Surely they mean “later in development”. Test pilots are chosen for their extreme skill precisely because a new aircraft isn’t proven safe.
Plane Tests Must Use Average Pilots, NTSB Says After 737 Max Crashes
131–140 of 317 posts
Re: Plane Tests Must Use Average Pilots, NTSB Says After 737 Max Crashes
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be more precise, Boeing assumed that all pilots flying their aircraft would be up to the standards of the United States as opposed to the different standards around the world.
My understanding is that the pilots had only about 40 seconds time to solve the problem and were trained for one hour with an iPad (not on the MCAS, but the whole 737 Max). I'm not sure whether this is a question of pilots' standards in the US vs around the world.
The general idea was that pilots would correctly recognize large amounts of undesired and uncommanded trim being runaway trim and perform the checklist to resolve that issue that they are expected to know by memory, since there is a need to execute it fast, without paging through the Quick Reference Handbook. This is not a checklist that was introduced with the 737 MAX, but one that has existed since the introduction of the 737 in 1969. I haven't gone and checked but IIRC a similar checklist exists for all Boeing jetliners and I would expect Airbus as well.
In any system failure there is a chain of events that leads up to the ultimate failure, concentrating solely on Boeing's mistakes in these crashes overlooks all the other points at which they could have been averted:
1. In the Lion Air crash, there were some significant maintenance issues that lead up to the replacement for a failing AoA sensor with a used part older than the aircraft failing as well.
2. There were some significant failings in Crew Resource Management in the accident flights.
3. There appear to be issues in the pilots abilities to deal with unexpected situations. This is why simulator training exists, so that pilots can encounter unexpected issues and deal with them correctly.
4. The failure that lead to MCAS being activated also caused a whole ton of warnings to be activated, which may have been a situation Boeing was not expecting, and therefore did not put into the minimum baseline training they create.
5. The flight computer system and MCAS was implemented problematically, relying on one input because the expected control authority was very low, and then when that was not changed the system was not re-architected.
6. Boeing's designs reflect a US-centric expectation of pilots. In the US we expect pilots flying airliners to have spent at least 1500 hours flying before they can even sit in the co-pilot seat. In other parts of the world I have heard numbers as low as 240 hours, so pilot testing will need to reflect this going forward.
Re: Plane Tests Must Use Average Pilots, NTSB Says After 737 Max Crashes
#133How about below-average pilots? Just-barely-good-enough-to-get-hired pilots?
Re: Plane Tests Must Use Average Pilots, NTSB Says After 737 Max Crashes
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think trying to think of pilots as being good or bad on some abstract scale is almost certainly an oversimplification. The reality is probably more like for developers, some of the best developers in terms of achievements are not people you'd want to work with on a daily basis. In the same way that an F1 driver wouldn't necessarily be the world's best bus driver.
A principle in software is to never write the most complicated code you possibly can, because maintenance is harder than writing, and if you could only just barely write it in the first place, you won't be able to maintain it. The principle for pilots is similar. As to skills assessments, you're right, it's difficult. But you can use some general proxies. Certification pilots should be drawn from a standard pool, not…
I think the point that I was trying to make is that a test pilot probably has attributes / skills which make them well qualified as test pilots but perhaps wouldn't make them particularly good line pilots and vice versa.
An ideal test pilots should excel in stick and rudder skills and have the ability to work around mechanical / system problems.
For a line pilot attributes like organisational skills and planning, interpersonal skills and meteorology skills are much more valuable.
Re: Plane Tests Must Use Average Pilots, NTSB Says After 737 Max Crashes
#135This seems like a good thing, they should be testing with people who don’t know the answers. Though I can’t help but wonder if this is a very subtle re-framing of the Max accidents to shift blame back towards pilots. This approach of a regulatory agency recommending “average pilot” testing makes both the agency and Boeing look good, and tends to downplay the fact that Boeing intentionally avoided training the pilots,…
> Though I can’t help but wonder if this is a very subtle re-framing of the Max accidents to shift blame back towards pilots.
How so? The assertion that average pilots must be use implies that average pilots were not being used and that because of this the testing is flawed.
I think the point is that an average pilot would have failed tests and exposed a flaw in their training but because they used above average pilots any flaws in their systems were mitigated or avoided by the pilots.
I think we'd all agree that if a pilot landed a fully functional plane, that they were certified to fly, without first deploying the landing gear then we'd question that pilot's abilities. The rationale for testing using average pilots is along the same lines. An average pilot can reasonably be expected to have a certain level of knowledge and ability, therefore all testing should be to expose the gaps between what they know and what's needed to pilot a new aircraft. Using a more experienced pilot closes or narrows those gaps.
Re: Plane Tests Must Use Average Pilots, NTSB Says After 737 Max Crashes
#136Please don’t. I am a multi engine rated, average pilot. Please don’t use someone like me as the basis for your safety.
You're hired!
Re: Plane Tests Must Use Average Pilots, NTSB Says After 737 Max Crashes
#137This makes a lot of sense. They need similar requirements for evacuation testing. Regulations say all passengers in a plane need to be able to evacuate within 90 seconds. As Americans get bigger and airplane seats get smaller the airlines "comply" with the 90 second requirement by conducting an evacuation test in completely unrealistic circumstances.[1] The test participants are all handpicked, fit, airline employees who prepare and practice for the drill. The test "starts" with everyone in their seat (seat backs & try tables up) and with their life jacket already on.
And in recent years the FAA hasn't required these tests as frequently. Why? Because even with all the preparation that goes into it, the mad-rush to the exits in a staged emergency, tends to be quite dangerous for the participants.
Re: Plane Tests Must Use Average Pilots, NTSB Says After 737 Max Crashes
#138If you test for average pilots, then you've still got approx 50% of pilots who aren't capable. Whatever happened to testing for the lowest common denominator - especially in life and death situations?
Testing a large enough random sampling of people will include the lowest common denominator as well.
Re: Plane Tests Must Use Average Pilots, NTSB Says After 737 Max Crashes
#139Re: Plane Tests Must Use Average Pilots, NTSB Says After 737 Max Crashes
#140NTSB apparently need better employees for making such a recommendation... (ie: it is not ok for 1/2 of the pilots to not be 100% in control of their plane)