4 ms·

The title here and the text of TFA reduce the incident to a single point of failure. There are conditions in which the TO/GA mode when engaged will fail to set

The title here and the text of TFA reduce the incident to a single point of failure. There are conditions in which the TO/GA mode when engaged will fail to set the calculated and the crew is required to manually set the takeoff thrust. Confirmation of takeoff thrust set should be called out. Was that done? Boeing is under justifiably intense scrutiny for many of its manufacturing and engineering practices but the press needs to apply intellectual honesty in reporting incidents like this. It seems that the crew may have known that the thrust was not properly set when TO/GA was engaged and then manually set an incorrect thrust. Like many incidents, this is likely to have layered causes. Why not report that upfront?

gklitz 2y ago
> Boeing is under justifiably intense scrutiny for many of its manufacturing and engineering practices Well that yes, but not just the engineering and manufacturing practices or apparent lack of safety, also the extremely suspicious conditions of the deaths of whistleblowers who came forwards against them. So far two are dead.
- dash2 2y ago
  This is a conspiracy theory. At least one of the deaths is not suspicious, and the person's family have said so themselves.
  - peterfirefly 2y ago
    “To lose one parent, Mr. Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.”
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action."
  - marginalia_nu 2y ago
    Well, yes, it's the very definition of a conspiracy theory. That doesn't mean it's automatically false though.
    - illiac786 2y ago
      > Well, yes, it's the very definition of a conspiracy theory What is? > That doesn't mean it's automatically false though. No, just significantly less likely than the other going theories. Note that I wouldn’t put it past Boeing (or actually, more likely, a Boeing investor) to kill. But without any evidence I’d refrain to make such accusations.
      - marginalia_nu 2y ago
        > No, just significantly less likely than the other going theories. The likelihood of the explanation needs to be balanced with the unlikelihood of the two already unlikely events happening independently of each other. When you're seeing statistically unlikely events, it's downright reasonable to examine whether the game is rigged somehow. One whistleblower dropping dead is curious timing, but ultimately plausible; it's a stressful situation after all. Two of them drop dead? While it's not established beyond reasonable doubt based on the unlieky timing and strong motive alone, some sort of conspiracy to retaliate against the whistleblowers is definitely one of the less far fetched theories. Weird and oddly personal criminal behavior is something that happens in the corporate world[1] [1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/investigation-ebay-employees-stalk-harass-couple-60-minutes-transcript-2023-03-26/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/investigation-ebay-employees-st...
        illiac786 2y ago
        But if one has been confirmed as natural, then we’re back to > One whistleblower dropping dead is curious timing right? I like some cold statistics too but in this case I wouldn’t say they support some machiavellic scenario.
  - shafyy 2y ago
    The conspiracy theory is that Boeing hired somebody to kill the whistleblowers. But even if they committed suicide (which is more likely), it is because of the immense pressure but on them by Boeing. Which, in my book, is as bad as hiring a hitman.
    - lamontcg 2y ago
      The guy who died of MRSA in a hospital didn't die of suicide. That is a failure of our healthcare system.
Dalewyn 2y ago
>Why not report that upfront? Because it doesn't pay to be honest.
- ArdentAardvark 2y ago
  I don't see any dishonesty here. Boeing has designed a system that sets up pilots for failure. It's Boeing's fault, not the pilots', that the auto-throttle disengages for no reason and that they then have to manually set the correct thrust during an already high workload situation. It's absurd and unacceptable. This is the kind of unsafe work culture that I thought we were done with in aviation.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    Blaming Boeing and only Boeing is intellectual dishonesty, blaming the pilots for failing to fly their plane is also necessary. Remember, TOGA and autothrottle are not necessary for safe flight. It is also explicitly a pilot's job to manage the engines among many other things. It's why there are two pilots in the cockpit, one is in control of the aircraft while the other is keeping tabs on secondary and tertiary needs like radios and cross checking instruments with the pilot in control. If the aircraft isn't accelerating properly, it is the pilots' job to respond including rejecting the takeoff before it's too late. Takeoff is by far the most stressful part of a flight for the engines, if the pilots are not keeping close tabs on the engines during takeoff then they are fundamentally unfit to fly. Blaming Boeing and only Boeing is dishonest and doesn't address the problem, but it does pay the medias' bills by stoking the furor of readers such as yourself.
    - TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
      TOGA and A/T are not necessary, but if they're supplied they should work reliably. If they don't, and pilots have to cover for their failures manually, that's one more avoidable point of failure. Adding one more avoidable point of failure is NOT acceptable.
      - 2y ago
VBprogrammer 2y ago
There is a lot of basic airmanship which has failed here. For example from your first day of PPL training you are taught to backup the throttles during takeoff and at low altitude to avoid them creeping backwards. You are also taught to cross check that you've achieved half the rotation speed at 1/3 of the runway available. Obviously these practices are less applicable to an airliner but the basics are still there. The pilots should be monitoring engine performance and acceleration to avoid these type of issues. In this case it was a software bug but it would be just as easy for it to have been a wrongly input takeoff weight or temperature to affect the calculated TOGA power.
shadowgovt 2y ago
It's also a circumstance where even if the problem is known, the correct solution may not be to fix it on already flying models. Complicated professional transportation infrastructure isn't like a web app. Pilots become familiar with the quirks of the machine, and changes to said quirks sometimes require recertification or reevaluation; otherwise, they could jeopardize passenger safety as new behavior interferes with pilots' learned routines. It is reminiscent of the problem with the Apollo flight computer where it was known that rerunning the initialization program mid-flight would put the machine in a state where it had no understanding of its current position, but because they had already woven the computer core the solution was to come up with a way to restore flight state and correct the error instead of making the error impossible.
amelius 2y ago
Shouldn't there be a design rule that if an automatic setting can fail, then it should be completely manual?
- yuliyp 2y ago
  No. Every system can fail. Manual systems fail too (people aren't perfect). Having an automated system there for most of the time when it's more likely to do the right thing than a human is still good for the overall reliability of the system.
  - amelius 2y ago
    True, but in this case there was a __known__ bug.
  - amelius 2y ago
    Another rule could be that the system should sometimes set a random value and then when the pilot doesn't catch it there should be an automatic report about it (and the plane should refuse to start).

gklitz 2y ago

> Boeing is under justifiably intense scrutiny for many of its manufacturing and engineering practices Well that yes, but not just the engineering and manufacturing practices or apparent lack of safety, also the extremely suspicious conditions of the deaths of whistleblowers who came forwards against them. So far two are dead.

dash2 2y ago
This is a conspiracy theory. At least one of the deaths is not suspicious, and the person's family have said so themselves.
- peterfirefly 2y ago
  “To lose one parent, Mr. Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.”
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action."
- marginalia_nu 2y ago
  Well, yes, it's the very definition of a conspiracy theory. That doesn't mean it's automatically false though.
  - illiac786 2y ago
    > Well, yes, it's the very definition of a conspiracy theory What is? > That doesn't mean it's automatically false though. No, just significantly less likely than the other going theories. Note that I wouldn’t put it past Boeing (or actually, more likely, a Boeing investor) to kill. But without any evidence I’d refrain to make such accusations.
    - marginalia_nu 2y ago
      > No, just significantly less likely than the other going theories. The likelihood of the explanation needs to be balanced with the unlikelihood of the two already unlikely events happening independently of each other. When you're seeing statistically unlikely events, it's downright reasonable to examine whether the game is rigged somehow. One whistleblower dropping dead is curious timing, but ultimately plausible; it's a stressful situation after all. Two of them drop dead? While it's not established beyond reasonable doubt based on the unlieky timing and strong motive alone, some sort of conspiracy to retaliate against the whistleblowers is definitely one of the less far fetched theories. Weird and oddly personal criminal behavior is something that happens in the corporate world[1] [1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/investigation-ebay-employees-stalk-harass-couple-60-minutes-transcript-2023-03-26/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/investigation-ebay-employees-st...
      - illiac786 2y ago
        But if one has been confirmed as natural, then we’re back to > One whistleblower dropping dead is curious timing right? I like some cold statistics too but in this case I wouldn’t say they support some machiavellic scenario.
- shafyy 2y ago
  The conspiracy theory is that Boeing hired somebody to kill the whistleblowers. But even if they committed suicide (which is more likely), it is because of the immense pressure but on them by Boeing. Which, in my book, is as bad as hiring a hitman.
  - lamontcg 2y ago
    The guy who died of MRSA in a hospital didn't die of suicide. That is a failure of our healthcare system.

Dalewyn 2y ago

>Why not report that upfront? Because it doesn't pay to be honest.

ArdentAardvark 2y ago
I don't see any dishonesty here. Boeing has designed a system that sets up pilots for failure. It's Boeing's fault, not the pilots', that the auto-throttle disengages for no reason and that they then have to manually set the correct thrust during an already high workload situation. It's absurd and unacceptable. This is the kind of unsafe work culture that I thought we were done with in aviation.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  Blaming Boeing and only Boeing is intellectual dishonesty, blaming the pilots for failing to fly their plane is also necessary. Remember, TOGA and autothrottle are not necessary for safe flight. It is also explicitly a pilot's job to manage the engines among many other things. It's why there are two pilots in the cockpit, one is in control of the aircraft while the other is keeping tabs on secondary and tertiary needs like radios and cross checking instruments with the pilot in control. If the aircraft isn't accelerating properly, it is the pilots' job to respond including rejecting the takeoff before it's too late. Takeoff is by far the most stressful part of a flight for the engines, if the pilots are not keeping close tabs on the engines during takeoff then they are fundamentally unfit to fly. Blaming Boeing and only Boeing is dishonest and doesn't address the problem, but it does pay the medias' bills by stoking the furor of readers such as yourself.
  - TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
    TOGA and A/T are not necessary, but if they're supplied they should work reliably. If they don't, and pilots have to cover for their failures manually, that's one more avoidable point of failure. Adding one more avoidable point of failure is NOT acceptable.
    - 2y ago

VBprogrammer 2y ago

There is a lot of basic airmanship which has failed here. For example from your first day of PPL training you are taught to backup the throttles during takeoff and at low altitude to avoid them creeping backwards. You are also taught to cross check that you've achieved half the rotation speed at 1/3 of the runway available. Obviously these practices are less applicable to an airliner but the basics are still there. The pilots should be monitoring engine performance and acceleration to avoid these type of issues. In this case it was a software bug but it would be just as easy for it to have been a wrongly input takeoff weight or temperature to affect the calculated TOGA power.

shadowgovt 2y ago

It's also a circumstance where even if the problem is known, the correct solution may not be to fix it on already flying models. Complicated professional transportation infrastructure isn't like a web app. Pilots become familiar with the quirks of the machine, and changes to said quirks sometimes require recertification or reevaluation; otherwise, they could jeopardize passenger safety as new behavior interferes with pilots' learned routines. It is reminiscent of the problem with the Apollo flight computer where it was known that rerunning the initialization program mid-flight would put the machine in a state where it had no understanding of its current position, but because they had already woven the computer core the solution was to come up with a way to restore flight state and correct the error instead of making the error impossible.

amelius 2y ago

Shouldn't there be a design rule that if an automatic setting can fail, then it should be completely manual?

yuliyp 2y ago
No. Every system can fail. Manual systems fail too (people aren't perfect). Having an automated system there for most of the time when it's more likely to do the right thing than a human is still good for the overall reliability of the system.
- amelius 2y ago
  True, but in this case there was a __known__ bug.
- amelius 2y ago
  Another rule could be that the system should sometimes set a random value and then when the pilot doesn't catch it there should be an automatic report about it (and the plane should refuse to start).