I would like even the bottom 0.1% of pilots to be able to recover the plane from a common hardware failure.
Plane Tests Must Use Average Pilots, NTSB Says After 737 Max Crashes
151–160 of 317 posts
Re: Plane Tests Must Use Average Pilots, NTSB Says After 737 Max Crashes
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Boeing assumed that pilots could be relied upon to recover from a MCAS induced runaway trim. Practice has shown that they can't. Whether Boeing or the pilots is at fault is, from a safety perspective, irrelevant. From a practical perspective, however, Boeing making universal assumptions about pilot capabilities in life-or-death situations, utilizing new equipment that they were not trained on, is anything but irrel…
Their logic was that pilots are trained to deal with runaway trim, a MCAS failure is runaway trim, ergo pilots are trained to deal with a MCAS failure. Obviously that logic turned out to be faulty but it's not like Boeing made some outlandish leap here.
I think they made a very outlandish leap and that resulted in hundreds of lives being lost. There is no room for assumptions when it comes to flight procedures.
Re: Plane Tests Must Use Average Pilots, NTSB Says After 737 Max Crashes
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could take a probabilistic approach... In this 1 in a million situation, 90% of tested pilots managed to follow the procedures to recover. Therefore the chance of a fatal crash is 1 in 10 million. Let the manufacturer decide if they want to make the situation rarer or the training better to reduce the overall crash risk.
How about if that info was available to the public? I don't want to put my health and safety on a scale against someone's profitability.
It won't be someone's profitability, it'll be the ticket price that you pay.
Re: Plane Tests Must Use Average Pilots, NTSB Says After 737 Max Crashes
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
I appreciate the attempt to be diplomatic, and I agree that using average pilots is sensible. But, with respect, I could not disagree more with the rest of that. > Blame is a loaded word. Boeing’s response to the accidents was to blame the pilots, there is precedent for this word in this situation. https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/23/business/american-airlines-bo... > Boeing assumed that pilots could be relied upon No, Bo…
>Boeing’s response to the accidents was to blame the pilots, there is precedent for this word in this situation. Your cite says Boeing said: >The actions of the pilots played a role in the chain of events that caused the crashes Which isn't blaming them and is factually correct in both crashes. The Lion Air pilots didn't disable electric trim and the Ethiopian air ones turned it back on. Those actions played a role i…
Don’t forget the pilot of the previous LA607 flight was able to recover successfully. Other pilot crew had more flight time, thus more experience. Look at NTSB crash data, experienced crews have a higher chance of lower fatalities in an accident. Why? Because these pilots understand their vehicle like the back of their hand. A 5000+ hour pilot has deep knowledge, for instance, of the hydraulic system of the plane and will try to e.g drop flaps to squeak out extra fluid in an emergency. Is this a good thing? Maybe. Probably. Is it sustainable? Like managing a growing server farm manually, probably not.
Planes are going to get dumber, but there will be a lot more connected planes for remote troubleshooting/control
Re: Plane Tests Must Use Average Pilots, NTSB Says After 737 Max Crashes
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Pilot training is critical. But having said that, the system shouldn't rely on there always being zero human and technical error.
Re: Plane Tests Must Use Average Pilots, NTSB Says After 737 Max Crashes
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 5. 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. I like your approach: Pilot's failures caused the crash, and Boeing made an honest mistake. And you seem to think it would have been fine flying in the US. You do realise plane crashes and industrial…
So... I said the design was bad and your saying I'm not harsh enough in that? Are we trying to solve engineering problems by getting emotional about them or something?
This conversation isn’t really about solving engineering problems it’s about whether Boeing’s posture on the matter is in line with Engineering ethics. Many people believe there was one or more ethics breaches here.
Your position seems to be that it was a combination of innocent engineering mistakes and substandard behavior by the pilots.
Re: Plane Tests Must Use Average Pilots, NTSB Says After 737 Max Crashes
#157[deleted]
Re: Plane Tests Must Use Average Pilots, NTSB Says After 737 Max Crashes
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Boeing assumed that pilots could be relied upon to recover from a MCAS induced runaway trim. Practice has shown that they can't. Whether Boeing or the pilots is at fault is, from a safety perspective, irrelevant. From a practical perspective, however, Boeing making universal assumptions about pilot capabilities in life-or-death situations, utilizing new equipment that they were not trained on, is anything but irrel…
Their logic was that pilots are trained to deal with runaway trim, a MCAS failure is runaway trim, ergo pilots are trained to deal with a MCAS failure. Obviously that logic turned out to be faulty but it's not like Boeing made some outlandish leap here.
> it's not like Boeing made some outlandish leap here.
Your attempts to whitewash Boeing's negligence seems rather dishonest.
Re: Plane Tests Must Use Average Pilots, NTSB Says After 737 Max Crashes
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Boeing’s response to the accidents was to blame the pilots, there is precedent for this word in this situation. Your cite says Boeing said: >The actions of the pilots played a role in the chain of events that caused the crashes Which isn't blaming them and is factually correct in both crashes. The Lion Air pilots didn't disable electric trim and the Ethiopian air ones turned it back on. Those actions played a role i…
Don’t forget the pilot of the previous LA607 flight was able to recover successfully. Other pilot crew had more flight time, thus more experience. Look at NTSB crash data, experienced crews have a higher chance of lower fatalities in an accident. Why? Because these pilots understand their vehicle like the back of their hand. A 5000+ hour pilot has deep knowledge, for instance, of the hydraulic system of the plane and…
What type of process could be used to make sure that their experience and knowledge gets back into the mainline product?
Re: Plane Tests Must Use Average Pilots, NTSB Says After 737 Max Crashes
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 5. 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. I like your approach: Pilot's failures caused the crash, and Boeing made an honest mistake. And you seem to think it would have been fine flying in the US. You do realise plane crashes and industrial…
So... I said the design was bad and your saying I'm not harsh enough in that? Are we trying to solve engineering problems by getting emotional about them or something?
Good analysis!