5 ms·

Capt. “Sully” Sullenberger Slams Boeing for Inadequate Pilot Training

68 points by jgwil2 7y ago

taway69 7y ago
No offense: but why is this guy still talking? Didnt he crash a plane into a river?
- TehCorwiz 7y ago
  No, in the face of an unexpected obstacle (multiple bird strike) he took decisive action to safely put the plane down with zero loss of life. He's a hero.
  - daveslash 7y ago
    This, absolutely. The unexpected multiple bird strike took out both engines simultaneously. He made a conscious decision to bring the plane down in the river, as opposed to attempting to reach a nearby airport. Had he decided to go for an airport, he almost certainly would have fallen short and killed people on the ground (in the densely populated New York City) in addition to everyone on the plane. Bringing an aircraft down for a water landing is an extremely risky thing, and he was able to do so successfully without losing a single passenger. Hero indeed.
- cowmix 7y ago
  Wow. Created a Hacker News account just to slam Sully..
- jrockway 7y ago
  Both of the engines on the aircraft he was commanding failed, over the most densely-populated region in the country. He then landed the plane with no damage to anyone on the ground or inside his plane. Most would agree that that situation couldn't have been handled better.
  - docker_up 7y ago
    He is a hero, period, end of story. If you listen to the recording, and watch the computer simulation, it's crazy what he did and he did it with complete calmness.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- capkutay 7y ago
  Terrible comments like this make me worried about HN. Seems like the worst of the worst on Reddit are finding they're way on here.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    HN is very actively moderated, and where the user-based moderation is insufficient, dang and sctb step in frequently. They're also highly responsive to emails to hn@ycombinator.com (generally within a few hours, if not sooner, almost always within a day), and take their jobs seriously. On Reddit, negative comments far too often fester, though even there, well-moderated subs can produce high-quality discussion (AskHistorians, askscience, and similar). I'm not without my criticisms of HN, and occasionally disagree with the mods. But I appreciate what they do and in the eight years or so I've been on the site, there's been little appreciable drift. Remarkable in the face of other platforms' trends.
PowerfulWizard 7y ago
The thing that still bothers me about the 737 MAX information I've seen, in particular from the NYT article that was discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20070509 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20070509 is that I'm not convinced anyone at Boeing understood the flight characteristics of the aircraft, even after the 1st crash. When you have a very complex system, which has been incrementally modified over a 50 year period, it is going to be really difficult to understand all the interactions. The NYT article describes a Jan 2016 parameter change on the MCAS to make it faster and more powerful. I am convinced that the MCAS will be studied and understood, and pilots can be trained to respond appropriately. I'm not convinced that there is a process in place where the consequences of changes to the aircraft are known and tested in advance. Ultimately, if the pilot is willing to fly, I'm willing to fly, but based on what I've seen, I don't think there was an adequate change control process in place, and as long as that is true issues will continue to be "discovered" in flight. Training is a solution to known problems, not unknown problems.
- salawat 7y ago
  I have trouble believing that Boeing didn't know exactly how that plane flew. Back in the 60's, Boeing was notorious amongst test pilots for knowing exactly how a plane would behave, when it would misbehave, and how[1]. That's back then. The state of the art in CFD has only made the process easier. There is absolutely no room for them to have not known the physical ramifications of that change. Where the story gets sketchy is where Boeing didn't update the FAA on the later change to the system, and every attempt being made to ensure that they didn't design anything such that the FAA would deem simulator training necessary as evidenced by whistleblower testimony (See the Australian 60 minutes expose[2]). [1] The D. P. Davies Interview, Royal Aeronautics Society, https://www.aerosociety.com/news/audio-the-d-p-davies-interview-on-testing-the-comets-boeing-707-britannia-brabazon/ https://www.aerosociety.com/news/audio-the-d-p-davies-interv... https://www.aerosociety.com/news/audio-the-d-p-davies-interview-on-the-boeing-747-the-trident-vc10-one-eleven-the-boeing-727/ https://www.aerosociety.com/news/audio-the-d-p-davies-interv... [2]https://youtu.be/QytfYyHmxtc https://youtu.be/QytfYyHmxtc
DamnInteresting 7y ago
“We should all want pilots to experience these challenging situations for the first time in a simulator, not in flight, with passengers and crew on board,” Sullenberger said, adding that “reading about it on an iPad is not even close to sufficient.” This is the one quote attributed to Sullenberger. Is that enough to claim that he "slams" Boeing? Headline hyperbole is annoying.
- giobox 7y ago
  Given that a material part of Boeing's solution was to provide iPad based training materials rather than the simulator time he believes was necessary, coupled with his language - "not even close to sufficient" - I'm comfortable with calling this a slam. The full remarks from which this quote is lifted are significantly critical of Boeing, during which he describes the "current system of aircraft certification and design" as having "failed us". I don't think this headline mistakes the the nature of his remarks at all.
- dewyatt 7y ago
  They got you to click on the link though, didn't they?
- jechamt 7y ago
  I fully agree with you and I came here to post this. On the other side, I would never click on a headline like this from another source, but it being here on HN provides some benefit of the doubt. Yahoo news reveals its consistent character, as usual, but at least this is balanced by the always insightful comments toward the material subject matter of the article (my own comment here notwithstanding).
- ncmncm 7y ago
  Reads like a slam to me. Sully is not given to hyperbole. When he says "not even close" you can take it as given. He doesn't need to say, "shame on them!" But you know, and he knows you know.
Hasknewbie 7y ago
Reminder (motivated by taway69's post questioning Sully's credentials): prior to the Hudson river incident in 2009, Sully was already an aviation safety expert, having participated in multiple National Transportation Safety Board investigation, and having founded a safety related company in 2007 (so at that moment in 2009 he was kind of the perfect man for the situation). So yes he's very much qualified to testify in front of Congress.
bfdm 7y ago
The best part of this whole thing has been the airlines being forced to pull some older 787-800s off the bench for main route duty. They have so much more leg room in the old seat configuration. We had one trip where the window seat was able to get out without the other two leaving the row, in economy! (There was a lot of rubbing, but it was possible)
blt 7y ago
Check out this documentary on Boeing's sketchy manufacturing & QA process back in the days of the 787 release. It seems that the company has been toxic for a while now. https://youtu.be/rvkEpstd9os https://youtu.be/rvkEpstd9os

68 points by jgwil2 7y ago

taway69 7y ago

No offense: but why is this guy still talking? Didnt he crash a plane into a river?

TehCorwiz 7y ago
No, in the face of an unexpected obstacle (multiple bird strike) he took decisive action to safely put the plane down with zero loss of life. He's a hero.
- daveslash 7y ago
  This, absolutely. The unexpected multiple bird strike took out both engines simultaneously. He made a conscious decision to bring the plane down in the river, as opposed to attempting to reach a nearby airport. Had he decided to go for an airport, he almost certainly would have fallen short and killed people on the ground (in the densely populated New York City) in addition to everyone on the plane. Bringing an aircraft down for a water landing is an extremely risky thing, and he was able to do so successfully without losing a single passenger. Hero indeed.
cowmix 7y ago
Wow. Created a Hacker News account just to slam Sully..
jrockway 7y ago
Both of the engines on the aircraft he was commanding failed, over the most densely-populated region in the country. He then landed the plane with no damage to anyone on the ground or inside his plane. Most would agree that that situation couldn't have been handled better.
- docker_up 7y ago
  He is a hero, period, end of story. If you listen to the recording, and watch the computer simulation, it's crazy what he did and he did it with complete calmness.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
capkutay 7y ago
Terrible comments like this make me worried about HN. Seems like the worst of the worst on Reddit are finding they're way on here.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  HN is very actively moderated, and where the user-based moderation is insufficient, dang and sctb step in frequently. They're also highly responsive to emails to hn@ycombinator.com (generally within a few hours, if not sooner, almost always within a day), and take their jobs seriously. On Reddit, negative comments far too often fester, though even there, well-moderated subs can produce high-quality discussion (AskHistorians, askscience, and similar). I'm not without my criticisms of HN, and occasionally disagree with the mods. But I appreciate what they do and in the eight years or so I've been on the site, there's been little appreciable drift. Remarkable in the face of other platforms' trends.

PowerfulWizard 7y ago

The thing that still bothers me about the 737 MAX information I've seen, in particular from the NYT article that was discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20070509 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20070509 is that I'm not convinced anyone at Boeing understood the flight characteristics of the aircraft, even after the 1st crash. When you have a very complex system, which has been incrementally modified over a 50 year period, it is going to be really difficult to understand all the interactions. The NYT article describes a Jan 2016 parameter change on the MCAS to make it faster and more powerful. I am convinced that the MCAS will be studied and understood, and pilots can be trained to respond appropriately. I'm not convinced that there is a process in place where the consequences of changes to the aircraft are known and tested in advance. Ultimately, if the pilot is willing to fly, I'm willing to fly, but based on what I've seen, I don't think there was an adequate change control process in place, and as long as that is true issues will continue to be "discovered" in flight. Training is a solution to known problems, not unknown problems.

salawat 7y ago
I have trouble believing that Boeing didn't know exactly how that plane flew. Back in the 60's, Boeing was notorious amongst test pilots for knowing exactly how a plane would behave, when it would misbehave, and how[1]. That's back then. The state of the art in CFD has only made the process easier. There is absolutely no room for them to have not known the physical ramifications of that change. Where the story gets sketchy is where Boeing didn't update the FAA on the later change to the system, and every attempt being made to ensure that they didn't design anything such that the FAA would deem simulator training necessary as evidenced by whistleblower testimony (See the Australian 60 minutes expose[2]). [1] The D. P. Davies Interview, Royal Aeronautics Society, https://www.aerosociety.com/news/audio-the-d-p-davies-interview-on-testing-the-comets-boeing-707-britannia-brabazon/ https://www.aerosociety.com/news/audio-the-d-p-davies-interv... https://www.aerosociety.com/news/audio-the-d-p-davies-interview-on-the-boeing-747-the-trident-vc10-one-eleven-the-boeing-727/ https://www.aerosociety.com/news/audio-the-d-p-davies-interv... [2]https://youtu.be/QytfYyHmxtc https://youtu.be/QytfYyHmxtc

DamnInteresting 7y ago

“We should all want pilots to experience these challenging situations for the first time in a simulator, not in flight, with passengers and crew on board,” Sullenberger said, adding that “reading about it on an iPad is not even close to sufficient.” This is the one quote attributed to Sullenberger. Is that enough to claim that he "slams" Boeing? Headline hyperbole is annoying.

giobox 7y ago
Given that a material part of Boeing's solution was to provide iPad based training materials rather than the simulator time he believes was necessary, coupled with his language - "not even close to sufficient" - I'm comfortable with calling this a slam. The full remarks from which this quote is lifted are significantly critical of Boeing, during which he describes the "current system of aircraft certification and design" as having "failed us". I don't think this headline mistakes the the nature of his remarks at all.
dewyatt 7y ago
They got you to click on the link though, didn't they?
jechamt 7y ago
I fully agree with you and I came here to post this. On the other side, I would never click on a headline like this from another source, but it being here on HN provides some benefit of the doubt. Yahoo news reveals its consistent character, as usual, but at least this is balanced by the always insightful comments toward the material subject matter of the article (my own comment here notwithstanding).
ncmncm 7y ago
Reads like a slam to me. Sully is not given to hyperbole. When he says "not even close" you can take it as given. He doesn't need to say, "shame on them!" But you know, and he knows you know.

Hasknewbie 7y ago

Reminder (motivated by taway69's post questioning Sully's credentials): prior to the Hudson river incident in 2009, Sully was already an aviation safety expert, having participated in multiple National Transportation Safety Board investigation, and having founded a safety related company in 2007 (so at that moment in 2009 he was kind of the perfect man for the situation). So yes he's very much qualified to testify in front of Congress.

bfdm 7y ago

The best part of this whole thing has been the airlines being forced to pull some older 787-800s off the bench for main route duty. They have so much more leg room in the old seat configuration. We had one trip where the window seat was able to get out without the other two leaving the row, in economy! (There was a lot of rubbing, but it was possible)

blt 7y ago

Check out this documentary on Boeing's sketchy manufacturing & QA process back in the days of the 787 release. It seems that the company has been toxic for a while now. https://youtu.be/rvkEpstd9os https://youtu.be/rvkEpstd9os