Live data from Hacker News

Boeing 787 Suffers Rare Dual Engine Failure on Landing

thepointsguy.com

31–40 of 365 posts

Re: Boeing 787 Suffers Rare Dual Engine Failure on Landing

#31

I'm not sure this is a bug. It sounds like pilot-error to me (I am not a pilot): "In the bulletin, Boeing said that selecting full reverse too quickly upon landing before the aircraft has fully transitioned to ground mode could cause the system to activate."

There should be manual override. What if this happened in-AIR?

You really, really do not want the reverse thrust to turn on in-AIR. That would be way worse then then engine shutting down.

Re: Boeing 787 Suffers Rare Dual Engine Failure on Landing

#32

I hope people are beginning to understand that the presence of software in any system is a liability.

Indeed. And that is just an extension of the danger presented by electronic systems generally.

When learning to fly sailplanes, I was always grateful that the "primitive" wood, steel and canvas gliders I flew had purely mechanical linkages between the controls and the control surfaces, and only one instrument that required electricity at all (and even that was duplicated by a purely mechanical version).

Obviously automation has great advantages, but inevitably the increased complexity comes with risks which are more difficult to fully comprehend.

Re: Boeing 787 Suffers Rare Dual Engine Failure on Landing

#33

"Boeing said that selecting full reverse too quickly upon landing before the aircraft has fully transitioned to ground mode could cause the system to activate." That sounds like apple's "you are holding it wrong" when "antenagate" happened. Not something I want to hear from an aircraft company where people's lives depend on it working.

It doesn't at all. It's an explanation why it might happen.They never said that this behavior won't be fixed or changed. It's not blaming the pilots.

There is a notion of blame wrapped up with "too quickly".

Re: Boeing 787 Suffers Rare Dual Engine Failure on Landing

#34

I hope people are beginning to understand that the presence of software in any system is a liability.

Software is like any other technology. It can be a liability or an asset or both depending on how it’s built.

Sometimes software fails and sometimes it even kills people, but how many lives has it also saved because of things like collision avoidance and accurate navigation?

Re: Boeing 787 Suffers Rare Dual Engine Failure on Landing

#35

How many easter eggs will emerge from Boeing. In last 2 months, we had similar incidents from Boeing where an undocumented software safety kicked in and causing trouble for everyone

It's not just Boeing unfortunately. Every software driven aircraft seems to suffer from these bugs. The F35 lost radio communication after crossing the international date line the wrong direction IIRC, and the pilots had to use hand signals to land.

> The F35 lost radio communication after crossing the international date line the wrong direction IIRC, and the pilots had to use hand signals to land.

From what I remember, the first time 4 USAF F22 were flying across international date line to deploy to Hawaii(?), they had software related issues. As they flew across the international date line (first time in a real flight), all computers on the jets crashed, including navigation/etc.

Luckily they were flying in close formation with a tanker, signaled with flashlights, and were able to follow the tanker back to another base safely.

I believe USAF requires a multi jet (usually tanker) to accompany small jets when they are flying across the ocean.

Re: Boeing 787 Suffers Rare Dual Engine Failure on Landing

#36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't at all. It's an explanation why it might happen.They never said that this behavior won't be fixed or changed. It's not blaming the pilots.

There is a notion of blame wrapped up with "too quickly".

There's a further implication that an instruction, but not a failsafe, exists to prevent the given condition. E.g. "do not reverse thrust until ground mode has fully activated." but no check to actually prevent the crew from doing so.

I'm not a lawyer; couldn't tell you where the fault would split in that case, but if my hunch about the lack of a failsafe for a given instruction is correct... it's still a surprise to me. I'd expect existing avionics production procedures to catch this sort of thing.

Re: Boeing 787 Suffers Rare Dual Engine Failure on Landing

#37

I hope people are beginning to understand that the presence of software in any system is a liability.

Indeed. And that is just an extension of the danger presented by electronic systems generally. When learning to fly sailplanes, I was always grateful that the "primitive" wood, steel and canvas gliders I flew had purely mechanical linkages between the controls and the control surfaces, and only one instrument that required electricity at all (and even that was duplicated by a purely mechanical version). Obviously aut…

I’m also a glider pilot and I also appreciate the simplicity of the basic systems, but I feel like it’s worth noting that you’re far more likely to die in a glider crash than you are in a modern airliner full of complex software.

Re: Boeing 787 Suffers Rare Dual Engine Failure on Landing

#38

Boeing’s answer seems to say if you accidentally pull the thrust reverser lever before the aircraft is on the ground it just force shuts down the engines. That sounds like an odd safety override. Surely a better solution would be to just not activate reverse thrust. Unlike car engines a jet engine can’t just be quickly restarted if it accidentally shuts down. It typically takes 30-60 seconds to get going. This and ea…

Is that true even if the turbines are still spinning very fast?
Post reply on HN