely back. Put a crimp into any of this on a good day and it takes away from the best possible outcome you can ask for.

Despite all the conjecture, and a true lack of any “Official” published data, I wouldn’t comment on the crews performance until all the facts are in. Yes I have my opinion, and for the most part align with others in the business here. But I'll wait as I would like to know what happened and take away any lesson that can be learned.

Having said that. . . . And not to Hijack the thread......
This is a link from the NTSB on the Learjet crash last year at Teterboro.  If you want to listen and watch something that will make you question a persons thought process, a companies hiring practice and work policy, training, lack of situational awareness, procedure, and a lack of piloting then this is it.

I want to say that you should be amazed that something like this could happen, but unfortunately there are many more out there like this and companies that think its ok to hire people that act this way.

And No, the final report has not been released on this particular accident, but the video speaks volumes.

https://youtu.be/67Yw87l3Atw

Thank you Tyfoo. This is an excellent post but I have concerns that we might never know the complete truth. If the pilots acted or failed to act such that they were ultimately the cause of the accident, pilot experience will no doubt be discussed at length. The reality is that highly experienced new hire airline pilots are a thing of the past.
So will the authorities shake the faith of the world's airline passengers by suggesting that cockpits are not always adequately crewed. I have some doubt.
As to that horrific lear crash, I am familiar with it; I also have some time in lears. I don't believe we will ever know if this crash was complacency or incompetence.

[Toad]

I want to say that you should be amazed that something like this could happen, but unfortunately there are many more out there like this and companies that think its ok to hire people that act this way.

WOW! That hits about every  >DO NOT< on the CRM checklist.

Tough to watch.

[Toad]

So will the authorities shake the faith of the world's airline passengers by suggesting that cockpits are not always adequately crewed. I have some doubt. 

Toad:The authorities are in a tough spot; not enough qualified aviators and a public not ready to accept RPV B-737s and A-320s. Couple that with technology that at present cannot fully substitute for a qualified aviator in all situations.


As to that horrific lear crash, I am familiar with it; I also have some time in lears. I don't believe we will ever know if this crash was complacency or incompetence.   Toad: Probably both.