4 ms·
Southwest has more 737max than anyone else. However they have outfitted it with an optional avionics package that includes a HUD, an additional AoA sensor and i
by ak217 8y ago
Southwest has more 737max than anyone else. However they have outfitted it with an optional avionics package that includes a HUD, an additional AoA sensor and indicator in the HUD and PFD, and an "AoA disagree" indicator light. (https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/southwest-airlines-is-adding-new-angle-of-attack-indicators-to-its-737-max-fleet/ https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/southwest-airlines...)
They also train their pilots using a 737max specific curriculum.
- benatkin 8y agoHah, so I was right, in a way. They took the good without the bad. Except now these planes still grounded, so if they could have predicted this, perhaps they would have been smart not to buy them.
- jessaustin 8y agoThey were probably well into the process of purchasing the aircraft when they realized the extent of this issue, and might already have made financial arrangements that made them hesitate to back out. If this is a short grounding that is resolved by substantially the same measures as Southwest has already instituted, they'll look pretty smart. I wonder if airlines can buy insurance against losses due to problems with newly-purchased aircraft?
- benatkin 8y agoThey may have not thought it inferior without the upgrades. If they had, I hope they tried to tell someone their concerns. We might find out.
- gimmeThaBeet 8y agoThat actually makes me feel simultaneously a lot better and worse that some party, especially Southwest, who in my personal travels has been my favorite airline, has been proactive with this. But also kind of like "if a customer had some suspicions about some avionics weirdness or training, why aren't you as a responsible vendor understanding or addressing it holistically?"
- burlesona 8y agoThat’s fascinating. It does seem to add a little credence that there may be a training problem with these planes, perhaps that Boeing facilitated this training “shortcut” when they shouldn’t have, and that the US / Euro carriers didn’t have the crashes because they go above and beyond with training anyway. All speculation at this point but I’m really interested to see where this ends up after the investigations are complete.
- Relys 8y agoWhy was a safety critical system (which was really only needed to place a bandied on retrofitting bigger motors on an older frame design) being sold as an "optional package". You need at least 3 redundant sensors in any safety critical system. This is just basic rocket science. Boeing and the FAA are negligent and should not be trusted.
- crocal 8y ago« You need at least 3 redundant sensors in any safety critical system « Huh? Says who?
- ivalm 8y agoSays everyone? Most avionics on modern commercial jets have triple redundancy.
- crocal 8y agoNope. Even if it were true in avionics (not my trade), not « any » safety system need triple redundancy to be safe (e.g. safety relays).
- PuffinBlue 8y agoYou need at least three in any system that can deliver conflicting data so that if one faults then the other two can 'out vote' the faulty one. That allows the system to have at least one failure and still operate. With just two sensors any fault is an unidentifiable failure - how does the system know which is correct when there are just two votes? It may be there's a third input from some other sensort, but then technically we're back to at least 3 sensors voting on the issue.
- crocal 8y agoThis could be true in avionics where availability and safety are more or less the same. In other applications where there is a fail safe mode like nuclear (stop fission) or land transportation (hit the brakes), you do not need that. The statement « any » is too strong.