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

Pilot of Boeing flight says he lost control after instrument failure

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 302 posts

Re: Pilot of Boeing flight says he lost control after instrument failure

#271

Post by slavik81 »

shiroiushi wrote: post #254
DrFalkyn wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ask the pilot ?

Can't do that: the pilot can't be allowed to control, or even know about MCAS, because that would affect Boeing's ability to claim the plane is "just another" 737 and that the pilots don't need retraining. Giving the pilot the ability to control MCAS means the pilots all need retraining.

That's certainly the regulatory logic, but I feel like the entire idea of hiding critical systems from the pilots may have been a bad idea from the beginning. Regulators should never have even entertained the idea of using active compensation systems to maintain the type class.

Re: Pilot of Boeing flight says he lost control after instrument failure

#272

Post by cco »

maybelsyrup wrote: post #84

Anyone have the tail number for the airplane involved? Is it CC-BGG? Wondering if there's any way to tell if this is one of the 787s built in South Carolina or in Washington state.

Let me introduce you to two tools!

The first is https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/354285. A fairly complete database of aviation incidents.

The second is https://avherald.com/h?article=51601631&opt=256, similar to Aviation Safety but has comments and is more like hackernews but for commercial aviation.

And yes, tail number was CC-BGG.

Re: Pilot of Boeing flight says he lost control after instrument failure

#273

Post by dotancohen »

salawat wrote: post #256
dotancohen wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The airplane could have a dozen AoA sensors, but if the software is ignoring 11 of them then there is only one actual AoA sensor for purpose of discussion. Even if the sensors are used for other aspects, such as pilot instrumentation. And yes, I understand perfectly well that this invalidates the idea that the second sensor was "eliminated" to save cost - but if I remember correctly there was a paid option to have th…

Close! AoA disagree hazard light was an optional feature. In the original implementation, the Flight computer in command, either the one on the pilot's side, or the one on the copilot's side (alternated on power up), were fed input from only the AoA sensor they shared a physical link with. The optional feature was essentially networking the two ststems such that the data would be fed to the FCIC for warning light act…

Thank you.

Re: Pilot of Boeing flight says he lost control after instrument failure

#274

Post by bbor »

mym1990 wrote: post #269
bbor wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just meant that there are only two companies in the industry at all - the industry being “commercial passenger flight”, or what they seem to call “airliners” (?): Still, in the large commercial aircraft market, there are just two major players: the U.S.-based Boeing (BA) and the Airbus Group (EADSY), formerly known as the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS). I totally understand your pushback again…

I don't think defining the size of a market based on how many companies are in it is a very useful metric. If you kept reading your investopedia snippet, you would see that "The airplane manufacturing market is part of the overall airline industry". So saying that "there are only two companies in the industry" is incredibly disingenuous, there are thousands of companies involved in commercial passenger flight. Btw, p…

Ok cmon be nice it’s hacker news we all hate Boeing here - that’s why we’re Hackers :)

Yeah it’s relative and the line between “large airliners” and “all passenger aircraft” is somewhat arbitrary, I agree. But I stand by the distinction. The market for large airliners is by far the most important market in aerospace, and it has two companies in it, and the one that’s been doing a decade of record cost cutting has way more safety issues than the company that didn’t. I’d love a higher sample size ofc, but as far as clarity goes that’s pretty damning.

Plus what are we fighting about? Whether it’s fair to describe Boeing as being in “not a huge industry”? I mean I’ll just give that one to you lol, I care little about the exact phrasing of that comment. Honestly if it bothers you just drop the whole paragraph!

Big industry or small, I have been informed by trustworthy journalists that this is not usual behavior for an aerospace company. Much less normal for an aerospace company that used to be prestigious for its engineering excellence…

Re: Pilot of Boeing flight says he lost control after instrument failure

#275

Post by hugh-avherald »

thombat wrote: post #15
rob74 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even with zero controls, and even if one or more of the various computers decided spontaneously to restart, I would expect the plane to continue flying the way it did before the incident rather than going into an (apparently) uncommanded descent? I mean, we had that with the 737 MAX, so I wouldn't rule it out, but it sounds suspiciously like the pilot messed up and is trying to blame the airplane. However I'm no spec…

But what control input could a pilot make that abruptly produces significant negative gees for just a couple of seconds? Other than the bland references to "technical issue" it sounds like clear air turbulence. (Although one possible mistake could be that the weather radar did warn of it and the pilot didn't react?)

From reports of passengers in the rear of the plane suffering the most injuries, it sounds like a descent followed by an abrupt pitch up (elevators push tail down).

Re: Pilot of Boeing flight says he lost control after instrument failure

#276

Post by hilux »

rpmisms wrote: post #225
trompetenaccoun wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's a great aviation channel in general if anyone is interested in that stuff. It's an aviation channel for people who aren't into aviation. Lot's of clickbait + obvious optimization of titles and topics to appeal to the masses. The Mr Beast of pilots.

Mentour Pilot is for people interested in aviation. He does breakdowns/analyses of plane incidents—not just crashes. He's also a certified trainer on at least one type.

Mentour's recent videos have become much more fake salesy ultra-high energy. I actually had to unsubscribe.

The same phenomenon is unfolding in chess youtube world. The audience of laypeople (with minimal to zero chess knowledge) who are entertained by yelling and extreme over-excitement and butt-plug cheating scandals is 1000x as large as the audience of true chess nerds.

Re: Pilot of Boeing flight says he lost control after instrument failure

#277

Post by rob74 »

stouset wrote: post #260
Reason077 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All-new aircraft designs are only certified to fly after many years of rigorous analysis and testing. It was Boeing's desire to avoid the full expensive certification process, by claiming that the MAX was just a minor update to an existing design, which led to two catastrophic crashes in the space of a few months. On the other hand, no 787 or A380 has ever had a crash or incident that resulted in a passenger fatality…

> On the other hand, no 787 or A380 has ever had a crash or incident that resulted in a passenger fatality or hull loss. There have been nearly 10x as many 737s built as 787s and A380s combined . Given the date of first flight (1967 vs. 2009 and 2203, respectively) it is safe to say they have been flown for significantly more than 10x the total flight hours. Probably at least 20x but I’m pulling that number out of th…

There are two recent accidents that show how much new airplane designs (and better safety measures) have improved survivability of accidents: Emirates Flight 521 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emirates_Flight_521), a Boeing 777 that crashed in Dubai in 2016, where all 300 people on board survived (although un unfortunate firefighter lost his life); and the A350 that collided with another airplane while landing at Tokio Haneda airport in January this year - if you look at the burnt out airplane (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Haneda_Airport_runway_col...), it's hard to believe that all 379 people on board made it out alive...

Re: Pilot of Boeing flight says he lost control after instrument failure

#278

Post by fransje26 »

dz0ny wrote: post #208

On Dec 2nd 2016 the FAA had issued their airworthiness directive AD 2016–24–09 summarizing: "We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 787–8 and 787–9 airplanes. This AD requires repetitive cycling of either the airplane electrical power or the power to the three flight control modules (FCMs). This AD was prompted by a report indicating that all three FCMs might simultaneousl…

For what it's worth, that AD got superseded in 2020, after a hardware and software update:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/10/09/2020-22...

Re: Pilot of Boeing flight says he lost control after instrument failure

#279

Post by fransje26 »

WalterBright wrote: post #143

Or maybe the pilot made a mistake and is trying to save face by blaming the instruments. I suggest waiting for the investigation to figure out what went wrong. For example, he could have slipped while climbing out of the seat and fell against the control column.

> Or maybe the pilot made a mistake and is trying to save face

That wouldn't be the first time

Re: Pilot of Boeing flight says he lost control after instrument failure

#280

Post by weweersdfsd »

burnte wrote: post #217
schlauerfox wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is VERY bad engineering practice, you throw away knowns for unknowns. A blue sky design isn't a fix. Especially if your corporate culture has the wrong leadership. First year engineers take engineering economics for a reason. Money is always an object.

Yes. A place design that's 70 years old has had THOUSANDS of bugs fixed. I'd rather fly on a new 737 than an "all new 797 or A390". Side note: I know there isn't a 797 or A390 yet, that was the intent of the statement, a future unknown plane.

The problem is quality control of production and new features. It doesn't matter how old most of the design is, if someone messes up in the production line, or if new features are not adequately tested like in case of MCAS.

Lack of QC is why I'll gladly choose any Airbus over any new Boeing.

Post reply on HN