NY Times Max opinion

Discuss topics relating to airlines.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, North Shore

Post Reply
Redwine
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 10:20 pm
Location: FLINE@9

NY Times Max opinion

Post by Redwine »

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/17/opin ... 7-max.html

The Boeing 737 Max Crisis Is a Leadership Failure
Safety begins at the top, and the top officials at Boeing and the Federal Aviation Administration have let us down.

Share on FacebookPost on TwitterMail
Image

CreditMatt Chase
By Jim Hall and Peter Goelz
Mr. Hall was chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board from 1994 to 2001. Mr. Goelz was managing director of the board from 1996 to 2000.
July 17, 2019
We’ve seen this before: A Boeing airliner crashes, killing all aboard. Investigators believe a design flaw in the aircraft played a major role in the accident, but Boeing blames the pilots. Eventually, the design flaw is corrected, but not before another plane crashes, leaving more deaths in its wake.

In our time at the National Transportation Safety Board we saw this happen — long before the two Boeing crashes in the past year.

On March 3, 1991, a United Airlines Boeing 737 crashed on approach to Colorado Springs, killing all 25 people aboard. After an investigation of almost two years, the N.T.S.B. concluded that one of the two likely causes was a malfunctioning rudder power control unit, which moved the rudder in the opposite direction to that intended by the pilots. The agency recommended that the Federal Aviation Administration require airlines to install a modified part, to prevent future rudder reversals, as soon as Boeing made them available, but Boeing failed to do that.

On Sept. 8, 1994, a USAir 737 crashed as it neared Pittsburgh, killing all 132 people aboard. Despite the obvious similarities between the two crashes that were revealed during the investigation, Boeing insisted even to the final stages of the second inquiry that there was nothing wrong with the design of the aircraft, and the company again pointed to improper pilot rudder commands as the cause.

ADVERTISEMENT

In the end, the rudder was indeed determined to have malfunctioned and caused both crashes. Boeing redesigned the part, and it was retrofitted in all 737s. There has not been a crash caused by that issue since then.

But this disturbing culture of denial persists today at Boeing, as shown by the revelations following the crashes of two 737 Max 8 aircraft in Indonesia and Ethiopia, which killed 346 people. The company has an institutional reluctance to even examine potential design flaws in its product.

Boeing’s stubborn resistance to admit its mistakes — even as those mistakes have delayed the return to operation of 737 Max planes by several months, according to The Wall Street Journal — are turning into a disaster for the company and its customers. Some of the families of the victims testified before Congress on Wednesday.

Even worse, Boeing has found a willing partner in the F.A.A., which allowed the company to circumvent standard certification processes so it could sell aircraft more quickly. Boeing’s inadequate regard for safety and the F.A.A.’s complicity display an unconscionable lack of leadership at both organizations.

ADVERTISEMENT

Boeing’s first public statements after the Indonesia crash in October, supported by the F.A.A., questioned the abilities of the pilots, even though subsequent reporting has shown that pilots were not given the information they needed to properly react to the aircraft’s unexpected descents. Only after the crash of the second Max 8 in Ethiopia, in March, did Boeing acknowledge that software in the planes’ cockpits played a major role in the accidents.

Related
More on the Boeing 737.
The Dangerous Flaws in Boeing’s Automated SystemMarch 29, 2019
image
What You Need to Know About the Deadly Boeing 737 Max CrashesMarch 22, 2019
image
The 737 Max of today — a 143-foot-long plane seating more than 230 people — is a very different aircraft from the humble 737 of the 1960s, which was only 94 feet long and seated no more than 118. But the current regulatory system allows for significant modifications of an aircraft design without requiring a new certification review. Even though the new plane had different flight characteristics, larger engines and a new flight management system, no simulator training was required for pilots familiar with older model 737s, a marketing move designed by Boeing to increase sales. And the F.A.A. allowed this.

Safety begins at the top, and the top at both Boeing and the F.A.A. has let us down. Boeing’s board must find out who has enabled and encouraged this corporate culture, and hold those leaders accountable, beginning with the chief executive, Dennis Muilenburg.

ADVERTISEMENT

But this is bigger than the Max 8. We now have an airline safety agency that has become less and less forceful in exercising its regulatory authority over an aircraft manufacturer, even one that appears to be aggressively prioritizing profits over safety. It hasn’t helped that, like many government agencies, the F.A.A. has been without a permanent leader for 18 months.

Congress has permitted this to occur, but it can make the system much stronger. Two decades ago, lawmakers wisely sought to remove the F.A.A. from the political process by giving its administrator a five-year term so that the agency would have continuity of leadership. Congress can push for a permanent F.A.A. administrator, and use its oversight authority to make sure that the new leadership re-establishes the proper relationship between the regulator and the regulated.

The bottom line is that two nearly new, American-built airliners crashed within a few months of each other and nearly 350 people died. No one should be proud of the regulatory structure that put these planes in the air. We need major changes now.

Jim Hall was chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board from 1994 to 2001. Peter Goelz was managing director of the board from 1996 to 2000.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
---------- ADS -----------
 
...Seems they are going to remove the axe and the control column from the cockpits for security reasons.
co-joe
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4562
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:33 am
Location: YYC 230 degree radial at about 10 DME

Re: NY Times Max opinion

Post by co-joe »

The 737 Max of today — a 143-foot-long plane seating more than 230 people — is a very different aircraft from the humble 737 of the 1960s, which was only 94 feet long and seated no more than 118. But the current regulatory system allows for significant modifications of an aircraft design without requiring a new certification review. Even though the new plane had different flight characteristics, larger engines and a new flight management system, no simulator training was required for pilots familiar with older model 737s, a marketing move designed by Boeing to increase sales. And the F.A.A. allowed this.
Pretty sure the max isn't on the 73A type rating but rather is on the 73C isn't it?
---------- ADS -----------
 
vrefplus5
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:04 pm

Re: NY Times Max opinion

Post by vrefplus5 »

You're correct.....but only in Canada. The FAA issues a blanket B737 type that covers the B737 (200 to 900 to MAX)
---------- ADS -----------
 
Eric Janson
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1243
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:44 am

Re: NY Times Max opinion

Post by Eric Janson »

Looks to me that they are finding more and more problems as they look at the certification of this aircraft.

Still 40+ aircraft being built every month - these will need to be modified before they can be delivered.

My guess is that if more issues are found the entire certification may need to be re-done. Doesn't appear this aircraft will be back this year.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Always fly a stable approach - it's the only stability you'll find in this business
Warden
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:08 pm

Re: NY Times Max opinion

Post by Warden »

Some American carriers have removed the Max from their skeds until January. AC is not anticipating them to come back before the new year either.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DirtyDashDriver
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 50
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: NY Times Max opinion

Post by DirtyDashDriver »

This statement from a Boeing Engineer sums up their problems up quite nicely for me:
Rabin, the former software engineer, recalled one manager saying at an all-hands meeting that Boeing didn’t need senior engineers because its products were mature.
- Robinson, 2019

While the article is speaking to the 737 Max Software, I wonder if this same attitude is prevalent throughout other departments at Boeing.

From Bloomberg @ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -engineers
---------- ADS -----------
 
Human Factor
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 379
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 11:55 pm
Location: Between a dock and a hard place.

Re: NY Times Max opinion

Post by Human Factor »

Warden wrote: Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:40 pm Some American carriers have removed the Max from their skeds until January. AC is not anticipating them to come back before the new year either.
I'm booked on WestJet in August and one of my legs has me listed on, gasp, a MAX. :shock:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Will fix airplanes for food.
Victory
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 464
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:32 am

Re: NY Times Max opinion

Post by Victory »

Prepare for a possible flight cancellation then.
---------- ADS -----------
 
yycflyguy
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2766
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:18 am

Re: NY Times Max opinion

Post by yycflyguy »

Victory wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2019 6:42 am Prepare for a possible flight cancellation then.
More likely an equipment change to an NG
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Airline Industry Comments”