14 ms·
737 MAX crashes “linked” by satellite track data, FAA says
- _s 8y agoMany aviation enthusiasts / pilots first go to is to have a look at the flight data - usually available on FlightAware / FlightRadar24 and a few other websites, plus LiveATC usually can provide recordings of the flights communications to towers as well. Most immediately saw parallels with the Lion Air crash - but as always, we as laymen should refrain from coming to conclusions until after a thorough investigation has been completed. The fleet has been grounded, and reports / data will slowly trickle out as more conclusions are made.
- nonbel 8y ago> "we as laymen should refrain from coming to conclusions until after a thorough investigation has been completed" People say this, but why? It seems to go against human nature. People love to speculate based on limited information and/or understanding.
- ceejayoz 8y agoSpeculation is fine. Concluding things off it is not.
- nonbel 8y agoThat is true. I didn't read carefully enough.
- twblalock 8y ago> People say this, but why? It seems to go against human nature. People love to speculate based on limited information and/or understanding. We should resist that part of our nature. It is not rational.
- nonbel 8y agoNot saying I disagree (I tend to favor rational behavior myself), but this sounds like a dogma. What evidence is there that only acting rationally is "better"?
- _s 8y agoMany reasons - the main one being drawing improper conclusions from the minimal data set available and passing them around as factually correct. Speculation is fine, it's when someone is on Fox News as an Aviation "Expert" claiming that the plane was struck by an angry Zeus's lightning bolt, which many segments of the population will believe, that's when we have problems.
- dwetterau 8y agoHere's one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunil_Tripathi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunil_Tripathi Being skeptical and keeping onself safe is fine, but things can go wrong if people are trying to falsely act like experts.
- _verandaguy 8y agoTo be clear, Flightradar24 and other ADS-B-based online services do not provide enough data to come to a meaningful conclusion about these kinds of accident. The resolution is often too coarse to even see how quickly a plane would've pitched down, assuming it did so quickly.
- Scoundreller 8y agoSo they not provide? Not collected? Or is this kind of data not even broadcast in the first place?
- blackflame7000 8y agoThis data is actually gathered by hobbyist and you can be a part of their network all it costs is about $25 for an ADS-B USB adapter. https://www.flightradar24.com/build-your-own https://www.flightradar24.com/build-your-own They also offer free membership (499/yr) if you share data. Every flight broadcasts this data kinda like GPS and all you need is an antenna to receive it. In fact the tracking is basically done via ground-based GPS(ADS-B) by measuring the time delays between different receivers in the vicinity. The problem is that there aren't many hobbyists in those parts of Africa so coverage is sparse. In America, its pretty spot on in most locations. A USB adapter can surprisingly pick up planes as far away as 400 miles.
- semi-extrinsic 8y agoIf someone wants to do this, for the more technical audience there is a selection of better (but still pretty cheap) hardware available e.g. from https://www.rtl-sdr.com/buy-rtl-sdr-dvb-t-dongles/ https://www.rtl-sdr.com/buy-rtl-sdr-dvb-t-dongles/ E.g. you can get an SDR with built-in ADS-B specific low-noise amplifier and SAW filter also for $25. (This can't do general purpose stuff though, unlike the one linked by parent.) Or you can get their general-purpose SDR and their broadband LNA for $40 total.
- Scoundreller 8y agoSo I guess the newly released satellite data was because nobody was running (enough of) these dongles where these incidents occurred?
- rootusrootus 8y agoIt is/was a real stretch to draw any parallels based on the amount of ADS-B data we got out of FR24. The plane went out of range of the nearest FR24 ADS-B receiver just a few minutes after taking off. People see what they want to see. It sure is an impatient world we live in. Probably attributable to the Internet, our insatiable need for more information NOW. Everyone ripping on the FAA for not making a grounding decision until yesterday, even though the crash itself happened just four days ago.
- duado 8y agoI rip the FAA for that. The level of air safety we have is because we have traditionally protected it fiercely. Within minutes of the second plane going down, the type should have been grounded until the FAA could figure out whether they were related. If not, they can unground them later.
- rootusrootus 8y agoThere is a good reason we teach kids the allegory about the boy who cried wolf. If the FAA panics that easily they will destroy their creditability just as quickly as if they take too long. If they really did get new evidence yesterday and it prompted their decision, then I think they deserve more credit than the other world agencies that freaked out in a matter of hours. I want our regulators to be cold and analytical.
- dragontamer 8y agoI agree. I have qualms about the process, but I'm always nitpicky about various things. Boeing was far too involved in this decision matter IMO for example, but that's mostly an issue of optics. Overall, I'm pretty happy with what I saw out of the FAA. It just seems like the FAA may have gotten the data last. Canada got it before we did. The EU got the blackbox first, so once they looked at the data, they banned the plane. China's response may have been preemptive, since there's no way they could have looked through the data at that speed. Perhaps we should be pissed off at getting the data-last. But that's hardly the FAA's fault (maybe a State-department thing). In the future, Boeing needs to at least appear more neutral and less like a lobbyist when these events occur. There's significant distrust in our system these days, our regulators need to understand what it looks like when they're talking with the companies who make the plane before getting the black box...
- d1str0 8y agoIt says the damaged flight recorder was sent to France. Do they have a better recovery/repair team than, say, the US’ FAA and NTSB, or is it more likely just because France is much closer to the crash site?
- agumonkey 8y agoI don't recall why but I think MH370 recorder was also sent to France. Probably to avoid conflict of interests ?
- godarderik 8y agoThey never found MH370.
- ams6110 8y agoThey found some purported (maybe confirmed?) wreckage did they not? Seat cushions and other lightweight parts washed up on a beach somewhere? But never the flight recorders.
- yoramv 8y agoYou mean MH17?? MH370 was never found.
- agumonkey 8y agomaybe it was the potential piece of fuselage found later then ?
- roywiggins 8y agoThe MH17 investigation was done by the Dutch mostly- the plane had departed from there. I think the black box was handled by British investigators: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10996400/MH17-Black-box-reveals-Malaysia-Airlines-suffered-massive-explosive-decompression.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10...
- 8y ago
- cjbprime 8y agoThis data's been available for several days at the least, right? Are they just trying to come up with an explanation for why they now support a grounding that they opposed yesterday that isn't "the President told us to"?
- Someone1234 8y agoI'd argue yes. It is identical data from ADS-B that we've had for days. People keep reiterating their "verified" line, but that had no basis when they said it, repeating it doesn't add to its legitimacy. The data today is the same data we had then. It is essentially a way to ignore the data until it is politically expedient.
- root_axis 8y agoI was unaware that the president was involved in the decision making process, do you have any more details on that?
- iscrewyou 8y agoMy understanding is, the president can’t order the FAA head to do anything. But he can issue an executive order for something to be done (ground a certain plane). That’s what I read what he did. BUT I tried looking up the executive order; couldn’t find one on federalregister.gov.
- Bud 8y agoI doubt you actually read that. There was no reporting in the mainstream press of any executive order.
- ejstronge 8y ago> I doubt you actually read that. There was no reporting in the mainstream press of any executive order. This is incorrect. Simply Googling '737 max executive order' turns up multiple hits. This doesn't mean there was an actual order, however. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=+executive+order+737+max https://www.google.com/search?q=+executive+order+737+max
- everdev 8y agoHow does the theory of a faulty AoA sensor align with eye witness accounts of smoke coming from the plane? Also, the altitude data seems to cut out at it's peak. Was the decent so rapid it couldn't be tracked?
- js2 8y ago''Eyewitness memory is reconstructive,'' said Dr. Honts, who is not associated with the safety board. ''The biggest mistake you can make is to think about a memory like it's a videotape; there's not a permanent record there.'' The problem, he said, is that witnesses instinctively try to match events with their past experiences: ''How many plane crashes have you witnessed in real life? Probably none. But in the movies? A lot. In the movies, there's always smoke and there's always fire.'' https://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/23/weekinreview/ideas-trends-for-air-crash-detectives-seeing-isn-t-believing.html https://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/23/weekinreview/ideas-trends... See also “Reliability of Eyewitness Reports to a Major Aviation Accident”: https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=ijaaa https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&co...
- MichaelApproved 8y ago> How does the theory of a faulty AoA sensor align with eye witness accounts of smoke coming from the plane? They don't need to align. Eyewitness accounts are so bad, it's surprising they're allowed in court. "Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts - Eyewitness testimony is fickle and, all too often, shockingly inaccurate" > Many researchers have created false memories in normal individuals; what is more, many of these subjects are certain that the memories are real. > In one well-known study, Loftus and her colleague Jacqueline Pickrell gave subjects written accounts of four events, three of which they had actually experienced. The fourth story was fiction; it centered on the subject being lost in a mall or another public place when he or she was between four and six years old. A relative provided realistic details for the false story, such as a description of the mall at which the subject’s parents shopped. > After reading each story, subjects were asked to write down what else they remembered about the incident or to indicate that they did not remember it at all. Remarkably about one third of the subjects reported partially or fully remembering the false event. In two follow-up interviews, 25 percent still claimed that they remembered the untrue story, a figure consistent with the findings of similar studies. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-...
- jdsully 8y agoHow is it we have such precise satellite location data on these crashes - but MH370 can just disappear.
- tus87 8y agoDidn't you read the part about the transponder being switched off?
- jdsully 8y agoMy understanding is this was more precise data than ADS-B. Perhaps I’m wrong - I’m legitimately asking.
- sowbug 8y agoPlease see the "In Comments" section of https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Writing "The transponder was switched off" would contribute the same substance to the conversation but without the insinuation.
- jimktrains2 8y agoIt was my understanding that all/most/all-controllable radios were shutoff at some point. There was some maintenance data from the engines that factored into the search location, but otherwise it wasn't transmitting anything. I havn't followed very closely, so take that with salt, but it's a starting place if anything.
- Retric 8y agoA flight data recorder provides a lot of information. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_recorder https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_recorder We could stream this information via satellite uplink. Instead Radar and transponders is used to keep a close enough location to make recovery generally strait forward. It’s really turning off the transponder while over the middle of the ocean that’s the issue for MH370.
- 0xffff2 8y ago
- alexandercrohde 8y agoIt's interesting to note that, as emotionally salient this is for HN, in terms of significance compared to other problems out there it might be lower. It's a bit of a flaw in human nature that easily-pictured problems scare us much more than abstract/distant problems. Is it silly to press for a moral value of striving to make our morality align with numeric measure of significance rather than sensational emotions?
- rdiddly 8y agoNot sure if I know which thing you mean. You mean plane crashes themselves (which kill far fewer people than the cars people drive every day), or this new "link" between the two crashes (which I agree seems spurious at first glance but they may yet confirm it)?
- oliveshell 8y agoI think this 737 MAX issue resonates with the HN crowd because, along with the emotional factors, it’s a high-stakes technical problem. The two fatal crashes were caused by an interplay of hardware, software design, and human factors, and studying things like this is fascinating to those of us who are interested in building systems so that catastrophes don’t happen.
- karthikb 8y agoIt's a high stakes technical problem that is caused by not addressing technical debt - something that the many of the HN readership sees on a daily basis in other domains. MCAS was created as a way to compensate for instability caused by strapping large engines onto an aircraft not originally designed for it, as opposed to doing a redesign.
- madeofpalk 8y agoAlso there's the "sales/business people made the problem worse" angle as well that developers just love.
- js2 8y ago
- drawkbox 8y agoHow strange that they both had issues at around 6000-8500 feet, briefly recovering, then nose diving. Even more interesting is the recent 767 Amazon cargo flight crash in Texas also did a node dive at around 8000 feet which somehow has escaped the news with this new crash [1]. The pilots decided on a path around weather, were at 11-12000 feet, descended 3000+ feet and then the plane essentially did a similar nose dive. Is this a data problem? > As the plane passed through 12,000 feet at a ground speed of 290 knots (340 mph), the pilots indicated they preferred the westerly route option ATC had given them around the rain; air traffic control told them they would need to descend quickly to 3,000 feet to do so, and radar data reveals the Boeing turned to a heading of 270º as requested and descended through 8,500 feet. One minute later, the controller told the crew they would be past the bad weather in about 18 miles, and to expect a turn to the north. The crew responded "Sounds good" and "Okay," according to the NTSB, and the plane leveled out at 6,200 feet before rising 100 feet more. > That, apparently, is when things went haywire. The aircraft began what the NTSB report described as "small vertical accelerations consistent with the airplane entering turbulence," according to the flight data recorders recovered from the accident scene. Seconds later, with the plane holding steading at 230 knots (265 mph), the engines went to full power, and the nose of the plane rose four degrees...then the aircraft pitched nose-down for the next 18 seconds, reaching a maximum pitch of –49º in response to the plane's elevator inputs. The Ethiopia 737 Max has almost the same issue [2] > ADS-B data recorded for ET302 by FlightRadar24 shows that the aircraft, after reaching an altitude of 8,025 feet above sea level, suddenly dipped, plunging 400 feet before recovering briefly. But the aircraft's vertical speed remained unstable, and a few minutes later it dove into the ground. For reference, the airport the flight took off from is at 7,631 feet above sea level—so the aircraft never reached more than 500 feet above the ground, not leaving much room for correction. All of these planes had issues in the 6000-8500 feet range and then both suffered the same plunging fate after briefly recovering from a dip / nose stabilization issue. Hopefully the ADS system is secure and not susceptible to infiltration/hacks causing the plane to react to incorrect data at a range that is not recoverable. [1] http://www.thedrive.com/news/26933/amazon-boeing-767-cargo-plane-was-going-almost-500-mph-in-texas-crash-ntsb-says http://www.thedrive.com/news/26933/amazon-boeing-767-cargo-p... [2] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/03/faa-acting-chief-says-satellite-data-provided-link-between-boeing-crashes/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/03/faa-a...
- Animats 8y agoIt's early. The graphs show a dive after takeoff while speed is increasing. That's a loss of control; nobody does that on purpose. More info is needed to know why. Uncommanded nosedown? Actual stall? Something else?
- js2 8y agoI don't see anything in this article that wasn't already in the FAA's Emergency Order of Prohibition[1]: On March 13, 2019, the investigation of the ET302 crash developed new information from the wreckage concerning the aircraft's configuration just after takeoff that, taken together with newly refined data from satellite-based tracking of the aircraft's flight path, indicates some similarities between the ET302 and JT610 accidents that warrant further investigation of the possibility of a shared cause for the two incidents that needs to be better understood and addressed. Accordingly, the Acting Administrator is ordering all Boeing 737 MAX airplanes to be grounded pending further investigation. This article is further missing the "new information from the wreckage concerning the aircraft's configuration" piece, which is in the NPR interview[2]: And that, coupled with some physical evidence we found at the crash site led us to believe that the similarities were too great not to consider that there was a common thread. So it wasn't just the flight path, which indeed was sufficient for other countries, but the addition of physical evidence as well: And when you have a common thread between two accidents, then the argument for grounding becomes necessary. Grounding becomes necessary, and so that's what we did. We didn't have that link until yesterday morning, yesterday afternoon about midday. GREENE: But isn't this something that analysts and experts have been saying for days now, that these two crashes appeared similar? ELWELL: Yeah. Many were saying it, but nobody had data to act on it. It was all conjecture. And in aviation, the FAA in the U.S. has always acted on data. We're a data-driven organization. We have the safety record we have today based on science, risk analysis and data. 1. https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/Emergency_Order.pdf https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/Emergency_Order.pdf 2. https://www.npr.org/2019/03/14/703298739/faa-acting-head-dan-elwell-on-boeing-decision https://www.npr.org/2019/03/14/703298739/faa-acting-head-dan...
- ashnyc 8y agoIf these two crash had happened in USA or Western Europe . Would the FAA have grounded the 737 right away . Or would they have waited before taking that decision
- sinuhe69 8y agoInteresting question as this particular case is suspected to be political/economical involved already.
- philpem 8y agoTurning that around a bit... If it was a pair of Airbus aircraft (A320, A330, pick any you like) which suffered these two crashes, would the FAA have demanded the whole fleet grounded?
- WhuzzupDomal 8y agoI've seen many discussions about whether the groundings of the MAX (especially the earliest ones) are hysterical/political or is it based on any facts. The facts is two of these BRAND NEW planes crashed within 5 months under very similar circumstances. Doesn't that alone seems statistically justified to ground the MAX? The chances of human error and/or environmental factor striking twice within such short period seems infinitesimally low, no? Just curious how that math works out.
- bittweeker 8y agoSound like Air Bus A330 nose dive problem, they had with the software 3 years back, sounds a lot like the Boeing 737 MAX 8 problem that is burning up the news channels. Did AIR BUS ground their A330 world wide fleet when this happened? How did Air Bus handle this?
- bittweeker 8y agoA Pilot who hitched a ride in cockpit saved doomed Lion Air Boeing 737 Max day before it crashed. As the Lion Air crew fought to control their diving Boeing 737 Max 8, they got help from an unexpected source: an off-duty pilot who happened to be riding in the cockpit. That extra pilot, who was seated in the cockpit jumpseat, correctly diagnosed the problem and told the crew how to disable a malfunctioning flight-control system and save the plane, two people familiar with Indonesia’s investigation told Bloomberg. Why wasn't this information passed on to all Lion Air pilots?