5 ms·

> the technological advances makes it the default state to be safer and safer every year. Technological advances also increase complexity which can increase ri

by janice1999 3y ago

> the technological advances makes it the default state to be safer and safer every year. Technological advances also increase complexity which can increase risk in unforeseen ways. Here is a perfect example where a single action within a 180 millisecond window was almost enough to crash a plane [0]. [0] https://youtu.be/UC9mItvA9T4 https://youtu.be/UC9mItvA9T4

Gare 3y ago
I think you have misinterpreted the video. It was a pilot error to initiate go-around after the thrust reversers have been deployed. And software preventing engine to increase (reverse) thrust when it sensed that aircraft is no longer on the ground is what probably saved the day compared to a similar previous incident that resulted in a crash. Could software be made to handle it even better? Absolutely. But it's not a software error per se that caused this.
- janice1999 3y ago
  You're missing the fact the engines were left in different configurations because of a subtle timing difference between the ECUs. That left the plane in an unstable state. The pilots actions were not an error per se - the video even emphasises that it is not banned in Europe and pilots on that one model alone do it once a month.
  - Gare 3y ago
    It's not a timing difference, one ECU controls the left engine and takes input from left weight-on-wheels sensor, the other controls the right engine and takes input from the right sensor. This is by design, it ensures redundant operation. It was just unfortunate timing that wheels on one side were up in the air while others were on the ground when go around was issued. > the video even emphasises that it is not banned in Europe No, what's strictly not demanded by EASA is that the manufacturers enable safe application of go-around thrust even if reversers have been deployed. Airbus implemented this nevertheless, but that was only tested with both wheels on the ground.

Gare 3y ago

I think you have misinterpreted the video. It was a pilot error to initiate go-around after the thrust reversers have been deployed. And software preventing engine to increase (reverse) thrust when it sensed that aircraft is no longer on the ground is what probably saved the day compared to a similar previous incident that resulted in a crash. Could software be made to handle it even better? Absolutely. But it's not a software error per se that caused this.

janice1999 3y ago
You're missing the fact the engines were left in different configurations because of a subtle timing difference between the ECUs. That left the plane in an unstable state. The pilots actions were not an error per se - the video even emphasises that it is not banned in Europe and pilots on that one model alone do it once a month.
- Gare 3y ago
  It's not a timing difference, one ECU controls the left engine and takes input from left weight-on-wheels sensor, the other controls the right engine and takes input from the right sensor. This is by design, it ensures redundant operation. It was just unfortunate timing that wheels on one side were up in the air while others were on the ground when go around was issued. > the video even emphasises that it is not banned in Europe No, what's strictly not demanded by EASA is that the manufacturers enable safe application of go-around thrust even if reversers have been deployed. Airbus implemented this nevertheless, but that was only tested with both wheels on the ground.