The only thing that eliminates/highlights issues is time. The 320 and 220 are faced with major engine issues and groundings due to looks at notes not QAing the metal powder used in the sintering process for over 8 years.
_Fuck_ the new Boeing.
pilots unions strongly fight against this for privacy reasons is why.
However evidently 2 hours of sound isn't long enough. Just because a plane keeps going for more a few hours doesn't mean the incident wasn't serious enough to warrant recording.
They have concerns. Legitimacy is a matter of opinion.
> Those concerns need to be heard and addressed so this change can be made safely.
Actually, they don't. Pilots trying to hide evidence are free to find another job that isn't as safety critical.
This is an uncharitable and dangerous take. If you are unwilling to listen to their concerns how can you so confidently dismiss them?
Pilots care about safety. They’re on the same planes as the passengers. They have a personal interest in improving safety. Their concerns should be heard and given consideration.
If pilots don’t feel safe communicating they wont, which undermines safety for everyone involved. Creating a disincentive to communicate is dangerous.
I agree we should have more data for the purpose of investigating incidents but the blameless culture must be maintained. If pilots have doubts or concerns about that they need to be addressed.
> I would venture to say that most workplaces have security cameras, many with sound recording, that can be accessed at any time by management or building security
In the presence of surveillance equipment you should behave as if this is the case but is it? Can management freely access audio and video recordings of employees? I’d be very surprised if that is the case in a corporate setting and I have never seen anything to suggest that it is. I would absolutely like to have a voice in how recordings of me are used by management. Pilots were smart enough to organize and demand that voice.
Every organization I have ever worked for had strict data retention policies to protect the organization in case of a lawsuit. If there were audio or visual recordings of the workplace they were retained only as long as required by law. I have never seen those recordings myself or heard of them being used in any analysis. Already in this comment section the suggestion has been made to mine these recordings with “AI”. This is the kind of ill conceived problem seeking pilots are right to be afraid of.
For the recordings to be useful pilots need to communicate freely. That means they need to feel safe from retaliation. Without these protections pilots will not communicate freely and the situation may actually be less safe.
They deserve to put forward their concerns regarding the use of the recordings. They may have to concede the point on the length of the recording though, that one is hard to justify if it impacts a legitimate and reasonable investigation. And if these recordings are abused then their length is not the most damaging aspect.
Their concerns require consideration to avoid the chilling effect on communication. If pilots aren’t on board with the changes the intended benefits may not be realized.
Pilots aren’t robots. You can’t dictate behavior to them. They’re human and intelligent, that makes the environment complex and delicate. The mutual trust from a blameless culture must be maintained. That means treating pilots with respect and listening to their concerns.
If the concern is retaliation (reasonable concern IMO) then pilots need stronger protection to alleviate that. They are probably most likely to trust those protections if they come from the union rather than FAA or the company who can then “alter the deal.”
I understand the privacy reasons, but this concern should be addressed by access control to the recordings. Just make sure that only for example the NTSB is authorized to download the full recording. If you as a pilot have just barely survived a near fatal event, you probably won't mind an NTSB investigator listening to the dick jokes you have done as a pilot inflight. And if it was a fatal crash the dead pilot won't mind at all.
List of airlines that have gone bankrupt, US only:
Aero Sun International
Aero Virgin Islands
Aeroamerica
Air Bahia
Air Canada
Air Kentucky
Air Midwest
Air Pennsylvania
Air South
Aloha Airlines (three times)
Altair Airlines
America West Airlines
American Airlines
American Trans Air (ATA)
Arrow Air
Astec Air East
ATA Airlines
Avianca
Big Sky
Braniff International
Cochise Airlines
Comair
Connectaire
Continental Airlines
Coral Air
Delta Air Lines
Direct Air
Dynamic International Airways
Eastern Airlines
Eastwind Airlines
Eos Airlines
Evergreen International Airlines
Excellair
Flash Airlines
Florida Airlines
Frontier Airlines (twice)
Gemini Air Cargo
Golden Gate Airlines
Independence Air
Indiana Airlines
Island Air (Hawaii)
L’Express
LANICA
LATAM Airlines Group
Maxjet Airways
Mesa Airlines
Mexicana
Miami Air
Midway Airlines (twice)
Mountain West Airlines-Idaho
National Airlines
National Florida Airlines
New York Airways
Northcoast Executive
Northwest Airlines
Oceanaire Lines
Pacific Coast Airlines
Pan American World Airways
Partnair
PenAir
Pinehurst Airlines
Pinnacle Airlines
Primaris Airlines
Princeton Air Link
Ravn Alaska
Republic Airways Holding
Ryan International Airlines
SeaPort Airlines
Silver State Airlines
Skybus Airlines
Southeast Airlines
Southern Air
Sun Country Airlines (three times)
Swift Aire Lines
Tejas Airlines
Trans World Airlines
TransMeridian Airlines
United Airlines
US Airways (twice)
Will's Air
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airline_bankruptcies_i...
A lot of Tesla drivers, especially the early ones, are part of some kind of cult. Think about all the people who paid thousands of USD/Euro to buy a license to "Autopilot is coming in two weeks", to still haven't gotten any return on investment at all (over here in Europe it is not available at all).
And I am saying this having bought my Tesla three years ago.
Also, while their build quality is pretty terrible compared to oldschool car manufacturers, with the exception of Autopilot most of their build quality problems are not safety related. Think of the excellent Euro NCAP Safety test results, for example. It's more like that you know that if you buy a Tesla you can not expect the wipers to be any good at cleaning the window, or the doors not being aligned properly.
My impression is that Tesla has a very good QA, but with a policy of "we'll ignore all cosmetics".
Boeing on the other hand does appear to have completely broken QA processes in the safety sector. Their priorities might be the opposite of Tesla's. Kind of "It's OK if it explodes as long as it looks nice while doing so".
:)
It's governments job to proactively ensure safety standards are met, that the consumer has recourse if they are not, and to allow healthy competition in the market. If your market doesn't have this, don't blame Tesla.
My company builds routers, which are far less mission critical. We have step by step instructions on QA steps both hanging on our walls and available digitally, too. It would take us an hour or so to share these with customers.
I also wonder: All the time I only read about Alaska Airlines and United having grounded their 737 max planes. What about all the other customers of them around the world? I haven't heard of any other airline, for example here in Europe where I am, having grounded those planes for inspection. Is this a "if planes crash abroad it won't damage our shareholder value in the US that much" kind of strategy...?
It's not just us, the customers, who should "vote with their feet", but the airlines, too. I would not buy from a vendor that is not able to have a QA process that makes sure all screws and bolts are in place, fastened and secured. Even if it would not be an airplane where this is critical for safety, even if it would just be a toaster, I would stop buying.
I would find it insulting as a customer to buy something for 50 Million USD to find out that the vendor was not willing to invest a little bit in QA. I understand that the 737 MAX is very cheap, but the damage to an airlines reputation, even if 90% of the customers do not care, should be priced in, which in the end makes it an expensive airplane.
Looking at the number of quality and design issue problems Boeing had during the last couple of years, combined with the press attention they are getting now, I think we can take it for granted that during the next couple of months more such issues will be found, including the "oops, that potentially could have crashed the airplane" category.
Also, I find it really insane that after all these issues the FAA still has not been reformed, properly staffed and funded. It really really should be clear by now that the system of Boeing doing the "certification" the FAA is supposed to be in charge of themselves.
And finally: It goes beyond my comprehension that someone would decide to build a version of the voice recorder specifically for the US that only stores 2 hours of voice, while the international version of the same plane stores 25. What kind of cost reduction per unit is that, $1 per airplane? Having two different models to "certify", produce and warehouse just to save a dollar or something per unit does not sound like any sane business decision.
Some people say that Boeing is that terrible because they cut corners to save costs everywhere. But to me it sounds like they even are bad at executing cost cutting...