Boeing gets what it wants from the FAA: No 737 simulator training

[crazytown]

From the outset a key selling point for the 737 Max was no pilot simulator training was required: Operationally they said, it was the same plane as the 737 Next Grnerstion. Never mind that the positioning of the bigger engines had changed the aircraft’s physics computerisation would take care of the differences without pilot intervention.

And it looks like Boeing has got what it wants; to be able to go on selling the 737 Max without simulator training for pilots. They applied and continue to apply ‘max’imum pressure; a board of pilots agrees; The story remains the same.

FAA Board Sees No Need for New Boeing 737 Max Simulator Training

A board of pilot experts appointed by U.S. aviation regulators has reviewed Boeing Co.’s proposed software fix for the grounded 737 Max aircraft and concluded that pilots won’t need additional simulator training once the plane is returned to service.

The report by a Federal Aviation Administration Flight Standardization Board is an important first step in reviewing the still-unfinished upgrade to the 737 Max family of aircraft. It was posted on the FAA’s website and the public has until April 30 to make comments.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-16/faa-board-sees-no-need-for-new-simulator-training-on-737-max

[gratuitous]

1. Why stifle big business with a bunch of regulations?

What could go wrong? But any of those prima donna pilots who refuse to fly a 737 without the simulator training are subject to all kinds of sanctions, and maybe even kiss their careers good-bye. There are justices on the Supreme Court now who contend that an employee should risk his or her life if the boss says so. Don't refuse to fly, don't abandon your rig in a snow storm, and keep your finger in that dike or your corpse will never work in this town again.

[redstatebluegirl]

2. My husband is traveling a ton the next few months.

We have an agreement that if they put those planes back in the air, he doesn't set foot on one. I fully expected Trump's FAA not to interfere with "commerce".

[asiliveandbreathe]

4. Exactly - people who fly MUST be aware of the plane they are offered for their flight -

As for the companies who DO put these planes in the air without training, or safety inspections..well , good luck with that decision...

[redstatebluegirl]

6. We are lucky, he is using grant funds.

With all the new travel restrictions at the University at least he can be careful within the limits of the price of a ticket. He is willing to have to change planes to stay off of those planes.

My brother was a navy pilot for 30 years, he said he didn't think the training was adequate. That is enough for me!

[dlk]

3. God Forbid Boeing Can't Squeeze Out Every Last Dollar of Profits

In the world of vulture capitalism, it is always profits before people.

[redstatebluegirl]

7. Acceptable casualties, it is all about money.

They know how much the payout would be and weather it is "worth it or not". Business doesn't give a lick about all of us.

[CentralMass]

5. I can only imagine the sheer terror for the pilots and passengers on those two flights

It appears that though the pilots followed all the procedures they ended up desperately trying to pull the planes nose up gir 5-8 mintutes wiyhe opposite effect until they crashed. .

Something seems wrong with this decision.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. Simulator training is very expensive, and Boeing certainly would prefer to sell its airplanes

to airlines with the assurance that their pilots won't need that kind of training. To check out in a new airplane (type), airlines and the FAA require a certain number of hours, depending on the approved AQP (Advanced Qualifications Program) training regime, in full-motion simulators that duplicate as closely as possible the handling of the airplane in both normal and abnormal situations. This means that the airline has to buy these very expensive devices (at least $10M apiece) for each airplane type they have. Check rides and type rides have to be done in Level D simulators, which have to go through tests by the FAA to be sure they are as close as possible to the real airplane. They also have to have a specific range of visual displays. The airline also has to have a staff of simulator technicians and programmers, and each sim has to go through a check by a sim tech every 24 hours in order to be used for approved training. The pilots are taken off-line for as long as they are going through the training program, so even though they are being paid they aren't making money for the airline by flying revenue passengers, and the airline also has to employ instructors to do the training. An airline's flight training department doesn't make any money but costs a lot, so there's a perpetual conflict between the bean-counters and the training department.

There are shorter programs called differences training when there's a new but related airplane. The kind of training required depends on what the differences are, and is up to the discretion of the FAA. That seems to be the situation here. Boeing has apparently persuaded the FAA that there's no need to do simulator training (which would require modifying a simulator's software) although the changed positioning of the larger engines would change the flight characteristics of the airplane, even if not dramatically. I hope the decision is not a mistake, but it's almost certainly being driven by money.

[crazytown]

9. Is there any reason Boeing can't set up the simulators

in their own facilities are offer free transport and time to get the airlines pilots there for training. The have the resources, the expertise and technical staff. Why require airlines to duplicate that for a training course?

[MineralMan]

10. They could, but it would take considerable time and cost plenty.

It's not just a matter of a few programming changes in the simulator's software. That requirement would add months, at least, to the process of getting those planes back in the air. The airlines don't want that. Boeing doesn't want that. The FAA doesn't want that.

Production would end on new aircraft, cutting into Boeing's profits. The airlines who have committed to the plane will have fleet shortages, as they already do, but they'd last longer.

It's going to be a purely economical decision. On the brighter side, millions of miles have already been flown by those planes, full of passengers. If they can really minimize the possibility of that particular thing happening again, it probably won't happen again.

[crazytown]

12. Yes I see.

It’s impractical now, particularly in terms of getting the aircraft back in the air, but going forward, can you see a reason why the manufacturers, Boeing and Airbus, should not shoulder the cost of simulator training. If it falls on the airlines then the same pressures that were brought to bear on the FAA this time round may happen again. Did the FAA require simulator training for the A320 neo?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. Too many would be needed, and the transportation and logistics

would be extremely expensive and complicated. At the airline where I used to work, the simulators, of which there were (I think) twelve (for several different aircraft types), were usually in use 24 hours a day, except for 2:00 - 6:00 a.m. when they were being inspected and maintained. Multiply that by the dozens of airlines that use Boeing simulators and you have an impossible situation. Airlines need the flexibility to manage and schedule their training programs.

[crazytown]

13. Does't make sense to centralise simulator training

rather than have Airlines duplicate it all around the world?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. No. Airlines have to be able to manage their own schedules and not depend

on the schedules and availability of an outside facility. Pilots are viewed as machinery, financially, so every hour of a pilot's down-time (when they are not available for revenue flying) is a financial loss for the airline, just like a broken airplane. Delta, for example, has about 12,000 pilots, all of whom have to go through regular recurrent training as well as full training courses for a different aircraft type. It would be an impossible situation.

[crazytown]

15. Thank you for the explanation

It all seems simple if you don’t know anything about real world operations :blushes:

[PuppyBismark]

16. Before you make comments about this subject, you may want to have an understanding of the issues

Reading the comments here, it seems to me that the comments being made have more to do with individuals feelings about large companies and less to do with the specific technical issue at hand for the Boeing 737 MAX. Reading the initial post, it says

"A board of pilot experts appointed by U.S. aviation regulators has reviewed Boeing Co.’s proposed software fix for the grounded 737 Max aircraft and concluded that pilots won’t need additional simulator training once the plane is returned to service."

That should indicate that it was an independent decision of qualified pilots who are willing to fly the 737 MAX with the training Boeing is suggesting. It seems to me that Boeing does not want to have any more issues with the 737 MAX or it will lose much more than it has. Even the loss of one 737 sale costs more than what they want to have happen.

I am a pilot and have been tracking this issue very closely and I agree with what Boeing is suggesting. If anyone wants more detailed information, I suggest you watch this video. MCAS is the name of the system that contributed to the two crashes.

We also need to remember that Boeing is a substantial contributor to the USA balance of payments and it is in our best interests that Boeing get this right.

I would have no qualms about flying in a 737 MAX after the fixes are applied and the pilots get their non-simulator training.

[crazytown]

17. Thank you.

As you and others have taken the time and effort to reply in detail to my the post, I am learning more about the real world issues and practicalities here, rather than tabloid commentary.

[tblue37]

18. I doubt they will sell many of these models anyway. nt

[PuppyBismark]

19. Based on what reason?

Boeing has a backlog of over 4000 orders and once this fix is rolled out they will be selling many more. Or would you rather see airlines turn to Airbus? Do you think Airbus has not had similar problems? They have?

Can our balance of trade suffer a failure of Boeing as well as can we afford to lose all the jobs that Boeing represents?

[tblue37]

20. I'm just thinking people get scared of something and then nothing gets them unscared.

I just imagine a public that refuses to fly on these planes. Maybe they could rebrand them somehow.