Ethiopian Airlines Crash; Another 737 Max

Ahem:

"On Saturday, pilots from the five airlines simulated flights with the software as it was originally written, as well as with the proposed updates."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/...html?action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage

Which should surprise absolutely nobody. The US crews had no problems recovering the aircraft.
That's a surprise? This is the most talked about thing right now in the 737 pilot community. You get invited to Boeing to look at the changes in the simulator. Do you really think any one would not have handled this problem now, at this point in time, when they know what's coming?
 
Ahem:

"On Saturday, pilots from the five airlines simulated flights with the software as it was originally written, as well as with the proposed updates."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/...html?action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage

Which should surprise absolutely nobody. The US crews had no problems recovering the aircraft.
Many people blame the pilots, and I'm one of them. The system could have been designed better, but we still fly plenty of airplanes, large and small, from which the pilot can pull wings with little trouble. Isn't that a rather large design flaw? And yet it's been around for more than a century. Proper training of the proper people gets proper results.
 
That's a surprise? This is the most talked about thing right now in the 737 pilot community. You get invited to Boeing to look at the changes in the simulator. Do you really think any one would not have handled this problem now, at this point in time, when they know what's coming?
This is what I meant to quote above:

"...pilots from five airlines strapped into flight simulators to see how they would have handled the situation that is believed to have brought down Lion Air Flight 610 in Indonesia, according to two people briefed on the meeting.

In each case, the pilots using the simulators were able to land the plane safely."

It was a simple trim runaway. They didn't need to know a blessed thing about MCAS to have handled it properly, as you can see. The Ehiopian crew had the post-Lion Air "training" and still crashed. Because they were a poorly-trained crew. Simple as that. Boeing can't protect us from poor piloting.
 
This is what I meant to quote above:

"...pilots from five airlines strapped into flight simulators to see how they would have handled the situation that is believed to have brought down Lion Air Flight 610 in Indonesia, according to two people briefed on the meeting.

In each case, the pilots using the simulators were able to land the plane safely."

It was a simple trim runaway. They didn't need to know a blessed thing about MCAS to have handled it properly, as you can see. The Ehiopian crew had the post-Lion Air "training" and still crashed. Because they were a poorly-trained crew. Simple as that. Boeing can't protect us from poor piloting.

Well, glad you figured out the problem. I guess we should send the investigators home.
 
Well, glad you figured out the problem. I guess we should send the investigators home.
Obviously, we don't know what actually happened in either of the crashes yet. But if it was a trim issue, caused by bogus input to MCAS or some other system, then the pilots didn't react properly. Is that qualified enough for you? We know we are speculating; humans do that. You can call out flaws in anyone's conclusions.
 
Many people blame the pilots, and I'm one of them. The system could have been designed better, but we still fly plenty of airplanes, large and small, from which the pilot can pull wings with little trouble. Isn't that a rather large design flaw? And yet it's been around for more than a century. Proper training of the proper people gets proper results.
But should you blame the pilots, or blame the training? Both need to be up to the task, IMO.
 
If I were the kind of guy that wondered about these things, I'd wonder to myself:

"Self, I wonder if why we haven't heard anything more about the FDR on the Ethiopian flight is that it doesn't implicate Boeing?"

I don't remember the timeline on the Lion Air crash, how long did it take for MCAS to be suspected?
 
...Do you think you were safe? I was specifically talking about 200–hour pilots flying paying passengers in 737s, which I think is... insane.

What’s the diff between paying pax and the aircrew or pax ordered to be on the jet?

Most all military aviators complete their initial flying training in 200 or so hours and can do the military competency process to obtain an FAA commercial ticket. The FAA feels the average military aviator is competent enough at 750 hours that they can get the restricted ATP and carry paying pax as an FO.

What’s insane is someone with 1500 of the same hour somehow being automatically experienced enough to fly a 737 from the right seat.

I felt safer with a brand new co-pilot driving the E-3 on their first training sortie then I do with the average airline crew, especially when flying on regionals.
 
Tantalum quite often, but others also
Some people, some of whom I've quoted below, are more eloquent than I in the stating of it.. but I try not to beat around the bush. I also blame myself when I trip on the sidewalk (instead of rushing to sue the city) and ultimately hold the human the most accountable when things go south. When someone is stabbed, I blame the perpetrator, not the knife. Why is it culturally so hard for some to assign blame to the actual conscious entity?

-The training is out there for runaway trim
-Hundreds of jets were flying safely
-Two jets crashed with small fleet sizes of the type
-Lion Air's own safety record should speak volumes
-So far we don't even know if MCAS was the cause of Ethiopian
-yes, @ircphoenix I do think (US / EU / CA / AUS) carriers to be safer. I would feel several times more comfortable getting on Lufthansa, DL, BA, UA, AA, than I would getting on Lion Air, Ethiopian, etc. Would you not? When people get nervous about flying on foreign carriers, why do you think that is? They're flying the same Airbus and Boeing everyone else is (for the most part).. it's the human element that people worry about there even if their "woke" and all that stuff

It's not an agenda. I'm trying to keep people sane here and their heads on straight. The only people with an obvious agenda are the media and the ones cancelling orders for the jets before any real findings are out. By that logic.. since we don't know the causes, we could also ground the Ethiopian and Lion Air carriers as well, since maybe their training culture is wrong.. or hell, since we know humans to be suboptimal and flying to inherently involve risks, just ground all flying until we find an optimal mode of transport (that's a reductio ad absurdium)

Unless I missed out, I didn't see a response on how one would define an "optimal" design. People will always make mistakes and accidents will always happen. Unfortunately, it's generally the person who is the weakest link in the chain. People still land planes gear up despite alarms, checklists, auto extend features, etc... People still crash cars despite brake assist, collision avoidance technology, ABS systems, etc. Are these suboptimal designs?

What would you have done different if you were Boeing, and had a business to run? I would think competent trim runaway procedures would cover what to do, when the trim runs away.

And because some people carry more tact than I:
Every 737 crew has been trained on the runaway stabilizer procecure. It hasn't changed in the 50 years since the airplane was introduced. Same for every other transport jet. They all have runaway stabilizer procedures and all of their crews have been trained in them.
Thank You

Many people blame the pilots, and I'm one of them. The system could have been designed better, but we still fly plenty of airplanes, large and small, from which the pilot can pull wings with little trouble. Isn't that a rather large design flaw? And yet it's been around for more than a century. Proper training of the proper people gets proper results.
Thank You

Self, I wonder if why we haven't heard anything more about the FDR on the Ethiopian flight is that it doesn't implicate Boeing?
s/ don't forget that government bodies are immune from political pressures and will give a purely factual, unbiased, synopsis. Surely we don't know more yet is because they're doing very diligent work.
 
What’s the diff between paying pax and the aircrew or pax ordered to be on the jet?

Most all military aviators complete their initial flying training in 200 or so hours and can do the military competency process to obtain an FAA commercial ticket. The FAA feels the average military aviator is competent enough at 750 hours that they can get the restricted ATP and carry paying pax as an FO.

What’s insane is someone with 1500 of the same hour somehow being automatically experienced enough to fly a 737 from the right seat.

I felt safer with a brand new co-pilot driving the E-3 on their first training sortie then I do with the average airline crew, especially when flying on regionals.
Are you trying to say that Ethiopian pilots are trained to the same standards of the USAF, or even close? Big, HUGE differences in the training styles, the amount of ground school, and quality of training would be my guess. I knew guys down in San Antonio going straight from Cessnas and Piper Tomahawks and maybe 10 hours in a Cessna 310 to their dad's Citation in Mexico and likely an airliner not too long after. Yes, those military guys can jump into things faster, but they get forced to do ground school and sims and it's an optimal environment.
 
Are you trying to say that Ethiopian pilots are trained to the same standards of the USAF, or even close?

No.

I’m saying an arbitrary number of hours doesn’t equate to a competent pilot.

I’m truly curious why @mryan75 thinks it insane to think the pax-paying public can’t be safely transported by a low-hour pilot, when the military does it all the time.

The difference, as you pointed out, is the quality of the training program. And the FAA recognizes it with the reduced hours for restricted ATP, along with the concurrent type rating (if applicable) with only a paperwork exercise.

Low-time ab initio FOs carry the pax-paying public with airlines around the world and they’re not routinely flying planes into the ground. And we did it (minus the ab initio part) in the US until Colgan 3407.
 
I’m saying an arbitrary number of hours doesn’t equate to a competent pilot.
Yes, exactly!

I always cringe a little bit when the media reports that a pilot only had X amount of hours, and even more when a friend or family member repeat something like that to me and then asks how many hours do I have. This to me is a scare tactic and clickbait. Especially because most people work a 40 hour week, so if you tell them the pilot only had 200 hours makes it seem like he's a total virgin

hours are a good macro level litmus test because it suggests that someone is at least decently safe given their experience level based on the hours however it is certainly not the only thing that makes somebody safe
 
Thanks! I figured it was dependent on the FSDO. I called my FSDO like 1.5 months ago and gave them my number to call back but they never did lol. I guess I’m pretty low on the priority.

I’d call back. The shutdown threw everything out the door. They most likely forgot or that sticky note got buried by accident.

If I don’t return a call it’s 100% me forgetting or I find that sticky note 3 weeks later under a folder.
 
No.

I’m saying an arbitrary number of hours doesn’t equate to a competent pilot.

I’m truly curious why @mryan75 thinks it insane to think the pax-paying public can’t be safely transported by a low-hour pilot, when the military does it all the time.

The difference, as you pointed out, is the quality of the training program. And the FAA recognizes it with the reduced hours for restricted ATP, along with the concurrent type rating (if applicable) with only a paperwork exercise.

Low-time ab initio FOs carry the pax-paying public with airlines around the world and they’re not routinely flying planes into the ground. And we did it (minus the ab initio part) in the US until Colgan 3407.
Low-hour pilots are simply much more prone to error and lack of understanding of systems and procedures in such complex aircraft. Do you think that 200-hour copilot in the Ethiopian plane was worth a bucket of warm spit in a pinch? I sincerely doubt it. They're fine turning dials when everything is operating as expected. When things go breasts up, you don't want a 200-hour wonder in the right seat.
 
Last edited:
Yes, exactly!

I always cringe a little bit when the media reports that a pilot only had X amount of hours, and even more when a friend or family member repeat something like that to me and then asks how many hours do I have. This to me is a scare tactic and clickbait. Especially because most people work a 40 hour week, so if you tell them the pilot only had 200 hours makes it seem like he's a total virgin

hours are a good macro level litmus test because it suggests that someone is at least decently safe given their experience level based on the hours however it is certainly not the only thing that makes somebody safe
I'm sure actuaries at insurance companies can give us a much more detailed answer than "ah, well, ya know, we sorta kinda think such and such hours might mean a pilot is pretty much safe." These things can be specified. A competent 200-hour pilot able to handle anything you can throw at them in the right seat of a transport category aircraft is a rare thing. People are making it out as if hours don't mean anything. I mean when was experience a measure of anything, right?
 
What’s the diff between paying pax and the aircrew or pax ordered to be on the jet?

Most all military aviators complete their initial flying training in 200 or so hours and can do the military competency process to obtain an FAA commercial ticket. The FAA feels the average military aviator is competent enough at 750 hours that they can get the restricted ATP and carry paying pax as an FO.

What’s insane is someone with 1500 of the same hour somehow being automatically experienced enough to fly a 737 from the right seat.

I felt safer with a brand new co-pilot driving the E-3 on their first training sortie then I do with the average airline crew, especially when flying on regionals.
Military training is much different than getting instruction from some guy in a 150. Part 61 is hardly military training. And 750 isn't 200. I have a whole lot less of a problem with a military pilot with 750 hours than some pay to play 200 hour pilot carrying unsuspecting passengers. There's a reason 121 is different than 91. And let's just leave the strawmen out of this. Nobody said 1,500 is somehow a magic number. But on the whole, it's a lot better than 200.
 
I mean when was experience a measure of anything, right?

Hours don't mean experience.

You can get an ATP with 1500 hours, and only a fraction of those hours need to be cross country, night, instrument, etc. So, you can get a 1500-hour pilot who has the boxes all checked, but has 1000 of those 1500 hours droning around the pattern in a 150 with a student, and all but a few hours of their cross country time within 100nm of home.

By the time I had 1500 hours, I had more than checked all the other ATP boxes, twice over. I had flown many different airplanes (including a couple turbines), I had flown in 35ish states, I had flown out of the country, I had flown in all the seasons, I had flown in the mountains (my record takeoff DA is 12,200 feet), I had flown to Class B airports and I had flown to places so out of the way that I had to chase elk off the runway. And yeah, I've scared the crap out of myself a few times, but each time you scare the crap out of yourself, you're able to maintain your cool better and make better decisions going forward.

I like to think that I could make better decisions than that barely-checked-the-boxes CFI, but I would need an awful lot more training to be able to maintain my cool in the right seat of a malfunctioning Boeing. That 200-hour wonder in the right seat of the accident flight would have been an absolutely worthless bag of meat and adrenaline.
 
People are making it out as if hours don't mean anything.
I think the distinction is more fine than that.. at least in my case I believe hours are a good macro level litmus for general experience and "this person has survived this long, and earned this much experience" - but it's definitely not the end all and be all

A 500 hr pilot who does a lot of night and IMC flying and accumulated that time in 2-3 years is going to be much safer than the 1,000 hr guy who took 30 years to earn that and the extent of his flying is weekend VFR sightseeing and lunch trips

I am not saying a 200 hr 737 pilot is necessarily safe, and as everyone on here knows I'm putting 95% of the blame of this accident on the pilots, but I think a bigger topic of issue would be what kind of training are these guys receiving
 
Training: without aptitude, it's not much more than memorization, isn't it? If you "just don't have it", all the training in the world is only going to train you for the test.

How well do ab-initio programs weed out candidates that "just don't have it"?

Airlines that hire based on hours or other factors are relying on previous employers or experience to have cut out those who can't hack it, aren't they?

I don't know the answers to those questions - but I do think that training, either additional or "different", can only go so far and at some point you have to rely on the pilots being able to do the right thing at the right time. If you haven't spent some effort to identify those pilots, I'm not sure you are going to end up with the flight crew you wish you had when something unexpected happens.
 
Regardless of the experience or training issues there is still the fact that you have a brand new airplane that twice over the past 5 months has experienced some sort of singular failure that has managed to wrest control from the crew and nose itself over into the dirt immediately after take-off. Let's not lose sight of that.
 
We've all heard the old saying: You can have 100 hrs of experience, or you can have 1 hr of experience 100 times.

Is it possible that airliners have become so automated, so smart, that even someone with 8000 hrs has really only had that same 4 hr flight 2000 times? I don't think so. In 2000 flights there should have been SOME moments where the WTF factor kicked in and the pilot had to think for himself. I think that's what a lot of people would call "experience".
 
Regardless of the experience or training issues there is still the fact that you have a brand new airplane that twice over the past 5 months has experienced some sort of singular failure that has managed to wrest control from the crew and nose itself over into the dirt immediately after take-off. Let's not lose sight of that.
Let’s also not lose sight of the fact that it appears competent crews could have prevented the accidents, and the Boeing fixes would be dictated by knowledgeable pilots and airlines rather than mass hysteria and politics.
 
Hours don't mean experience.

You can get an ATP with 1500 hours, and only a fraction of those hours need to be cross country, night, instrument, etc. So, you can get a 1500-hour pilot who has the boxes all checked, but has 1000 of those 1500 hours droning around the pattern in a 150 with a student, and all but a few hours of their cross country time within 100nm of home.

By the time I had 1500 hours, I had more than checked all the other ATP boxes, twice over. I had flown many different airplanes (including a couple turbines), I had flown in 35ish states, I had flown out of the country, I had flown in all the seasons, I had flown in the mountains (my record takeoff DA is 12,200 feet), I had flown to Class B airports and I had flown to places so out of the way that I had to chase elk off the runway. And yeah, I've scared the crap out of myself a few times, but each time you scare the crap out of yourself, you're able to maintain your cool better and make better decisions going forward.

I like to think that I could make better decisions than that barely-checked-the-boxes CFI, but I would need an awful lot more training to be able to maintain my cool in the right seat of a malfunctioning Boeing. That 200-hour wonder in the right seat of the accident flight would have been an absolutely worthless bag of meat and adrenaline.
The emotion of being scared in the seat is often referred to as a “significant emotional event” in a pilots background. The problem with many (not all) low time pilots entering the 121 environment is their training is so structured many of the decision processes have been removed. They are not allowed to fly in challenging environments nor are they ever really allowed much freedom in where or when they fly. They show up for new hire training with no significant experience outside of being able to prep for a checkride that tests to the minimum passing standard and teaching the guy behind them to meet that same minimum standard. It doesn’t take much to rattle their butt and suddenly the captain is single pilot.
 
I think the distinction is more fine than that..
I agree completely and will extend that thought. Total flight hours and type of flying (experience) are only a portion of what contributes to a safe flying experience.

Quite honestly, a multi-person aircrew is the one thing I believe contributes the most to a safer flight. But that’s also dependent on cultural and business adoption of the norms necessary for effective cockpit (or crew) resource management.

We can point all day long to fatal commercial aviation mishaps and make generalizations about whether a crew member had the requisite experience to be safe. In the end, a large majority of the pilots will have the requisite certification, currency, and arguably proficiency to be in the place they are. I say arguably, because proficiency can be defined in many different ways. Passing a line check may be enough for some but not for others, for instance.
 
The emotion of being scared in the seat is often referred to as a “significant emotional event” in a pilots background.

I still remember VIVIDLY the first time my instructor turned the fuel shut off valve to closed without my knowledge - this happened in 1995 and I can still tell you vivid details about it all.

I’d definitely relate to that as a “significant emotional event!” And I did nothing, I literally yelled “your controls!” and took my hands off the yoke while I watched my instructor identify a safe landing spot, talk through how to determine where the wind was coming from, trim for best glide and then run the checklist. He purposely skipped the part to check for fuel until we got down to about 100 feet of the farmers field where he then reached down and flipped the switch and the engine came roaring back to life.

We sat in silence for the next twenty mins on our way back home.

I can’t even imagine what it must have been like for a 200hr pilot... wowza.

TJ


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
wow....a bit more than I needed to know, Randy....the fella sounds like a real pilot's, pilot. I was really impressed with his aircraft in the background. o_O:D
 
Last edited:
And I did nothing
Thanks for sharing that. I bet that was a good learning opportunity. How do you think you would react today to a sudden emergency? Let's say for example you are solo, or with a non pilot pax, and you've lost your elevator and ailerons. What do you do?

Fear is a basic human emotion.. however, it has no room in a professional working cockpit. Maybe this comes down to better psychological training and screening? But in today's world "fear" is an antiquated "flight or fight" evolutionary response that, while still present, has no value added.. in fact, it has been shown that it is a value detractor in creating tunnel vision, poor judgment and decision making, etc.
 
Thanks for sharing that. I bet that was a good learning opportunity. How do you think you would react today to a sudden emergency? Let's say for example you are solo, or with a non pilot pax, and you've lost your elevator and ailerons. What do you do?

Fear is a basic human emotion.. however, it has no room in a professional working cockpit. Maybe this comes down to better psychological training and screening? But in today's world "fear" is an antiquated "flight or fight" evolutionary response that, while still present, has no value added.. in fact, it has been shown that it is a value detractor in creating tunnel vision, poor judgment and decision making, etc.

That single event changed my whole outlook on emergencies and non-normals. I either was going to give up flying or learn how to handle the situations as they arose. I decided to learn- and in that learning adopted a number of ways to train to combat that very reaction. My favorite is a timer that countdowns to zero. When it hits zero an alarm sounds. At that point I press a button and a randomizer selects a random emergency event and I pretend it’s happened and simulate it. It’s not great, but I think it gets you in the right mindset and more importantly reinforces how to stay in that mindset.

But that important part - training - is most likely what’s missing here. How much training can you accrue in 200hrs? I’ve spent years drumming that fear out of my initial reaction. Ethiopian Air only does simulator training every six months- I have no idea what American pilots train for, but is 4hrs of simulator time every six months enough to keep you in this mindset? Is that enough to push out the fear?

TJ


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I either was going to give up flying or learn how to handle the situations as they arose
Well done.

Given that this crew had papers flying around the cockpit and the incantations of prayers makes me think they threw their hands up in panic. That just screams poor training. I would agree, 4 hrs of sim time every 6 months is probably not enough, especially for a low time guy (with evidently poor training) to adequately handle something as mundane as runaway trim

-there's anecdotal evidence that the FO on the 767 that crashed also panicked, and hence, caused that crash

We focus on checklists and procedures (which is good) but there's not much in the way of the psychology of flight
 
I suspect (but am not certain) that the nature of experience of US pilots differs significantly from foreign pilots.

US general aviation is unmatched anywhere else in the world. As a result, US pilots who don't come from the military typically get many hours as a CFI. A typical US airline pilot spends his initial 1000+ hours buzzing around in a non-automated prop plane carefully monitoring the "organic autopilot" in the left seat. They instruct this flesh & blood autopilot to climb, descend, turn, and perform all manner of maneuvers, then they observe carefully to see that their instructions are carried out correctly, ready at an instant to pounce and take over control of the plane.

It seems likely to me that such a pilot is more likely to monitor automation, and he's been conditioned to take over and fly manually when the automation doesn't do what he expects it to.
 
Q from a FLAP to experienced 737 (or 7X7 pilots) - How often do you experience runaway trim?
 
The emotion of being scared in the seat is often referred to as a “significant emotional event” in a pilots background. The problem with many (not all) low time pilots entering the 121 environment is their training is so structured many of the decision processes have been removed. They are not allowed to fly in challenging environments nor are they ever really allowed much freedom in where or when they fly.

We can point all day long to fatal commercial aviation mishaps and make generalizations about whether a crew member had the requisite experience to be safe. In the end, a large majority of the pilots will have the requisite certification, currency, and arguably proficiency to be in the place they are. I say arguably, because proficiency can be defined in many different ways. Passing a line check may be enough for some but not for others, for instance.

These posts bring up something that hasn't been discussed yet:

Several years ago, shortly after the "Miracle on the Hudson", I went back and looked at a bunch of well-known aviation accidents where the outcome was better than anyone could have hoped for. Cactus 1549, United 232, Aloha 243, United 811, the Gimli Glider, and several others, and I noticed a common theme:

In EVERY SINGLE ONE of the accidents I looked at, at least one pilot on the flight deck had more ratings than they needed to be where they were. Everyone knows that Sully was a glider pilot, but I saw a bunch of things like glider and seaplane ratings among this group of pilots.

That tells me that these were people who *did* have a background in additional, and likely more challenging environments than would be seen in an airline-track 141 training program, and were likely aviation geeks - people who got home and flew their own airplanes, thought about flying, talked about flying with other pilots, etc. These other experiences likely made them better pilots.

Now, if you look at Ethiopian, Lion Air, Atlas, Air France 447, etc. I'll bet you don't find those additional ratings. Food for thought.
 
Back
Top