Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pilot Who Hitched a Ride Saved Lion Air 737 on the Day Before Deadly Crash

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 269 posts

Re: Pilot Who Hitched a Ride Saved Lion Air 737 on the Day Before Deadly Crash

#231

Post by dang »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #181
dang wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't break the site guidelines regardless of how wrong other commenters or voters may be. That only makes this place worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

As opposed to posting alternative facts and shallow dismissals? HN brings out a lot of knowledgeable folks, but on these 737 related posts the difference between HN and aviation centered forums is pretty stark.

Sure, it's not surprising that a forum of specialists would do better. If you know more, it's great if you share what you know so people can learn. Please just follow the site guidelines also.

Re: Pilot Who Hitched a Ride Saved Lion Air 737 on the Day Before Deadly Crash

#232

Post by jki275 »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #227
jki275 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, those top positions in almost any organization are often political appointments that have little to do with day to day operations. The current "actings" are generally the ones who "advise" the political appointees on how to handle things. Obviously there are some exceptions, but most bureaucracies tend to run that way. Not to comment specifically on this as FAA isn't my area, but if the secdef doesn't come…

The value of having confirmed appointees in those positions is not necessarily their native technical expertise. As you’ve noted, that expertise can be provided by career employees. The value of political appointees is the political clout they carry. Given that they’ve been appointed directly by the President and confirmed by the Senate, it is much harder (or politically fraught) to simply threaten or replace them wh…

Well, that's not what I said. I've not claimed they're unnecessary, just that they have a slightly different and perhaps less important role than the post I replied to was giving them. The undersecretaries can make the same decisions, and in fact the career personnel in the organization have far more ability to take action without fear of replacement by anyone as they have more protection than a secretary who serves at the pleasure of the appointing authority.

That said, generally the undersecretaries are appointed and confirmed as well, as their role is to step in and backfill if the primary is not available, so that answers that issue.

Re: Pilot Who Hitched a Ride Saved Lion Air 737 on the Day Before Deadly Crash

#233

Post by CivBase »

proaralyst wrote: post #230
CivBase wrote: post #228

> A malfunctioning sensor is believed to have tricked the Lion Air plane’s computers into thinking it needed to automatically bring the nose down to avoid a stall. That is ridiculous logic to implement in a "safety" system. An automated system should never cause a plane to dive unless it also knows that it has enough altitude to safely do so - much less in a way that makes it difficult for pilots to override.

Given the system assumed it was in stall, which means loss of altitude anyway, surely it's safer in general to go nose-down to avoid the stall? At least then you have a chance of recovery, which you don't in a stall. (Except of course, going nose-down.)

If you don't have enough altitude to afford going nose-down, let the pilot handle it. If your system can't come up with a safe solution, do not override the pilot's controls in favor of a dangerous solution.

A computer should never assume it knows better than a pilot. A computer is only as good as the data it gets and the software it runs. Sensors fail. Data gets corrupted. In the current state of the industry, software bugs are inevitable.

Airplane software is supposed to help pilots, not hinder them. In light of these events, I'm thinking twice about wanting a self-driving car in the near future.

Re: Pilot Who Hitched a Ride Saved Lion Air 737 on the Day Before Deadly Crash

#234

Post by jki275 »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #229
jki275 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, Shanahan is acting and will be confirmed when the senate gets around to it... that's kind of the point though. DOD is still running and will continue to run, exactly as it has, with only minor political differences from the top. They have a lot of theoretical power, but little ability to actually change day to day operations of anything.

The purpose of confirmed political appointees is to create a layer of empowered leaders who can do more than simply steer the ship in a straight line, or react slavishly to orders from above. The confirmation process serves two purposes: (1) it ensures that relatively independent thinkers with high political capital are in those spots, and they see their allegiance to the entire system and not just one man, (2) it pr…

As I posted in response to your other comment, you're ignoring the fact that the undersecretaries who backfill those positions in the absence of the primary are also appointed and confirmed, and the career personnel have less incentive to bow to political pressure.

DOD has far more "expert leadership" in the form of the FO/GO community than the other gov agencies as well -- the secretaries exist to implement policy, not run day to day operations.

Re: Pilot Who Hitched a Ride Saved Lion Air 737 on the Day Before Deadly Crash

#235

Post by skykooler »

tim333 wrote: post #217
cjbprime wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the only airlines that bought the option are North American, so we are immediately confounding with pilot training differences.

I guess when ordering a plane or a car you assume you don't need to order optional extras to stop the thing killing you.

I mean, some safety features such as automatic emergency braking are available but optional on many cars.

Re: Pilot Who Hitched a Ride Saved Lion Air 737 on the Day Before Deadly Crash

#236

Post by tremon »

rocqua wrote: post #202
js2 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The runaway stabilizer trim procedure is how it was expected to be handled: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/faa-order-tells-h... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pPRuFHR1co The specifics of MCAS weren't out there because Boeing expected the pre-existing procedure to have been sufficient. That procedure wasn't sufficient, or the Lion and Ethiopian Air pilots were somehow not aware of it, or they forgot thei…

> The specifics of MCAS weren't out there because Boeing expected the pre-existing procedure to have been sufficient. This was argued by Boeing to the FAA, who accepted the reasoning. It should be noted that, if it had been determined the pre-existing procedure wasn't sufficient, then all pilots on the 737 Max would've had to undergo re-training. This would have been expensive, and probably hurt adoption of the new a…

all pilots on the 737 Max would've had to undergo re-training. This would have been expensive, and probably hurt adoption of the new airframe.

Am I the only one hoping that in the end, the costs for Boeing will be more expensive than the global re-training would have been?

Re: Pilot Who Hitched a Ride Saved Lion Air 737 on the Day Before Deadly Crash

#237

Post by kayfox »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #95
kayfox wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, how are they not?

So, how are they not? When you hit the trim buttons on the yoke MCAS stops for five seconds. What Boeing considers runaway trim would not stop when you counter with the trim buttons.

So, if the trim were running away based on an intermittent fault, the same situation could be encountered because the pilots don't need to execute the runaway trim checklist?

Re: Pilot Who Hitched a Ride Saved Lion Air 737 on the Day Before Deadly Crash

#238

Post by magduf »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #194
StavrosK wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My question is why doesn't the "omg something is seriously fucked up give me manual control NOW" button disable the MCAS as well? That seems like a UX failure.

MCAS is designed to work only with autopilot disengaged. With autopilot and autothrottle engaged there would be similar logic at play because the general goal would be to not have the automation induce a stall. With everything disabled there is a risk that applying full throttle will result in the airplane pitching up dramatically beyond the ability of the elevator to pitch the airplane back down and potentially indu…

Boeing was right not to document anything, because then they might have to get a new certification (which is very expensive) for the plane, and pilots would need more training, which would make it hard or impossible for them to sell this plane to airlines as "just another 737".

Remember, a few fatal crashes are worth it as long as it means higher corporate profits.

Re: Pilot Who Hitched a Ride Saved Lion Air 737 on the Day Before Deadly Crash

#239

Post by magduf »

tim333 wrote: post #216
inferiorhuman wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MCAS is designed to work only with autopilot disengaged. With autopilot and autothrottle engaged there would be similar logic at play because the general goal would be to not have the automation induce a stall. With everything disabled there is a risk that applying full throttle will result in the airplane pitching up dramatically beyond the ability of the elevator to pitch the airplane back down and potentially indu…

>The pilots of a doomed Lion Air Boeing 737 Max scoured a handbook as they struggled to understand why the jet was lurching downwards, but ran out of time before it hit the water, three people with knowledge of the cockpit voice recorder contents said. (straitstimes) I can't help thinking things would be safer and the Ethiopian crash may not have happened if they just published all the info rather leaving this kind o…

If they had published this info, then they couldn't have sold the jet to airlines as just another 737 that any other 737-rated pilot could fly without additional training.

Re: Pilot Who Hitched a Ride Saved Lion Air 737 on the Day Before Deadly Crash

#240

Post by magduf »

tremon wrote: post #236
rocqua wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The specifics of MCAS weren't out there because Boeing expected the pre-existing procedure to have been sufficient. This was argued by Boeing to the FAA, who accepted the reasoning. It should be noted that, if it had been determined the pre-existing procedure wasn't sufficient, then all pilots on the 737 Max would've had to undergo re-training. This would have been expensive, and probably hurt adoption of the new a…

all pilots on the 737 Max would've had to undergo re-training. This would have been expensive, and probably hurt adoption of the new airframe. Am I the only one hoping that in the end, the costs for Boeing will be more expensive than the global re-training would have been?

It's not the cost of the training; that would have been borne by the airlines, not Boeing, I think. The problem is that if this plane required extra training, this would have been an additional cost to the airlines, meaning they might not have bought the plane in the first place, and would have bought the competing plane from Airbus. Also, not only is it an additional cost, it means they would have had to have a different type-rating for this plane (a pilot rated for a regular 737 wouldn't be allowed to fly this version).
Post reply on HN