18 ms·
Boeing Withheld Information on 737 Model, According to Safety Experts and Others
- neya 8y agoAlternative story link: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/boeing-withheld-crucial-safety-information-on-new-737-models-experts-say-2018-11-12 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/boeing-withheld-crucial-sa...
- inamberclad 8y ago> The automated stall-prevention system on Boeing 737 MAX 8 and MAX 9 models ... can push it down unexpectedly and so strongly that flight crews can’t pull it back up. I'm surprised that Boeing designed a system that could override the strength of the pilot. I don't know how strong the normal autopilot controls are on a B-737-800 but on lighter aircraft it's a normal part of the preflight to make sure that you can overpower the autopilot with muscle if it fails.
- cmurf 8y agoThese are all fly by wire airplanes, muscle has exactly zero to do with simply ignoring the input. You have to know what system is confused, and possibly why, in order to know what component or system needs to be reset or disabled. And these are the kinds of scenarios that continue to make me think autonomous cars in a hybrid environment (i.e. with human drivers) is just absurd. Flying planes is a standardized environment, and we can't even automate it end to end with available technology in idealized conditions, let alone in emergencies. And car driving is way more complicated (and I say that as a pilot). Having one inch precision for every bit of concrete, light bulb, paint on every airport in the world, is less data than what you'd see in one town, let alone a city, let alone all of them. The infrastructure standardization within a city is poor let alone across the country, and it evolves daily perhaps even by the hour.
- cjbprime 8y agoThis doesn't sound right. Boeing planes are much less fly-by-wire than Airbus, and this is especially true for the older models such as the 757 in this crash.
- sitharus 8y agoThis crash involves a 737 MAX - a very modern fully fly-by-wire aeroplane. I think the 777 was the last Boeing jet with mechanical backup flight controls. The difference you're probably thinking of is the Boeing philosophy of ultimate pilot control vs the Airbus one of software restrictions. A pilot can fly a Boeing aircraft outside of its designed envelope, but an Airbus will restrict the inputs.
- inferiorhuman 8y ago> This doesn't sound right. Boeing planes are much less fly-by-wire than Airbus, and this is especially true for the older models such as the 757 in this crash. The plane that crashed was not a 757 it was a 737 MAX. > This crash involves a 737 MAX - a very modern fully fly-by-wire aeroplane. The 737 MAX is NOT a fully FBW airplane. The MAX does have a FBW spoiler which the previous 737s (Jurassic, Classic, NG) lack. > The difference you're probably thinking of is the Boeing philosophy of ultimate pilot control vs the Airbus one of software restrictions. A pilot can fly a Boeing aircraft outside of its designed envelope, but an Airbus will restrict the inputs. That's not entirely true, all 737s will put additional pressure on the yoke when a stall is detected. You can fly a 737 into a stall, but with quite a bit of effort. Similarly you can fly a modern Airbus into a stall provided you're in one of the degraded "laws". Air France pilots did just that with an A330. Where the MAX differs from other 737s is that when a stall is detected it will trim the stabilizer -- even worse when the computer predicts a stall the 737 may end up trimming the stabilizer to the point that you cannot overcome it with the elevator. On a 737 the elevators respond quickly while the trim adjustments are much, much slower. If you're 5,000 ft in the air and Boeing decides to trim the stabilizer full down you may already crash by the time you can re-trim the plane and regain control. Previous 737s did NOT do this. I believe that LOT specifically emphasizes this in their MAX training, unsure if Lion Air did/does.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- tjmc 8y agoFull article: https://outline.com/t78kad https://outline.com/t78kad
- FabHK 8y agoThanks. Strongly worded stuff: > “We’re pissed that Boeing didn’t tell the companies and the pilots didn’t get notice obviously, as well,” said Capt. Jon Weaks, president of Southwest Airlines Co.’s pilot union. “But what we need now is...to make sure there is nothing else Boeing has not told the companies or the pilots.”
- gesman 8y ago.... "According to Safety Experts and Others" Very convincing. If "others" say so - it must be true.
- mil4n 8y agoDid you read the article?
- wereHamster 8y agoI couldn't. Because paywall.
- CathyWest 8y agohttp://archive.is/NIF8y http://archive.is/NIF8y
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- JoshuaJB 8y agoSome of the "others," includes pilots, FAA managers, and ex-crash investigators. The article is worth paying for.
- inferiorhuman 8y agoHere, how about a leaked American Airlines email: https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/614857-indonesian-aircraft-missing-off-jakarta-49.html#post10307740 https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/614857-indonesian-aircra...
- dcow 8y agoSo what happens? Is the model grounded until people are trained to fly it or until the new “feature” is disabled?
- mrpippy 8y agoThe feature is part of the airplane’s certification (probably added to make the handling characteristics more similar to previous 737 generations), it won’t be disabled. An FAA AD might be coming to fully document it in the FCOM, and pilots/operators will raise hell that it wasn’t documented already.
- Someone1234 8y agoI'm going to get a little meta here. After the crash, reading the online comments about it (and the things said about Lion Air and the pilots) was pretty interesting given how things have turned out. It is also interesting how much play the initial discussion received relative to the follow up stories about the safety bulletin and now criticism from within the industry. And when we finally do get an article on the safety issue, the top comment is focused on the pilot's supposed issues instead: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18409041 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18409041 Or trying to continue to blame Lion Air: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18408540 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18408540 I guess what I am saying is; there seems to be a deep unwillingness to criticize Boeing. This isn't recent or specific to this accident, Boeing is a very challenging topic to discuss without people getting tribal. Why is that?
- danso 8y agoI think non-engineering issues were a focus in the Lion Air crash because of how poor Lion Air’s safety history has been, which included the egregious decision the allow its plane to continue flying despite sensor errors in its previous flights.
- Someone1234 8y ago> egregious decision the allow its plane to continue flying despite sensor errors in its previous flights. They fixed the previous issue[0]. Why is flying a fixed aircraft after following Boeing's own procedures to fix it a "egregious decision?" [0] https://www.financialexpress.com/world-news/indonesia-plane-crash-lion-air-ceo-edward-sirait-says-aircraft-had-technical-problem-in-previous-flight/1365164/ https://www.financialexpress.com/world-news/indonesia-plane-...
- inferiorhuman 8y ago> They fixed the previous issue[0]. Why is flying a fixed aircraft after following Boeing's own procedures to fix it a "egregious decision?" The New York Times accused Lion Air of falsifying maintenance records. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/world/asia/indonesia-plane-crash-last-moments.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/world/asia/indonesia-plan... > Pilots and former safety regulators said that Lion Air flight and maintenance crews regularly filled out two log books, one real and one fake, to hide malfeasance.
- danso 8y ago> Boeing is working on a software fix, according to industry and government officials, that would likely mitigate risks. On Saturday, the company went further than before in spelling out dangers pilots can face if they misinterpret or respond too slowly to counter automated commands. So the issue seems to be that Boeing didn’t even tell pilots and airlines that the auto-stall-prevention system has been added to new variants. So I wonder if this software mitigation is something as simple as a warning screen or dialog box. If they’re writing software, at this point, to fix/patch how the system actually functions, that seems to imply they released a flawed system/heuristic, if such a patchBle flaw was found out so soon after the Lion Air crash.
- mjevans 8y agoIt probably worked just fine in perfect maintenance / test conditions, but degrades badly (very badly) when poor users, poor maintenance, and flying well past 'sane' response to errant sensors happens; as in this case. Testing new variations of software for a product that works when used as designed/tested already may have been (I'll speculate probably was, and at a low back-burner update priority baked in to some other larger change) in progress; but that's still re-testing and validating a complex system that must fulfill the other test cases (probably with real flight time and conditions). Particularly when a well trained operator (pilot) is supposed to be able to safely work around the existing defect, and seems to have done so in prior flights of that plain as well.
- kevin_thibedeau 8y agoBrand new planes shouldn't have these sort of issues.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- adrianN 8y agoIn highly regulated environments like software for planes, you don't push new versions without full testing and validation.
- iliketosleep 8y agoThis is part of an unsettling trend where companies prefer to keep users in the dark about the underlying tech of their products. For normal consumer tech, I can kind of understand, but what astonishes me is that this mindset has extended to aircraft, where the "users" are pilots of commercial aircraft! The article's quote from a high-ranking boeing official sums it up: the company had decided against disclosing more details to cockpit crews due to concerns about inundating average pilots with too much information—and significantly more technical data—than they needed or could digest.
- TeMPOraL 8y agoI agree with you here, though I cannot understand this in "normal consumer tech" either. Most people may not need to know, but a subset of customers does needs to know. People have also incredibly good mental capacity to filter out information not relevant to their needs (as evidenced by continued existence of advertising online). RE that Boeing quote, I'd really love to know on what research on human mental capacity they based this decision. This is not a snark, I understand that a lot of decisions that go into airplanes are based on solid reasons. This particular doesn't seem to be one, though I'd love to know if I'm wrong about this.
- iliketosleep 8y agoOne of Boeing's selling points for this model was that pilots would not need "simulator training beyond that already required for older versions". Disclosing the extra technical information may have invalidated this "no extra training needed!" selling point. In this context, the whole "inundating average pilots with too much information" argument looks more like an excuse.
- black-tea 8y agoThat is worrying. Part of the reason the roads are so dangerous relative to the skies and railways is that the people operating those cars are not professional drivers but merely normal people who are barely trained. Has it got to the point where pilots of commercial aircraft are just normal people who can't handle actually knowing how a plane works?
- circlingthesun 8y agoNice headline to see as I'm about to board a 737 :\
- disillusioned 8y agoIf it's not a MAX, you're... probably okay?
- circlingthesun 8y ago737-800, I guess I'll be okay
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y agoDid you drive to the airport? Without even giving it a second thought? Don't sweat it.
- FabHK 8y agoActually, it's not that easy. Airplanes are safer per mile. Per trip, it looks different (for two reasons: a) planes are faster than cars, b) plane trips are generally longer than car trips). You're probably around 10x more likely to die on your next plane trip than on your next car trip, from what I can tell.
- bronco21016 8y agoHow do you come up with that? It completely flies in the face of conventional wisdom.
- cblades 8y agoYou'd have to break your numbers out a bit, but it sounds to me like you're lumping in GA with commercial flights.
- cdelsolar 8y agoyeah that doesn't sound right at all. There hasn't been a fatal plane crash in the US in many years now, and there's something like 75K flights a day. And there's about 100 deaths a day from car crashes.
- neonate 8y agohttp://archive.is/NIF8y http://archive.is/NIF8y
- catchmeifyoucan 8y agoI fly out of Renton, where these aircraft are made, and the lot is overflowing. The faulty software could only be an indicator of the quality going into the newer aircraft to roll out fast enough to please the stakeholders. I hope that is not the case. It's not ok that Boeing didn't disclose the feature, but it's even more concerning that it wasn't captured during testing as a potential flaw. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/737-problems-have-grown-in-renton-despite-boeings-reassurances/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/737-p...
- cylinder 8y agoI remember seeing a documentary about some Boeing employees who were whistleblowing about safety issues with the upcoming 737MAX. I can't find it now. Any connection? I don't see how Boeing will remain immune to the race to the bottom culture plaguing American business.
- Reason077 8y agoYou may be thinking of “The Boeing 787: Broken Dreams - Al Jazeera Investigates”.
- beefield 8y agoDid I understand correctly that basically air speed sensor was faulty and because of that the autopilot decided that we need more speed to avoid stall and put the nose down all the way to the ground/sea?
- lvs 8y agoNot only that, but it does so even when the autopilot isn't engaged and the pilots believe they have manual control.
- Someone 8y agoThe essential bit is that the autopilot made that decision even if it was switched ‘off’, and Boeing never told anybody the autopilot couldn’t really be switched off. It seems they added a second autopilot that prevents pilots from doing truly stupid things without telling anybody. Problem? Failure modes of that autopilot can easily be lethal. I think they may have been right in saying pilots don’t need additional training for this new feature. If the plane flew itself into the ground, and there’s nothing the pilots could have done to prevent that, they don’t need additional training. Chances are they didn’t tell buyers of the plane because, for years, they have marketed their planes as “if the software fails, pilots can take control, unlike in Airbus planes” (counter-acting Airbus’ message that their planes were more modern)
- VBprogrammer 8y agoI can't read the article due to the pay wall but if what you said is accurate then I don't believe it's an accurate reflection of the real complexity of a modern airliner. See http://www.b737.org.uk/flightcontrols.htm http://www.b737.org.uk/flightcontrols.htm The pitch trim can be controlled by a number of different systems for different reasons, see the section on mach trim for an interesting one. I would be shocked if the inputs here weren't disabled by switching thd stab trim - autopilot switch to the off position. I've mentioned in previous comments, this sounds like a trim runaway incident. The mechanism may be new but the underlying fault and the symptoms would have been the same.
- 8y ago
- z92 8y agoBefore this incidence, at least 3 to 4 accidents occurred where the pilot was in fault. Like : They were pulling the sticks too high. The autopilot was screaming "Stall" "Stall". But the pilots were too busy or incompetent to notice. And ultimately crashed the plane. I remember here in HN, there were cries why auto pilot didn't take over at that time and save lives. "Pilots should never be allowed to stall the plane." Well, Boeing's new software did exactly that. Correct the situation when the pilot wasn't. And that crashed the plane. Interesting indeed. Lesson: There's a lot to look beyond before taking a decision, even when the obvious decision is just in front of everyone.
- openplatypus 8y agoThey did just that but they approach problem badly. Article suggests that pilot didn't know about new system nor how to disable it. In case of faulty sensor (Boeing can't stupid enough not to have quorum of sensors, can it?) crew should be able to disable possibly deadly autopilot. 1. YES - for automation 2. YES - for sensible and safe handling of sensor failure 3. YES - for allow human to override auto-pilot
- azifali 8y agoRookie pilot here. Large airplanes have drive by wire systems where the plane pretty much flies itself. But when certain instruments like the Pitot tube don't work then the control is handed over to pilots and they operate in alternate law, where they are responsible for the actions. If instruments cannot measure key environmental indicators such as velocity, temperature etc - no amount of automation will save the plane. Instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) / Instrument Flight Rating (IFR) flights are when the plane is flying through darkness, or through conditions that do not allow for a judgement of the visual elements and therefore pilots can easily make incorrect judgement calls on the position of the plane, leading to a crash. The pitot tube is a primitive equipment to measure wind velocity and easily can be jammed by ice, insects etc. I think it was the Pitot tube malfunction in this plane that caused the incident.
- inferiorhuman 8y ago
- smackay 8y agoPilots are expensive to train, expensive to maintain in terms of salary and cost a lot afterwards with regards to pensions. I am sure airlines are doing everything they can to reduce these costs and as a result competence is suffering. It used to be the case that air force pilots retired to become commercial pilots. Now commercial pilots are trained straight out of high school. (I'm not sure this is entirely true but bear with me as it supports the point I want to make). Airlines are the final customers of Boeing, Airbus, etc. I am sure they want as much automation on a plane as is possible to reduce the training requirements and so decrease the cost of having pilots on the balance sheet. The problem I think is that the abstraction that is the modern flight deck is not quite up to the job of dealing with poorly trained pilots or pilots with little experience of unusual situations. That gap was nicely addressed by having military trained people in the cockpits where unusual situations are somewhat more "routine". So what we are seeing is the mismatch of cost-constrained customers and the failings of technology in a situation where failures are less forgiving. It's the same story with automation that is being played out everywhere. The only difference, if you exclude x-ray machines, is that the impact is higher.
- Cthulhu_ 8y ago> and cost a lot afterwards with regards to pensions I'm going to jump on this in particular; please don't go full late stage capitalism and make people feel guilty for a retirement plan they've invested part of their lifetime salaries into.
- smackay 8y agoYou misunderstand. I am not making a value judgement on the cost of pilots. I absolutely want somebody who is highly trained flying the plane. However whenever strikes hit airlines it's because of poorly paid flight crews so clearly the airlines are wringing costs out of their operations and safety is being compromised as a result - from scanning the comments here that point is not being made. Instead Boeing are being blamed for not delivering systems can can deal with incompetent pilots. Nobody is stopping to think why the problem is occurring in the first place.
- binarnosp 8y agoThe book "Aviation Psychology: Practice and Research" by Klaus-Martin Goeters explains exactly this kind of situation, when the flight control system and the pilot are not in sync and don't know each other intentions.
- rajacombinator 8y agoIf true, situations like this clearly should result in substantial jail time for various Boeing execs involved. But it won’t, so no one will care.
- CathyWest 8y agoI would have thought Scandinavian Airlines Flight 751 would be well known enough to make manufacturers think twice about sneaking in features and not telling pilots about them and CAAs about certifying them.
- JustSomeNobody 8y agoSo, would this be negligent homicide?