6 ms·
They were testing to see if pilot reaction times were fast enough to counter MCAS. > The whistleblower alleges Boeing officials were present for the testing an
by phire 6y ago
They were testing to see if pilot reaction times were fast enough to counter MCAS.
> The whistleblower alleges Boeing officials were present for the testing and encouraged the test pilots to “remember, get right on that pickle switch” immediately prior to the exercise.
> “Pickle switch” refers to the stabilizer trim control switches
The implication is that the pilot reaction times were only fast enough to counter the original MCAS design if they were explicitly reminded how to react immediately before the exercise.
- SahAssar 6y agoSeems weird that pilots doing tests for boeing would need to be reminded about MCAS countermeasures, I would have guessed that would be on their mind already.
- LatteLazy 6y agoI mean, if pilots know they're there to test the MCAS changes then surely they'll be right on it anyway. So the whole "test" is sort of pointless isn't it?
- yk 6y agoI would guess that depends on how complicated the entire thing is, if they have ten possible solutions and get told to try the one that works first would certainly improve reaction times. However, that to me points to the larger problem, that "Boeing officials," whoever that group may entail precisely, treat the 737 Max safety as a test that needs to be passed, instead of a safety problem, that would require best effort.
- gbin 6y agoUnfortunately this is true for a lot of professional certifications. The goal is too often not really to teach anything but protect the company from liability.
- LatteLazy 6y agoIt reminds me a bit the "training" we do in finance. Is the right answer "call the police" or "help the terrorist hide the money in offshore accounts"?
- phire 6y agoThey weren't even testing MCAS changes here. They were testing if the original assumption that went into the original design of MCAS was correct. The assumptions that pilots would be able to react to a failure correctly within 10 seconds. Basically, Boeing was trying to cover their ass.
- bayindirh 6y ago> The assumptions that pilots would be able to react to a failure correctly within 10 seconds. I think something is very wrong if safety of any system is dependent on reacting to any failure within 10 seconds, without any error whatsoever. I know pilots and piloting is on the extraordinary end of the spectrum but, isn't this stretching it a bit too much?
- chippiewill 6y agoI know it's mostly fiction, but it reminds me of the "Can we get serious now?" in Sully https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1fVL4AQEW8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1fVL4AQEW8
- bayindirh 6y agoThat was a riveting 3 minute video. I'll watch this tonight.
- andi999 6y agoAgree´. I think the (german version) of the starfighter had a 2 second window for retracting the landing gear during lift-off otherwise the stall protection will crash the jet into the ground. Well there was a lot wrong with this model 296 crashed (during peace time training....)
- bayindirh 6y ago2 seconds. You can't reach for the lever/switch in two seconds. That's insane.
- mannykannot 6y agoNot pointless, but not definitive, either. To some extent, all Max pilots will now be primed for this, but the effect will probably dissipate over time. For all I know, the benefits of this effect, as a function of time and whatever other factors are relevant, may well be well-studied and amenable to modeling. Perhaps one possible source of data for such studies would be measurements of reaction times in training and proficiency-check simulator sessions, where no single issue is under scrutiny.