Boeing's Crashes Expose Systemic Failings

And as much as it fuckin irks me...US better throw them a juicy bailout if necessary. Because one aircraft manufacturer global monopoly would be a epic shitshow.

Boeing and Airbus have to walk away from this alive and roughly equal.

A number of possible answers (and no, pilot skill not the only one - though everyone is focusing on that and boeing).

Maintenance.

This issue develops IF the computer gets bad data from a sensor.

Question - would this sort of thing get fixed more quickly in the US?

For the Ethiopian crash we have in days leading up to crash errors in the system - all different flights

* Capt side altimeter erratic, showed a decent and lower level then back to normal.

* During approach at 1000' the aircraft started to roll right with the auto pilot engaged.

* During approach at 8K altimeter rapidly descended and returned to normal - caused autopilot problems.

* During takeoff altitude and vert speed on both PFDs showed erratic indications

For Lion Air in days leading up an increase in warnings. Some excerpts.

* Speed trim fail light and mach trim fail light * Auto throttle diconnect * Speed and Alt flag * Feel diff pressure - fail light illuminated * Maintenance light illuminated during landing

Regulatory regime

What's the local situation in terms of check rides, maintenance monitoring and cross checks, airline procedure monitoring etc. Ethiopia has a relatively stronger reputation here.

Training

The memory item in this situation is basically a revert to manual flight. There is a possibility that manual flight is not as common in some countries, particularly if they don't have a large General Aviation pool to pull from. This is a concern in US as well (automation reliance).

The path to getting onto a jet in US is currently different than other places. To be a first officer takes 1,500+ hours and an ATP. That's a pretty high bar.

This is a design issue I think as well -> should Boeing reasonably consider that there may be differences between pilot groups in terms of training pathways. I would suggest obviously yes. Is the FAA at fault because other countries may choose different approaches? That's less clear to me. BTW the FAA did a terrible job for a while with small charter operators in financial distress with bad maintenance for example - so the FAA has blindspots but their Part 121 stuff has a good record so far.

The US system has had some amazing saves -> failures with airport bird control -> capt sully etc. Often these pilots aren't jet fighter pilots but have things like glider or small plane experience that is helpful. So systems break down in US, but saves happen.

My US worries are maintenance given cost pressures and actually Air Traffic Control (given fatigue and some weakening of standards there around new hiring).

Ask lawyers who have a vested interest in finding someone with deep pockets at fault so they can collect on contingency.

None of you apparently wishes to hear it, but the cause of both these crashes, most proximately, was poor training of the flight crews.

Whatever Boeing did or did not do, and whatever corners they may have cut to reduce cost and remain competitive, these crashes cannot be laid at their door.

It's the inconvenient truth. The unpopular opinion. From the one person here who seems to have read and understood the preliminary accident reports and the FDR data: these aircraft experienced a runaway trim situation, and, whatever the cause, that is something that pilots must be trained to recognize and respond to without consulting the checklists.

Boeing and basic flight training provided everything needed to handle these emergencies. We can argue (as ALPA no doubt will) about the adequacy of training materials and what Boeing should have made sure pilots knew about the systems, blah, blah, blah.

In the end, if you cannot recognize a runaway trim condition in any aircraft you need to get busted back to flight school to start again.

That assumption and the birthday paradox is what leaves people walking funny.