SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

And if you’re following the story there was a lot of negligence.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

Right he is always on a rant about politicians and real or imaged corruption.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Exactly.
Remember that these are and have been commonly used here in the USA with no problems by reputable airlines. Look at the training and qualifications of those airlines where the crashes occurred.
Yes there could be perhaps additional software. But pilot training is woefully lacking in many other parts of the world.
The grounding of the planes here is political and elsewhere is competition using politics and China wanting a foot into the door of aircraft manufacture for commercial planes.
Airbus planes have had many flaws that caused many more deaths with no comment. Why? (Watch "Air Disasters" and see how many Airbus crashes are due to computer problems.)

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

Pilot training and experience were factors that should not be ignored.

Next you will be trying to tell me that TWA 800 had a center fuel tank explosion...

nospambob Loc: Edmond, Oklahoma

Never mind the facts, just spew

machia Loc: NJ

“Sue Merck and Exxon”...please explain.

jgudpns Loc: Pensacola, FL

Having industries self-regulate their service/products is very dangerous - and regulators need to protect those using them, not the ones making or providing them. Nothing magical about having safety standards, systems and procedures in place. If a company can cut corners to save money they will, but depending on stock prices to fix that AFTER people have died is not the way to do it.

DragonsLady Loc: Los Alamos, NM

I wonder how many of the grounded planes had the upgrade installed.
You'd think the buyers would want the safest ship so would have bought the upgrade.
How well was the upgrade pushed?
If it was a safety upgrade, why didn't Boeing make the upgrade mandatory and free.
Maybe Boeing and their customers will be more careful with new ships in the future and not play Russian Roulette with their passengers.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

The planes did not have the software installed as most pilots were properly trained.
Only lazy pilots and poor quality airlines who failed to do proper training had the problem.
The software "Fix" is to address airline training failures and poor pilot training regarding the specific plane.
Just watched an "Air Diasters" show where an Air Bus went down for a similar poor training third world airline. Pilots had an issue that good pilots train for regarding the Airbus software. These pilot did not train and total time in type was like 2 hours between the pilots.
So why are you not bashing Airbus? Politics?

buckbrush Loc: Texas then Southwest Oregon

The real world is that the Boeings and other industries are not accountable industries. They are made up of individuals. Those individuals are the ones that have made errors in the certification of the Max aircraft.
Of course the Northwest region of FAA is just as bad by employing those same individuals who used to work at Boeing as quality persons. Ask me how I know!

As a lifelong quality person in the aerospace industry and as one who was fired by 'upper management' in a large helicopter company when I threatened to go to the FAA about a safety issue which eventually caused two pilots to lose their lives, the reality is most people are not able to stand up to managements desire to kick an aircraft out the door. When I went to the FAA they didn't pursue an investigation as it was not something their own employees had uncovered so they weren't going to take a stand about Quality or the lack thereof at one of the companies they had approved to operate.

In the Max case, an individual at Boeing probably said "this is similar to the previous models we make, let's get it into the hands of the operators as quickly as we can".

Somewhere within Boeing an individual, not a corporation, dropped the ball by not making sure the new system was documented in the flight manuals. Then a person in the FAA certification office did not require a triple redundant sensor for this new system. The FAA just said OK. I suspect that during the 'official flight testing by FAA pilots' there was likely no disagreement between the two sensors so the system as designed did not require an aggressive action by the pilots to counteract the system pushing the nose down.

The FAA was likely being pushed by Boeing to approve the flight manuals. One person at Boeing did not have the wherewithal to stand up and say the flight manual is deficient!
These tragedies are most likely the result of a poor system design by a person at Boeing. Also someone at the FAA just kicked the can down the road by not included the system explanation in the flight manuals. A lack of training on the system by the airlines is a secondary cause.

Bmarsh Loc: Bellaire, MI

Actually, if they had turned ON the autopilot, it would have turned OFF the MCAS, the feature that caused the down trim. Seems American pilots are trained to use more of the automation than foreign pilots which is why US airlines haven’t seen the problem.

wapiti Loc: round rock, texas

pumakat

I don't think safety should be "optional". Once a shortcoming has been overcome, it should automatically be incorporated as the standard, and recalls issued.

redlegfrog

From what I have read and experienced, every business, every industry is starving for help. Everyone is settling, making do with the help they can find. Thats not good especially when it applies to things like the police, the medical profession and aviation.

George II Loc: Fayetteville, Georgia

Both accidents could have been avoided had the pilots disengaged the stab trim..the switches are on the center pedestal next to the manual stab trim wheels......both cases involved poor pilot training....
I know B-737s....
The “G”