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

No call for simulators in new Boeing 737 Max training proposals

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 106 posts

Re: No call for simulators in new Boeing 737 Max training proposals

#51

Post by Zancarius »

Declanomous wrote: post #8

I'd highly recommend anyone who wants to see what an MCAS runaway looks like and the steps needed to correct it watch the following video by Mentour Pilot.[1] He's a 737 pilot for a European budget carrier, and I believe he is qualified to certify other pilots. In the video he goes over what an MCAS failure/runaway stabilizer would feel like to the pilots, the troubleshooting steps, and at the end of the video he sho…

In that video, I think he's primarily talking about handling runaway stabilizer trim. It just so happens that solving runaway stabilizer trim works with MCAS failures which may have been the case with the Lion Air flight the day before the fatal accident. Unfortunately, therein lies the problem: From what I've read, an MCAS failure is different enough from runaway stabilizer trim that it might not be immediately obvious what went wrong before it's too late. Juan Browne[1] discusses this in his latest video on the MAX 8[2]--namely that pilots get so conditioned to hearing the trim wheels operating that they may not notice periodic adjustments by the flight computer when MCAS fails and starts adjusting full nose-down.

(I'm posting this as ancillary information, not to be contrarian! I might be entirely wrong; that was just my interpretation of Mentour Pilot's video. His resources are absolutely fantastic[3], and I think anyone interested in aviation should certainly take a look!)

[1] Juan Browne is a former USAF pilot who's currently an FO on the 777 and has 40 years flying experience. I don't think he has experience with the 737, but I think his coverage is valuable too.

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ora-yZCTtpg

[3] You're absolutely right! Mentour is a training captain on the 737 (737-800, I believe) and oversees certifying new pilots/captains. One of the things I like about him most is that regardless of seniority, he's incredibly humble and has said in earlier videos that he occasionally flies right seat to maintain that skill for training others. Great guy! I really wish more people were like him.

Re: No call for simulators in new Boeing 737 Max training proposals

#52

Post by ironmagma »

ReptileMan wrote: post #11
nxc18 wrote: post #5

Boeing's actions are absolutely mind boggling. All consumers want is _some_, _any_ evidence that they take passenger safety seriously. Pilots have to take less training to operate a proven deadly aircraft, with software patch on top, than I have to take to work in an office job... that's fucking insane. How can we make Boeing feel some pain for this? You know, actually enough for them to start taking this seriously.

Nothing mind boggling. Boeing are trying desperately to avoid new type rating. That would leave them in the same business position where they were before developing MAX and with a bad image to boot. Not saying they are right, but they just don't have many good moves. Doing the Right thing leaves them years behind. It will also limit airline expansion. Airbus cannot pick up slack and there are no other players in the…

They neglected safety and lied to their customers and the public to gain competitive business advantage; they DESERVE to be years behind.

Re: No call for simulators in new Boeing 737 Max training proposals

#53

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

lisper wrote: post #49
SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything in regulated markets is made to get slightly around the regulations. If it wasn’t you either couldn’t make it at all, wouldn’t have an advantage over your competitors, it wouldn’t perform as needed. Regulations are a double edged sword. Now... a cheap extra sensor and better choices would have saved lives here, but the reason they made the choices they did was because of the regulations placed on them. To…

I'd say killing 346 people in six months is well beyond the ragged edge.

One non-redundant sensor is completely within the regulations though. All the choices they made comply with regulations. You don’t have to like that, but it’s the truth.

If your immediate thought it “well just add more regulations” I’m afraid you may not grasp how building things in regulated markets work. There is always something to skirt. Government can never be big enough.

Re: No call for simulators in new Boeing 737 Max training proposals

#54

Post by VMG »

emilsedgh wrote: post #24
volkl48 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US airlines all purchased some/all of the "optional" safety features that would have made it obvious to the pilots that the system was malfunctioning.

There is no regulation that prevents them from making safety-related components optional?

What a great way to stop development of safety features. Just imagine how the automobile market would look like with that kind of regulation.

Re: No call for simulators in new Boeing 737 Max training proposals

#55

Post by CaptainZapp »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #53
lisper wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say killing 346 people in six months is well beyond the ragged edge.

One non-redundant sensor is completely within the regulations though. All the choices they made comply with regulations. You don’t have to like that, but it’s the truth. If your immediate thought it “well just add more regulations” I’m afraid you may not grasp how building things in regulated markets work. There is always something to skirt. Government can never be big enough.

One non-redundant sensor is completely within the regulations though

Apaprently only when it's determined that the sensor is in the hazardous and not in the catastrophic category.

While Boeing self certified it as hazardous I, for one, would think that two losses of brand new planes within month of each other is a pretty catastrophic event.

I dealry hope that the Europeans and others are not as complacent to accept the "no simulator training required" shtick by a borderline criminal organization.

Re: No call for simulators in new Boeing 737 Max training proposals

#56

Post by chopin »

xmichael999 wrote: post #6
lisper wrote: post #3

“It was the safest way to get around the regulations.” Manifestly not. (And why are you trying to "get around the regulations" anyway? Shouldn't you be complying with the regulations, not getting around them?)

Considering Boeing already participates or works in tandem with the FAA to write the rules, it is pretty sick they are trying to work around the rules. This is all about profit and they are doubling down, likely due to contract obligations with Southwest and others that this plane will not require a new type rating or any sim. time. Lets hope EASA actually reviews this rather than the FAA letting boeing self audit ..…

My hopes for the EASA are low. They will fear retaliation on Airbus. I am afraid we will have to hope for the big Asian players.

Re: No call for simulators in new Boeing 737 Max training proposals

#57

Post by invalidusernam3 »

teh_infallible wrote: post #33

Is there anyone who would willingly get on one of these planes, regardless of software patches and extra training, when we know they have a compromised airframe, whose design prioritized cost over safety?

I'm not a nervous flyer at all and I'm very used to flying (over 15 flights this year so far), but currently I'm scheduling a flight for next week and every flight I look at I now check what aircraft it is. This is something I had never done previously

Re: No call for simulators in new Boeing 737 Max training proposals

#58

Post by lultimouomo »

achandlerwhite wrote: post #35
Declanomous wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing that was the most chilling to me was the fact that the last item on the memory checklist is to try and prevent the trim wheel from moving using physical force. At that point it almost seems like "well, you are probably going to die, but you might as well keep yourself busy in the process." I thought the communication was really interesting. Air France Flight 447[1] crashed due to the pilot flying pulling ba…

I can’t watch the video at the moment, but I’m of the understanding that the manual wheel actually easily overpowers the electric trim motors—-that it is simple to stop them from spinning and not to difficult to manually spin them as required.

In the video there is a suggestion on how to hold the wheel without breaking your wrist, so I assume it's not too pleasant to do. They also manually spin the wheel and it looks quite hard and slow (the monitoring pilot alone, which is using his left hand, can barely do it; when the flying pilot helps him with his right hand things go better)

Re: No call for simulators in new Boeing 737 Max training proposals

#59

Post by dotancohen »

achandlerwhite wrote: post #35
Declanomous wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing that was the most chilling to me was the fact that the last item on the memory checklist is to try and prevent the trim wheel from moving using physical force. At that point it almost seems like "well, you are probably going to die, but you might as well keep yourself busy in the process." I thought the communication was really interesting. Air France Flight 447[1] crashed due to the pilot flying pulling ba…

I can’t watch the video at the moment, but I’m of the understanding that the manual wheel actually easily overpowers the electric trim motors—-that it is simple to stop them from spinning and not to difficult to manually spin them as required.

I doubt that there would ever be need to physically overcome the jackscrew motor (trim motor), as there is an electrical cutout switch in ready reach. The issue the GP discusses is when due to whatever reason the trim runs away (electrical or otherwise), the 737 has two physical wheels that the flight crew can turn, _OR CATCH_ while it is turning. That is like stopping a spinning bicycle wheel by grabbing it. It is physically dangerous to the crew member.

Re: No call for simulators in new Boeing 737 Max training proposals

#60

Post by dotancohen »

beart wrote: post #31
duado wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A nuclear power plant failure, in the worst case, is much worse than the worst case pilot error.

Not if the plane lands on a nuclear power plant

Actually all western nuclear power plants are designed to withstand a 737 strike, as that was the largest plane flying when the regulations were written.
Post reply on HN