4 ms·

Aviation standards allow boeing building their infamous 737-Max

by mrheosuper 1y ago

cosmicgadget 1y ago
That wasn't a malfunction but rather a flight control feature the pilots didn't know about. (Iirc)
- joha4270 1y ago
  That's a very Boeing friendly way of putting it. As I understand it, yes the system worked as designed, but the design still managed to kill several hundred people. I'm not qualified to evaluate the design of the system itself. Was it inherently flawed or would everything have been fine if the optional backup sensor had been mandatory, making this another example of corporate greed causing tragedy? Either way, I don't think blaming the pilots is fair.
  - cosmicgadget 1y ago
    My recollection is it applied flight control input when the pilots did not expect it. The system was documented but not present on other 737 models. Definitely not trying to be Boeing friendly fwiw.
    - joha4270 1y ago
      Yeah, that matches my understanding. It was the > a flight control feature the pilots didn't know about phrasing that made me take issue. To me, it implies that if just the pilots had known about MCAS in detail, the crashes wouldn't have happened, implicitly placing the blame on them. While the reason for both the faulty system and the lack of knowledge can be attributed to Boeing trying to save money, which I think is a more fair target for blame.
- mrheosuper 1y ago
  a feature that is activated when SINGLE sensor goes haywire instead of two
- m000 1y ago
  But that's the point! A professional pilot misunderstood/was unaware of a new safety feature, despite their professional experience and continuous training. So, is it really sane to put similar features in cars, where you get your driving licence at 16/18, and then that's it? This also goes for the huge screens on the console. A pilot has been trained for each commercial aircraft model they fly to navigate their way around the numerous controls. But putting a tablet in front of an untrained driver? It sells well because it makes you feel as a pilot. But at the same time, it is a huge distraction and there is zero training to cope with it.
  - cosmicgadget 1y ago
    Ah I misread the comment as being about design quality rather than documentation and training.
raxxorraxor 1y ago
It was Boeing that intentionally hid the importance of a system much more relevant than flight characteristics of a plane. That is an intentional violation of the spirit of the safety checks.

Aviation standards allow boeing building their infamous 737-Max

cosmicgadget 1y ago

That wasn't a malfunction but rather a flight control feature the pilots didn't know about. (Iirc)

joha4270 1y ago
That's a very Boeing friendly way of putting it. As I understand it, yes the system worked as designed, but the design still managed to kill several hundred people. I'm not qualified to evaluate the design of the system itself. Was it inherently flawed or would everything have been fine if the optional backup sensor had been mandatory, making this another example of corporate greed causing tragedy? Either way, I don't think blaming the pilots is fair.
- cosmicgadget 1y ago
  My recollection is it applied flight control input when the pilots did not expect it. The system was documented but not present on other 737 models. Definitely not trying to be Boeing friendly fwiw.
  - joha4270 1y ago
    Yeah, that matches my understanding. It was the > a flight control feature the pilots didn't know about phrasing that made me take issue. To me, it implies that if just the pilots had known about MCAS in detail, the crashes wouldn't have happened, implicitly placing the blame on them. While the reason for both the faulty system and the lack of knowledge can be attributed to Boeing trying to save money, which I think is a more fair target for blame.
mrheosuper 1y ago
a feature that is activated when SINGLE sensor goes haywire instead of two
m000 1y ago
But that's the point! A professional pilot misunderstood/was unaware of a new safety feature, despite their professional experience and continuous training. So, is it really sane to put similar features in cars, where you get your driving licence at 16/18, and then that's it? This also goes for the huge screens on the console. A pilot has been trained for each commercial aircraft model they fly to navigate their way around the numerous controls. But putting a tablet in front of an untrained driver? It sells well because it makes you feel as a pilot. But at the same time, it is a huge distraction and there is zero training to cope with it.
- cosmicgadget 1y ago
  Ah I misread the comment as being about design quality rather than documentation and training.

raxxorraxor 1y ago

It was Boeing that intentionally hid the importance of a system much more relevant than flight characteristics of a plane. That is an intentional violation of the spirit of the safety checks.