If you are a pilot for one of these American airlines, would still stand your ground and not fly?
US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max
301–310 of 344 posts
Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max
#302Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not all airports have sinks? It's not like they filter what's coming out of water fountains anyway.
> Not all airports have sinks? I haven't seen any, unless you're talking about using the bathroom sinks? In which case, no thanks. Even with a touch less sensor people can still (and do) touch the area where the water comes out. Flying is stressful enough as it is. I don't want to have to think about potentially drinking tainted water (pun intended).
If you think no one has ever touched the nozzle of the drinking fountain with their dirty hands, boy are you in for a surprise.
Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Pretty sure the data is that two planes crashed in five months in perfect weather conditions Not only that, but the data we have so far from the second crash (ADS-B data showing irregular vertical speed, see https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/flightradar24-data-regard... ) is consistent with both accidents having a similar cause. Grounding all airplanes from the same model until preliminary data from the (already r…
If it was a "similar cause", it is absolutely pilot error. The MCAS system, at fault in the first crash, may be disabled via a cockpit control. In other 737s, moving the stick was sufficient to disengage it. For some reason, this was changed in the Max, and you must use the other control. However, any competent pilot would know every control in the cockpit. The captain of the latest flight to crash allegedly had 8,00…
> However, any competent pilot would know every control in the cockpit.
Except it seems like many of them didn't receive training on what changed for the new model.
Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max
#304If you are a pilot for one of these American airlines, would still stand your ground and not fly?
no because everyone is aware of what the issue is and how to overcome it.
Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max
#305787's were grounded in 2013 for battery related issues, when it was a new airplane make/model. There were emergency landings, but no crashes. Here we have crashes, and no grounding. At the time of the grounding there were 50 affected aircraft, lasting from January to April. Grounding 737 MAX 8's would be ~350 groundings, and ostensibly could include MAX 9's.
Looks like it only took two events for the FAA to ground them. I think they were instantly grounded because everyone knew the dangers of lithium-ion batteries catching fire.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-lithium-ion-b...
Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max
#306But if you bring your own water then you wouldn't have the privilege of spending $4 for a single bottled water[0] at an airport vendor. Sounds like the common ground there is profits come before anything else. [0]: You could also bring your own empty water bottle and ask one of the bartenders to fill it up which is what I usually do and then drop them a $1 tip.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19376397 and marked it off-topic.
Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max
#307Someone shared this on a different forums, it’s a recent NPR interview of a pilot for American Airlines. https://overcast.fm/+nmn7rqq0/06:04 It’s a short interview but in short, * Boeing left out info on the new flight control system in the pilots manual they trained with * the training to fly the new planes was 56 minutes of PowerPoint presentations on an iPad * he would not have known how to correct the system in t…
If he doesn't know how to correct for runaway stabilizer trim, then he probably should be decertified. It's a memory item: https://www.theairlinepilots.com/forumarchive/b737/b737memor... And the checklist is 4 items long. Item 3 disables MCAS.
I think the problem is he wouldn't have recognized the behavior pattern that keys "runaway stabilizer trim" in the extra conditions over and above what is trained for a faulty MCAS activation would result in.
If you're not aware of something, it takes a non-trivial amount of time to break out of your trained response envelope and to start thinking outside the box.
This is a problem with many training heavy disciplines where the general response upon "hearing hoofbeats" is to think "horse", and only to escalate to the more exotic "Zebra" conclusion as facts demand it. While it's generally a better response, in time constrained situations without the benefit of foreknowledge, it can be quite costly indeed.
Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max
#308Does anyone know if this system could just be safely turned off? It seems to be a system that automates the stall avoidance when the plane hits a stall warning. It seems that all pilots should know how to avoid stalls and how to deal with them when they happen. As long as the stall warning still happens, I don't see an issue with turning off the stall avoidance system.
The issue is that the system is necessary to make the plane self-certifiable. I.e. Boeing has to show that the aircraft is not essentially different in flight characteristics from the original airframe it was based on. This allows them to avoid the very costly retreating and type certification they would be required to do otherwise with a 'novel' airframe.
Frankly, as soon as the Erodynamics changed sufficiently that a new automated system was required to maintain parity with older airframe's flight characteristics, I think the case should have been made for requiring a new type cert, or at least far more extensive change notification/documentation update requirements.
Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why the fuck does the investigation need to be concluded __BEFORE__ they ground the goddamn planes??? That makes no sense it has horrible incentives.
Because its quite possible that grounding the planes would result in more fatalities. People may drive or get shuffled onto older, less safe aircraft.
With such a small fleet in service, for such a short time, with 2 crashes already, I fail to see what a "less safe aircraft" could be among those currently flown nowadays.
Re: US refuses to ground Boeing 737 Max
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not all airports have sinks? I haven't seen any, unless you're talking about using the bathroom sinks? In which case, no thanks. Even with a touch less sensor people can still (and do) touch the area where the water comes out. Flying is stressful enough as it is. I don't want to have to think about potentially drinking tainted water (pun intended).
If you think no one has ever touched the nozzle of the drinking fountain with their dirty hands, boy are you in for a surprise.
I don't doubt it, but I also don't use those stations. I've never even seen one in the few airports I visited.