16 ms·

Boeing 737 Max Hit Trouble Right Away, Pilot’s Tense Radio Messages Show

171 points by alanwong 8y ago

jquery 8y ago
Before the wild speculation, here's some words from an actual aviation expert, Greg Feith: It is sad to hear some of the “junior investigator” talking heads make a storyline out of factoids or no facts about the 737 MAX. They embellish their credentials to sound smart when in fact they have no clue and say things about analyzing data that doesn’t exist.... A good friend of mine who is a former airline captain and flight safety professional ant be the following: “The VAST majority of the inane comments and knee jerk industry reactions on FB and AV Herald are based on no valid nor substantiated information regarding the MAX aircraft. However, NO one is talking about the pilots, nor the airlines involved, nor the training, nor the experience of the pilots. It IS WELL BEYOND time that these direct factors are understood, investigated and considered a possible contributor to the two distinct MAX accidents. The accident information in news articles dated 11/28/2018 indicated that the previous crew at Lion Air had experienced the MCAS issue but CORRECTLY dealt with it by disconnecting the stab trim cutouts - as expected in the NNC (non-normal checklist) yet the accident crew could not figure it out. Why the plane was dispatched in an unairworthy condition needs to be addressed and why one crew did and the accident crew did not figure it out the system issues needs to be explored because the deficiencies with the accident flight crew can be traced back to inadequate or deficient training and like suspect pilot qualifications!” EDIT: Given the rain of downvotes, it looks like a lot of HNers are convinced that mustache twirling villains at Boeing are responsible for the crash, which is extraordinarily unlikely.
- gotocake 8y ago
  Is this the same Greg Feith who said: Investigators including Boeing are going to have to determine whether or not this crew is properly trained and of course, Boeing is going to have to focus on whether or not they have a software or technical issue.
  - jquery 8y ago
    Probably? He's very famous in the ACI community. And as he always says, a plane never goes down for a single reason. The Airbus that crashed into the Atlantic ocean could've been saved if they made the design decision not to "average" inputs from the sticks. Is that a design flaw? Or bad pilot training? Crashes are always the nexus of a chain of unfortunately and unlucky events. I have no reason to suspect this crash is any different. The only thing I'm confident of is that no matter what the problem is, Boeing will make changes and pilots will receive additional training, and perhaps be required to do simulator time. Once the 737-MAX is ungrounded I will have no qualms getting inside of one.
    - gotocake 8y ago
      Well, the upside here is that we can literally wait and see. Let’s make out a bookmark in this and resume when the investigation is over.
    - serf 8y ago
      >The only thing I'm confident of is that no matter what the problem is, Boeing will make changes ... Yeah, but it doesn't take Nostradamus to make that prediction. If Boeing doesn't fix their issues, they won't sell planes. So, say we blame the pilot for incorrectly deactivating the faulted system within a time-frame that allows for recovery; which I think is a silly thing to do : at what level of added complexity and extended abnormal checklists do we transfer the blame from the pilot being unable to follow a checklist thoroughly and quickly enough, to the airframe manufacturer for producing a product with so many potential failure vectors that were added primarily as a cost-savings or for-profit desire? The 737 MAX is unstable inherently for the sake of mileage, to reduce the overall cost per ticket, and increase corporate profit. I understand the importance of cost/benefit analysis, but at what point are corporations liable for teetering towards the profit side at the sake of safety?
      - gotocake 8y ago
        Plus they did everything they could to get it grandfathered in, and not have to re-certify it. As a result there’s no pilot training on it as a distinct type, and as a result...
- ironmagma 8y ago
  Honest question, why are people being so aggressive about saying that the human aspects should be considered first and foremost? If there was no problem with the aircraft, that would surely lead us to the conclusion that it was a training/pilot problem anyway. What's the point of pushing the human narrative so hard?
  - robjan 8y ago
    I have a feeling that people wouldn't be pushing the human/airline aspect quite so much if both of the aforementioned were American or "Western"
    - Gigablah 8y ago
      Yeah, it's funny how the people decrying "knee-jerk" reactions are the same ones insinuating "suspect pilot qualifications". Actually, no, it's not funny.
      - dmix 8y ago
        That’s not a fair representation of what the OP just posted or the person he quoted said.
  - jarfil 8y ago
    This kind of accident doesn't happen for just a single reason, they happen for a SERIES of reasons all together. Some of those reasons are technical, some are environmental, and some are human factor. Blaming any single of them is bullshit... and so is forgetting about any of them.
    - rahkiin 8y ago
      1) boeing changing geometry 2) boeing adding a new system that takes over control without documenting 3) pushing very hard to classify a new plane as an older type so now retraining happens 4) using only 2 sensors instead of 3, and using just one to control parts of the plane. A series of reasons
- tyingq 8y ago
  It's not that weird for technical people to wonder why, when there are 2 AoA sensors, Boeing didn't consider the readings from both of them as input for the MCAS. We probably don't assume that was malicious. But we might assume deflecting away from that as an issue to be malicious. Similar for the fact that the system wasn't well described in the manual.
  - alfalfasprout 8y ago
    It's bewildering how even 2 would be sufficient. You'd expect some kind of 3 way setup where a single sensor failure is detected via majority quorum. Especially for anything that directly has the ability to alter control planes on the aircraft.
    - cjbprime 8y ago
      Two seems sufficiently airworthy as long as you warn the pilots that there's a failure they need to consider ("AOA disagree") and avoid control decisions based on the disagreeing system. It appears that the AOA disagree alert exists on the plane but is an optional paid feature (!).
      - Rychard 8y ago
        Having optional safety features on an airplane (i.e. not standard equipment) strikes me as being significantly more egregious (Edit: more so than on vehicles like cars/trucks for the general population). Considering how complex these things are already, how does this not unnecessarily increase the cognitive load on pilots? "Oh, I guess I'm flying the basic trim level airplane today, I better be cognizant of the fact that it lacks features X, Y and Z"
        cjbprime 8y ago
        I agree with you. I think in practise the feature choices are made per-airline, perhaps to avoid the pilot confusion you mention. "AOA disagree" specifically seems to have been purchased by only the North American airlines that use the MAX.
- peteretep 8y ago
  > Before the wild speculation The wild speculation presumably includes British and Australian authorities — who have exemplary safety records, are nobody’s fools, and are very definitely run by very very senior and experienced people — banning the planes.
  - isostatic 8y ago
    Former head of NTSB said Boeing should have grounded the planes straight away https://nypost.com/2019/03/12/former-ntsb-boss-wont-fly-on-boeing-jet-until-crash-mystery-is-solved/amp/ https://nypost.com/2019/03/12/former-ntsb-boss-wont-fly-on-b...
- dang 8y ago
  Your edit breaks the site guidelines, which ask: Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. Yes it can sting when one's comment is downvoted, but the guidelines ask all of us not to react in the usual tedious and sarcastic ways. A better approach is to take a moment to reflect on what in your comment might have attracted downvotes; if you notice anything to improve in the future, note it; and if you don't, just move on. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - jquery 8y ago
    It’s boring to read HN wildly speculate on the crash and trash Boeing as if they know what went wrong. Historically speaking, early speculation has nearly always been notoriously bad at predicting what went wrong in a given crash scenario. Despite this happening twice it is still a sixth sigma event, there is no reason to think the exact same set of circumstances occurred twice, especially after pilots were well aware of the MCAS system post Lion-air. I’m sure Boeing deserves a large part of the blame in the end, but I’m also sure that unanticipated pilot error is at the nexus of both events. You can’t anticipate every pilot failure mode, and since this wasn’t lost at sea we have the luxury of waiting for the final report. For all we know it wasn’t a design defect, but an improperly maintained sensor, or pilots who failed to look at the logbook. I see people already talking about how “capitalism has failed” and “lets imprison Boeing execs” which sounds more like Chinese astroturfing than good-faith posting. It could even turn out the two events were independent, a statistical analysis across all jets probably shows the likelihood of two planes of the same type crashing within 6 months of each other is more likely than our intuition suggests, because the Pareto distribution applies to every plane type in the entire world.
    - dang 8y ago
      No doubt many people will turn out to be wrong about this. You simply need to make your points without breaking the site guidelines, as do we all. You've unfortunately broken them again just now. It's explicitly against the guidelines to insinuate that people you disagree with are astroturfers. Would you mind re-reading https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and following them carefully when posting here? We don't need you to change your views, just express them within the limits specified. We have those limits because we're trying to preserve the commons for everyone.
- tuna-piano 8y ago
  Ethiopian has ~100 planes flying around on any given day, and hasn't had a serious crash in 9 years. Presumably the skill of their pilots and maintenance crews is pretty similiar across MAX and non-MAX planes. If their maintenance crew and pilots were solely to blame, I would expect to see a good deal more Ethiopian planes crashing. Of course, it could be (and maybe even is likely) that a properly trained maintenance crew won't let the AoA sensor fly in a bad state. And of course it could be (and maybe even is likely) that a properly trained pilot will be able to correct the issue in flight. But that doesn't pass the blame. The truth is that Ethiopian pilots and maintenance crews seem totally capable of keeping the rest of their planes in the air. Why has Boeing made a plane that is so much harder for them to fly safely? Is there any argument that the MAX is easier or safer to maintain/fly than the other planes Ethiopian flies?
  - crowdpleaser 8y ago
    Maybe the ethopian air crews are deficient but the inferiority is only apparent when tasked to fly advanced planes?
    - balaji_raghavan 8y ago
      Shouldn't a more advanced plane be easier to operate?
    - HarryHirsch 8y ago
      The selling point of the 737-MAX was that for purposes of type rating it was a plain old 737, no retraining required. So on paper it wasn't advanced at all.
      - jackhack 8y ago
        The same chassis, but with larger engines, placed higher on the wing giving rise to different handling characteristics, especially at the edges of the performance envelope. The instrument layout is different and center panel control locations differ. Both of these changes lead to different instrument scan procedures and in the event of a high-stress condition --when seconds count, as instincts and muscle-memory kick in-- it feels like a different aircraft.
- nabla9 8y ago
  You should read these ASRS reports: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5766398-ASRS-Reports-for-737-max8.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5766398-ASRS-Reports... ASRS reports describing similar incidents and complaints about insufficient training and incomplete manuals. It looks like Boeing was able to get 737-Max pass as 737-NG variant without good differences training and better manuals.
- paulmd 8y ago
  He is right about one thing - looking at the maintenance logbook is a standard part of any preflight. If you looked at the logbook and saw that the maintenance team had been dueling with the MCAS system and that it had activated inappropriately on four prior occasions, that really should have been at the front of their minds. It seriously is a standard heads-up to alert you to any potential issues that might occur with the aircraft. Inoperative systems, etc. Even in general aviation, if you look at the logbook and see this is the first time this aircraft has flown since an engine teardown, you want to be aware of that in the light of monitoring your engine's readouts. If you suddenly see that the oil pressure is dropping or something, that's something you would immediately want to take seriously. Recent maintenance can be the difference between "I'll have the mechanic look at that when I get back" and immediately taking corrective action. There was a plane (Cessna iirc) nearby me that went down from a similar issue. When you change the oil there is a drain tube and some leftover oil tends to drip out all over the cowling. The mechanic apparently got in the habit of rolling up some paper towel and shoving it in the drain tube to absorb the drips. Well, this time he forgot to close the drain cock. It held enough pressure to take off apparently, then blew out in-flight and the engine seized. You gotta watch for that stuff, first person to fly an aircraft after a maintenance issue needs to be aware of it. (immediately taking corrective action is safer but planes are complex and if you immediately turned around the first time an engine ran a little hot you'd never get anywhere. They have redundant systems for a reason, and if anything commercial airliners are even more redundant and even more willing to fly with inoperative non-essential equipment, because there's so much money on the line. Commercial airliners fly with equipment that's broken literally all the time, there is very probably broken equipment on any given flight you take... more like probably several pieces broken.) Not to say that the pilots here didn't do everything right... we don't know yet either way. Boeing certainly has some 'splaining to do regardless, there are design flaws here that apparently have caused this problem to occur quite frequently. Just because you hope the pilots would have caught it doesn't mean you want to tempt fate repeatedly.
  - inferiorhuman 8y ago
    He is right about one thing - looking at the maintenance logbook is a standard part of any preflight. If you looked at the logbook and saw that the maintenance team had been dueling with the MCAS system and that it had activated inappropriately on four prior occasions, that really should have been at the front of their minds. You're absolutely right. Unfortunately the crew read the logbook and saw an STS (speed trim system) issue written up. When flight 610's crew looked at the logbook, nobody outside the Brazilian authorities knew what MCAS was or to expect anything like it. STS trims the stabilizer under different conditions than MCAS and typically trims in a counter-intuitive manner, conditioning pilots to non-intuitive trim adjustments in normal flight. STS can be turned off for the duration by applying pressure in the opposite direction on the yoke, MCAS cannot. With that in mind, yeah, the crew on flight 610 had a malfunction at the front of their minds. Just not the kind that was going to transpire.
- mike00632 8y ago
  1. The standard for pilots and their training worldwide is very high and the safety records of the Lion Air crew and the Ethiopian crew reflects this. Training and metrics for pilots is similar around the globe, airline companies are worldwide and pilots often work overseas. We absolutely should not think of pilots and their training standards as being associated with nationality or location because that doesn't reflect reality. 2. The sentiment that some pilots can figure it out and others can't so we need better screening/training to deal with faulty equipment is wrong-headed. Pilots shouldn't have to waste any of their attention during flight dealing with engineering failures. Furthermore they should be informed of any changes that are made to their equipment, which it seems Boeing didn't do when they updated the pitch override software.
- honestoHeminway 8y ago
  We know the mustache twirlling villians- we see them every day at our own software projects. People who will shortcut to meet deadlines at all costs. People who will knowingly ducttape horrible solutions together and ship that to the customer, blaming the customer when the ducttape falls apart. Boeings denial and redirect statements reek of the the usual spokesman boolshit we have so often in my industry.
tuna-piano 8y ago
In the likely event that this is another MCAS related crash, I see only two possible reasons: 1. Boeing's suggested process (including flipping the two trim switches and spinning a wheel) does not work for some reason. -or- 2. The Ethiopian pilots did not follow this process. I see #1 as putting a huge, huge amount of blame on Boeing and the FAA - especially given their months of "safe plane" reaction after Lion Air and their cavalier few days after Ethopian. I see #2 as still keeping a good deal of blame on Boeing, but also adding a significant training+capability element to Ethiopian and the pilots. Since Lion Air, how much had Boeing done to specify that the 737-MAX and the 737-NG are not the same plane and require different things to be aware of? Could a 737-MAX pilot really not have run through in their head a thousand times what MCAS related issues look like and what they would do if they started having those issues?
- leggomylibro 8y ago
  I was thinking about what you call '#2' the other day, when a family member remarked that the FAA was right to keep the planes in the sky because US airline unions felt like their pilots had received adequate advice and information from Boeing. I'm not sure where they got that from, but why would it be okay if the US pilots got training immediately, while others had to wait?
  - crowdpleaser 8y ago
    It would be extremely irregular for an aviation company to give training / instruction to exclusive clubs. The reality is that occident pilots tend to be a cut above the rest of the world. American Airline pilots tend to have military aviation experience and/or thousands of hours of experience. Pilots in less developed nations tend to have significantly less training, I heard the copilot of the lion air flight only had a few hundred hours of experience.
    - cjbprime 8y ago
      But the pilot in the latest crash had been flying for Ethiopian for a decade, and Ethiopian's reputation for safety is excellent.
exodust 8y ago
"You're in private mode" (no article for me). Is there another way to view the text?
- LeoPanthera 8y ago
  http://archive.is/Qk7PU http://archive.is/Qk7PU
  - Moru 8y ago
    "Hmm. We’re having trouble finding that site." Using cloudflares DNS 1.1.1.1. Seems that does not work since a while. https://community.cloudflare.com/t/1-1-1-1-does-not-resolve-archive-is/28059/10 https://community.cloudflare.com/t/1-1-1-1-does-not-resolve-... A lot of blame to and from who is responsible for the problem, still no solution apparently.
    - dredmorbius 8y ago
      Try; http://archive.fo/Qk7PU http://archive.fo/Qk7PU The .is domain has been occasionally problematic.
      - Sylamore 8y ago
        archive.is/fo basically doesn't work with cloudflare DNS due to a misconfiguration by whomever runs the archive.today service. It has been reported by multiple people to the site operator and at this point it seems likely intentional.
        Moru 8y ago
        I just used my normal DNS server to get the correct IP and put that IP in my pi-holes hosts file and now it works just fine.
- bambax 8y ago
  If you disable JavaScript on the NYT site then there is no more paywall.
SpaceInvader 8y ago
I just hate such links which I could not read without logging in into nytimes :(
- neonate 8y ago
  Incognito window works for me.
thedoctor79 8y ago
The facts so far are that two new aircraft of the same model have crashed in a very short period of time, in the same stage of flight and exhibiting the same problem as evidenced by ATC recordings: loss of flight control. We should not focus only on the software aspect, even though a very questionable (and dangerous in my opinion) decision was made to not communicate to the pilots the existence and operation of the software with no additional pilot training. The software relied on input from sensors at least in the Lion Air crash and the fact is the sensors failed on new aircraft. I would trust the NTSB as much as the European counterparts. I have read some of their reports and they are very dilligent and fair. We should avoid placing blame now on anyone whether it is Boeing, pilots, national agencies, until the full reports are available. The grounding of the aircraft was perfectly justified with the available data from a security point of view. The air industry has been focused on avoiding a blame culture. Even I, as a passenger sometimes look for the lowest price, so the pressure for cost cutting may come from us as well.
- dubbel 8y ago
  > Even I, as a passenger sometimes look for the lowest price, so the pressure for cost cutting may come from us as well. Of course you do, and that is not your fault. This is why we have independent regulation organizations like FAA or EASA, to not have matters of security solely in the hand of the free market.
  - Tsubasachan 8y ago
    Reminds me of a story of a budget airliner cutting costs by buying used parts and patching them up. Now nobody had actually tried to do something so nuts/genius before so there weren't any clear cut regulations. Eventually there was an accident and the FAA started to put screws under the microscope and interrogate maintenance crew. Thankfully the aviation industry nowadays out of self interest cares about safety.
    - amyjess 8y ago
      The usual way I've heard aviation regulations described is that every single regulation is written in blood. That is, every one of these regulations exist because somebody died as a direct result of that regulation not existing.
neuronic 8y ago
Let's preface this by saying I am aware that cause of the accident has not been determined. Seeing reports of experienced pilots being assigned to 737 MAXs without prior flight experience of this precise model, prompts me to make this comment. As a passenger I expect pilots to fully know the plane they are flying and to previously have flown this exact type and model of aircraft in training sessions without any passengers whatsoever. 737 MAXs seem to have significant differences compared to other 737 models and airlines appear criminally negligent in the use of these aircraft. I used to be a mere bus driver as a college job and I _had_ to train on all models before transporting any sort of organism with a central nervous system. But apparently, flying hundreds of people at hundreds of mph at several thousand feet above the ground doesn't require this sort of familiarity with the machine. Having flown other 737s and skimming a manual 20mins before departure was often deemed sufficient, resulting in flabbergasted and overwhelmed pilots. Boeing, FAA, airlines... whoever is ultimately blamed in all of this, the crash has revealed some scary stories in regards to aviation - all for the sake of cutting costs because people demand to fly across continents for $100.
- wccrawford 8y ago
  I expect them to have flown the plane, but not necessarily empty. I'm fine with them flying with someone who does already have experience with it as their first flight. (And maybe second and third.) But the idea that they can learn the differences from the manual in a short car ride is ridiculous in the extreme.
  - neuronic 8y ago
    To clarify, I meant passengers. Copilots and engineers are fine and likely even necessary to properly train and deal with the new challenges. As a daily driver of your own car, if you do own one, then it might be apparent how different they can be. I constantly switch between automatic Mercedes and BMWs. Both have a near identical handle on the right side of the steering wheel. One turns on wipers (BMW), the other one shifts gears... (Benz). Imagine that on a plane with worse consequences than accidentally shifting into neutral when it rains.
jcims 8y ago
Narrative from ASRS 1555013: I had my first flight on the Max [to] ZZZ1. We found out we were scheduled to fly the aircraft on the way to the airport in the limo. We had a little time [to] review the essentials in the car. Otherwise we would have walked onto the plane cold.My post flight evaluation is that we lacked the knowledge to operate the aircraft in all weather and aircraft states safely. The instrumentation is completely different - My scan was degraded, slow and labored having had no experience w/ the new ND (Navigation Display) and ADI (Attitude Director Indicator) presentations/format or functions (manipulation between the screens and systems pages were not provided in training materials. If they were, I had no recollection of that material).We were unable to navigate to systems pages and lacked the knowledge of what systems information was available to us in the different phases of flight. Our weather radar competency was inadequate to safely navigate significant weather on that dark and stormy night. These are just a few issues that were not addressed in our training.I recommend the following to help crews w/ their introductory flight on the Max:Email notification the day before the flight (the email should include: Links - Training Video, PSOB and QRG and all relevant updates/FAQ's)SME (Subject Matter Expert) Observer - the role of the SME is to introduce systems navigation, display management, answer general questions and provide standardized best practices to the next generation aircraft.Additionally, the SME will collect de-identified data to provide to the training department for analysis and dissemination to the line pilots regarding FAQs and know systems differences as well best practices in fly the new model aircraft.
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  What's the source of this and is there a URL? Found, James Fallows at The Atlantic; https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2019/03/heres-what-was-on-the-record-about-problems-with-the-737-max/584791/ https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2019/03/heres-what-was-on-...
  - blattimwind 8y ago
    You can't link to these on the ASRS site but that's the primary source. https://titan-server.arc.nasa.gov/ASRSPublicQueryWizard/QueryWizard_Filter.aspx https://titan-server.arc.nasa.gov/ASRSPublicQueryWizard/Quer... put in ACN = 1555013.
dogra 8y ago
A key problem with Boeing is its complacency when things go wrong. I personally remember the Lauda Air crash. Boeing's response to it was unsatisfactory at least: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauda_Air_Flight_004#Niki_Lauda's_visit_with_Boeing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauda_Air_Flight_004#Niki_Laud...

171 points by alanwong 8y ago

Before the wild speculation, here's some words from an actual aviation expert, Greg Feith: It is sad to hear some of the “junior investigator” talking heads make a storyline out of factoids or no facts about the 737 MAX. They embellish their credentials to sound smart when in fact they have no clue and say things about analyzing data that doesn’t exist.... A good friend of mine who is a former airline captain and flight safety professional ant be the following: “The VAST majority of the inane comments and knee jerk industry reactions on FB and AV Herald are based on no valid nor substantiated information regarding the MAX aircraft. However, NO one is talking about the pilots, nor the airlines involved, nor the training, nor the experience of the pilots. It IS WELL BEYOND time that these direct factors are understood, investigated and considered a possible contributor to the two distinct MAX accidents. The accident information in news articles dated 11/28/2018 indicated that the previous crew at Lion Air had experienced the MCAS issue but CORRECTLY dealt with it by disconnecting the stab trim cutouts - as expected in the NNC (non-normal checklist) yet the accident crew could not figure it out. Why the plane was dispatched in an unairworthy condition needs to be addressed and why one crew did and the accident crew did not figure it out the system issues needs to be explored because the deficiencies with the accident flight crew can be traced back to inadequate or deficient training and like suspect pilot qualifications!” EDIT: Given the rain of downvotes, it looks like a lot of HNers are convinced that mustache twirling villains at Boeing are responsible for the crash, which is extraordinarily unlikely.

gotocake 8y ago
Is this the same Greg Feith who said: Investigators including Boeing are going to have to determine whether or not this crew is properly trained and of course, Boeing is going to have to focus on whether or not they have a software or technical issue.
- jquery 8y ago
  Probably? He's very famous in the ACI community. And as he always says, a plane never goes down for a single reason. The Airbus that crashed into the Atlantic ocean could've been saved if they made the design decision not to "average" inputs from the sticks. Is that a design flaw? Or bad pilot training? Crashes are always the nexus of a chain of unfortunately and unlucky events. I have no reason to suspect this crash is any different. The only thing I'm confident of is that no matter what the problem is, Boeing will make changes and pilots will receive additional training, and perhaps be required to do simulator time. Once the 737-MAX is ungrounded I will have no qualms getting inside of one.
  - gotocake 8y ago
    Well, the upside here is that we can literally wait and see. Let’s make out a bookmark in this and resume when the investigation is over.
  - serf 8y ago
    >The only thing I'm confident of is that no matter what the problem is, Boeing will make changes ... Yeah, but it doesn't take Nostradamus to make that prediction. If Boeing doesn't fix their issues, they won't sell planes. So, say we blame the pilot for incorrectly deactivating the faulted system within a time-frame that allows for recovery; which I think is a silly thing to do : at what level of added complexity and extended abnormal checklists do we transfer the blame from the pilot being unable to follow a checklist thoroughly and quickly enough, to the airframe manufacturer for producing a product with so many potential failure vectors that were added primarily as a cost-savings or for-profit desire? The 737 MAX is unstable inherently for the sake of mileage, to reduce the overall cost per ticket, and increase corporate profit. I understand the importance of cost/benefit analysis, but at what point are corporations liable for teetering towards the profit side at the sake of safety?
    - gotocake 8y ago
      Plus they did everything they could to get it grandfathered in, and not have to re-certify it. As a result there’s no pilot training on it as a distinct type, and as a result...
ironmagma 8y ago
Honest question, why are people being so aggressive about saying that the human aspects should be considered first and foremost? If there was no problem with the aircraft, that would surely lead us to the conclusion that it was a training/pilot problem anyway. What's the point of pushing the human narrative so hard?
- robjan 8y ago
  I have a feeling that people wouldn't be pushing the human/airline aspect quite so much if both of the aforementioned were American or "Western"
  - Gigablah 8y ago
    Yeah, it's funny how the people decrying "knee-jerk" reactions are the same ones insinuating "suspect pilot qualifications". Actually, no, it's not funny.
    - dmix 8y ago
      That’s not a fair representation of what the OP just posted or the person he quoted said.
- jarfil 8y ago
  This kind of accident doesn't happen for just a single reason, they happen for a SERIES of reasons all together. Some of those reasons are technical, some are environmental, and some are human factor. Blaming any single of them is bullshit... and so is forgetting about any of them.
  - rahkiin 8y ago
    1) boeing changing geometry 2) boeing adding a new system that takes over control without documenting 3) pushing very hard to classify a new plane as an older type so now retraining happens 4) using only 2 sensors instead of 3, and using just one to control parts of the plane. A series of reasons
tyingq 8y ago
It's not that weird for technical people to wonder why, when there are 2 AoA sensors, Boeing didn't consider the readings from both of them as input for the MCAS. We probably don't assume that was malicious. But we might assume deflecting away from that as an issue to be malicious. Similar for the fact that the system wasn't well described in the manual.
- alfalfasprout 8y ago
  It's bewildering how even 2 would be sufficient. You'd expect some kind of 3 way setup where a single sensor failure is detected via majority quorum. Especially for anything that directly has the ability to alter control planes on the aircraft.
  - cjbprime 8y ago
    Two seems sufficiently airworthy as long as you warn the pilots that there's a failure they need to consider ("AOA disagree") and avoid control decisions based on the disagreeing system. It appears that the AOA disagree alert exists on the plane but is an optional paid feature (!).
    - Rychard 8y ago
      Having optional safety features on an airplane (i.e. not standard equipment) strikes me as being significantly more egregious (Edit: more so than on vehicles like cars/trucks for the general population). Considering how complex these things are already, how does this not unnecessarily increase the cognitive load on pilots? "Oh, I guess I'm flying the basic trim level airplane today, I better be cognizant of the fact that it lacks features X, Y and Z"
      - cjbprime 8y ago
        I agree with you. I think in practise the feature choices are made per-airline, perhaps to avoid the pilot confusion you mention. "AOA disagree" specifically seems to have been purchased by only the North American airlines that use the MAX.
peteretep 8y ago
> Before the wild speculation The wild speculation presumably includes British and Australian authorities — who have exemplary safety records, are nobody’s fools, and are very definitely run by very very senior and experienced people — banning the planes.
- isostatic 8y ago
  Former head of NTSB said Boeing should have grounded the planes straight away https://nypost.com/2019/03/12/former-ntsb-boss-wont-fly-on-boeing-jet-until-crash-mystery-is-solved/amp/ https://nypost.com/2019/03/12/former-ntsb-boss-wont-fly-on-b...
dang 8y ago
Your edit breaks the site guidelines, which ask: Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. Yes it can sting when one's comment is downvoted, but the guidelines ask all of us not to react in the usual tedious and sarcastic ways. A better approach is to take a moment to reflect on what in your comment might have attracted downvotes; if you notice anything to improve in the future, note it; and if you don't, just move on. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- jquery 8y ago
  It’s boring to read HN wildly speculate on the crash and trash Boeing as if they know what went wrong. Historically speaking, early speculation has nearly always been notoriously bad at predicting what went wrong in a given crash scenario. Despite this happening twice it is still a sixth sigma event, there is no reason to think the exact same set of circumstances occurred twice, especially after pilots were well aware of the MCAS system post Lion-air. I’m sure Boeing deserves a large part of the blame in the end, but I’m also sure that unanticipated pilot error is at the nexus of both events. You can’t anticipate every pilot failure mode, and since this wasn’t lost at sea we have the luxury of waiting for the final report. For all we know it wasn’t a design defect, but an improperly maintained sensor, or pilots who failed to look at the logbook. I see people already talking about how “capitalism has failed” and “lets imprison Boeing execs” which sounds more like Chinese astroturfing than good-faith posting. It could even turn out the two events were independent, a statistical analysis across all jets probably shows the likelihood of two planes of the same type crashing within 6 months of each other is more likely than our intuition suggests, because the Pareto distribution applies to every plane type in the entire world.
  - dang 8y ago
    No doubt many people will turn out to be wrong about this. You simply need to make your points without breaking the site guidelines, as do we all. You've unfortunately broken them again just now. It's explicitly against the guidelines to insinuate that people you disagree with are astroturfers. Would you mind re-reading https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and following them carefully when posting here? We don't need you to change your views, just express them within the limits specified. We have those limits because we're trying to preserve the commons for everyone.
tuna-piano 8y ago
Ethiopian has ~100 planes flying around on any given day, and hasn't had a serious crash in 9 years. Presumably the skill of their pilots and maintenance crews is pretty similiar across MAX and non-MAX planes. If their maintenance crew and pilots were solely to blame, I would expect to see a good deal more Ethiopian planes crashing. Of course, it could be (and maybe even is likely) that a properly trained maintenance crew won't let the AoA sensor fly in a bad state. And of course it could be (and maybe even is likely) that a properly trained pilot will be able to correct the issue in flight. But that doesn't pass the blame. The truth is that Ethiopian pilots and maintenance crews seem totally capable of keeping the rest of their planes in the air. Why has Boeing made a plane that is so much harder for them to fly safely? Is there any argument that the MAX is easier or safer to maintain/fly than the other planes Ethiopian flies?
- crowdpleaser 8y ago
  Maybe the ethopian air crews are deficient but the inferiority is only apparent when tasked to fly advanced planes?
  - balaji_raghavan 8y ago
    Shouldn't a more advanced plane be easier to operate?
  - HarryHirsch 8y ago
    The selling point of the 737-MAX was that for purposes of type rating it was a plain old 737, no retraining required. So on paper it wasn't advanced at all.
    - jackhack 8y ago
      The same chassis, but with larger engines, placed higher on the wing giving rise to different handling characteristics, especially at the edges of the performance envelope. The instrument layout is different and center panel control locations differ. Both of these changes lead to different instrument scan procedures and in the event of a high-stress condition --when seconds count, as instincts and muscle-memory kick in-- it feels like a different aircraft.
nabla9 8y ago
You should read these ASRS reports: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5766398-ASRS-Reports-for-737-max8.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5766398-ASRS-Reports... ASRS reports describing similar incidents and complaints about insufficient training and incomplete manuals. It looks like Boeing was able to get 737-Max pass as 737-NG variant without good differences training and better manuals.
paulmd 8y ago
He is right about one thing - looking at the maintenance logbook is a standard part of any preflight. If you looked at the logbook and saw that the maintenance team had been dueling with the MCAS system and that it had activated inappropriately on four prior occasions, that really should have been at the front of their minds. It seriously is a standard heads-up to alert you to any potential issues that might occur with the aircraft. Inoperative systems, etc. Even in general aviation, if you look at the logbook and see this is the first time this aircraft has flown since an engine teardown, you want to be aware of that in the light of monitoring your engine's readouts. If you suddenly see that the oil pressure is dropping or something, that's something you would immediately want to take seriously. Recent maintenance can be the difference between "I'll have the mechanic look at that when I get back" and immediately taking corrective action. There was a plane (Cessna iirc) nearby me that went down from a similar issue. When you change the oil there is a drain tube and some leftover oil tends to drip out all over the cowling. The mechanic apparently got in the habit of rolling up some paper towel and shoving it in the drain tube to absorb the drips. Well, this time he forgot to close the drain cock. It held enough pressure to take off apparently, then blew out in-flight and the engine seized. You gotta watch for that stuff, first person to fly an aircraft after a maintenance issue needs to be aware of it. (immediately taking corrective action is safer but planes are complex and if you immediately turned around the first time an engine ran a little hot you'd never get anywhere. They have redundant systems for a reason, and if anything commercial airliners are even more redundant and even more willing to fly with inoperative non-essential equipment, because there's so much money on the line. Commercial airliners fly with equipment that's broken literally all the time, there is very probably broken equipment on any given flight you take... more like probably several pieces broken.) Not to say that the pilots here didn't do everything right... we don't know yet either way. Boeing certainly has some 'splaining to do regardless, there are design flaws here that apparently have caused this problem to occur quite frequently. Just because you hope the pilots would have caught it doesn't mean you want to tempt fate repeatedly.
- inferiorhuman 8y ago
  He is right about one thing - looking at the maintenance logbook is a standard part of any preflight. If you looked at the logbook and saw that the maintenance team had been dueling with the MCAS system and that it had activated inappropriately on four prior occasions, that really should have been at the front of their minds. You're absolutely right. Unfortunately the crew read the logbook and saw an STS (speed trim system) issue written up. When flight 610's crew looked at the logbook, nobody outside the Brazilian authorities knew what MCAS was or to expect anything like it. STS trims the stabilizer under different conditions than MCAS and typically trims in a counter-intuitive manner, conditioning pilots to non-intuitive trim adjustments in normal flight. STS can be turned off for the duration by applying pressure in the opposite direction on the yoke, MCAS cannot. With that in mind, yeah, the crew on flight 610 had a malfunction at the front of their minds. Just not the kind that was going to transpire.
mike00632 8y ago
1. The standard for pilots and their training worldwide is very high and the safety records of the Lion Air crew and the Ethiopian crew reflects this. Training and metrics for pilots is similar around the globe, airline companies are worldwide and pilots often work overseas. We absolutely should not think of pilots and their training standards as being associated with nationality or location because that doesn't reflect reality. 2. The sentiment that some pilots can figure it out and others can't so we need better screening/training to deal with faulty equipment is wrong-headed. Pilots shouldn't have to waste any of their attention during flight dealing with engineering failures. Furthermore they should be informed of any changes that are made to their equipment, which it seems Boeing didn't do when they updated the pitch override software.
honestoHeminway 8y ago
We know the mustache twirlling villians- we see them every day at our own software projects. People who will shortcut to meet deadlines at all costs. People who will knowingly ducttape horrible solutions together and ship that to the customer, blaming the customer when the ducttape falls apart. Boeings denial and redirect statements reek of the the usual spokesman boolshit we have so often in my industry.

tuna-piano 8y ago

In the likely event that this is another MCAS related crash, I see only two possible reasons: 1. Boeing's suggested process (including flipping the two trim switches and spinning a wheel) does not work for some reason. -or- 2. The Ethiopian pilots did not follow this process. I see #1 as putting a huge, huge amount of blame on Boeing and the FAA - especially given their months of "safe plane" reaction after Lion Air and their cavalier few days after Ethopian. I see #2 as still keeping a good deal of blame on Boeing, but also adding a significant training+capability element to Ethiopian and the pilots. Since Lion Air, how much had Boeing done to specify that the 737-MAX and the 737-NG are not the same plane and require different things to be aware of? Could a 737-MAX pilot really not have run through in their head a thousand times what MCAS related issues look like and what they would do if they started having those issues?

leggomylibro 8y ago
I was thinking about what you call '#2' the other day, when a family member remarked that the FAA was right to keep the planes in the sky because US airline unions felt like their pilots had received adequate advice and information from Boeing. I'm not sure where they got that from, but why would it be okay if the US pilots got training immediately, while others had to wait?
- crowdpleaser 8y ago
  It would be extremely irregular for an aviation company to give training / instruction to exclusive clubs. The reality is that occident pilots tend to be a cut above the rest of the world. American Airline pilots tend to have military aviation experience and/or thousands of hours of experience. Pilots in less developed nations tend to have significantly less training, I heard the copilot of the lion air flight only had a few hundred hours of experience.
  - cjbprime 8y ago
    But the pilot in the latest crash had been flying for Ethiopian for a decade, and Ethiopian's reputation for safety is excellent.

exodust 8y ago

"You're in private mode" (no article for me). Is there another way to view the text?

LeoPanthera 8y ago
http://archive.is/Qk7PU http://archive.is/Qk7PU
- Moru 8y ago
  "Hmm. We’re having trouble finding that site." Using cloudflares DNS 1.1.1.1. Seems that does not work since a while. https://community.cloudflare.com/t/1-1-1-1-does-not-resolve-archive-is/28059/10 https://community.cloudflare.com/t/1-1-1-1-does-not-resolve-... A lot of blame to and from who is responsible for the problem, still no solution apparently.
  - dredmorbius 8y ago
    Try; http://archive.fo/Qk7PU http://archive.fo/Qk7PU The .is domain has been occasionally problematic.
    - Sylamore 8y ago
      archive.is/fo basically doesn't work with cloudflare DNS due to a misconfiguration by whomever runs the archive.today service. It has been reported by multiple people to the site operator and at this point it seems likely intentional.
      - Moru 8y ago
        I just used my normal DNS server to get the correct IP and put that IP in my pi-holes hosts file and now it works just fine.
bambax 8y ago
If you disable JavaScript on the NYT site then there is no more paywall.

SpaceInvader 8y ago

I just hate such links which I could not read without logging in into nytimes :(

neonate 8y ago
Incognito window works for me.

thedoctor79 8y ago

The facts so far are that two new aircraft of the same model have crashed in a very short period of time, in the same stage of flight and exhibiting the same problem as evidenced by ATC recordings: loss of flight control. We should not focus only on the software aspect, even though a very questionable (and dangerous in my opinion) decision was made to not communicate to the pilots the existence and operation of the software with no additional pilot training. The software relied on input from sensors at least in the Lion Air crash and the fact is the sensors failed on new aircraft. I would trust the NTSB as much as the European counterparts. I have read some of their reports and they are very dilligent and fair. We should avoid placing blame now on anyone whether it is Boeing, pilots, national agencies, until the full reports are available. The grounding of the aircraft was perfectly justified with the available data from a security point of view. The air industry has been focused on avoiding a blame culture. Even I, as a passenger sometimes look for the lowest price, so the pressure for cost cutting may come from us as well.

dubbel 8y ago
> Even I, as a passenger sometimes look for the lowest price, so the pressure for cost cutting may come from us as well. Of course you do, and that is not your fault. This is why we have independent regulation organizations like FAA or EASA, to not have matters of security solely in the hand of the free market.
- Tsubasachan 8y ago
  Reminds me of a story of a budget airliner cutting costs by buying used parts and patching them up. Now nobody had actually tried to do something so nuts/genius before so there weren't any clear cut regulations. Eventually there was an accident and the FAA started to put screws under the microscope and interrogate maintenance crew. Thankfully the aviation industry nowadays out of self interest cares about safety.
  - amyjess 8y ago
    The usual way I've heard aviation regulations described is that every single regulation is written in blood. That is, every one of these regulations exist because somebody died as a direct result of that regulation not existing.

neuronic 8y ago

Let's preface this by saying I am aware that cause of the accident has not been determined. Seeing reports of experienced pilots being assigned to 737 MAXs without prior flight experience of this precise model, prompts me to make this comment. As a passenger I expect pilots to fully know the plane they are flying and to previously have flown this exact type and model of aircraft in training sessions without any passengers whatsoever. 737 MAXs seem to have significant differences compared to other 737 models and airlines appear criminally negligent in the use of these aircraft. I used to be a mere bus driver as a college job and I _had_ to train on all models before transporting any sort of organism with a central nervous system. But apparently, flying hundreds of people at hundreds of mph at several thousand feet above the ground doesn't require this sort of familiarity with the machine. Having flown other 737s and skimming a manual 20mins before departure was often deemed sufficient, resulting in flabbergasted and overwhelmed pilots. Boeing, FAA, airlines... whoever is ultimately blamed in all of this, the crash has revealed some scary stories in regards to aviation - all for the sake of cutting costs because people demand to fly across continents for $100.

wccrawford 8y ago
I expect them to have flown the plane, but not necessarily empty. I'm fine with them flying with someone who does already have experience with it as their first flight. (And maybe second and third.) But the idea that they can learn the differences from the manual in a short car ride is ridiculous in the extreme.
- neuronic 8y ago
  To clarify, I meant passengers. Copilots and engineers are fine and likely even necessary to properly train and deal with the new challenges. As a daily driver of your own car, if you do own one, then it might be apparent how different they can be. I constantly switch between automatic Mercedes and BMWs. Both have a near identical handle on the right side of the steering wheel. One turns on wipers (BMW), the other one shifts gears... (Benz). Imagine that on a plane with worse consequences than accidentally shifting into neutral when it rains.

jcims 8y ago

Narrative from ASRS 1555013: I had my first flight on the Max [to] ZZZ1. We found out we were scheduled to fly the aircraft on the way to the airport in the limo. We had a little time [to] review the essentials in the car. Otherwise we would have walked onto the plane cold.My post flight evaluation is that we lacked the knowledge to operate the aircraft in all weather and aircraft states safely. The instrumentation is completely different - My scan was degraded, slow and labored having had no experience w/ the new ND (Navigation Display) and ADI (Attitude Director Indicator) presentations/format or functions (manipulation between the screens and systems pages were not provided in training materials. If they were, I had no recollection of that material).We were unable to navigate to systems pages and lacked the knowledge of what systems information was available to us in the different phases of flight. Our weather radar competency was inadequate to safely navigate significant weather on that dark and stormy night. These are just a few issues that were not addressed in our training.I recommend the following to help crews w/ their introductory flight on the Max:Email notification the day before the flight (the email should include: Links - Training Video, PSOB and QRG and all relevant updates/FAQ's)SME (Subject Matter Expert) Observer - the role of the SME is to introduce systems navigation, display management, answer general questions and provide standardized best practices to the next generation aircraft.Additionally, the SME will collect de-identified data to provide to the training department for analysis and dissemination to the line pilots regarding FAQs and know systems differences as well best practices in fly the new model aircraft.

dredmorbius 8y ago
What's the source of this and is there a URL? Found, James Fallows at The Atlantic; https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2019/03/heres-what-was-on-the-record-about-problems-with-the-737-max/584791/ https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2019/03/heres-what-was-on-...
- blattimwind 8y ago
  You can't link to these on the ASRS site but that's the primary source. https://titan-server.arc.nasa.gov/ASRSPublicQueryWizard/QueryWizard_Filter.aspx https://titan-server.arc.nasa.gov/ASRSPublicQueryWizard/Quer... put in ACN = 1555013.

dogra 8y ago

A key problem with Boeing is its complacency when things go wrong. I personally remember the Lauda Air crash. Boeing's response to it was unsatisfactory at least: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauda_Air_Flight_004#Niki_Lauda's_visit_with_Boeing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauda_Air_Flight_004#Niki_Laud...