No call for simulators in new Boeing 737 Max training proposals • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by Declanomous » Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 12:10 AM UTC

Zancarius wrote: post #51

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 obvi…

I assumed the failure in the simulator was an MCAS failure, but I'm not sure. I think that the MCAS system pauses for 5 seconds every time you hit the trim button, so it kinda seems like it might be MCAS but I have no idea.

The checklist to fix MCAS and runaway trim is supposed to be the same, so I guess the question is whether the trim wheels move in a substantially less noticeable way with an MCAS failure. I certainly can't say.

I could totally see someone hearing the trim wheels running when they are trying to trim out the MCAS adjustments and assuming that the wheel is moving in the opposite direction that it actually is. In a high-stress situation a mistake like that seems incredibly plausible.

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

#102

Post by salawat » Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 4:06 AM UTC

ReptileMan wrote: post #98

salawat wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doing the Right Thing would put them on schedule . This isn't some stupid race. This is making a machine that can safely be flown. The market doesn't need a risk profile that drops plane loads out of the bloody sky Because a company pushed their people into hiding things from their customers. I'm normally all for free market optimization when it makes sense, and all actors act in reasonably good faith concomitant wit…

Once again - is the strategy boeing doing rational for them? Yes. So it's not mind boggling. We can call it dishonest, showing disregard, careless, whatever... but the fact that boeing are trying desperately to save the type certifications is not somehow beyond grasp of the human mind.

Rationality, and specifically the exercise of it, rationalization, is a double edged sword. Smart people can rationalize their way into horrible things. An act being rational alone does not magically elevate it to the status of being correct, or as an . Like an argument, you can have valid reasoning, but if that reasoning is from a flawed premise, the course of action cannot be deemed to be sound.

The type certification could have been a non-issue with proper communication. That didn't happen because someone at Boeing made a terrible call, and persists in asserting they've done nothing wrong, when the fact of the matter is that the error is so obvious in it's nature, that the rest of the world is capable of piecing the failure together even without having seen the actual data, which as it comes out, proves to only be reinforcing the case against Boeing.

Maybe it isn't enough to stand up in a court of law...yet. Everything that has been publicized thus far, however, paints a picture where criminal negligence is looking more and more like a foregone conclusion.

In short, rationality be damned. Someone made the irrational decision that the upside of getting to market sooner by cutting corners was worth risking 300+ innocent lives. People who put their faith in Boeing that they did their due diligence as required by law of executive and PE alike.

I agree with you ReptileMan. It isn't somehow beyond the human mind. Only a human being would put a financial windfall ahead of ensuring the safety of eventual passengers, have the decision blow up in their faces, then dig in and insist they did nothing wrong despite evidence to the contrary.

The corporation will be fine if they can manage to maintain goodwill. I don't envy those involved with approving the MAX however.

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

#103

Post by SAI_Peregrinus » Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 4:59 PM UTC

Declanomous wrote: post #101

Zancarius wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 obvi…

I assumed the failure in the simulator was an MCAS failure, but I'm not sure. I think that the MCAS system pauses for 5 seconds every time you hit the trim button, so it kinda seems like it might be MCAS but I have no idea. The checklist to fix MCAS and runaway trim is supposed to be the same, so I guess the question is whether the trim wheels move in a substantially less noticeable way with an MCAS failure. I certai…

AFAIK in a runaway trim situation the trim wheels move continuously, while in an MCAS activation or in normal operation of the auto-trim systems they move in bursts. The fix is the same, but the recognition is very different.

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

#104

Post by dragonsngoblins » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 10:23 PM UTC

magduf wrote: post #92

ironmagma wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

>They neglected safety and lied to their customers and the public to gain competitive business advantage; they DESERVE to be years behind. No, they don't. They deserve for their executives and PEs to be behind bars, and for the company to go out of business. Let Airbus or the Chinese buy it and take it over. We've shown that we're completely unable to properly regulate companies like this where safety is so critical,…

Because China will regulate more effectively? The impression I've gotten from China is that regulation is often worked around

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

#105

Post by magduf » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 9:04 PM UTC

dragonsngoblins wrote: post #104

magduf wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They neglected safety and lied to their customers and the public to gain competitive business advantage; they DESERVE to be years behind. No, they don't. They deserve for their executives and PEs to be behind bars, and for the company to go out of business. Let Airbus or the Chinese buy it and take it over. We've shown that we're completely unable to properly regulate companies like this where safety is so critical,…

Because China will regulate more effectively? The impression I've gotten from China is that regulation is often worked around

>The impression I've gotten from China is that regulation is often worked around

Sounds a lot like America these days... Worse, regulation is seen as bad here, and Trump has directed everyone under him to eliminate as much regulation as possible, and then some. Why would you trust regulation from a country that explicitly doesn't believe in regulating?

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

#106

Post by dragonsngoblins » Wed, Apr 03, 2019, 4:32 AM UTC

magduf wrote: post #105

dragonsngoblins wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because China will regulate more effectively? The impression I've gotten from China is that regulation is often worked around

>The impression I've gotten from China is that regulation is often worked around Sounds a lot like America these days... Worse, regulation is seen as bad here, and Trump has directed everyone under him to eliminate as much regulation as possible, and then some. Why would you trust regulation from a country that explicitly doesn't believe in regulating?

I'm not saying I do, I'm just saying I don't trust China to either really