3 ms·

I'm not sure you've made a consistent argument there. Automation is bad but in many cases makes flying safer? MCAS was bad because Boeing and the airlines want

by jemmyw 4y ago

I'm not sure you've made a consistent argument there. Automation is bad but in many cases makes flying safer? MCAS was bad because Boeing and the airlines wanted to retrofit without additional training. It wasn't the automation that was bad per se.

masklinn 4y ago
> MCAS was bad because Boeing and the airlines wanted to retrofit without additional training. And because it worked inconsistently due to terrible implementation.
Dalewyn 4y ago
Automation can make many flights safer, but this assumes two critical things: 1. The automation is designed and implemented in a reliable, known, safe way. 2. The pilot are competent at flying the aircraft completely manually if necessary. If either of those two assumptions are violated, the flight is not safe. Automation cannot replace incompetent pilots, no matter how good. Pilots can't overcome bad automation if it is not designed and implemented properly (eg: MCAS), no matter how competent.
- vkou 4y ago
  You're missing a necessary assumption #3 - 'The pilot needs to be competent at correctly identifying and safely flying the aircraft in any mixture of automation and manual control.' This accident was caused by a violation of #3. I've no doubt that the pilots in question were completely capable of performing these maneuvers manually - they failed at identifying which particular mixture of automation and manual control they were in, and in taking the correct steps during them.
sofixa 4y ago
> MCAS was bad because Boeing and the airlines wanted to retrofit without additional training. It wasn't the automation that was bad per se. The implementation was extremely terrible (no redundancy on the inputs), and it was Boeing that decided to hide its existence and overrides from everyone. Automation isn't bad, but when implemented with criminal negligence, it can be.

by jemmyw 4y ago

masklinn 4y ago

> MCAS was bad because Boeing and the airlines wanted to retrofit without additional training. And because it worked inconsistently due to terrible implementation.

Dalewyn 4y ago

Automation can make many flights safer, but this assumes two critical things: 1. The automation is designed and implemented in a reliable, known, safe way. 2. The pilot are competent at flying the aircraft completely manually if necessary. If either of those two assumptions are violated, the flight is not safe. Automation cannot replace incompetent pilots, no matter how good. Pilots can't overcome bad automation if it is not designed and implemented properly (eg: MCAS), no matter how competent.

vkou 4y ago
You're missing a necessary assumption #3 - 'The pilot needs to be competent at correctly identifying and safely flying the aircraft in any mixture of automation and manual control.' This accident was caused by a violation of #3. I've no doubt that the pilots in question were completely capable of performing these maneuvers manually - they failed at identifying which particular mixture of automation and manual control they were in, and in taking the correct steps during them.

sofixa 4y ago

> MCAS was bad because Boeing and the airlines wanted to retrofit without additional training. It wasn't the automation that was bad per se. The implementation was extremely terrible (no redundancy on the inputs), and it was Boeing that decided to hide its existence and overrides from everyone. Automation isn't bad, but when implemented with criminal negligence, it can be.