
Capt. “Sully” Sullenberger Slams Boeing for Inadequate Pilot Training - jgwil2
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/capt-sully-sullenberger-slams-boeing-093246566.html
======
PowerfulWizard
The thing that still bothers me about the 737 MAX information I've seen, in
particular from the NYT article that was discussed here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20070509](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20070509)
is that I'm not convinced anyone at Boeing understood the flight
characteristics of the aircraft, even after the 1st crash.

When you have a very complex system, which has been incrementally modified
over a 50 year period, it is going to be really difficult to understand all
the interactions. The NYT article describes a Jan 2016 parameter change on the
MCAS to make it faster and more powerful.

I _am_ convinced that the MCAS will be studied and understood, and pilots can
be trained to respond appropriately. I'm _not_ convinced that there is a
process in place where the consequences of changes to the aircraft are known
and tested in advance.

Ultimately, if the pilot is willing to fly, I'm willing to fly, but based on
what I've seen, I don't think there was an adequate change control process in
place, and as long as that is true issues will continue to be "discovered" in
flight. Training is a solution to known problems, not unknown problems.

~~~
salawat
I have trouble believing that Boeing didn't know exactly how that plane flew.
Back in the 60's, Boeing was notorious amongst test pilots for knowing exactly
how a plane would behave, when it would misbehave, and how[1].

That's back then. The state of the art in CFD has only made the process
easier. There is absolutely no room for them to have not known the physical
ramifications of that change.

Where the story gets sketchy is where Boeing didn't update the FAA on the
later change to the system, and every attempt being made to ensure that they
didn't design anything such that the FAA would deem simulator training
necessary as evidenced by whistleblower testimony (See the Australian 60
minutes expose[2]).

[1] The D. P. Davies Interview, Royal Aeronautics Society,
[https://www.aerosociety.com/news/audio-the-d-p-davies-
interv...](https://www.aerosociety.com/news/audio-the-d-p-davies-interview-on-
testing-the-comets-boeing-707-britannia-brabazon/)

[https://www.aerosociety.com/news/audio-the-d-p-davies-
interv...](https://www.aerosociety.com/news/audio-the-d-p-davies-interview-on-
the-boeing-747-the-trident-vc10-one-eleven-the-boeing-727/)

[2][https://youtu.be/QytfYyHmxtc](https://youtu.be/QytfYyHmxtc)

------
DamnInteresting
_“We should all want pilots to experience these challenging situations for the
first time in a simulator, not in flight, with passengers and crew on board,”
Sullenberger said, adding that “reading about it on an iPad is not even close
to sufficient.”_

This is the one quote attributed to Sullenberger. Is that enough to claim that
he "slams" Boeing? Headline hyperbole is annoying.

~~~
giobox
Given that a material part of Boeing's solution was to provide iPad based
training materials rather than the simulator time he believes was necessary,
coupled with his language - "not even close to sufficient" \- I'm comfortable
with calling this a slam.

The full remarks from which this quote is lifted are significantly critical of
Boeing, during which he describes the "current system of aircraft
certification and design" as having "failed us". I don't think this headline
mistakes the the nature of his remarks at all.

------
Hasknewbie
Reminder (motivated by taway69's post questioning Sully's credentials): prior
to the Hudson river incident in 2009, Sully was already an aviation safety
expert, having participated in multiple National Transportation Safety Board
investigation, and having founded a safety related company in 2007 (so at that
moment in 2009 he was kind of the perfect man for the situation). So yes he's
very much qualified to testify in front of Congress.

------
bfdm
The best part of this whole thing has been the airlines being forced to pull
some older 787-800s off the bench for main route duty. They have so much more
leg room in the old seat configuration.

We had one trip where the window seat was able to get out without the other
two leaving the row, in economy! (There was a lot of rubbing, but it was
possible)

------
blt
Check out this documentary on Boeing's sketchy manufacturing & QA process back
in the days of the 787 release. It seems that the company has been toxic for a
while now.

[https://youtu.be/rvkEpstd9os](https://youtu.be/rvkEpstd9os)

