← Back to Squawk list
  • 35

US regulator sees no need for new Boeing 737 Max simulator training

Enviado há
 
The proposal by an FAA board stops short of requiring costly simulator training as it could complicate the grounded 737 Max aircraft's return to service (theprint.in) Mais...

MH370
Escolha da semanaViciado em NotíciasEntusiastaAmigo de confiançaLista de HonraEscolha do diaFotógrafo amadorPromotorAltruístaAnuncianteAutobiógrafo

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


hortod1
dj horton 14
It’s too costly to send the pilots back into the sim? What kind of flawed logic is that? The whole point of a sim is to practice and review scenarios regarded too risky to do in an actual airplane.

Seems those in charge (manufacturer/airlines/feds) have come up with an algorithm that puts a price on human life, which is cheaper than sim training.

Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
nasdisco
Chris B 6
Its Boeing's Tylenol moment. They had another with the 787 battery fires. They didn't do a good PR job then, but the engineers fixed the problem and its a great aircraft.

I'd rather the FAA set the training at the highest possible standard. However if the simulators haven't been programmed and approved with the latest MCAS software release, there is no point spending time in the simulator.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
dabeed
Dave Fisher 8
Hardly. Tylenol was sabotaged by some depraved individual(s). Boeing's problems are of their own making.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
nasdisco
Chris B 4
The Tylenol reference was to the PR side of the equation. Which is a blind spot for Boeing that appeared with the 787 and again with the Max.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
baingm
Gary Bain -3
Do you really think Boeing would intentionally design, build and deliver that they knew was going to be detrimental to their reputation?
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
djames225
djames225 2
Tylenol is a pain reliever, and Boeing is having to take a lot more of it with this mess just as they did with the 787 issue...eventually the pain will subside and business will carry on, thou with less deeper pockets.
WTH has that got to do with intentional design???They never "intentionally designed" the 787 to have the batteries catch fire, but should have done more research first about Lithium batteries...same can be said for this mess...they should have built redundancies into the system first. "Hey how come both AoA sensors are reading different, best not engage but issue a warning of the problem"
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
speshulk99
john kilcher 2
It's a numbers game and a very deadly game indeed. Keeping the stockholder's happy was priority over safety. IMO this A/C should have never gotten an Airworthiness Certificate.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
MickLucas
William Lucas 11
Shows American regulators are slack. In Australia no simulator, no flying!
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
ianq
Ian Quickmire 6
Transport Canada has also come out and stated no Max8 will be able to fly in Canadian airspace unless the pilots have received flight simulator training

https://canadianaviationnews.wordpress.com/2019/04/18/garneau-calls-for-flight-simulators-before-max-8s-can-return-to-canadian-skies/

But even more interesting than that is Air Canada has come out and said they are the only airline in the U.S. and Canada that have Max8 flight simulators.

https://canadianaviationnews.wordpress.com/2019/04/18/air-canada-pilots-review-boeing-737-max-systems-amid-global-flight-ban/

I assume that means, as Boeing intended, that Max8 training for current NG pilots was nothing more than some course on an iPad?
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ADXbear
ADXbear 22
Ya better figure our how to make passengers willing to even get on one of these... perception is a costly repair indeed.. the airlines will have there hands full with these rescheduling due to acft type.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
bdsfff
Bryan Shannon 1
Agreed!!! Boeing really needs to demonstrate that they have fixed the issues and may the plane safe to fly. Now with the engine carbon issue coming to light, I am guessing there is still a long road to recovery. They need to address the supply issue of the AOA sensor as well in my opinion, but my 2 cents isn't worth too much LOL
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
k9wrangler
Karl Scribner 0
Maybe they should re-name the aircraft model to deflect association with the Max handle...737 Joe?
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
AABABY
AABABY 1
How about "Electra"? That should get the exit ramps filling up.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
dee9bee
dee9bee -6
I'm thinking that most passengers have no idea what type of plane they are on unless they happen to ask and certainly won't know the difference between a MAX and a plain -800. As I recall, the same thing occurred when TWA started flying the 767 across the pond.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Jeraboam
Jeraboam 3
My ticket on TAP Portugal on Sunday had the same aircraft designation as on the website when I booked: A330-900; the plane I boarded was the A330-200. Incidentally, according to Flightaware, this is the only aircraft TAP uses on its LIS-YYZ daily flights. The new A330-900 appears to have been shifted to the South America route. Something similar has happened occasionally on Air Canada and Lufthansa. The problem only surfaces when you do the early on-line check-in and discover that your seat allocations may have been changed without notice.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
MultiComm
MultiComm 5
Not true with technology today. It is fairly easy to determine the aircraft type. Generally the airline website even tells the passenger (at least Delta does). Not to mention it is on the safety evacuation card ... which by that point it may be too late to get off.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tbpera
Tom Pera -2
80% of the traveling public doesn't know or care what type airplane they're flying...
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
djames225
djames225 7
Perhaps they didn't before, but I believe that 80% is now down to about 45-50%
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
SBConsult
Steven Bollinger 4
I didn’t care that much before, but I sure as hell do now!
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
dabeed
Dave Fisher -1
It says on your ticket what type of aircraft you are flying on. TWA?!? Are you serious? That was eons before internet, cell phones, google, news alerts, FB, etc. Everybody knows everything now.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
jsaulsbury1
John Saulsbury 8
Boeing needs to address the manual trim also so it would work under any condition or attitude the plane is in, new gearing to make it turn more easily. Along with fixing the electric/electronic controls. What good is manual if you cannot use it when it’s the last resort.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
djames225
djames225 5
I agree, John...unlike Bill, I dont think it was a final attempt at all by either crew, but the Ethiopian crew were showing to go by memory. Do this, do this, do that, shut off trim etc, but when the load/forces on the jackscrew, that MCAS also uses uses to control stabs, was too great, even shut off, the trim wheels simply wouldn't move fast enough or were almost impossible to move. So they turned the electrics back on hoping they would help, but instaed made things worse.
There needed to be a max set point the NCAS system was allowed to rotate the stabs, via the jackscrew, that when shut off the trim wheels could still be moved fast, and easily, enough to re-trim. There also needed to be algorithm in the MCAS system that used info from both sensors, not just 1, and if there was impeding info from 1 sensor but not the other, MCAS would have stayed disengaged.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
japanjeff
japanjeff 7
As a software developer, I can't believe that they wrote such a critical function based on a single input when two were available. Crazy!
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
bbabis
bbabis 2
All good points rapidwolve. From your lips to the FAA's ears.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
bbabis
bbabis 4
You nailed the final cause John even though you may not know it. These crews finally attempted to use the manual trim as a last resort and not when it would have worked to relieve pressure as it had done in previous events. People need to realize how far out of the operating envelope these planes were allowed to get. To what extremes must normal systems work?
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
RRKen
Kenneth Schmidt 8
The issues surrounding the 737 MAX has been covered by Radio and TV news, sometimes twice a week for some time now. Like it or not, it is front and center in both the common travelers, and business travelers minds. We are talking perception.

In order to counter that current perception, you have to show that your product is repaired to a condition better than it started. It would be good PR if you also convinced the public that it's pilots have been trained above and beyond the norm to ensure safety.

The public, and indeed the industry, can see through pap and silly adverts, however their confidence is better strengthened by actions such as enhanced training and software safeguards.

Like it or not, PR is very important to bring the brand back from being rubbed in the mud.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
andyc852
Andy Cruickshank 8
I trust that the airlines will make the training a part of sim training for both new and recurrent training and be able to tell their customers that their pilots are trained above the standards set by the FAA
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
tyketto
Brad Littlejohn 12
Well, not only that, but I think it's hard to trust the FAA at this point, as they share in some of the negligence on this. They all but let Boeing self-certify this aircraft, in which with a more thorough inspection and certification process, could have found this issue before it came to 2 crashes.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
bbabis
bbabis -1
You’re 20/20 hindsight is amazing. Ifs and might haves are easy to state. In reality, everything was done with accepted practices of the times with no insidious intent. Now is the time to change those practices if it is determined that it will contribute to safety and efficiency in the future.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
rwoollams
Richard Woollams 11
The FAA certified a plane that had a single-point-of-failure flaw that could crash it unless the crew was very aware of the flaw and procedures for surmounting the problem. Having certified it with that flaw, they didn’t require crew training on how to deal with the problem. When the problem manifested itself in the form of two crashes and hundreds dead, the FAA dragged its feet about pulling the plane from service, only doing so until every other aviation body had acted.

The FAA has acted like it works for Boeing throughout this mess, and it doesn’t seem to have learned anything from that. Hindsight? I wish the FAA had some.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
dabeed
Dave Fisher 8
"The FAA has acted like it works for Boeing"
Welcome to the deregulation era. The FAA budget has been incrementally decreased and their authority eroded over the last 20 years. With the present administration in particular, the FAA director has been instructed to do the bidding of the airline industry. Profits are tantamount. If some lives are lost it's no big deal.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tbpera
Tom Pera 1
think the MAX was tested and approved during prior administration...
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tyketto
Brad Littlejohn 2
And that has what to do with the all but blanket rubber stamping of the certification of the MAX? Again, this isn't a political thing, as proper certification tests and training should be done, regardless of what political party is in charge.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tbpera
Tom Pera 2
agree...FAA and Boeing... not Obama or Trump
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
whip5209
Ken McIntyre 0
Words of wisdom, here.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
baingm
Gary Bain -3
Why do some people have to make everything political. Why "the present administration in particular"? Do you have any basis in fact to make that assertion?
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
KineticRider
Randy Marco 1
Well Gary, let me give you a synopsis of a grade school civics lesson, you would have taken, if you had a proper education.

There is a thing called GOVERNMENT and politics is the act of electing people to run that government; of which the FAA is part of.

If government is controlled by a party that believes in as little regulation as possible, no one is overseeing the capitalists. Boeing is a capitalist organization which sole purpose is to generate profits for it's shareholders. 

Boeing has POLITICALLY lobbied to self regulate itself and have been granted the authority to make it's own decisions because as Boeing states "no government authority could understand its systems"; therefore, Boeing is allowed to unilaterally decide what's best and safest for its aircraft. Boeing is then permitted to simply submit those results to the FAA; which shall then approve (rubber stamp) Boeing's findings; which is EXACTLY what happened in the instant case of certifying the Max, including MCAS, the flight manual and recommended pilot training.

FACTUALLY, the Repugnant's are continously against ALL regulation, they are for Corporate SELF REGULATION and if you weren't so clueless about government and politics you would know that. 

As to the present administration, "individual 1" is FACTUALLY proven to be a corrupt, pay for play, pathological liar, who has complete disregard for the rule of law and of which his campaign worked with the Russian's to get him elected, per Mueller's report. Further, amongst other travesties, he rewarded the Russian's for helping him get elected, by lifting sanctions against them.

Finally both he and the Repugnant's have FACTUALLY cut ALL regulation and packed the courts with Judges that are ideologically complicit, as much as they were able to in the two years their party controlled BOTH branches of Congress and the Presidency which EQUALS the GOVERNMENT.

To not be knowledgeable about politics is to know NOTHING about how our GOVERNMENT is DIRECTLY affecting all aspects, of ALL of our lives, including but not limited to AVIATION!
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
VivPike
Viv Pike 2
Which Administration "rubber stamped" the MAX & MCAS system? The present, or the previous? Just asking.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
KineticRider
Randy Marco -3
Looks like you rode the short bus also so here you go http://bfy.tw/NJGJ

Also if you actually would like to learn a few more facts about the FAA not even having a Director appointed by "Individual 1" https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/faa-chief-defends-boeing-737-max-certification-confirms-it-delegated-part-of-review-to-boeing-itself/
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
VivPike
Viv Pike 1
Not being an American, I did not vote for your "Individual 1", as you like to refer to YOUR President. And no need for sarcasm, I asked you a simple question. I will now move on.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
KineticRider
Randy Marco -1
No sarcasm intented, I was factually showing how to find an answer quickly & easily. Google isn't just for Americans.

Enjoy your day or night where ever you are located!
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
KineticRider
Randy Marco -1
Example of politics DIRECTLY affecting the FAA http://bfy.tw/NJGW
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
bbabis
bbabis -2
All aircraft have many single points of failure that can cause serious problems. In every case a decision is made on wether it is acceptable or not. The decision is made anywhere from the manufacturing process to the beginning of every flight. The glaring one is that every time a single engine airplane takes off the pilot has made the decision that he/she can handle an engine failure and accepts the risk. Because of this fact, training and LEARNING must take place to be able to handle these events. Even though MCAS has rightly taken the brunt of questioning for these two accidents, I again point out that no matter what caused the issue, these were simply cases of runaway trim that were mishandled and resulted in the loss of the aircraft.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
djames225
djames225 3
And obviously you have not been keeping up with the reports that indicate the runaway trim, thanks to the MCAS system, may have very well been uncontrollable due to the forces exterted on the stab trim jackscrew...forces that even shutting off the electrics, was already past critical and trim wheels were useless.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
baingm
Gary Bain 0
Yes, excess forces on the stab trim jackscrew because they never reduced power from TO power cruising around at 380 knots. What thinking pilots would do that?
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
djames225
djames225 3
reduce power, reduce speed, nose drops even more.
Besides it's been shown in various aspects, that even when power is reduced at nose down you still gain speed and air forces are still there.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
bbabis
bbabis -2
Please reread my post. I am very up to date and well aware of the possible consequences of not acting to control trim promptly which neither of these crews did. The 737MAX is not the only aircraft that this can or has happened to if allowed to get well out of its operating envelope. Should this be addressed? Certainly, but to what extent?
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
djames225
djames225 2
You don't know how "promptly" the second crew acted...3 minutes goes by extremely fast when facing adversity on the deck..and from reports, not out of Boeing, the MCAS system can push the operations limit way past it's boundary, very quickly, in certain conditions.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
bbabis
bbabis -1
Raise the standards if you ever feel that you are not safe with standard training. The real problem though is that the foundation of fundamentals is not there and all the type training in the world falls apart when things break down to the basics.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
dreed9139
David Reed 3
Regardless of any “fix”, I can choose my travel. Considering the overall design issues I will avoid booking on this aircraft.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
milehighou
milehighou 2
Not a wise move, IMO. I guess these idiots would rather be sorry than safe.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
topgunnh
Peter McGrath 2
EVERYTHING comes back to money! If it costs a lot, it's probably "not necessary" in the eyes of the bean counters!
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
gcottay
George Cottay 2
For me it's simple. If you want me on the passenger list then provide Max pilots with simulator hours. Almost the same as flying previous models just doesn't cut it.

Perhaps enough passengers will feel the same way that airlines will spend the time and money to provide their pilots the training they need to be at the top of their professional game.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
jwbauerle
John Bauerle 2
Make it mandatory that THIS regulator fly in the first one hundred random flights when the maxes are put back in to use.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
dabeed
Dave Fisher 3
Right! Let's not impose simulator training because it would cost the airlines a too much money. Ahem... isn't the pursuit of profits why 346 lives were lost? Boeing tried to reconfigure an existing airframe, realized there was a problem with the forward mounted engines and threw together some kludge to deal with the shortcomings. Oh well, lives lost is the cost of doing business. That's what happens when you allow an industry to regulate itself. Knowing this curent US administration, I wouldn't be surprised if they try to privatize the FAA and the NTSB.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
tbpera
Tom Pera -1
think the MAX was approved during the previous administration?
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
djames225
djames225 3
Maybe approved to build, but not approved to fly. "The 737 MAX series gained FAA certification on March 8, 2017."
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tbpera
Tom Pera -1
testing done in 2016... first flight Jan 2016...testing throughout the year... don't think current admin could have had time from Jan 20 to March to have much input... do you? let's move on
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
djames225
djames225 1
As I stated, it was approved to build, not to fly.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
baingm
Gary Bain -1
Then why would you build it?????
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
djames225
djames225 0
Yes I agree and apoligize...this is an aviation, not political, forum.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Naemuti
Emily Leighton 1
Just curious, why do people not think the comment section of a squawk regarding the FAA is going to be political? We are discussion a GOVERNMENT agency, of course politics are involved.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
baingm
Gary Bain 0
Why does it matter?
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
baingm
Gary Bain -2
BS
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
patpylot
patrick baker 2
who exactly is being sheltered here by the FAA? TOo costly? balderdash.... There are millions if not billions tied up in this stoppage of 737Max groundings to shortchange public confidence and piloting confidence in the systems by not going the proper mile, not the extra mile, to say finally: boeing fixed the computer codes, added the safety equipment-once optional- and retrained all pilots in how to ride this bucking bonco. Now, everybody , just get onboard and feel confident... And have a drink or three while on this next flight. And just one more thing: When i look at the youtube videos of cockpit activity of the A350 and A220, i wonder why boeing didn't bother to construct a similar pilot-friendly cockpit for the 737Max. No wonder Delta bought nearly 100 of the 220's and will probably buy hundreds more: the cockpit cooperates fully with the pilot. as does the 350....Boeing is clearly second-best here....
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
baingm
Gary Bain -2
Because Southwest Airlines insisted on it for standardization reasons. Being Boeing's largest 737 customer they complied.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
AABABY
AABABY 1
Does anyone remember the Lockheed 188 or "Operation Tilt Up" ?
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
isardriver
isardriver 1
unreal, slack for profit, while people die
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
liko2k
Jakub Bialek 1
That corrupted SOTBs :/
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
tbpera
Tom Pera 1
Lockheed Electra faulty engine support...fell out of the sky... fixed and flew with pax for many years... DC10 baggage door locks caused a couple of crashes ... fixed...flew pax for many years... Connie and DC6s had cabin heater problems...grounded then flew pax for many years... this too shall pass
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

kbeller44
Kyle Beller 8
pure ignorance to the highest degree
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tyketto
Brad Littlejohn 9
This sounds like someone didn't read the preliminary report that came from ETH regarding their crash, and how Boeing's CEO quickly backtracked from his comment of "if this (the LNI crash) were flown by a crew that wasn't from overseas, this wouldn't have happened".

Then it did happened, and he quickly shut up about it. Those 3rd world pilots followed every single thing that Boeing said, and it still happened.

So please stop segregating the pilots based on where they 're from, because the fault here lies with Boeing, not them.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
dvbavcon
Dean Brossman 5
Actually, if you read the reports, the pilots did not follow Boeing procedures. In a runaway trim situation, which these should be identified as, you are instructed to engage the trim cutout switch. On the first accident, they did not engage the switch and in the second, they engaged trim cutout but then reactivated it. MCAS engages the electric trim to trim nose down, when this happens, the pilot should see it as runaway trim because they are not telling the aircraft to trim. Please do not interpret this as I am saying Pilot error, these people were doing the best they knew how to do in the situation they were in. A lot was going on in those cockpits at the time.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tbgaus
Terry Gaus 2
Agreed, there WAS a lot going on in the cockpits, especially in the ETH situation. Tooling along at 500+ knots at 3,000 AGL, not climbing (often descending) at full takeoff power makes things happen quickly indeed. Further, the aerodynamic loads on the control surfaces at such a high airspeed at such a low altitude is the conjectured reason for the crew re-enabling the pitch trim motors in an attempt to reduce the nose-down trim (since it was nigh impossible to do manually). What NOBODY has to date offered is a suitable explanation as to why the crew did not disengage the autothrottles, reduce power and airspeed to something more manageable (a suitable target might have been under 250 KIAS since they were below 10,000 AGL at the time). Clearly, the 737MAX was in no danger of falling out of the sky. Once they had some semblance of control and the overall energy of the aircraft was being managed, they could have set flaps-1, which would have disabled the MCAS completely and would revert control of the aircraft back to them. I am also not in any way implying pilot error ... those aviators were test pilots at the time, but their training and relative lack of experience in stick-and-rudder flying gave them limited options in dealing with the situation.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
bbabis
bbabis 0
Good points Terry. On some squawk pertaining to these accidents long ago I did offer a thought on why power was not reduced. On the 737MAX reducing power pitches the nose down and the crew didn't need any more of that in their minds. Lack of familiarity with MCAS didn't allow them to think that high power was one of the things that was allowing MCAS to do its thing. Also, from what I've read, engaging the autopilot or putting flaps down would have disabled MCAS but they quickly passed through those options. Cutout switches and manual trim before the aircraft reached extremes was their only hope.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
baingm
Gary Bain -1
Couldn't agree more Terry.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
JMARTINSON
JMARTINSON 1
The preliminary report prepared by the airline's owners? The same owners who have a history of blaming everyone but themselves despite the facts and the conclusions drawn by other investigators? That preliminary report?

Maybe the report is accurate... or maybe it isn't. My point is we have to question it.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tyketto
Brad Littlejohn 6
No, the preliminary report released by the transportation authority in Ethiopia, which stated that the crew did everything instructed by Boeing. And when that was released, the CEO of Boeing backtracked on his statements by then stating that it is their responsibility to prevent erroneous activations of MCAS in situations like this. His exact words: It's our responsibility to eliminate this risk. We own it, and we know how to do it."

This is what happened in both crashes.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
baingm
Gary Bain -2
They DID NOT follow every single thing that Boeing said.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
djames225
djames225 3
Actually they did...and it did not work..just as an ex flight engineer from Boeing pointed out...you take an old airframe and basic flight controls, toss in a bunch of electrics that have no room of thought, move the engines around so it no longer flies like a 737, remove many many parts from the old flight manual for it, and you are looking for issues.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
andyc852
Andy Cruickshank 6
Racist crap. ET has been flying safely for longer than you have been around
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tbgaus
Terry Gaus -3
I don't see his comment as racist at all; rather, I take issue with an Ethiopian Airline/Academy (according to reports they were pretty much the same) putting a First Officer in the cockpit with less than 300 total hours flight experience. At this level, the captain was pretty much flying single-pilot and remember that it was the presence of a third qualified cockpit crewmember in the Lion Air flight on the day preceding the October crash that saved THAT day. Unfortunately, this important educational experience was not conveyed to the following day's crew, resulting in the first accident. Perhaps it is unfounded, but my opinion of US-trained aviators is that they are more capable of out-of-the-box thinking than their counterparts in Europe, Asia, and the Third World. Maybe it is cultural as well, but again I don't feel it is racist.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
djames225
djames225 7
You were moving along pretty well until that last sentence...then you crashed.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
MickLucas
William Lucas 2
I would rate Western European and Australian pilots well ahead of American any day of the week!
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
JMARTINSON
JMARTINSON -2
9 years isn't that long...
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Cansojr
Cansojr -4
Virtual High-Five! Good One!
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
VivPike
Viv Pike 2
Oh dear .... your mindset boggles
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tark12
Mary Ann Yavelow -1
Why do we still have an “acting” head of the FAA?
Let’s go “Mr. President”!
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Report
KineticRider
Randy Marco -1
Do you really have to ask WHY "Individual 1" has an acting head of the FAA, do you live under a rock or are you just hopelessly clueless?

"Individual 1" is FACTUALLY proven to be a corrupt, pay for play, pathological liar, who has complete disregard for the rule of law and of which his campaign worked with the Russian's to get him elected, per Mueller's report. Further, amongst other travesties, he rewarded the Russian's for helping him get elected, by lifting sanctions against them.

By having acting directors and/or acting cabinet members "individual 1" is AVOIDING the constitutional REQUIREMENT to have the Senate confirm his appointments; therefore he can put ANYONE in these positions without regard to qualifications.

If someone gives "individual 1" a compliment or lies for him they will be high on the list to get an "acting appointment"; of which he then can fire them for ANY reason if the say anything he doesn't like or maybe he just gets bored with them!

"Individual 1" was going to make his personal pilot the acting head of the FAA, who had NO government experience whatsoever but some sane person, trying to control him, talked him out of it!

"Individual 1" was going to make his the Whitehouse physician, Ronny Jackson the acting head of the Department of Veterans Affairs with 377 THOUSAND employees & a budget of one fifth of a TRILLION dollars, who also had absolutely NO government experience whatsoever but Ronny Jackson said "Individual 1" was in excellent health and has “incredibly good genes”, so that obviously qualified him as it stroked "individual 1's" ego!

Wake up to what is going, having an acting director of the FAA is nothing compared to the totality of "Individual 1's" corrupt behavior!
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
VivPike
Viv Pike -2
Wow, you really do not like your President, the one who was democratically voted into power. You should consider joining CNN.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
KineticRider
Randy Marco 1
No he was NOT democratically voted into power! He used the Russian's GRU intelligence agency, hacked stolen emails and lies to get elected as proved by the Mueller report!

He also lost the popular vote by 3 million.

At least if you support "Individual 1" I hope you fly the Russian flag so we know who the traitors are.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
VivPike
Viv Pike 0
You have a problem. Get help.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
KineticRider
Randy Marco -2
YOU have a problem with FACTS and I DO have a problem with LIARS, Traitors and those that violate the rule of law!
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
milehighou
milehighou -2
Trump 2020. Get ready for another epic meltdown.
Resposta ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

Entrar

Forgot password?
Não tem uma conta? Registre-se agora (gratuito) para funcionalidades personalizáveis, alertas de vôo e mais!
Registre-se na FlightAware
Esse site utiliza cookies. Ao usá-lo e continuar a navegar, você concorda com isso.
Ignorar
Você sabia que o rastreamento de voos da FlightAware é patrocinado por anúncios?
Você pode nos ajudar a manter o FlightAware gratuito, permitindo anúncios de FlightAware.com. Trabalhamos muito para manter nossa publicidade relevante e discreta para criar uma ótima experiência. É rápido e fácil permitir anúncios no FlightAware ou, caso prefira, considere nossas contas premium.
Ignorar