3 ms·

>> The data “confirms that the airplane was safely airborne with runway remaining and at an altitude by the end of the runway that was well within regulatory sa

by skeeter2020 4y ago

>> The data “confirms that the airplane was safely airborne with runway remaining and at an altitude by the end of the runway that was well within regulatory safety margins,” said the union’s Alaska unit chair, Will McQuillen, in a statement.

lisper 4y ago
Sure, but you're missing the point. This particular bug produced an erroneous output that resulted in a tail strike. A different bug, with all the other circumstances unchanged, could have produced an erroneous output that resulted in a catastrophe. One should not shrug this off as "oh, it was just a tail strike, therefore it was no big deal." It was very nearly a very big deal.
- Someone1234 4y ago
  If the data was too far off it is likely the pilots would have noticed it. This was a situation where it was off, but still "sane," so went unnoticed. The airline completely grounded their entire fleet while they investigated this issue, so I don't really understand why you're trying to act like nobody took this seriously. The article makes it quite clear this was handled as a serious problem and steps taken. The Alaska Airlines' pilots union is both qualified to have an opinion AND looking out primarily for their members (i.e., pilots), and they had this to say: > The data “confirms that the airplane was safely airborne with runway remaining and at an altitude by the end of the runway that was well within regulatory safety margins,” said the union’s Alaska unit chair, Will McQuillen, in a statement. If the union was unhappy with the remediation steps taken, they'd say so. That is quite literally their primary function.
  - lisper 4y ago
    > This was a situation where it was off, but still "sane," No. The margin for error in jets is very small. Jets are much less forgiving than Cessna 172s. The difference between a tail strike and a failed takeoff is very small, easily under the threshold of human perception until it's too late. Also, the whole point of using this software in the first place is so that every takeoff is done right on the hairy edge of minimal performance. It is a catastrophe waiting to happen. This was a wakeup call. > If the union was unhappy with the remediation steps taken, they'd say so. It is quite possible that no one in the union appreciates the broader implications. Pilots are generally not software engineers.
    - Someone1234 4y ago
      So your point is that professional airline pilots, their union, or an airline are less qualified to understand the safety implications of this incident than a PPL because that PPL is also a software engineer? Are you familiar with the Dunning–Kruger effect[0] and how it may be playing a role in your perspective of this incident? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
      - lisper 4y ago
        > because that PPL is also a software engineer? Not just for that reason. I'm also not bound by the political constraints that union leaders are. They have to pick their battles. I'm free to say whatever I want about this with little risk to my career. But yes, I think I understand software -- and particularly software risks -- better than most pilots, and I think I understand flying better than most software engineers, so I think that makes my opinion better informed than most. (It is nonetheless just an opinion.) > Are you familiar with the Dunning–Kruger effect Yes. Are you familiar with the ad hominem fallacy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
        Someone1234 4y ago
        > Are you familiar with the ad hominem fallacy? It doesn't apply. When an argument is backed by someone's qualifications (in this case PPL and software developer), discussing the merit of those qualifications for the discussion domain is absolutely relevant. Your first reply to this thread started off with: > Private pilot here. And now that I'm calling into question how relevant that is, or more to the point if you're in a position to know better than the pilot union/airline/etc, it is suddenly Ad hominem. Cannot have it both ways, either your qualifications make your opinion more relevant or they don't. But pick a lane. The implication with calling it Ad hominem though is that your qualifications aren't relevant, which I happen to agree with, and actually that was my point.
        4y ago
  - singleshot_ 4y ago
    I agree with almost all that you said, but I seem to remember that Air Florida flight 90 crashed killing almost everyone aboard because the throttle settings were too low and no one figured it out until they were airborne and out of ground effect.

lisper 4y ago

Sure, but you're missing the point. This particular bug produced an erroneous output that resulted in a tail strike. A different bug, with all the other circumstances unchanged, could have produced an erroneous output that resulted in a catastrophe. One should not shrug this off as "oh, it was just a tail strike, therefore it was no big deal." It was very nearly a very big deal.

Someone1234 4y ago
If the data was too far off it is likely the pilots would have noticed it. This was a situation where it was off, but still "sane," so went unnoticed. The airline completely grounded their entire fleet while they investigated this issue, so I don't really understand why you're trying to act like nobody took this seriously. The article makes it quite clear this was handled as a serious problem and steps taken. The Alaska Airlines' pilots union is both qualified to have an opinion AND looking out primarily for their members (i.e., pilots), and they had this to say: > The data “confirms that the airplane was safely airborne with runway remaining and at an altitude by the end of the runway that was well within regulatory safety margins,” said the union’s Alaska unit chair, Will McQuillen, in a statement. If the union was unhappy with the remediation steps taken, they'd say so. That is quite literally their primary function.
- lisper 4y ago
  > This was a situation where it was off, but still "sane," No. The margin for error in jets is very small. Jets are much less forgiving than Cessna 172s. The difference between a tail strike and a failed takeoff is very small, easily under the threshold of human perception until it's too late. Also, the whole point of using this software in the first place is so that every takeoff is done right on the hairy edge of minimal performance. It is a catastrophe waiting to happen. This was a wakeup call. > If the union was unhappy with the remediation steps taken, they'd say so. It is quite possible that no one in the union appreciates the broader implications. Pilots are generally not software engineers.
  - Someone1234 4y ago
    So your point is that professional airline pilots, their union, or an airline are less qualified to understand the safety implications of this incident than a PPL because that PPL is also a software engineer? Are you familiar with the Dunning–Kruger effect[0] and how it may be playing a role in your perspective of this incident? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    - lisper 4y ago
      > because that PPL is also a software engineer? Not just for that reason. I'm also not bound by the political constraints that union leaders are. They have to pick their battles. I'm free to say whatever I want about this with little risk to my career. But yes, I think I understand software -- and particularly software risks -- better than most pilots, and I think I understand flying better than most software engineers, so I think that makes my opinion better informed than most. (It is nonetheless just an opinion.) > Are you familiar with the Dunning–Kruger effect Yes. Are you familiar with the ad hominem fallacy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
      - Someone1234 4y ago
        > Are you familiar with the ad hominem fallacy? It doesn't apply. When an argument is backed by someone's qualifications (in this case PPL and software developer), discussing the merit of those qualifications for the discussion domain is absolutely relevant. Your first reply to this thread started off with: > Private pilot here. And now that I'm calling into question how relevant that is, or more to the point if you're in a position to know better than the pilot union/airline/etc, it is suddenly Ad hominem. Cannot have it both ways, either your qualifications make your opinion more relevant or they don't. But pick a lane. The implication with calling it Ad hominem though is that your qualifications aren't relevant, which I happen to agree with, and actually that was my point.
        4y ago
- singleshot_ 4y ago
  I agree with almost all that you said, but I seem to remember that Air Florida flight 90 crashed killing almost everyone aboard because the throttle settings were too low and no one figured it out until they were airborne and out of ground effect.