4 ms·

I'm not sure this is a bug. It sounds like pilot-error to me (I am not a pilot): "In the bulletin, Boeing said that selecting full reverse too quickly upon lan

I'm not sure this is a bug. It sounds like pilot-error to me (I am not a pilot): "In the bulletin, Boeing said that selecting full reverse too quickly upon landing before the aircraft has fully transitioned to ground mode could cause the system to activate."

S_A_P 8y ago
I tend to agree after reading the bulletin. It seems to be a safety net for the plane/engines that maybe needs better input validation so that a pilot eager to hit the brakes cant do this again. In this context its a UX bug.
detaro 8y ago
Depends if "too quickly" means "clearly dangerous, so the system prevents a risk, and it's clearly the safer thing to do" or "fast enough to trigger the bug"? And even if it is the former, presumably it should be signaled and restart possible afterwards.
samfisher83 8y ago
There should be manual override. What if this happened in-AIR?
- opwieurposiu 8y ago
  You really, really do not want the reverse thrust to turn on in-AIR. That would be way worse then then engine shutting down.
  - samfisher83 8y ago
    I don't mean specifically reverse thrust. I am saying features such as this. The Pilot expects something and computer does something else.
    - sbradford26 8y ago
      There are usually failsafe modes that disable most of the additional software features. It is pretty rare though for pilots to switch into those modes though since those features are what fly the plan a majority of the time. It is like the issue that are running into with self driving cars, there is a point where the flight controls become so good that pilots are less likely to intervene when something is going wrong.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - gonzo 8y ago
    It has occurred. Lauda Air Flight 004 was a Boeing 767-300ER that crashed due to an uncommanded reverse on the number one engine.
- RobLach 8y ago
  A pilot engaging reverse thrust mid-flight can break apart a plane: https://lessonslearned.faa.gov/ll_main.cfm?TabID=3&LLID=34&LLTypeID=2 https://lessonslearned.faa.gov/ll_main.cfm?TabID=3&LLID=34&L...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
mikeash 8y ago
Pilot error happens and the equipment is expected to make it as difficult as possible. If a simple action can endanger a plane-load of passengers, that’s a bug regardless of whether the pilot is supposed to do that.
Mvandenbergh 8y ago
The aviation safety world doesn't believe in pilot-error.
Someone1234 8y ago
Dual engine shutdown is incredibly dangerous, there's no situation (other than a commanded shutdown) where that should occur. Regardless of cause, regardless of if the pilot activated the thrust reverser too early, this is an incredibly dangerous defect that Boeing (or Rolls Royce) needs to fix before more people are put in danger. Let me phase it this way: Even when the engines are literally on fire, they don't automatically shutdown, because doing so is considered too dangerous (since the systems don't know the circumstances, and even an engine on fire can generate thrust, and it might be your only engine). Even if the defect was DISCOVERED due to a pilot error, it is still a defect and a safety critical one at that.

S_A_P 8y ago

I tend to agree after reading the bulletin. It seems to be a safety net for the plane/engines that maybe needs better input validation so that a pilot eager to hit the brakes cant do this again. In this context its a UX bug.

detaro 8y ago

Depends if "too quickly" means "clearly dangerous, so the system prevents a risk, and it's clearly the safer thing to do" or "fast enough to trigger the bug"? And even if it is the former, presumably it should be signaled and restart possible afterwards.

samfisher83 8y ago

There should be manual override. What if this happened in-AIR?

opwieurposiu 8y ago
You really, really do not want the reverse thrust to turn on in-AIR. That would be way worse then then engine shutting down.
- samfisher83 8y ago
  I don't mean specifically reverse thrust. I am saying features such as this. The Pilot expects something and computer does something else.
  - sbradford26 8y ago
    There are usually failsafe modes that disable most of the additional software features. It is pretty rare though for pilots to switch into those modes though since those features are what fly the plan a majority of the time. It is like the issue that are running into with self driving cars, there is a point where the flight controls become so good that pilots are less likely to intervene when something is going wrong.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- gonzo 8y ago
  It has occurred. Lauda Air Flight 004 was a Boeing 767-300ER that crashed due to an uncommanded reverse on the number one engine.
RobLach 8y ago
A pilot engaging reverse thrust mid-flight can break apart a plane: https://lessonslearned.faa.gov/ll_main.cfm?TabID=3&LLID=34&LLTypeID=2 https://lessonslearned.faa.gov/ll_main.cfm?TabID=3&LLID=34&L...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

mikeash 8y ago

Pilot error happens and the equipment is expected to make it as difficult as possible. If a simple action can endanger a plane-load of passengers, that’s a bug regardless of whether the pilot is supposed to do that.

Mvandenbergh 8y ago

The aviation safety world doesn't believe in pilot-error.

Someone1234 8y ago

Dual engine shutdown is incredibly dangerous, there's no situation (other than a commanded shutdown) where that should occur. Regardless of cause, regardless of if the pilot activated the thrust reverser too early, this is an incredibly dangerous defect that Boeing (or Rolls Royce) needs to fix before more people are put in danger. Let me phase it this way: Even when the engines are literally on fire, they don't automatically shutdown, because doing so is considered too dangerous (since the systems don't know the circumstances, and even an engine on fire can generate thrust, and it might be your only engine). Even if the defect was DISCOVERED due to a pilot error, it is still a defect and a safety critical one at that.