4 ms·

Assuming the author is correct, and the reaction to the MCAS issues is a simple reaction that every pilot should know by memory: Is it really acceptable that on

Assuming the author is correct, and the reaction to the MCAS issues is a simple reaction that every pilot should know by memory: Is it really acceptable that once every 3 months a 737-Max will attempt a nose dive and require a vigilant pilot who can identify and correct the issue before the plane crashes into the ground? And this likely happened at least twice, while there were 300 MAXs in service. If there were 3,000 MAXs in service, MCAS misfires would presumably be happening 3x a month worldwide - each misfire requiring a proper pilot reaction. How can you defend Boeing in that case?

anoncoward111 8y ago
You can't morally, but Boeing will pay shill pilots top dollar to attempt a defense. You can leave your ethics and pride at the door, like it seems this "pilot" has. I always reiterate-- this isn't about red team vs blue team, this is about preventing people from dying. I don't see any GM buses trying to ram full throttle into oncoming traffic against all driver input
- tyingq 8y ago
  Curious if you're really suggesting Boeing paid this guy to write the post, or just frustrated with people saying there's not an aircraft issue. I don't agree with the article either, fwiw, but I suspect it's just his unpaid opinion.
  - projektfu 8y ago
    I’ve learned you don’t need to pay people tit for tat. People natively reward kindness with kindness. Five years back Boeing May have given this writer a number of unnoticeable freebies every other pilot has access to and this pilot feels like part of the tribe.
lagolinguini 8y ago
I feel like this is a strong argument for the airbus alpha protection. And I think Boeing agrees with that given the way the 777 fly by wire system is designed. There are plenty of people (on this site and on reddit) who jump on to criticize airbus for the way it puts the aircraft's computer systems ahead of the pilots and claim that the 737's flight controls are preferable to pilots because the pilots have full control. I don't want to spark any airbus vs boeing debate, but I want to point out these accidents seem to discredit that line of thinking.
- snowwrestler 8y ago
  Before we get excited about computer protections, let’s acknowledge that the MCAS system under debate on the 737 Max is itself a computerized system designed to protect pilots from themselves—in this case, from pitching too high and creating a stall. In the Lion Air accident, a malfunctioning sensor caused this system to react incorrectly, surprising the pilots. Let’s also remember that a malfunctioning sensor was a contributing factor in the crash of Air France 447... a problem which was exacerbated by human interface choices in Airbus’s fly by wire system. In particular, stick input is not physically synchronized and conflicting inputs were averaged; neither of which is true on a Boeing aircraft. Even on a 787 the yokes move together. Human factors matter a lot if the computers hand control back to the humans unexpectedly. That can happen even in fly by wire systems on Airbus. Edit: fixed 737 reference up top
  - skybrian 8y ago
    Oops, did you mean 737?
    - snowwrestler 8y ago
      Thanks!
  - Someone1234 8y ago
    Unclear why you're trying to conflate the MCAS issue with AF447. Or are even bringing up AF447 at all. On the Max 8 a bad sensor is causing an automated system to misbehave, and may have resulted in crashes. On AF447 ice blocking the pitot-static system caused automated systems to go offline (enter Alternative Law), and loss of situational awareness caused the pilots to crash their aircraft under manual control. If you read the final report[0] you'll see that pilot error and loss of basic airman-ship caused the accident. There's always improvements to the airframe to mitigate the human component, but acting like these two are somehow different sides of the same coin is disingenuous. I'm not actually sure why you brought it up. Comes across as "look they're both just as bad" while ignoring key details about AF447. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Final_report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Final_re...

anoncoward111 8y ago

You can't morally, but Boeing will pay shill pilots top dollar to attempt a defense. You can leave your ethics and pride at the door, like it seems this "pilot" has. I always reiterate-- this isn't about red team vs blue team, this is about preventing people from dying. I don't see any GM buses trying to ram full throttle into oncoming traffic against all driver input

tyingq 8y ago
Curious if you're really suggesting Boeing paid this guy to write the post, or just frustrated with people saying there's not an aircraft issue. I don't agree with the article either, fwiw, but I suspect it's just his unpaid opinion.
- projektfu 8y ago
  I’ve learned you don’t need to pay people tit for tat. People natively reward kindness with kindness. Five years back Boeing May have given this writer a number of unnoticeable freebies every other pilot has access to and this pilot feels like part of the tribe.

lagolinguini 8y ago

I feel like this is a strong argument for the airbus alpha protection. And I think Boeing agrees with that given the way the 777 fly by wire system is designed. There are plenty of people (on this site and on reddit) who jump on to criticize airbus for the way it puts the aircraft's computer systems ahead of the pilots and claim that the 737's flight controls are preferable to pilots because the pilots have full control. I don't want to spark any airbus vs boeing debate, but I want to point out these accidents seem to discredit that line of thinking.

snowwrestler 8y ago
Before we get excited about computer protections, let’s acknowledge that the MCAS system under debate on the 737 Max is itself a computerized system designed to protect pilots from themselves—in this case, from pitching too high and creating a stall. In the Lion Air accident, a malfunctioning sensor caused this system to react incorrectly, surprising the pilots. Let’s also remember that a malfunctioning sensor was a contributing factor in the crash of Air France 447... a problem which was exacerbated by human interface choices in Airbus’s fly by wire system. In particular, stick input is not physically synchronized and conflicting inputs were averaged; neither of which is true on a Boeing aircraft. Even on a 787 the yokes move together. Human factors matter a lot if the computers hand control back to the humans unexpectedly. That can happen even in fly by wire systems on Airbus. Edit: fixed 737 reference up top
- skybrian 8y ago
  Oops, did you mean 737?
  - snowwrestler 8y ago
    Thanks!
- Someone1234 8y ago
  Unclear why you're trying to conflate the MCAS issue with AF447. Or are even bringing up AF447 at all. On the Max 8 a bad sensor is causing an automated system to misbehave, and may have resulted in crashes. On AF447 ice blocking the pitot-static system caused automated systems to go offline (enter Alternative Law), and loss of situational awareness caused the pilots to crash their aircraft under manual control. If you read the final report[0] you'll see that pilot error and loss of basic airman-ship caused the accident. There's always improvements to the airframe to mitigate the human component, but acting like these two are somehow different sides of the same coin is disingenuous. I'm not actually sure why you brought it up. Comes across as "look they're both just as bad" while ignoring key details about AF447. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Final_report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Final_re...