Back to Squawk list
  • 5

CNBC News Segment Video (NYT Mag reporter on Boeing Max: Accidents caused by crews in both cases): September 20, 2019

William Langewiesche, The New York Times Magazine reporter, joins CNBC's "Closing Bell" to discuss his story in the magazine, "What really brought down the Boeing 737 Max?" ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

ADXbear 3
Shame shame shame on soitting on the graves of these crews.. just now it comes out.. how ironic as boeing finds ome rrason to gethese olanes in air..

where are the pilots unions, where are thete tesy flights,?
jmilleratp 5
So, listen to some random "journalist," or wait for the NTSB final recommendations? I'll wait for the NTSB. Plus, CNBC is pro-corporate and pro-profit, so naturally, they're going to push this viewpoint.
bentwing60 2
You may be waiting for some time since both Max accidents occurred on foreign soil (water) with foreign carriers. No full NTSB report in those circumstances unless invited by the ICAO member aviation authority to conduct the investigation, and unless invited in on the investigation by the governing body ICAO member, no participation is granted. NTSB is well regarded worldwide and the politics of today are are eroding the safety gains in the world air travel industry, not to mention ab initio pilots.
s2v8377 2
I do not agree with this authors opinion that the flight-crews are the primary cause of the two 737-MAX crashes. The trim runaway from the faulty MCAS software trims the aircraft in such a severe way that even once the auto trim is cut out that for a pilot to correct is very hard especially on initial climb-out . He omitted the fact that it's not just a couple of turns of the trim wheel to fix this, and that turning the trim wheel even with modern equipment manually with the forces at play in a severe nose down attitude is not easy to correct.

Boeing failed to produce a safe aircraft with good software. Aircraft software is zero fail not something you do a patch on after crashes. You have to get it right the first time. Boeing connecting MCAS to only one AOA sensor without redundancy and selling the aircraft that way is not acceptable.

The author also didn't bother to mention the weight and balance issues created by the bigger heavier engines and how that factor interacts with the overall performance of the aircraft.

The one thing I do agree with the author on is flight training and the quality of new airline pilots in other parts of the world is certainly not as good as it should be. New pilots I also feel can be too dependent on technology versus hand flying and feeling what the aircraft is doing by the seat of your pants. This problem is not unique to aviation.

However, I must add in the case of the 737 MAX Boeing also did not give pilots flight manuals that were complete. I think US airline pilots are some of the best in the world, but even they can have problems if they don't have the simulator training and the correct manuals to overcome a problem with their aircraft.

I am a big Boeing fan and this is not be written by an Airbus person.
indy2001 2
And what are your qualifications for such judgements? For someone whose only apparent background is being 'a big Boeing fan', you make some awfully grand statements regarding "zero fail" software that must be absolutely correct from Day 1 (which would be news to Airbus since they've written many software patches for their fly-by-wire aircraft, including one that they are currently writing for their A350 aircraft), knowledge about how Boeing sold its aircraft, and how manuals should be written. Do you have experience in writing and debugging computer code? Have you sold commercial aircraft in the past, especially for Boeing? Have you written technical documents? Do you even have a Private Pilot's License, or any pilot training at all? This author clearly did his homework, consulted with many experts, and wrote a very objective description of the problems encountered in the 2 crashes.

My own opinion is that 737 MAXs would have been falling from the sky from the day it was introduced if the aircraft is really so dangerous. Instead it took two inexperienced and VERY poorly-trained crews backed up by exceptionally terrible maintenance and ground support to crash it. Boeing hasn't covered itself in glory, but neither are they the murderers that some have claimed they are.
joe milazzo 1
I’m confused. I never heard the author mention ANYTHING about a trim wheel. What I did hear was him referring to trim cutout switches which overrides runaway electric trim.
joe milazzo 2
Never mind.........I now see what you mean by the omission
Harry Karmel 1
Anyone else notice the author's name is the english translation of Wolfgang Langewiesche, author of "Stick and Rudder"?
Jeff Nielsen 2
William is the son of Wolfgang.
Harry Karmel 1
learn something new every day!
bentwing60 1
Do some homework and tell us how many Langewiesche's there are that are AV writers, let alone author of a book and title that still rings with the old crowd. Did you get the part about lift, weight, thrust and drag yet!
As a retired federal aircraft mechanic (C5-A/B, B-52 , C-130) I read that the author has flown some planes in the past. Don't know the type or years of experience. He has his opinion and since the investigation is only partially complete His opinion may differ greatly from yours. Let's keep POLITICS out of this. Political differences will solve NO problems brought up in these reviews.
John Buch -4
Does this non qualified author have certifiable proof that the trim wheel was in fact “running away”? The trim wheel moves for all normal operations also so there would be no need or reason to use the cutout switches especially since Boeing did not put the band aid system it designed that never should have happened to overcome a center of gravity issue from Boeing stretching the airplane too far instead of starting all over with a blank slate and a new model. This MCAS band aid fix was NEVER put in the flight manual or disclosed to the pilots! Also, the creed of aviation and aerospace is redundancy and this after thought fix had only one source and it failed and gave bad info to the airplane and its pilots. This was a design flaw and a systemic strategy error by Boeing and it will cost them over 20 Billion in the end. A brand new model should have been designed instead of trying to make too many derivations of a 40 year old airplane and creating geometry issues by stretching it too far and then having to make band aid fixes to overcome this issue and the larger more powerful engines. Let me come on CNBC and set the record straight. Captain John Buch Line Check Airman United Airlines, Retired and Founder of Buch Aviation Consulting.
trentenjet -9
Fake news Boeing must’ve asked Obama to help them Re-educate the public with lies And propaganda
Tim Duggan 3
The moronic cry of "Fake news" once again? Well, perhaps someone has been drinking too much orange Kool-Aid and watching/getting all of their "information" from a place called Fox "faux news" Channel.

It is not "fake" to say that Lion Air pilots are poorly trained. As to Ethiopia? The CVR recorded that airplane exceeding the barber pole by a lot...overspeed clacker sounding. Slowing down might have reduced the air load on the horizontal stabilizer so that it could be manually trimmed...

[This comment was deleted.]

You sound like Rudy babbling about nothing to make something
Good day Donald .
btweston 1
Is that a real comment?
I have my glasses off and can still read .


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
This website uses cookies. By using and further navigating this website, you accept this.
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.