3 ms·

Ah yes, the training on what to do if the computer suddenly decides to crash your airplane out of the blue. I feel this framing mis-allocates blame away from B

by dTal 4y ago

Ah yes, the training on what to do if the computer suddenly decides to crash your airplane out of the blue. I feel this framing mis-allocates blame away from Boeing and towards airlines. The MAX was specifically designed to not require a new type rating (they have now introduced one). And no amount of training is a reasonable substitute for the autopilot with a habit of nosediving into the ground because you were too cheap to build fault-checking into your AOA sensor subsystem (an oversight that should have made the MAX fail certification).

giantg2 4y ago
"And no amount of training is a reasonable substitute for the autopilot with a habit of nosediving" If they would know that the system even existed then maybe they would have known how to disengage it. Yes, the design was flawed. Even then, you train for equipment failures because everything can break. It's hard to do that if your not even told that the MCAS exists. The training aspect still squarely places blame on Boeing and the FAA for crearing/approving a design that didn't mandate additional training.
- dTal 4y ago
  My memory is fuzzy here, but wasn't it the case that even with training, you only had a window of a few seconds to disengage the MCAS before the aircraft became unrecoverable? If you waited too long, it cranked the jackscrew to its extreme position, and there was no way to un-crank it with the MCAS disabled (i.e. MCAS had exclusive control over it). That seems like an unacceptably fragile failure mode to me.
otikik 4y ago
> Ah yes, the training on what to do if the computer suddenly decides to crash your airplane out of the blue. My expectations might be too high, but yes I expect their training to include something along those lines. Perhaps not "computer is trying to kill you" specifically, but "computer is off or malfunctioning". And I would expect the airplane to have a secondary/backup computer at minimum, these systems are supposed to be heavily redundant after all).

by dTal 4y ago

giantg2 4y ago

"And no amount of training is a reasonable substitute for the autopilot with a habit of nosediving" If they would know that the system even existed then maybe they would have known how to disengage it. Yes, the design was flawed. Even then, you train for equipment failures because everything can break. It's hard to do that if your not even told that the MCAS exists. The training aspect still squarely places blame on Boeing and the FAA for crearing/approving a design that didn't mandate additional training.

dTal 4y ago
My memory is fuzzy here, but wasn't it the case that even with training, you only had a window of a few seconds to disengage the MCAS before the aircraft became unrecoverable? If you waited too long, it cranked the jackscrew to its extreme position, and there was no way to un-crank it with the MCAS disabled (i.e. MCAS had exclusive control over it). That seems like an unacceptably fragile failure mode to me.

otikik 4y ago

> Ah yes, the training on what to do if the computer suddenly decides to crash your airplane out of the blue. My expectations might be too high, but yes I expect their training to include something along those lines. Perhaps not "computer is trying to kill you" specifically, but "computer is off or malfunctioning". And I would expect the airplane to have a secondary/backup computer at minimum, these systems are supposed to be heavily redundant after all).