Back to Squawk list
  • 8

Boeing refuse to play ball as Dutch MPs reopen 2009 crash case involving 737

The Dutch parliament have moved to reopen an inquiry into the 2009 Turkish Airlines crash at Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport on February 26, 2009. ( 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Look, I feel badly for people who died...but the Boeing 737 isn't the's the training. YES, the MCAS was an issue, and YES it should have been better explained TO the pilots. I have seen the prelimanry reprt on the Ethiopian crash. THEY (pilots) allowed the airplane to overspeed. Pure. Bad. an overspeed situation? (I have many hours on the B-737) just don't let that happen.
The most glossed over, down played 'whatever' part of the whole mystery Tim, and little discussed here as well. Lion Air was the first and EA302 was a carbon copy, even after Boeing made their admissions and said, refer to the stab. trim runaway procedures! Bet somewhere in the RED Box items is 'throttles Idle' for nose down situations and HOW does a 'qualified' crew ignore or miss the sounds of a hurricane of 400+ knots in the cockpit? Nose going down, noise going UP and throttles 96%, I'll never get it.
Greg S 0
I just don't get it. Why do knowledgeable people continue to try to minimize Boeing's responsibilities in these crashes? The final MCAS design not merely undocumented, it was also a fiasco of failed safety analysis by Boeing that led to its single sensor design.

Third-world airlines are not going to get any better any time soon, including the pilots. So you're really arguing that Boeing should not sell their airplanes to most third-world airlines, and leave that market to Airbus and the rest.
A bit of a gaslight to conflate that either of the posts previous to yours offered by well experienced professional pilots claimed any sort of exoneration of Boeing. In fact, TD acknowledged same in his first sentence and I am well and truly on record here that they screwed the pooch.

The unforced and egregious error of both crews was the failure to retard the throttles after the Boeing misfire precipitated the scenarios. The fact remains that MCAS nondisclosure would not negate the training a 737 flight crew would have received on 'runaway stab trim' procedures and in fact, was what Boeing was counting on.

"So you're really arguing that Boeing should not sell their airplanes to most third-world airlines, and leave that market to Airbus and the rest."

Not the case at all and the reality is that Boeing sells airplanes, not flight crew training. Third world airline accident rates are a matter of record so why would the training and crew performance not be circumspect to the same degree as what they were flyin'.
Greg S 0
I said "minimize", not exonerate. When someone says "...but the Boeing 737 isn't the's the training.", that is unquestionably minimizing Boeing's responsibility. In fact, trying to ascertain what is *THE* problem is an immediate mistake. There is no single problem that caused the Lion Air crash, and presumably the same will prove to be true for the EA crash as well. The right thing to do is to treat everyone who owns a piece of the accident chain of events as if they were solely responsible. That necessarily includes the pilots and their training, that includes Boeing and their severe errors in MCAS design, that includes Lion Air, that include Xtra Aerospace. It even includes the Indonesian government, because Lion Air should simply be shutdown as a fundamentally unsafe airline.
God I love a good Dutch
sounds like a make-work project...doesn't all the highly paid apparatchik have enough to do in Holland? Apparently not. What will they learn that has anything to do with the latest 737 issues...nothing I'd say. But maybe they can throw some euros from their taxpayers at a bunch of starving investigators and lawyers. This is all part of the current most popular sport of government aviation authorities worldwide to cover their own tracks by dragging Boeing through the mud as a distraction from their own pitiful problems.
For some countries I'd agree, but this was the (moderately paid) Dutch parliament who, being Dutch, hate spending money without cause. They now feel that the trust placed in Boeing and the NTSB for the report should be reviewed. If I were Boeing I'd take it seriously and co-operate. KLM is heavily and increasingly invested in Boeing, at the moment, and wants to continue. The parent company likes Airbus; wouldn't take much of a push at the moment, and this could be sorted very simply since there is likely little connection with the MAX problems. It's a simple matter of trust.
Greg S 4
Please, this is just reflexive European anti-Americanism rearing its ugly head. There is a sense that Boeing is vulnerable and so these little cowards are going in for a few easy stabs at Boeing, which is unfortunately burdened with being a proxy for America.

Why should the trust in the NTSB be an issue at all? They're in no way implicated in the MAX crashes.
If it had been an EU thing I might have agreed, but this is Dutch. The reputations of the NTSB and the FAA are involved because the perception is that Boeing they let Boeing leverage the trust in them to support their commercial objectives at the expense of safety of design and accuracy of opinion, and that this process started well before the current round of MAX incidents.
Greg S 2
Anybody who conflates the FAA and the NTSB will be dismissed with cause. Go back, study up, write a 500 word essay on the differences between the two agencies, and use it to apply for reinstatement. The NTSB is the model upon which other investigative agencies base their efforts on. They have a sterling reputation, and they have absolutely nothing to do with aircraft certification in general or the MAX in particular.
Don't need 500 words. "Political regulatory body vs impartial investigative one." I understand the difference and the NTSB is indeed an excellent body and a model. I particularly admire their "just the facts" attitude. But outside the USA they are no longer trusted as they were, probably for the wrong reasons. The key word is "perception"; Boeing's stand is not helping.


계정을 가지고 계십니까? 사용자 정의된 기능, 비행 경보 및 더 많은 정보를 위해 지금(무료) 등록하세요!
이 웹 사이트는 쿠키를 사용합니다. 이 웹 사이트를 사용하고 탐색함으로써 귀하는 이러한 쿠기 사용을 수락하는 것입니다.
FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?
FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..