Back to Squawk list
  • 110

Capt Sullenberger criticizing Boeing and FAA

Capt. Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger says the FAA’s handling of the deadly crashes of two Boeing 737 Max 8 jetliners in just five months has damaged the United States’ longstanding “credibility as leaders in aviation.” Sullenberger is a retired airline pilot who famously landed his US Airways jet — an Airbus 320 — in the icy Hudson River off Manhattan in January 2009, after hitting a flock of geese and losing power in both engines. All 155 people on board the plane survived. ( 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Very few pilots would have made the decision to attempt the river landing - simple logic
That crew took what they felt was the best / lowest risk option
As a pilot of 54 years I am glad to had never had to make decisions like that
Sully and his FO are professional well trained and extremely competent - and that gives him more right to comment than most of the rabbit droppings on this post session below
to be honest what else what they have done? crashed in the city?

Awesome job of getting everyone out alive though.
The controllers were (in good faith) setting them up to land at an airport they could not reach.

The capt recognized that the odds of getting to the airport did not justify the risk

Great command decision in the face of two bad alternatives
Jay Deet 3
Try to make it back to the airport, perhaps????
ATC wanted to vector him to Teterboro, and I'm not aware Teterboro could handle an a/c that large.
I believe Teterboro was too far away
Leon Kay 0
Fast thinking and landing back at the airport would have been a better option. At least the aircraft could have been saved.
From us living in da nord country - there's one option a water landing.
I agree completely. But flightaware users have just as much of a right to comment on stories, pilot or not, as anyone else. Even if they are "rabbit droppings!"
As far as the Sullenberger water landing goes, he made the right decision, and it would have been the right decision even if it hadn't turned out so well. Fortunately, he's a man of experience and talent who DID commit to that decision and maximized survival chances with flying skill and luck. He could have done the same thing and most times it wouldn't have gone that well. I would also point out that he tried to avoid the attention he got. I recall him deflecting praise to the cabin crew which he rightly cited as being mightily critical to everyone's survival. Other than that, he said that they did what they were trained to do. At some point, I think it became apparent that he had a responsibility to represent his profession a certain way, or people would just make things up. I think he had a strong opinion in this case, and he's used the bully pulpit sparingly in my opinion. As for the 737 MAX8 tragedies: I'm sure he's right that the certification process became too cozy. I also think that the complexity of these changes probably requires more interaction between the manufacturer and FAA and if something goes wrong, it looks like a conflict of interest. However, we have long bemoaned the fact that technology that could make airplane safer is being held back due to antiquated certification processes. That stagnation costs lives too, but it's not so easy to draw a straight line to blame someone.... it's a creeping problem. The statistics seem to bear out that employing technology and new ways to certify it is working. The thing about airline deaths is that they happen in bunches, so when two bunches happen, well here we are. I'm not saying that expediency hasn't played a role here, just that it's not all sinister. Certainly training played a role here. The 200 hour pilot right seat pilot was ridiculous. A great learning experience for him, but useless if anything happens. I think Sully's citation of Crew Resource Management (which he aptly described) is also very important. I hope that Boeing didn't hide what the MCAS system was doing from pilots. More likely, they underplayed its function in training because they thought it would be a training distraction, and it wasn't going to fail. And no redundancy for the AOA seems wrong. However, even if you're flying the simplest one-axis autopilot, you ask yourself: If this thing does something aberrant, how do I shut it off and hand fly it? Runaway trim, etc, are things that professional pilots are supposed to be able to cope with. The pilots have to take some responsibility for not having thought that out themselves. Even if the new engine locations made the plane less stable (and MCAS was added to reduce pilot workload), I don't think that made it un-hand flyable. The pitch deviations point to the automated pitch control going haywire and the the pilots fighting it. My understanding is that there was a way to disconnect it, and they seemed unaware of it. We all know that safety and convenience advances come with trade offs. Modern pilots are great at systems management, and they have to be. Of course, if you're getting good at that, your stick and rudder skills are deteriorating. I know in my head that autonomous cars will reduce death and injury, but that won't be convincing to the family of one of the few that are killed by a driverless car that malfunctions. It's a complicated problem, but whether you're tired of hearing about him of not, Sullenberger has an opinion. He's definitely an expert.
Yes. Hopefully when pilots forget, the automation doesn’t. Level off, turn at the next fix etc.
Hopefully when the automation has an anomaly the pilots can recognize it, shut it down and actually be able to fly.
I’ve Been in aviation all my life and a CFII/MEI for 20 years. If I had a ticket on either of these airlines ,I would ask for a refund. I believe pilot training is.more the issue than the aircraft. I don’t know of a 350 TT pilot who should be in the right seat of a B737. It has been said that a jump seat pilot identified the problem on the Bali/Jakarta flight the previous day. You make some good points in your discussion, however none of us know the FAA protocols used in certification. I am sure the FAA doesn’t let Boeing “self certify “. It would be impossible for the FAA to repeat all the testing Boeing does so they must rely on the manufacturer’s data. My experience is with the NRC and they have a lot of good people asking difficult questions. I think we are assuming a “cozy” relationship. To jump to the conclusion that there is wrong doing or that the FAA is not doing its job is a little to much for me. I am betting that the certification protocols get strengthened AND Boeing makes the right calls on fixes in both aircraft systems and training.

[This poster has been suspended.]

A less pitch stable aircraft will certainly increase the likelihood of AOA aberrations. It's been stated that the pitch sensitivity of this variant led to the implementation of MCAS as a safety measure. What's wrong with your manners?
I believe it's mission is to detect high aoa vs unusual attitude,

[This poster has been suspended.]

A stick pusher would have kept the crew in the loop but HAL running trim left them out of the loop. Presumably a stick shaker pusher would not have the sufficient authority
I think the system reacts to what it believes is AOA (single source ??) and it appears that it rolls in jackscrew trim (based jackscrew position )
ADXbear 34
Totally agree with Sully.. the president had to order the planes to be grounded along with the rest of the world before the FAA or Boeing followed last..
This is a reworked 737 with enginges thst would not fit under the wings, so they moved them forward and higher on the wing. This caused an abnormal putch instability problem, so the MCAS was added.. with out it, its a tough airplane to handle.. shame on the FAA TO ALLOW BOEING TO SELF CERTIFY..
I concur... ...and Boeing’s change in size, thrust line, lift line and C.G. should really be looked at as being a New Design and not try to certify under the 737 TC.
Yea this is concerning to me for sure. Sounds like Boeing needs to further clarify how the plane can be safe with the aerodynamics it currently has. The 737 is such a reliable platform and workhouse for Boeing, it would be a shame to have to take my "if it aint Boeing I aint going" sticker off my luggage!
can you fly this thing without MCAS ?
You can if you are a "pilot" not a "driver".
You mean the luggage? ;-) As I understood it, the MCAS helps prevent pilots from entering a difficult-to-recover aerodynamic envelope. From an engineering and flight-safety perspective, software is an excellent tool to aid the pilots. However, the software system must be a)totally infallible (which is incredibly difficult to achieve in a system with so many contingencies and where failure can end catastrophically) or it must be b) easily identifiable when actively commanding the airplane and furthermore, easy to disengage when interfering with pilot flight control. Overall, the system is well intentioned but poorly executed. The Boeing should have been more thorough in its MCAS flight-rules design and the FAA should have been there to lift the red flag as soon as they noticed the complexity of the system, thereby ordering that the system be fully investigated. Yes, most of the times, these investigations and checks do not yield anything of substance and are only a time and money sink... But if they had been more thorough, it is likely that the system would have been subjected to far greater scrutiny. And in engineering, scrutiny is a good thing. A question as simple as 'Why did you solve this problem like that' to which the explanation results in the original question-asker saying 'Ah, wow that is smart - sounds good to me!' is important feedback. However, when the explanation results in the question-asker saying 'Are you sure about that? This sounds like it is quite complicated and while theoretically possible, let us examine the technical solution in more detail in order to make sure that it is all ok', it is indeed an important check that should be done out of 1) routine and 2) because the question-asker might be bringing a new perspective that wasn't considered before....
Yes!! I rode on a Boeing 737 Max 8 from Baltimore to Providence Rhode Island on March 9th—13 days ago—and didn’t know anything about the crash of the other plane. But I thought it was weird that it felt like the front of the plane pitched down a couple of times and it was shortly after takeoff so there was no turbulence at that point and it was not windy. I knew that I hadn't experienced that pitching down before But felt so safe because I commented on to others that it was a nice new plane and had pretty blue lights, roomier seats, and adjustable headrests. I felt safe in a new plane.

So I would really like for the FAA to take a look at the flight records of Southwest Flight 2905 to see if this pitching down was in fact happening and if so, why it continued to fly the planes.
You sure it was a max 8 and not an 800? Seems strange swa would use a max 8 on that route

[This poster has been suspended.]

[This poster has been suspended.]

LOL. It's like every time there's a crash we get the dozens of people who "were going to take the flight, but {insert reason for not taking the flight here}. A 150-seat airplane was 100% overbooked at some point.
To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I am flabbergasted that this one was not foreseen during the modification design stage.
Perhaps that is why the DOJ is looking into this.
Come on, that's not about Sully of the Hudson. It'about a comment on how are things for Boeing and for the FAA. IMHO,a much more important thing than what a respected retired pilot has done.
Richard, certainly you'll never get a prize for empathy! Capt. S did what every pilot (myself included) figure out a solution and act. Remember something, HE DID NOT seek all the publicity, in fact he's on the record as saying exactly what you said"...I did my job, followed my training, and it worked..." Your unforgiving indictment shows a pretty poor attitude and a lot of insecurity. I'm going to guess you are not a commercial pilot, so you really would not understand anyway.

Nonetheless, as a military pilot I support your right to express yourself. That's freedom for you!
One of the first things he did was assign his FO the task of trying to restart the engines while he flew the airplane which let each focus on a task
I had a pilot long time ago, 272 days that predicted as planes became more computerized and pilots become more dependent on them crashes might increase. He said there were fewer and fewer seat of your pants type pilots out there that could fly without depending on them. But when there are only electronic systems that control flying surfaces and no cable backup systems there's not a lot one can do.
In my view, the fact (if it is a fact) that the previous pilots didn't log the MCAS fault in the aircraft log book is also unconscionable. Very unprofessional.

[This poster has been suspended.]

Absolutely correct!
I certainly trust Captain Sully's view.
I think it's against the law to disagree with the Great Sully! I think the man can probably mind meld with MCAS and will it to greatness! He's that good!
This issue occurred with Airbus as well, with the 350, and it occurred several times. The most famous was Qantas 72, fortunately it occurred at altitude and was able to be recovered. Airbus never figured out the issue with the ADIRU generating bad data, creating a erroneous flight profile, but they did do a rewrite of the software. I find it amusing that the French and others are throwing Boeing under the bus before the analysis is completed. I wonder if they would like to push business to Airbus and take advantage of a situation, I think everyone should zip it until the study's are complete. Both Boeing and Airbus invest billions in developing these platforms and suggesting a "cozy" relationship with the manufactures and regulators so significant corners can be cut, demonstrate an interest in driving some other agenda in my opinion.
I am amazed at the continuum of Pro and Con comments posted here. As a survivor of not 1 but 2
Helicopter crashes 44 years ago I recommend to all to read Dr. Tony Kern’s “Blue Threat” to gain perspective before you post again...
The much talked about MCAS was added when Boeing recognized the fact that the new engines were causing the potential for stalling. Boeing recognized the fact that they would not be issued an airworthiness certification without the MCAS. I reckon it was sinilar to putting a band aid on a hemorrhaging wound. Both Boeing and the FAA are complicit in this horrible Max 8.
MCAS is only necessary on the MAX because the engines are too big and had to be mounted too far forward changing the stall characteristics and CG of the plane.

Honestly, Boeing cut corners and is trying to squeeze too much out of the old 737 design. Bottom line, profit won out over safety.

MCAS is a software hack to use microprocessors to put in thousands of control input corrections that wouldn't be necessary if the entire plane was redesigned to properly support the new larger engines.

I find it strange that Boeing didn't document MCAS. It makes me think they realize it's a hack and may not be accepted by the industry.

I am not an engineer, but as a laymen, looking at the original 737 and it's size and capabilities, I think the design has been stretched beyond its limits with the MAX and shouldn't rely on augmentation software for stable flight characteristics.

The Max has definitely exceeded the maximum thresholds of its base design and should be renamed the OverMax.
"I am not an engineer"
There is your problem.
There are Three issues here -
One - MCAS was not adequately described in the manual and the training requirements.
Two - Lion Air - Like MH370 - did not have all of the options available installed that could lead to safe operation. Since the complete system was not installed, Lion Air did not pass on the equipment failure automatically to Boeing, especially after it appears that the same system was having issues for the previous flights - meaning that maintenance issues were being ignored by the Airline.
Three - Boeing was using a single sensor when two are available. They also did not evaluate MCAS in light of what would happen if there was a single point of failure.
Totally agree with your comment. As someone in the software profession for over 30 years, we know that you can't effectively, or in this case safely, code your way out of a design flaw.
Because refactor is such a dirty word. It ALWAYS ends up costing more in the end. CEO's, listen to your engineers!
So very true. Pay me now or pay me more later.
Cheap is expensive.
mbrews 1
Totally agree. Well stated, Jeff Apparently there may be some Boeing managers carried over from McDonnell Douglass Corp. acquisition. Might we expect a changed model number for 737 MAX ? Remember these are the guys who re-named the troubled DC-10 as MD-10 / MD-11
Please do not jump to "confusions." MD-11 was designed and named well after the DC-10's troubles. MD-10 was named such, as the two-person crew airplane made possible by advanced avionics. Both were initiated and developed by the postmerger McDonnell Douglas; hence the "MD." the DC-10 was initiated by predecessor Douglas Aircraft.
I don't want to fly in an aircraft that requires a pilot to have unusual skill to spend an inordinate amount of time thinking of a way to defeat an automated system that can kill everyone on board if it malfunctions during a critical period, e.g. takeoff or landing. MCAS appears to be a software solution to a flight stability problem that requires such skill, therefore a poorly executed one.
I try to think about the basic flying concept approach: Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. From that point of view, the system design is obviously flawed. Here is why I think that way. Taking off, critical phase of flight, gears-up, flaps up, too early for autopilot, so this genius system is activated automatically (Flap up, and Autopilot off) unless you turn it off using the guarded toggle switches to override the system.

Cause unknown: Training failed, I would blame the design concept. I have passed my career in maintaining, designing integrated airborne weapon systems, with over 2000 hours test-flight. No redundancy check i.e. de-activate the system automatically if we get reading errors, assuming that the system is not critical for safety (Obviously that has failed royally).

Now, what is so special about this aircraft? New larger engines, closer to the nacelle, could a vortex be created by a cross-wind causing sensors reading to act-up? That idea may sound stupid as I have not knowledge on airflow surrounding the intake of the engine... Sound like a transient problem.

The most obvious one is dis-engage the system upon sensors reading discrepancy.

Last taught, the FAA has to smell the coffee and do their jobs.

I assume that if you got a nose down attitude one of the first instincts would be to reduce from climb power which would make the condition worse.

Boeing must have felt that the threat was such that simply having a stick shaker would not solve the problem . Will be interesting to hear what drives the system ( single aoa, dual aoa, aoa + airspeed )

[This poster has been suspended.]

I'm not sure what your point is. My comment was regarding a malfunctioning MCAS system.

[This poster has been suspended.]

Only if you know about it and are trained in turning it off.
The pilot did not read the previous pilots issue writeup, or the previous pilot did not write the issue up.
No. The MCAS was for unusual conditions on autopilot. Such as too high angle of attack. Then the trim would lower the nose. If it malfunctions you disconnectnit. Just like a Cessna 210. So take it off autopilot, disconnect the trim with the flick of a switch on the console. It happened on the Lion air crash on the prior flight and recovery handled correctly. We will know what happens after the investigation
"The MCAS was for unusual conditions on autopilot"

No, MCAS isn't even active with AP engaged. MCAS's sole purpose is to counteract the pitch up rotation caused by the larger, more powerful engines mounted further forward when more power is applied, typically during take off. During normal flight and with AP engaged MCAS might as well not even exist.

[This poster has been suspended.]

Deep breaths, man. Deep breaths.
Not sure why the focus is on beating up Sully as he is not the issue or the problem.

Look at the publicly available information (i.e. gain and loss of attitude after takeoff) on both the Lion Air and Ethiopian flights that crashed and a pilot with 10 hours should have known there was something that was similar happened and there likely was a problem. The failure of both the FAA and Beeing to attend to this matter more proactively is a big black mark on aviation safety and one has to wonder why the experts failed to spectacularly. Even President Trump knew there was a problem and acted. Other input suggest manuals and other related support for pilots was generally lacking. Clearly the new Max's are not the same as the prior generation 737s so why was the aircraft certified the way it was.....

[This poster has been suspended.]

RECOR10 -2
Oh come now....who needs facts when we can spin things in hair brained ways to please the media and the lemmings?
What we do know

Two crashes

Jackscrew in full nose down

Vertical flight path erratic

With only that information it seems reasonable to ground the aircraft until more is known.

Ironically when the President of Boeing called Trump he made it impossible NOT to ground the aircraft......
Kobe Hunte -6
looks like someone needs to do some research...
why the down votes? was referring to Taylor Beck!
Right on sully
captain Sullenberger,as a retired airline captain,is most certainly entitled to give an educated opinion with regard to the faa,crashes, and specific types of aircraft,just as many who are in or retired from aviation do on this site,flightaware..he does consulting now, and is often called upon to voice his opinion..when he did the now famous "landing in the Hudson",for which he has received many accolades,he was doing his job as a captain,making a decision which he and his co pilot knew was an alternative to crashing into buildings,their only other option,as he could not make it back to any airport..he is not a saint,nor a knight in shining armour,nor are those who respect the man "general public sheep"..he is a man who did the job he was paid to do,which was to be responsible for his aircraft,crew and the people on board..some are better at it than others,whether its luck,circumstances,training or years of experience..the faa and boeing are both under scrutiny at this time,because that aircraft is manufactured in the united states,and new information is coming to light as to how it was approved...
The heroic part of Sullenberger and his crew is that they were dedicated enough to their professions that when this emergency happened, they were prepared to handle it. When they were doing the hard work of training and currency, they weren't thinking about some future glory. Professionalism plus emergency = hero. And since we're talking about football, quote Lombardi: Adversity doesn't build character, it reveals it.
chalet 9
Wait a minute Mary Susan, Sully and his copilot were saints for having made the right decision and save 157 people after facing a failure that was never taught to them in training, ground school, simulator or actual flying for nobody thought that a twin aircraft could loose both engines simultaneously. Same accolade can be bestowed upon a third pilot aboard a Lion Air Max 8 on a previous flight who was deadheading to another station. He jumped into the cockpit at the first sign of trouble and did the right thing to save the lives of tens of passengers plus crew (what he did and how he decided to do it is still to be found out outside that airline, presumably he disconnected the goddamn MCAS and AP as well).

[This poster has been suspended.]

chalet -1
MCAS OR AP, u below genius level¡

[This poster has been suspended.]

chalet -1
por comand of inglish
By that logic, 9/11 firefighters weren’t saints or knights either, since they were “doing the job they were paid to do”, as you put it.

I, for one, respectfully disagree.
Something tells me Max is gonna get scrapped.
Hand flying skills will NOT save one life in a malfunction such as this one. The focus must be on system knowledge and procedures to use in order to eliminate the malfunction in order to fly the airplane. The day before the Lion Air crash, the same malfunction occurred and by luck, a jump seating pilot in the cockpit recognized the problem and instructed the crew in order for them to perform the necessary action to regain control of the airplane. Modern jets all have "Pushers" and if anyone thinks they can override the device by hand flying skills they should go to the flight simulator and try it. System knowledge and Memory Items are the only two things that will restore an aircraft to a flyable state.
And why was this malfunction not sent to ground maintenance for getting repaired for the next flight? Did the pilot not want to admit that the guy sitting behind him knew more than he did? Did other pilots have similar issues? If so, why did maintenance not fix it and why were these issues not reported back to Boeing?
Any particular reason for changing "FAA, Boeing" to "Boeing and FAA"?

There must be some reason.
Good Point
Amen - about time some said this, Thanks Capt
I don't care if it was Sullenberger or Daedalus making a criticism. WHAT was the criticism?

With Lion Air's crash, I read of a forced and uncorrected pitch down that made me wonder why it was uncorrected.

With Ethiopian's crash, I read of a forced and uncorrected pitch down that made me wonder why the FAA hadn't grounded the Max 8's the day after Lion Air's crash.

Autopilots sometimes do funny things. A pilot flying's first (and should be only) instinct is to simply put down the coffee and grab the yoke. The autopilot objects but obeys. Anything otherwise is just plane (!) wrong. That's what rang my bells when I read of Lion Air's demise. In Air France's Atlantic Ocean (AF-447) crash, it was the pilot flying who screwed up but that's why we have human pilots. The command BELONGS to a human, not two switches buried near the pilot's knees.

I agree with Sullenberger (if I may): FAA should have had their own bells ringing after Lion Air.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I've read that the black box data from the Ethiopian Airlines' 800 Max showed that this "Danse Macabre" began when the MCAS somehow swapped an altitude input (37,012 feet ) with an AOA input indicating that there was a severe up angle. It automatically corrected the latter with a big down trim order to the elevators. The pilots had NO idea why their airplane had suddenly pitched down and they were being told told:"Stall."

Boeing 800 and 900 Max airplanes have been operating successfully world wide for two years now. To the best of my knowledge, this problem hadn't happened until these two accidents (three, if you take into account the jump seat pilot's suggestion on the flight on the day before the Lion Air crash.)

I'm not an aviator, but my engineering background in submarines tells me that President Trump was onto something when he said that airplanes have become too complex. I think he meant that pilots don't really know what their automated computerized flight systems are doing and so aren't are not sufficiently savvy to overcome software-generated anomalies that they don't comprehend, but nevertheless demand immediate resolution.

As a USNA Midshipman back in the 1950s we had the unique experience of flying N-3N "Yellow Peril bi-wing float planes during our final two years. I'd paid close attention to a WWII Navy training film in which Robert Taylor had emphasized putting on rudder as you chopped the power just before touching down.

I'd made what I thought was picture perfect landing approach on Chesapeake Bay, so when I judged myself to be about 5-7 feet above then water I chopped power -- and applied right rudder. If it had been a ground landing it would've been a ground loop because the port wing tip would've hit the ground. The port wing float went under but it saved us from anything more serious.

My instructor pilot was upset, to say the least. He jumped out of his forward seat, turned aft to me and said: "Mister Steiner, you were making a great approach. Why did you kick the rudder on? (He was more demonstrative and colorful, to be sure). I meekly responded."Sir, that's what Robert Taylor said to do when we chopped the power."

He exploded and shouted something at me that millions of American women would've done in a heartbeat.,
He said: "F%&# Robert Taylor. Just fly how it feels!"

Then he calmed down and said: "Wanna try its again?" I did and this time I aced it. He gave me 4.0 for the afternoon and taught a lifetime lesson in the process that has worked well in all environments -- "Just fly it how feels."

Back to the point of all this. It appears that the cockpit crews of both planes tried to fight something their indicators had told them -- something that they didn't comprehend -- instead of relying on their experience and instincts that should've told them they weren't stalling and to take control manually.
Keeping in mind that the pilot flying was flying when he shouldn't have been, what about JFK Jr.? He flew how it felt.

The point here is that flying can be dangerous sometimes. Often, you can't just fly how it feels. Your butt can be just as wrong as a frozen pitot tube. I would have pointed that out to your IP. Even the most experienced and skillful aviators can make lethal mistakes. I once saw two seagulls fighting over some morsel when the bird chasing pulled violently out of the chase and the bird being chased flew smack into a condo's mirrored window.

The best you can hope for is good planning, good execution of that plan, careful review, and obsessive application of any corrections needed. (Can't remember who's quote that is.)

Nothing is perfect. But, a computer should NEVER be the Pilot In Command.
osemmes 1
It appears that the penultimate pilot of the crashed 737 Max 8 had the same failure as had the pilot during the fatal flight. Was this griped on the aircraft logs? Did the pilot down the aircraft for inspection? Was the last pilot informed of the inflight incident? Lots of ignored flags.
bizprop 1
Yet another example of a government agency not doing their job. Should we be surprised? Of course not. Will anyone be fired or held accountable? Probably not.
If Boeing can Self-Certify.., Why can’t anyone else???
John D 1
Not directly related, but the Dept of Agriculture allows many food producers to self-certify the stuff the produce is safe.
AMEN! Well said...need not say anymore...
Well said Ian McDonell. Without the help the well-experienced co-pilot, I fear the outcome could have been worse. Kinda lucky and unlucky on the same day.
In reference of the Class A Mishaps involving the two 737 Max8s, what are the unofficial details? I have heard uncommanded Pitch Down (A/P engaged). FCAS/MCAS issue?
Post is gpne....
I'm sorry, while Sully has
For an interesting perspective from AOPA:
Mr Sully and Mr Nance should head to Hollywood. Statements about nothing for a fee
chalet 0
Envious? pffft
It is sad to read all news and comments about this avoidable tragedy. Boeing was fully aware of the potential problem of its stall prevention system and chose to hide it with the hope that a fix would be made while pilots were mostly not aware of its potential danger. Of course, one would say that "simply disconnecting the system" and returning to hand flying could have prevented these disasters but why did Boeing omitted to publicly inform the airlines and their pilots about the imminent non-recoverable danger for lack of warning system and providing urgent and adequate training to cope with this technological shortcomings. And please, let's not put the blame on the training of foreign pilots who are receiving as good if a training as any pilot in the USA. As many have already said, Boeing has put profits ahead of safety and it is as criminal as it gets in these days and age. There are no excuses for this type of behavior. Capt. Martial

I'm sorry, while Sully has my utmost respect for landing his flying video game in the Hudson, unless he has inside access to the NTSB and other info....maybe he ought to keep his mouth shut. And if he does, he should disclose before he starts popping off and poisoning the water. Definitely sounding like someone with a bone to pick.

Let's first ask how it is that all these other airlines flying these airplanes seem to be doing fine. Maintenance, training, etc.? Plenty of questions to go around before Anyone jumps to the conclusion. If AOA sensors are not properly maintained and checked, they will fail...maintenance could play a key part in all this. Ethiopia anxious to "fast track" the investigation....of course they are. They don't want their precious national airline to take any heat. The conventional wisdom and tabloid media along with many politicians of course, are anxious to lay it all at the feet of the FAA and Boeing. Not saying you don't look into it and turn over all the rocks, but this thing is about to get tried and sentenced in media hearsay. Absolutely despicable.
Everything I’ve read says that if the pilots had shut the system off and fly the plane it would have worked. It seems to be maybe a training issue with low time Boeing pilots. An inoperative trim or runaway trim seems to be the consensus.
As a layman I'm curious as to why the pilots couldn't simply turn off any automated control "app", simply by pressing a button, just as they would disengage from the autopilot...
In a nutshell the profit over safety and the "In bed with corporations" and symbiotic relationship the FAA a.k.a the "Tombstone agency" has with the airlines and aircraft manufactures is glaring and obvious. We should have a independent watchdog formed to just watch over the FAA. Don't trust the Tombstone agency one bit with Air Safety. Form the watchdog agency using just pilots and technicians and aeronautical engineers who have no political history or bias with the FAA or Congress.

Writing on the MarketWatch website for the commentary series Barron’s Group Experts, Sullenberger says both Boeing and the FAA “have been found wanting” in an “ugly saga that began years ago but has come home to roost with two terrible fatal crashes.”
cyberjet 2
In a perfect world, that watchdog agency would be the NTSB, the problem is they only get called when it's already too late for someone.
Asa former colleague of sullyinberger, I have to take issue with him on his criticism of the FFA and Boeing. They did not cause these 2 crashes but piss poor piloting and training surely did. God help us if we no. need a computer to tell us when we are stalling. Maybe we really do need pilotless aircraft. Hope American pilots get their extra sim time so they can recognize when their computer is working or not
Are world wide pilots forgetting basic airmanship and basic flying skills?
I agree as a former airline employee for 32:years. I find that negligence is the worst form action. FAA is there to protect travelers from imminent danger and after 2 incidents with hundred of people now dead it it incomprehensible they did not act rifght away. Shame on them and thanks to the Captains raising their concern.
I wonder who will sue Boeing first. An airline or one of the victim's family...
SUlly knows what hes talking about. Dont know what people are saying on here that they are sick of him.. The guy pulled off a WATER landing and he knows what hes talking about obviously
W J -5
I typically don't comment on any of these sites but I've long since tired of Sully in the media. He did what EVERY OTHER professional pilot w/similar skills/experience would have done that day. Luck was huge part of the outcome... A dual engine flameout out of his control and the only logical option was the water, where else would one go in that situation, into downtown?? Unfortunately the media has latched on to him as a "Hero" and, by no fault of his own, Sully has ridden that wave to a unique position, consulting and giving his professional opinion on everything. I guess the sheeple general public need that person in shining armor. As far as the Max, everyone should stand back and let the investigation run its course. Continuous speculation only hurts our industry, often with irreparable damage.
So a guy with the same skills and training could do the same thing. Thanks Captain Obvious, but maybe the point is that EVERY OTHER professional pilot DOESN'T have similar skills/experience.

Being tired of him doesn't change what happened.
I disagree 100%. You think an inexperienced pilot would have that "luck"? Go figure....

[This poster has been suspended.]

chalet 0
More envious people
I don't want to misrepresent what you're saying so I will simply ask. Is anyone who questions the words or actions of Sullenberger today simply an envious person? No other explanation?
You are absolutely correct.
Precisely. The Great One is to be measured against what others in his profession would have done. That's the question that will never get answered, unless someone can replicate it in a sim and throw two guys in there without training to give it a shot. He long ago made the transition to fame whore.
I'm not sure I understand why Capt. Sullenberger feels compelled to offer his "armchair" opinion on these tragedies. To my knowledge Capt Sullenberger never worked for the FAA, flown this aircraft, or been involved in aircraft engineering system design for any manufacturer.

Yes, Capt. Sullenberger performed admirably in his, spectacularly, successful water landing which was achievable because of his extensive flying experience. In turn, the FAA, Boeing and other domestic aircraft manufactures have built a tremendous air safety record. I think the all-inclusive domestic airline industry, that provided Capt. Sulenberger a career and nice pension, deserves some respectful benefit of the doubt.
Pat Clar 2
Sully flew the B-737-300. Close enough, I know this because I was his F/O.
He long ago became a fame whore. Anyway, let's play this game.... let's flash back to Sullenberger's flying career, say right in the meaty middle of it. He's involved in an "incident", survives, and the speculators are out in full force. I wonder if America's Designated Sky God (TM) would take issue with all of the speculation and demand that everyone stand down and shut up until everything is known. I'd bet yes.
Capt Sully did the only thing you can do after loosing all power. You sure couldn’t land on some street in NJ. Most Pilots would have done the same. It was nothing heroic or in need of an immense abundance of skill..
Afterwards he has been anointed as a consultant on everything important. He sure doesn’t have the wisdom to advice the FAA OR Boeing on how to do their jobs. He just proved that with his mundane critique.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

Cansojr 12
Yes he landed a 320 in dire conditions. He has retired from flying and set-up a unique aviation flight safety consulting business. So pay attention and listen to what are his ideas, the industry might wake up and pay attention to this professional pilot. People like him are one in a million.
Cansojr 1
No Kobe all pilots do not have the same skills. That's one of the reason high time pilots have the long haul heavy aircraft routes. Not everyone has the same skill. Do a survey of current and retired pilots. I have over 10,000 hours. There are pilots with twice that amount of experience. There are some pilots have forgotten things I will never learn. Aviation is a learning profession. No two flights are alike. If you Don't fly go to your local flying club and book a fam ride. That could answer some of your questions.
Kobe Hunte -3
i disagree.. he is not one in a million.. pilots nowadays have the same skill level of more. Yes it was a good thing that he was piloting that flight, but he isn't ONE in a million.
Cansojr 1
I did not say Capt. Sullenbergers was one in a million.I said people like him are one in a million. Implying the professional pilots that there is only one is ludicrous. Please read the whole passage.
Kobe Hunte -2
or more*
chalet -1
He is one in a 100 million, morons
RECOR10 -1
"he is one in 100 million" does not make him a smart person with smart ideas. Even a fool can win the lottery every now and again. All that man ever did...well, was his job. Ho got lucky one day is all. I do that most days just driving to work (we all do).
I personally stand behind the MAX and would be 99% confident if I were to fly it. But I do understand why most people don't.
Cansojr 2
They are simply afraid of dying on a flight. Until they fix this mess like they had on the 787s. I am a retired pilot. I believe in looking before you leap. A lot
of people are waiting to hear the words "The MCAS is fixed after 1000 simulations before permitting a test flight in Renton. It has a long road to regain passenger credibility.
Only 99% confident? Would love to be a passenger on a flight where the pilot announced that!
Not so I believe
As you may have seen from the hearing most authorities at the time, including other pilots would have tried for the nearest airfield
but Sully thought ahead. If he had tried for the city he would more than likely crashed and killed more people than just the passengers on the plane
sorry i was stuck on the word city lol. I mean if he tried for the nearest airfield
Let's wait until Jane Fonda and Madonna have had their say.
Cansojr 1
I'm getting my rifle clean for these clowns. Jane for giving aid and support to an enemy while Madonna is simply barking mad.
No way, I won't be satisfied until Beyonce and Jay-Z weigh in.

[This poster has been suspended.]

RECOR10 -2
Now now, please do not let reality get into the way of panicking the populous.
Sully you are retired, enjoy it. A. We are talking about options here and B. Untrained pilots. Boeing still makes the finest aircraft ever known to mankind!
OUCH !! What a typical patriotic American way of thinking, that put Boeing and the FAA in trouble, today.
A: Sully "did the impossible" because he was flying an Airbus, with the help of excellent protection systems, a lot ahead of Boeing knowledge.
B: Boeing should concentrate on development of their systems, instead of political manigance to kill the competiting manufacturers, like they did with Bombardier two years ago, with Airbus a few decades ago.
Pretentious selfishness have no place in commercial aviation in 2019.
Leave that old studip mentality to your great great president, with his wall...
Pure speculation but it appears that the system ran full nose down trim on the tail ( based on jackscrew position) prior to the crash .

In that position and with full up force on the controls would the horizontal stabilizer /elevator or even just the elevator experience flow separation ( stall) , reducing the downforce and causing the nose to respond only to the trimmed horizontal stabilizer. As airspeed increased the stall would end and control effectiveness would bring the nose up again . The scenario seems to match the vertical flight path

Or simply the CG of the aircraft with power reduced.

Presumably in climb the climb power set on the engines would add to the nose up force (which may be why Boeing added the system) .

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

it's also been widely reported that the Hudson landing was performed with one engine still idle....but ignoring pilot inputs for any thrust due to flight software brilliance.
Ted Taylor -4
If he was watching outside the aircraft flight path instead of the river, he might just be another pilot. You can see a flock of geese ahead of you. Done it several times.


FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?