The eventual inability to trim is caused by too much speed.
However it seems few pilots knew how to get around it.
Peter wrote:
However it seems few pilots knew how to get around it.
Perhaps by ship may well be a safer way to travel in the future.
A_and_C wrote:
One of the things highlighted in the AOPA article that Peter linked was the American’s relaxed attitude to flying the aircraft visually and without the use of autoflight, this is in direct conflict with the dire warnings from some airline managements I know when it comes to performing a visual approaches especially in the USA.
Many US pilots returning from the middle east to an airline back home have commented how good it feels to fly in an environment where they are trusted to fly the plane, as opposed to going to work in fear that they commit a mistake. There is a gradient.
Far east – rote learning – autoland
Middle east – immersion learning in US/EU – autoflight – manual landing 50/50
Europe – immersion learning (modular) to procedural learning (abinitio) – 95% automation – 95% manual landing
USA – full immersion GA learning – manual confidence flying first, procedural flying second
It is a broad subject, it has to do a lot with professional standards, best practice, union protection, confidence and more..
Snoopy wrote:
Many US pilots returning from the middle east to an airline back home have commented how good it feels to fly in an environment where they are trusted to fly the plane, as opposed to going to work in fear that they commit a mistake
Whilst I agree, in small part, with your assertions, we are not talking about pilot competency here. We are talking about a fundamental software change to the operating characteristics of a new model Generation X aircraft, which has failed. More than that, the operators were allegedly not informed, therefore crews not trained.
Frankly this is appalling and should be called out as so. Call me a cynic but what else may lurk beneath?
I agree with you Beech, just think that albeit small in contribution, the prevailing attitude of „this is my plane, I’ll fly it first and then we’ll see about what’s right or wrong“ among US pilots might have something to do with why it didn’t happen to an airline there as well.
It’s anecdotal of course and may be very inaccurate. But it’s my feeling that it has some effect.
EK in DXB is similar. One thing that certainly is given there is procedural compliance, you don’t wanna (fear of delayed upgrade etc..) skip an item on a maneuver during a sim check there… still, the GA went awry because TOGA doesn’t work once the wheels have touched… the procedure was followed exactly as trained and required – even though the actual situation called for a deviation from SOP.
It’s a bit apples and oranges though. So again I agree – this software has gross consequences that were downplayed by the manufacturer.
There is a very good article by a Lufthansa captain in a german magazine about some „what’s it doing now“ situations on the airbus fleet (A320 near Bilbao), apparently all LH pilots now train to switch off the primary flight computers in such a situation.
Snoopy
Having looked again at what I wrote it did not quite convey what I wanted to say and I think it might have been misunderstood so here goes with the amended version
One of the things highlighted in the AOPA article that Peter linked was the American’s relaxed attitude to flying the aircraft visually and without the use of autoflight, this is in direct conflict with the dire warnings from some EUROPEAN airline managements I know when it comes to performing a visual approaches especially in the USA.
Yep, that’s how I read it originally too.
IMO the root of the problem is Boeing with help from the FAA have messed up the 737 MAX. They have made a monster of an airplane. Pilot skills, pilot training and so is always something that can be improved on I would think, but that doesn’t change the 737MAX. It has to be fixed.
LeSving wrote:
IMO the root of the problem is Boeing with help from the FAA have messed up the 737 MAX.
Both Airbus and Boeing „certify“ in house…
Indeed, and remember that EASA was created with originally its sole purpose being to create an agency for issuing Airbus type certificates.
So, when big money talks, and large industries are large enough to own influence government policy, everybody is in bed with everybody else 
Many years ago, it was Dassault…
