3 ms·

The flight crew on Lion Air 610 were experienced. They had a combined total of nearly 10000 hours on 737s. These guys "knew their shit". American Exceptional

by na85 6y ago

The flight crew on Lion Air 610 were experienced. They had a combined total of nearly 10000 hours on 737s. These guys "knew their shit". American Exceptionalism is a dangerous myth. They didn't crash because they were Indian/Indonesian. What happened to these guys is that they faced a situation that tested the limits of human abilities, and it's the reason a whole domain of engineering called Human Factors exists.

kube-system 6y ago
Forgive me if I made any impression otherwise -- I am not saying those specific pilots were inexperienced. (I mentioned the US solely because I am familiar with their safety record, not because I don't think other high-income nations don't also have good pilots) I am saying, in general, if you are going to get on a plane today, you are much more likely to be killed because of human error than any other reason. Humans are good at fixing, mitigating, and recognizing mechanical issues. Other planes in the past have had mechanical issues and later returned to service with a good safety record. Human error is really what you should be worried about, both statistically, and in terms of mitigation difficulty.
- na85 6y ago
  >I am saying, in general, if you are going to get on a plane today, you are much more likely to be killed because of human error than any other reason. Sure, but the issue with the 737 MAX in particular is that the aircraft is unsafe from a design perspective, so I find your arguments that US aircrews are less likely to make a mistake to be both nonsensical and irrelevant (from a 737 MAX perspective). The 737 MAX is flawed in a way that was not only concealed from the operators, but in a way that causes a failure mode that is not easily avoided or averted because of Human Factors, even by an aircrew that "knows their shit". Your faith in the MAX 8 flown by US operators is unfounded.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    The DC10 also had design flaws. Mitigations were implemented and it returned to service with a safety record similar to its peers. Both planes had an engineering problem, both can be solved by engineering a solution.
    - na85 6y ago
      I don't understand. If the engineering problems around MCAS are solved, then why would it matter if the crews are American (and thus "know their shit")?
      - kube-system 6y ago
        Because you still need a good pilot to fly the plane, even if it was engineered perfectly. They don't need to be American, I merely listed it as an example of a place where people who fly planes can be reasonably expected to have a high level of competency. (In contrast to situations like PIA 8303) Most engineering problems also include elements of human interaction -- once again, the DC10 cargo door issue is a good example. One would expect that even if MCAS is re-engineered to work correctly, a pilot would still need to understand the operation of the system. Part of the problem is that Boeing tried to sell it as if it was of little to no importance to understand.
        na85 6y ago
        Sorry, I don't follow your logic at all, nor do I really understand what point you're trying to make.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - blackflame7000 6y ago
    > but in a way that causes a failure mode that is not easily avoided or averted because of Human Factors, even by an aircrew that "knows their shit". This is negated by the fact that the pilots on the flight before the Indonesian crash were able to save their aircraft because they recognized the symptoms of runaway trim quickly. https://qz.com/1576597/off-duty-pilot-saved-lion-airs-737-max-the-day-before-its-fatal-flight/ https://qz.com/1576597/off-duty-pilot-saved-lion-airs-737-ma...
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]

by na85 6y ago

kube-system 6y ago

Forgive me if I made any impression otherwise -- I am not saying those specific pilots were inexperienced. (I mentioned the US solely because I am familiar with their safety record, not because I don't think other high-income nations don't also have good pilots) I am saying, in general, if you are going to get on a plane today, you are much more likely to be killed because of human error than any other reason. Humans are good at fixing, mitigating, and recognizing mechanical issues. Other planes in the past have had mechanical issues and later returned to service with a good safety record. Human error is really what you should be worried about, both statistically, and in terms of mitigation difficulty.

na85 6y ago
>I am saying, in general, if you are going to get on a plane today, you are much more likely to be killed because of human error than any other reason. Sure, but the issue with the 737 MAX in particular is that the aircraft is unsafe from a design perspective, so I find your arguments that US aircrews are less likely to make a mistake to be both nonsensical and irrelevant (from a 737 MAX perspective). The 737 MAX is flawed in a way that was not only concealed from the operators, but in a way that causes a failure mode that is not easily avoided or averted because of Human Factors, even by an aircrew that "knows their shit". Your faith in the MAX 8 flown by US operators is unfounded.
- kube-system 6y ago
  The DC10 also had design flaws. Mitigations were implemented and it returned to service with a safety record similar to its peers. Both planes had an engineering problem, both can be solved by engineering a solution.
  - na85 6y ago
    I don't understand. If the engineering problems around MCAS are solved, then why would it matter if the crews are American (and thus "know their shit")?
    - kube-system 6y ago
      Because you still need a good pilot to fly the plane, even if it was engineered perfectly. They don't need to be American, I merely listed it as an example of a place where people who fly planes can be reasonably expected to have a high level of competency. (In contrast to situations like PIA 8303) Most engineering problems also include elements of human interaction -- once again, the DC10 cargo door issue is a good example. One would expect that even if MCAS is re-engineered to work correctly, a pilot would still need to understand the operation of the system. Part of the problem is that Boeing tried to sell it as if it was of little to no importance to understand.
      - na85 6y ago
        Sorry, I don't follow your logic at all, nor do I really understand what point you're trying to make.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- blackflame7000 6y ago
  > but in a way that causes a failure mode that is not easily avoided or averted because of Human Factors, even by an aircrew that "knows their shit". This is negated by the fact that the pilots on the flight before the Indonesian crash were able to save their aircraft because they recognized the symptoms of runaway trim quickly. https://qz.com/1576597/off-duty-pilot-saved-lion-airs-737-max-the-day-before-its-fatal-flight/ https://qz.com/1576597/off-duty-pilot-saved-lion-airs-737-ma...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]