In this case, former military types bringing military systems to civilian aviation. Don't get me wrong--I admire many military types, pilots and crew chiefs. But the military way and the civilian way are different. Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but it comes across as you defending Boeing's actions regarding the Max. Boeing should be condemned for what it has done, not defended.
You did what yourself and nothing was done? Aircrews submitting anonymous complaints to NASA means very little to me. What would be relevant is did they submitt the discrepancy to the maintenance department? Can you provide proof they did?
Aircraft systems work the same way whether they are military or civilian. Why do you believe they are different? Why am I defending Boeing? Because most planes crash due to pilot error. The technology in today's aircraft is so good one day you and other pilots will be sidelined. People won't have to worry about pilots showing up drunk, tired or just not well trained. This topic is how the FAA failed the public. But I guess you are defending the FAA?
I reported a safety issue regarding obstruction of approach area to a short VFR only runway. It had already caused a fatal accident and nothing was done, the obstruction is still there. My report resulted in no action. It's really only a problem at night, and the lone accident was at night. The locals have learned to live with it. I do understand that the NASA system means very little to you. No problem. After this MCAS write up having the same effect as my write up, it's clear the system is a complete failure. The government does not really contribute anything meaningful by way of its many bureaucracies. You and I are in agreement on that.
The Dog & Pony Show that is the subject of this thread is standard fare for government, and being in the military you know that better than most. I have worked with the FAA on several certification projects and issues. The men and women I worked with were responsible and conscientious, as was the process we worked. The FAA bureaucracy is very much another matter, and everybody knows that. The MCAS failure was not pilot error, it was deceptive actions by Boeing during the certification process.
As you well know both crashes are still being investigated. IMO someone who didn't know the difference between a passive system and an active system and believed MCAS was an active system had no business in a QA oversight job.
Your assumption that NASA's anonymous reporting system means nothing to me is wrong. But I provided an article that explained the weaknesses in the NASA's reporting system. Did you send your report to the local FAA or NASA?
The Max planes have one crappy angle finder that serves as a crutch to get around the process of certification. If the plane was fully autonomous, it still would have crashed because the computer would follow improper instructions.....just as the MCAS system 'thought' it was working properly. One crappy angle finder that a small bird could damage at that! Piss poor design and no back up. Pathetic.
Your opinion has the same weight as mine sir--the weight of half a feather. Your military skirt shows. BTW, here is an article describing the Dog & Pony Show in Congress last week, and detailing how Boeing owns Congress. https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/05/22/blaming-dead-pilots-brought-you-boeing Like you, Boeing is blaming the dead pilots. Most guilty people blame innocent parties. That's what humans do. That's what Boeing is doing. Dummies fall for it.
My blame right now until the reports are finalized is on the FAA for shunning their responsibilities, the airlines for their lack of "situational awareness" regarding MCAS and not providing better training to their pilots. Boeing's irresponsibility was not stressing the new system on a redesigned aircraft and including it in the flight manual. If the FAA had been more involved in the aircraft MCAS may not be the mystery system it seems to be. Your insistance on putting the blame entirely on Boeing is misguided.
How much experience do you have in the civil aircraft certification business? This sounds like that half-feather posting.
4 years as a QA Inspector. Aircraft safety is the same whether it be military or civilian so stop trying to make this an apples versus oranges argument.
I was a crewchief on UH1 helicopters in the Army in the early 70's. Aircraft maintenance in Civil Service for several years before joining the Coast Guard where I worked on and flew on HC130H and HU25 Falcon jets. I worked for Dyncorp in refurbishing UH1 and AH1 helicopters for several years. The CG used the HC130H Hercules for years and then the HC130J model came to the CG. Both aircraft were visually similar but the "J" designation made it clear the flight characteristics were not the same. All units receiving the new "J" model received extensive training on the new aircraft before putting it into service. The Boeing 737 "Max" designation should have been a red flag for the airlines that bought them that this was a new engineering design, both physically and in it's flight characteristics and spent sometime educating themselves on it. Maybe civilian aviators could learn something from military aviators? May I ask how much military time you had with aviation?
Thanks for the straight answer. I served in the 57th Medical Detachment in the Mekong Delta, June of '70 to June '71. We flew H model Hueys. I was a production test pilot for 2 GA manufacturers in Florida, both now defunct. In that capacity I learned very much about FAA certification procedures. Boeing cheated like hell with the Max certification.
The "Max" designation was for fuel efficiency.......Boeing said it was not a newly designed aircraft, hence the crashes. This is Boeing's baby, they are at fault 100%.
Than you for your service in Vietnam. By the time I turned 18 and joined the army no more troops were being sent to Vietnam thank goodness. Let's be clear, I am not giving Boeing a pass. They are just as responsible for the crashes, but the FAA should never have allowed Boeing to use it's own employees to certify the Max. The FAA worked closely with Dyncorp during the refurbishing process of the UH1 and AH1 helicopter. I can't imagine Dyncorp certifying their own work. The problem I see with the civilian aviation world is it's for profit mentality unlike military aviation. I left Dyncorp due to the constant corner cutting to save time and money by management. I refused to sign off on any work unless it was done "IAW" the maintenance manual. After Dyncorp lost the contract the Army's CID contacted previous employees to include me for a statement on how Dyncorp conducted it's business. I heard most former employees did not give Dyncorp a glowing report.
I don't care what Boeing said it was or wasn't. Anyone can see the design of the Max is far different than the original 737 which means the flight characteristics are also different.
As for the FAA they couldn't see if they didn't bother looking. And the airlines who bought the Max didn't care enough to thoroughly research the new aircraft before placing it on the flight schedules. Maybe they were under the impression the FAA was involved with certifying the aircraft? My understanding is the FAA is no longer seen as a reputable agency.
While "unstable design" is problematic - this was not the cause of the planes "falling out of the air". I use the phrase in quotes because the plane did not fall out of the air. It did a nose dive towards the ground under full power. The problem was not engines stalling. This was completely due to automation - the pilots had no ability to take manual control of the plane. Why is there not a fail safe button that immediately restores manual control ? I assumed (call me silly for this assumption) that this would be standard.
Thank you and now back on topic. I had a good laugh after reading this BS line from Acting FAA Administrator Dan Elwell. Acting FAA Administrator Dan Elwell said on Thursday he thought travelers in the United States and around the world would respect any eventual decision by the FAA to return the plane to service. “They’ll get back on the MAX and fly it again.” https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...tors-on-fate-of-boeing-737-max-idUSKCN1ST1U7?
But they did have the ability to take control of the aircraft manually. Boeing put out a bulletin explaining how. Since MCAS is a passive system it is not designed with a ON/Off switch. Instead Boeing instructed pilots to turn off the elevator trim tab using the manual switch. The airlines that experienced two crashes may have benefitted from this information if they had read it. I agree Boeing should have placed more emphasis on MCAS from the beginning but airlines should also have done more research on the aircraft before putting it into service.