6 ms·

They 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 assumptio

by phire 6y ago

They 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    That was a riveting 3 minute video. I'll watch this tonight.
- andi999 6y ago
  Agree´. 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 ago
    2 seconds. You can't reach for the lever/switch in two seconds. That's insane.
    - andi999 6y ago
      I remember the value from a report on TV (who knows if it is correct). But then lift-off is not a too unexpected event, so better keep your hand close to that control.
  - Xylakant 6y ago
    The running joke at that time was that the fastest way to acquire a starfighter was to buy a plot of land and wait. That thing was nicknamed widowmaker for a reason.
- dm319 6y ago
  From what I understand the whole reason this happened was that Boeing wanted the new efficient engines without having to call the plane a new model. So they were really asking pilots with no training on the new Max planes to react correctly to a situation that didn't exist on the old plane within 10 seconds. Surely this is basically admitting to being at fault? Also, these airlines that bought the Max on the basis they wouldn't have to re-train the pilots are presumably having to foot the bill for this?
  - lisper 6y ago
    Private pilot here. You have it exactly right. The problem is not the ten-second reaction time. There are a lot of emergencies that require that kind of reaction time (engine failure, to cite the obvious example). The problem is ten-second reaction time to a new kind of emergency without special training for that emergency.
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    What you're missing is: - Boeing promised $1 million penalty per plane to Southwest if retraining was needed - none of the planes had the right cockpit indicators, whether they were ordered as an option or not. The US pilot unions are pissed about this. - the flight manuals were not accurate. This is a big deal from a regulatory standpoint, and means the planes were never airworthy. The EU could have a field day with this. - the certification paperwork was wrong. The FAA could do basically anything it wants to Boeing at this point, including asking for criminal charges. - pilot training is an on-going expense, forever. It actually would affect Southwest's business model, which depends on commonality. - Boeing is the US' biggest exporter, so this incompetence actually affected us at a national and international level financially.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  > I think something is very wrong if safety of any system is dependent on reacting to any failure within 10 seconds If you said 3 seconds when airborne, except for some engine failures, I'd agree. On takeoff and landing you're looking at under 1 second response to stay on the centerline or abort. When airlines transitioned from piston to jet engines, there were a lot of accidents. The reason was that piston engines respond to throttle input immediately, but jets took 6 seconds to spool up. So being low on landing in a jet usually meant hitting the ground before the engines increased thrust.
m12k 6y ago
So the plane is built with the assumption that the pilots are ready to jump in and override within 10 seconds, if out of the blue the auto-pilot decides to try to crash the plane. How about a no, and we re-build the system so a failure like that becomes extremely unlikely and not a regular occurrence?
- babesh 6y ago
  I think what is left unsaid is that there is no way the US government will not allow the 737-MAX to fly again. My understanding is that the design is aerodynamically flawed. The MCAS system was an ugly hack and even the new solution is just an improved MCAS. However the 737-MAX is Boeing’s answer to Airbus’ competitive threat in the biggest commercial airplane segment. Not approving the plane would leave this segment to Airbus and would cripple Boeing’s commercial airplane business as a whole. The US considers this business strategic given past history of government incentives. Europe and other countries also consider this business strategic and likewise have provided massive government incentives. This calculus alone almost forces the FAA to approve the plane for flying. Furthermore, the 737-MAX not flying could bankrupt Boeing. All those hundreds of planes that they manufactured would be scrap. All the existing planes flown would become lawsuits. But Boeing is a big defense contractor with a revolving door with the Defense Department. There is no way the US would let one of its biggest defense contractors go bankrupt. The gravy train for that military industrial complex would end. That isn’t going to happen. Look at Biden’s nominees. They are part of the revolving door between the military and defense contractors. If we could peer through closed doors I bet we would see the US government pressuring other governments to approve the 737-MAX for flight. They also need to give approval for the plane to fly to their countries.

by phire 6y ago

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 ago
I 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 ago
  That was a riveting 3 minute video. I'll watch this tonight.
andi999 6y ago
Agree´. 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 ago
  2 seconds. You can't reach for the lever/switch in two seconds. That's insane.
  - andi999 6y ago
    I remember the value from a report on TV (who knows if it is correct). But then lift-off is not a too unexpected event, so better keep your hand close to that control.
- Xylakant 6y ago
  The running joke at that time was that the fastest way to acquire a starfighter was to buy a plot of land and wait. That thing was nicknamed widowmaker for a reason.
dm319 6y ago
From what I understand the whole reason this happened was that Boeing wanted the new efficient engines without having to call the plane a new model. So they were really asking pilots with no training on the new Max planes to react correctly to a situation that didn't exist on the old plane within 10 seconds. Surely this is basically admitting to being at fault? Also, these airlines that bought the Max on the basis they wouldn't have to re-train the pilots are presumably having to foot the bill for this?
- lisper 6y ago
  Private pilot here. You have it exactly right. The problem is not the ten-second reaction time. There are a lot of emergencies that require that kind of reaction time (engine failure, to cite the obvious example). The problem is ten-second reaction time to a new kind of emergency without special training for that emergency.
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  What you're missing is: - Boeing promised $1 million penalty per plane to Southwest if retraining was needed - none of the planes had the right cockpit indicators, whether they were ordered as an option or not. The US pilot unions are pissed about this. - the flight manuals were not accurate. This is a big deal from a regulatory standpoint, and means the planes were never airworthy. The EU could have a field day with this. - the certification paperwork was wrong. The FAA could do basically anything it wants to Boeing at this point, including asking for criminal charges. - pilot training is an on-going expense, forever. It actually would affect Southwest's business model, which depends on commonality. - Boeing is the US' biggest exporter, so this incompetence actually affected us at a national and international level financially.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
redis_mlc 6y ago
> I think something is very wrong if safety of any system is dependent on reacting to any failure within 10 seconds If you said 3 seconds when airborne, except for some engine failures, I'd agree. On takeoff and landing you're looking at under 1 second response to stay on the centerline or abort. When airlines transitioned from piston to jet engines, there were a lot of accidents. The reason was that piston engines respond to throttle input immediately, but jets took 6 seconds to spool up. So being low on landing in a jet usually meant hitting the ground before the engines increased thrust.

m12k 6y ago

So the plane is built with the assumption that the pilots are ready to jump in and override within 10 seconds, if out of the blue the auto-pilot decides to try to crash the plane. How about a no, and we re-build the system so a failure like that becomes extremely unlikely and not a regular occurrence?

babesh 6y ago
I think what is left unsaid is that there is no way the US government will not allow the 737-MAX to fly again. My understanding is that the design is aerodynamically flawed. The MCAS system was an ugly hack and even the new solution is just an improved MCAS. However the 737-MAX is Boeing’s answer to Airbus’ competitive threat in the biggest commercial airplane segment. Not approving the plane would leave this segment to Airbus and would cripple Boeing’s commercial airplane business as a whole. The US considers this business strategic given past history of government incentives. Europe and other countries also consider this business strategic and likewise have provided massive government incentives. This calculus alone almost forces the FAA to approve the plane for flying. Furthermore, the 737-MAX not flying could bankrupt Boeing. All those hundreds of planes that they manufactured would be scrap. All the existing planes flown would become lawsuits. But Boeing is a big defense contractor with a revolving door with the Defense Department. There is no way the US would let one of its biggest defense contractors go bankrupt. The gravy train for that military industrial complex would end. That isn’t going to happen. Look at Biden’s nominees. They are part of the revolving door between the military and defense contractors. If we could peer through closed doors I bet we would see the US government pressuring other governments to approve the 737-MAX for flight. They also need to give approval for the plane to fly to their countries.