What Really Brought Down the Boeing 737 Max?

The author of the article, William Langewiesche is a well-respected aviation journalist, pilot and author, and son of Wolfgang Langewiesche (who wrote "Stick and Rudder" in 1944 and still in print -- a bible to those of us who learnt to fly in the 60's and 70's.) A very credible article, written, as expected from the perspective of a stick-and-rudder pilot. IMHO, a very credible article written from the perspective, as expected, of a "stick and rudder" pilot.

So here we are what, 6 months into the grounding? As we maybe are nearing the end, after Boeing has been beaten like a rented mule (not necessarily undeserved), NOW it's time to address the elephant in the room regarding the pilots' lack of experience and training? Really?! This underscores everything that's wrong with media, esp American media, these days. Run with a narrative for months that only presents one side of a story, then when things have died down and people have already made up their minds quietly present the "other side". Welcome to modern "journalism" eh.

Automation on the flight deck is great until it malfunctions; at that point the acquired flying skill sets of the crew takes over.

Domestic aircraft manufacturers design and build passenger aircraft under the regulatory compliance/oversight of the FAA, domestic airlines purchase and operate aircraft under regulatory compliance/oversight of the FAA. How much control does the FAA have over foreign airline purchasing and operations?

Is it remotely possible the underlying causation of the tragedies originated with flight crew training, routine maintenance of the aircraft, ground handling and/or rudimentary weight & balance envelope criteria? In all the "finger pointing" surrounding the related tragedies, I've not heard any "armchair critiques" of the foreign airline's operational form, function, or compliance track record. As sad as these tragedies are, I'm thoroughly convinced neither the FAA, Boeing, or any domestic airline would by commission or omission intentionally put lives at risk. Safe air travels to all!

Learning to fly the plane without all the technological assistance BEFORE one progresses to TAA (Technically Advanced Aircraft) is the most fundamental way to prevent such tragic accidents. There have been several accidents over the years where the pilot became a passenger with the plane calling the plays instead of the pilot controlling the aircraft -

As a flight instructor, my number one mantra with every student is always "Fly the plane FIRST" all else is secondary. The more advanced the technology, the more the pilot has to be intimately familiar with all the systems, knowing not only how they work, but what to do when they don't and how they can misbehave. Not all airline training programs in the world are equal in their emphasis on what to do when things don't work as expected.

This is what many of us that fly the B737 in the US have been saying. Yes Boeing dropped the ball by not building in redundancy but many of these foreign carriers are very sketchy with their training and experience. Every Indonesian airline wasn't banned from Europe and North America because we just didn't like their choice of shoes. Their safety record is abysmal and their government is negligent, and they aren't the only country that isn't welcome in our airspace (or in some cases it's the aircraft type that's banned such as the old Soviet Union built airplanes)

From the very beginning, I have had my suspicions about pilot training at these foreign carriers. Pilots that cannot identify a malfunctioning trim system and immediately disable it have no place in a commercial airline cockpit. They only have training enough to get a license. These kind of pilots are NOT aviators, they are system managers. That accident should never have happened. As long as nothing goes wrong, they get away with it until something does go wrong.

two things common with both fatal crashes are:
1.) Having on 1 AOA Vane

I talked to a pilot friend who told me never to fly on non us carriers to Asia. In Asia that is much more difficult. The reason, pilot training or non-training. Just like the Asiana crash in SFO pilots can't fly the planes by the seat-of-their-pants anymore. They rely on automation and if multiple things go wrong they can't save the flight. If you can't FLY the plane you shouldn't be in the cockpit no matter how many computers there are.

There's a lot of smart aviation people here. Tell me how I'm wrong on this assessment.

Boeing created an inherently unstable aircraft (the stronger and larger engines and how they were placed relative to the wing potentially leading to pitch-up).
Then Boeing developed software to correct this instability issue.
Boeing didn't inform pilots and the airlines that the software existed.
The software relies on a single flight input that can return erroneous readings and isn't overridden when the input disagrees with the backup input.

Am I missing something here? Why are people defending Boeing and this aircraft model?

It's like everything else in this world, former skills dumbed down so a caveman can do it. That is until the fecal matter hits the fan.

Finally a decent, objective report on the two crashes and the excessive criticism of the 737 Max. I'm frankly surprised that it was printed in the New York Times, which has often led the call for the Max's grounding. Let's see if the long-awaited reports are as lame as the report predicts. (For my part I would fly on a 737 Max in the US today if they were flying.)

And yes, there is a paywall. These should be banned here. But for once I signed up for a free subscription just to read this important article.

No, folks who are blaming carriers are out of line. Boeing sold the 737Max with the assurance that minimal training would be necessary. There is simply no way that blame can be shifted from Boeing, it's engineering and design staff and executives.

When I was an Airline Pilot, we were routinely trained for runaway stabilizer scenarios during simulator periods. Opposite stick pressure followed by using the stab trim cutout switches to kill power to the stab trim motors. The procedure was a no brainer. Why didn't this ever occur to the crews on these flights?

Looks like a good article .. paywall.. heads up

Bad risk analysis. Just like NASA's risk analysis for the shuttle program or Douglas on the DC-10's famous left side cargo door design. But it's not just Boeing, Airbus had three close calls with the A330's which dove for the ground, see the "Air Disaster" show regarding Qantas 72. Even now the A320 NEO CG problems all bad risk analysis, which can be limiting payload wise or Murphy's Law will show up unexpectedly.

I agree 100%. Mr. Langewiesche is to be commended for his superb article telling the real truth about the whole MAX saga. It's about time.

I’m only a private pilot that flies 172’s through clouds, so have no actual experience in complex aircraft. Many comments here about issues with pilots causing the two MAX crashes and resulting in the grounding. What I can’t understand is why there were no requirements for additional sim training. Wouldn't it make sense to overdo flight crew training in a new variant- even if it doesn’t require a new type certificate? We are taught as pilots to be over-cautious in flight planning, why the different approach when you’re carrying paying pax? We don’t know what is being said in the Boeing board room (other than I’m sure monthly board meetings are most likely being held almost daily now)- how could a board comprised of some of the most competent people in the aerospace / financial world authorize the development and marketing of this product, when (as said here) it required pilot competence equal to or better than that described as being what we here in the US / “western world” develop? I’m sure that Boeing marketing knows their international customer base.

The article, and several responses, attempt to zero in on some of the causes of these disasters. While the author acknowledges poor design, he also identifies pilot error. Fine. But we must get to the root cause. Why are pilots not being trained to better respond to emergencies? Why are manufacturers allowed to self-regulate? Regarding the former, it seems that a poor training regime, as mandated by government certifiers (not just the US) is to blame. Perhaps some pilots are incapable of piloting beyond training in rote action steps. A certified training system should be able to weed them out. Regarding the latter, why wasn't the FAA properly funded so that it could hire the proper competent engineers to do its job? Why was the FDA allowed long ago to allow drug companies to conduct their own clinical trials, and manage test results however they want? Root cause for both: you and I are too blame. We hired (voted for) legislators that shorted funding to government regulators for years. After all, per Saint Reagan and his disciples, government regulations are bad, right? It's easy to blame the FAA. It's harder to acknowledge the root cause: we're not giving the FAA enough funds to hire competent regulators. These disasters will continue until the root cause is fixed. In the meantime, people will continue to take Statin drugs to their detriment because the medical industry tells them to. And the FDA is nowhere to be found. Boeing and big pharma correctly serve their shareholders. That's fine. Capitalism is fine. But, we're fools to allow them to self regulate. It always comes down to money.

Brings to mind a night in Mui Wo (Lantau Island) having some beer with an AirBus guy working with Cathay training. Take away comment he was not surprised at Asian crashes due to pilot ability, amazed that there aren't more.

This is a well researched and written article. I agree with the author’s conclusions.

CASE IN POINT, THE Asiana 777 THAT HIT THE SHORELINE AT san Francisco IN 2013

Human beings create machines. Humans are not perfect, so their machines are not perfect. There will always be design, maintenance and mechanical failures. We can only seek to minimize the suffering and fatalities.

From the back of the plane:I would fly the MAX driven by a pilot from a major U.S. carriers every day since the crash. Why no problems here in 1000a of flights? The lack of skills outlined here is also why I avoid regional carriers whenever possible.
Will Europe certify the MAX when it's in their interest not to to give athletes Airbus a continuing edge?

The pilots for the doomed MAX's did not seem to know how to read some of the basic instruments on an airplane, ie: airspeed and altimeter. Regarding responsibility it has to be shared can't blame Boeing for a mal-functioning AOA sensor or not throttling back on your air speed or disabling the auto trim.
I believe the MAX WILL be one of the safest planes to fly once its back in service and perhaps the outcome of this unfortunate incident will prompt an investigation into the operations of these low budget airlines, on crew training and maintenance, etc.

Lastly I have learnt from my VFR training to FLY!! the plane NO amount of redundancy in the design of the plane will help if you don't understand the basics of flight. Just reflect on the miracle on the Hudson and how that could have gone horribly wrong if it wasn't for the skills of the flight crew.

plotage, simple flying expertise is in shorter supply than in the past. The contemporary cockpits repleat with small screens of multiple presentations, may be a shortcut to simplicity, but far too many lower time pilots, non-military trained, place reverence in the diplays without knowing what they are looking at, or how to respond when/if something new or unexpected presents itself. Perhaps expansion needs to slow down until the pool of competent pilots catches up with helter-skelter expansion. It is only safety, no real big thing........
dumbing down displays to accomodate lower time pilots around the world does not make me feel confident.

After testing it was found even the best of pilots would be doomed. The system was found to be cutting in every 10 seconds with extreme nose down even with the system disabled. The system not deactivating was the problem, not bad pilots.

Articles posted behind paywalls are not nice.

Boeing has deliberately and shamelessly perpetrated the meme of pilot failure to divert attention from its own callous responsibility in the management philosophy that led to the development of this plane and the MCAS system. In a rather lengthy article from The New Republic, we read of the decision making blunders that led to the production of a "self-hijacking" plane.
https://newrepublic.com/article/154944/boeing-737-max-investigation-indonesia-lion-air-ethiopian-airlines-managerial-revolution

Someone screwed the old pooch at Boeing! Components on the planes control system failed.
Too arrogant or possibly too greedy to admit it could be something they caused in the first crash. The second one could have and should have been prevented. You cant blame the crew and white wash the Boeing failures to respond to repeated failures of systems on the aircraft. This article seems to still point a few fingers at everyone other then the manufactures team, and a plane that should not have required "Super man" in the cockpit to fly it or save it.

The author continues the Boeing narrative, it's not our fault if only the pilots turned off the trim switches. He makes no mention of the role the stabilizer brake played in these disasters, maybe he does not know what that is or how it is disabled with MCAS. I question his credibility, stating he had 4 runaway trims when most of us have never had one or heard of one in an entire career.

Obviously, he was paid by the word, nothing new for a lengthy article full of xenophobia.

Put in a similar circumstance, multiple conflicting aural and visual warnings, a poor designed QRC and obvious fear that they would die in 41 seconds, we have to wonder how these armchair quarterbacks would do in similar circumstances.