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

Plane Tests Must Use Average Pilots, NTSB Says After 737 Max Crashes

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 317 posts

Re: Plane Tests Must Use Average Pilots, NTSB Says After 737 Max Crashes

#181

Post by ryacko »

treis wrote: post #84
dahart wrote: post #62

This 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. Blame is a loaded word. 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. The bottom line is that an assumption was made, it was wro…

>Boeing assumed that pilots could be relied upon to recover from a MCAS induced runaway trim.

The incidents of MCAS errors with US pilots who reported it to the FAA did result in recovery. But later cases did result in tragic accidents.

https://static.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/L...

But when you make that statement, I don't think you're really imagining what it would be like to be on a plane like that. The above infographic shows what it is like. The plane was operating in an erratic manner.

I don't design planes, but does Boeing at least have a system that detects whether or not pilots are resisting against the controls?

Re: Plane Tests Must Use Average Pilots, NTSB Says After 737 Max Crashes

#182

Post by toss1 »

fennecfoxen wrote: post #170
aeonsky wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, when 400 people die for a company to save money, you must assign blame and put people in jail.

I have downvoted your comment, because I believe it does more to obscure understanding than to enlighten. > when 400 people die for a company to save money Let me take a step back and ask: Why? Is it because we're vindictive, and demand blood? Or is it because this actually does something to help keep people from dying in the future? If the latter is more important than the former -- which I hope is the case -- how c…

Just because it us an incompetent greed move, dors not mean it wasn't a greed move.

They lost big thus time, but they were winning big, with more orders than they could make.

When Boeing mgt declared that they 'no longer needed [to spend money on] senior engineers because these are mature products', and successfully pushed for the same type rating for a plane with deadly different handling characteristics (to save money on pilot training), both were explicit greed moves.

And yes, irresponsible managers who ignored the reality of physics and put their profits over the safety of passengers should go to jail for their criminally bad decisions.

Re: Plane Tests Must Use Average Pilots, NTSB Says After 737 Max Crashes

#183

Post by lorenb »

fennecfoxen wrote: post #170
aeonsky wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, when 400 people die for a company to save money, you must assign blame and put people in jail.

I have downvoted your comment, because I believe it does more to obscure understanding than to enlighten. > when 400 people die for a company to save money Let me take a step back and ask: Why? Is it because we're vindictive, and demand blood? Or is it because this actually does something to help keep people from dying in the future? If the latter is more important than the former -- which I hope is the case -- how c…

> If the corner-cutting that led to 737 Max problems is to be understood as a "greed" move, it's a pretty incompetent one, because Boeing is almost certainly out billions over the mess.

Incompetence and greed aren’t mutually exclusive.

If you take the word of all of the good engineers who were pushed out or quit in frustration over the financialization of the company after the McDonnall Douglas merger, then “omg greed” really does explain everything.

Note that this could have been (and was) predicted by anyone with half a brain:

“On some level, though, he saw it all coming; he even demonstrated how the costs of a grounded plane would dwarf the short-term savings achieved from the latest outsourcing binge in one of his reports that no one read back in 2002.*“

https://newrepublic.com/article/154944/boeing-737-max-invest...

Re: Plane Tests Must Use Average Pilots, NTSB Says After 737 Max Crashes

#184

Post by tomxor »

fennecfoxen wrote: post #170
aeonsky wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, when 400 people die for a company to save money, you must assign blame and put people in jail.

I have downvoted your comment, because I believe it does more to obscure understanding than to enlighten. > when 400 people die for a company to save money Let me take a step back and ask: Why? Is it because we're vindictive, and demand blood? Or is it because this actually does something to help keep people from dying in the future? If the latter is more important than the former -- which I hope is the case -- how c…

> the assertion that we MUST jail people, because it fits our "greed" narrative and whatever cognitive bias we drag into the picture, ensures that we will not remedy the problem effectively. This means people may die.

You don't send people to jail because of "greed", broadly speaking you might divide it into two categories: A) this specific person is a threat to society; B) this person did something morally unconscionable, irresponsible, negligent etc. The reasoning for following through with B is not merely vindictive, it's societal value is in sending a message that this behaviour is not OK! that is a preventative measure - "you must be morally responsible".

This is entirely applicable to this scenario: greed is NOT the problem, trying to make cheaper planes is NOT the problem, trying to beat the competition is NOT the problem - The problem is attaining those goals by gambling with peoples lives by cutting corners that significantly compromise safety, that is gross negligence.

... So yes! send the people responsible to jail, please show the next in line that this behaviour is not tolerated.

Re: Plane Tests Must Use Average Pilots, NTSB Says After 737 Max Crashes

#185

Post by AWildC182 »

mywacaday wrote: post #174

So test pilot at Boeing would not be something a pilot would want on their C.V in the future?

No... A test pilot at Boeing could get hired at any of the major airlines in heartbeat but why do that when you can just keep being a test pilot and throw in for astronaut selection every few years?

Re: Plane Tests Must Use Average Pilots, NTSB Says After 737 Max Crashes

#186

Post by dmix »

dahart wrote: post #62

This 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,…

Why would NTSB try to shift blame away from Boeing?

Re: Plane Tests Must Use Average Pilots, NTSB Says After 737 Max Crashes

#187

Post by deelowe »

dahart wrote: post #62

This 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,…

It's not the NTSBs job to lay blame. They aren't litigators.

Re: Plane Tests Must Use Average Pilots, NTSB Says After 737 Max Crashes

#188

Post by situational87 »

joehosteny wrote: post #37
situational87 wrote: post #17

The primary design objective of the 737 max was to avoid pilot retraining. Until that stops being a major economic driver in aviation no problem was solved here. Changing MCAS another dozen times and updating the manuals does nothing to prevent this from happening in new future system design.

There's a lot of safety value in not having to be retrained, too.

The safety value proposition of the max is kind of hard to sell after two planes crashed. It was already the most successful plane ever in terms of avoiding retraining right?

All that unlocked safety value didn't count for much.

Re: Plane Tests Must Use Average Pilots, NTSB Says After 737 Max Crashes

#189

Post by dmix »

o-__-o wrote: post #154
treis wrote: post #142

Earlier 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…

> Is it sustainable? Like managing a growing server farm manually, probably not.

Sustainable for what exactly? Being good enough to handle complex emergency procedures?

There will always be a more experience subset of pilots plus new ones coming in. They have the benefit of having two pilots (sometimes more) so they can even off the average experience in the cockpit.

Although newbie co-pilots have contributed to crashes in the past as well.

Re: Plane Tests Must Use Average Pilots, NTSB Says After 737 Max Crashes

#190

Post by mlyle »

dahart wrote: post #62

This 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,…

> and that the system was only recoverable if you had some extremely specific knowledge.

This isn't true. If you follow the runaway trim procedure, you recover. Pilots in the US are required to demonstrate the runaway trim procedure as part of a type rating checkride.

Aggravating factors are, IMO:

1) Even well-trained aircrews getting a runaway trim condition on takeoff are not guaranteed to show the same performance as on their checkride day.

2) Not all jurisdictions require this demonstration.

3) The MCAS could fail in a way that could be surprising and not seem exactly like normal runaway trim (intermittency).

4) This test of "can you handle runaway trim?" was much more frequent than the normal causes of a stuck switch or actuator.

I think #3-4 is the big issue. While better trained crews could address the others, MCAS has the ability to fail in a way that it only does stuff when the crew isn't looking. There's nothing that can address this but system redundancy.

Post reply on HN