As someone who flew a Boeing plane for a long time, if it’s true they released a stick pusher (automatic trim) that would dump the nose,[1] couldn’t be overridden by pulling back on the stick as in previous versions of the aircraft,[2] but only by disconnecting the automatic trim then manually trimming the aircraft, was tied to only one AOA sensor, and then felt this was too much information for “pilots”.[3] Wow. Seems like engineers on the ground and business leaders making decisions that ended up costing lives. Pilot error seems like a scapegoat here. Even a well trained pilot on a bad day might not handle a nose down situation after takeoff well, especially when the intuitive solution of pulling back on the stick had been disabled.
While this may not be the cause of the most recent crash, the Lion crash alone seems to indicate a problem with Boeing and the FAA’s relationship. This probably extends to Airbus and other regulators as indicated in another comment about his or her carriers safety incidents tripling due to flying two aircraft of the same “type” but not really.[4] At a minimum the MCAS changes should have been communicated to pilots and indicates a process problem at Boeing with insufficient pilot involvement and too much engineering and business input. And the FAA probably needs to be much stricter in the training and documentation requirements between models.
Some points from personal experience from working at Boeing, family working at Boeing, and a close friend on the flight line for the 737-8;
- not everything is back from the Lion Air incident, but internally there was strong confidence that a lack of pilot familiarity with the adjusted mechanics of MCAS contributed to the disaster
- reproducing these failures has been extremely hard and has required a lot of cooperation with other airlines and agencies, and that has been difficult
- training for the 737-8 and -9 was just short of non existent because in practice, these planes don’t fly differently.
- since Lion Air, Boeing has been in somewhat of a “panic mode” but confidence isn’t that the airframe and engine mechanics are at fault
- Lion and Ethiopian Air are near the bottom when it comes to maintenance and follow up with Boeing
- as of this morning, it sounded like there are more uncertainties with this incident given that the pilot indicated troubles after take off, but I’m find it hard to back up that claim in what’s already been published
This isn’t about greed or the FAA being in the pocket of Boeing, it’s that there were already adjustments made to fix MCAS and the investigation from Ethiopia isn’t in yet.
"My post flight evaluation is that we lacked the knowledge to operate the aircraft in all weather and aircraft states safely.
The instrumentation is completely different - My scan was degraded, slow and labored having had no experience w/ the new ND (Navigation Display) and ADI (Attitude Director Indicator) presentations/format or functions (manipulation between the screens and systems pages were not provided in training materials. If they were, I had no recollection of that material).
We were unable to navigate to systems pages and lacked the knowledge of what systems information was available to us in the different phases of flight. Our weather radar competency was inadequate to safely navigate significant weather on that dark and stormy night. These are just a few issues that were not addressed in our training."
> - Lion and Ethiopian Air are near the bottom when it comes to maintenance and follow up with Boeing
Another commenter mentioned that Ethiopian Airline is considered Category 1 by the FAA, and is a member of the Star Alliance. Surely that indicates a decent track record?
I'm not saying it _is_ the plane, but as the EASA Emergency Airworthiness Directive points out, while a connection between the two incidents cannot be established, neither can one be ruled out. And for that reason, they are grounding the planes as a prudent temporary measure till we know more.
I am still convinced there is a problem with the plane based on simple probabilities. These are brand new planes so they shouldn’t be in a phase where failures multiply, and maintenance should be irrelevant unless these planes were delivered faulty. It’s a very small fleet compared to other models. Two extremely rare crashes (plane crashes are rare in general) within months of each others, with the same model, same phase of the flight, what is the probability that it is not related to the plane? It has to be statistically insignificant.
Now it may be a lack of pilot training, but by Boeing’s own account a B737 pilot should be qualified to pilot a Max. Then how come a small, insignificant feature can result in the crash of the plane? It would have to be not insignificant at all.
Speaking as an engineer, we, sometimes, underestimate the relevance of a relatively minor system. We can't imagine all possible scenarios and that's why in every single decision with systems that are responsible for human lives there is a lot of people involved - because we rely on someone, at some point, imagining the scenario everyone else didn't. This reduces the odds of letting something important slip through, but it's not perfect and can't hope to be (and, sometimes, we have the grim reminders we aren't all-knowing)
We should not rush to conclusions, since one of the investigations is in its infancy, but, from all the pilot reports that have been accumulating since the introduction of these models, it looks like the impact of the differences between models in the 737 family on crews were underestimated and training for them was not as thorough as it should have been.
Lots of jumping to conclusions going on in this thread, blaming the FAA, lobbyists, and politicians for being in the pocket of Boeing.
Nobody knows why this plane crashed. The flight recorders have just been recovered and so far there has been nothing in the news about what was on them.
The plane might be to blame. The airline or the pilots might be to blame, and by the way, that airline has a bad safety record. It might have been a bomb, or a fire caused by a passenger, or many other things.
The sudden rush to judgment on this case is unjustified by the evidence. If it turns out this was not Boeing's fault, a lot of people are going to have to eat their words, and millions of dollars will have been wasted for nothing.
> The sudden rush to judgment on this case is unjustified by the evidence.
It might not be justified by a theoretical formal proof. It irks me that a lot of the HN population seems to always want to reason using formal proofs like if it was a silver bullet.
In this situation, bayesian inference is appropriate, and tells us that grounding planes is highly justified. This succession of two relatively similar events in a new plane is enough to raise the probability of "this aircraft model has a problem" a lot, and definitely enough to justify grounding them.
Also, the risk / benefit ratio is not symmetric, what is better:
- Ground them for nothing and lose money
- Not ground them to save money, and see a third crash happen, killing 150 again
If you take into account those two effects, it's clear that grounding the planes is a sane option.
Finally ask yourself: would you board this plane today if you had a ticket? What would you think when there is turbulence after takeoff and the plane suddenly pitches down for a second? What color would your pants be?
Nobody knows why this plane crashed. The flight recorders have just been recovered and so far there has been nothing in the news about what was on them.
Yes. And the recorders have angle of attack data. We'll know within days if it's another AOA sensor problem.
Southwest, the biggest US operator of 737 MAX aircraft, bought the "AOA Disagree" option on their aircraft, and recently added an AOA indicator.
Many operators didn't get that option; Lion Air didn't have it. If you have that, you get a warning that the flight control system is seeing bogus AOA data.
It is somewhat less of a safety issue if you have the backup systems.
Why this aircraft was ever offered without "AOA Disagree" sensing is unclear. The single active AOA sensor can force the nose down. The pilots can switch to the other flight control computer and use the other AOA sensor, but at that point they're losing control of the aircraft.
> The sudden rush to judgment on this case is unjustified by the evidence. If it turns out this was not Boeing's fault, a lot of people are going to have to eat their words, and millions of dollars will have been wasted for nothing.
The prudent thing would be to err on the side of caution and suspend it until we know. What's millions of dollars (which I think is way exaggerated for a temporary suspension until the evidence is in) compared to a real risk of loss of human lives?
> If it turns out this was not Boeing's fault, a lot of people are going to have to eat their words, and millions of dollars will have been wasted for nothing.
And if it turns out there is a fault, hundreds of lives can be saved. What losing side of the wager do you want to be on?
Let it be clear that even if Boeing is not at fault grounding the plane is the best course of action in front of the limited evidence. Insight is 20/20, but we don’t have it. There are 2 planes whose altitude was erratic before their crash and a plausible common scenario to explain them.
I have a hard time feeling bad for Boeing in this scenario — playing ball in aviation means assuming a huge amount of risk, and meeting a ridiculously high standard. In return they have a fairly captured market, and a huge amount of political power. Historically that means you ground a plane and take the loss until you figure out what’s going on.
Quite frankly I think it’s a bit sensationalist for people and the media to point fingers at the FAA for making “irresponsible decisions” and being beholden to lobbyists while conveniently ignoring their track record.
The FAA is notorious for their draconian ways which has become the impetus behind why air travel is now the safest mode of transportation today. In fact, there hasn't been a hull loss on US soil since 2009, a magnificent safety record.
The FAA is a very hands-on agency. There is an inherent difference to how planes are maintained that touch US soil vs. those in other parts of the world. For example, many planes that fly in South America would never pass FAA inspection and would never be considered airworthy. That means a flight itinerary of LAX-SCL vs. LAX-PTY-SCL are very different when it comes to safety since the plane that departs from Panama is not inspected by the FAA.
So not only is the FAA risking an insurmountable amount of fallout for making this statement, they also have the credibility and processes to stand behind it. With that said, I think it makes prudent sense for other countries to ground their 737 MAX planes since they simply don't have the FAA.
Is it possible that FAA has coasted on reputation? How do we know they have the stellar and true crew that they always did? Seems possible that regulatory capture has been occurring in the last decade and now we are seeing the consequences.
> With that said, I think it makes prudent sense for other countries to ground their 737 MAX planes since they simply don't have the FAA.
If a plane has enormous costs for maintenance then it should be justified for grounding or prevent them from buying.
This is very similar to cars. A car which is very costly to maintain but very reliable does not inspire much confidence for me when I am driving in remote areas. A car which is easy to maintain, reliable and with low costs and big service network with plenty of spare parts inspires a lot of confidence and I will take it anywhere.
The FAA rates Ethiopa at category 1 which means they can fly to and from US soil. In other words, this crash could've happened on US soil under the watchful eyes of the FAA.
From the Southwest Airlines Pilots Association statement released yesterday:
I have been in numerous conversations today with Southwest Vice President of Flight Operations Captain Alan Kasher, who informed me that the MAX aircraft has 17,000 recordable parameters and Southwest has compiled and analyzed a tremendous amount of data from more than 41,000 flights operated by the 34 MAX aircraft on property, and the data supports Southwest's continued confidence in the airworthiness and safety of the MAX.
I have also had conversations with TWU 556 President Lyn Montgomery, who represents Southwest Flight Attendants, AMFA National President Bret Oestreich, SWAPA Safety Committee and SWAPA Government Affairs Committee members, as well as leaders from other Pilot labor unions. I relayed to them that SWAPA is extremely confident that our entire fleet, including the MAX, is safe based on the facts, intelligence, data, and information we presently have. We fully support Southwest Airlines' decision to continue flying the MAX and the FAA's findings to date.
I will continue to put my family, friends, and loved ones on any Southwest flight and the main reason is you, the Pilots of SWAPA. We have lobbied hard for our training to continue to evolve and improve, and due to having the finest union Training and Standards Committee in the industry, that is
occurring.
We now have Extended Envelope Training (EET) in addition to our regular annual training and since SWAPA and others have brought awareness to the MCAS issue, we have additional resources to successfully deal with either a legitimate MCAS triggered event or a faulty triggered MCAS event.
SWAPA also has pushed hard for Angle of Attack (AOA) sensor displays to be put on all our aircraft and those are now being implemented into the fleet. All of these tools, in addition to SWAPA Pilots having the most experience on 737s in the industry, give me no pause that not only are our aircraft safe, but you are the safest 737 operators in the sky.
I don't get it. Airline workers, Ted Cruz, Mitt Romney and democratic senators are for suspending it, which China, the EU and Australia have already done.
All the listed people are in the legislative branch. The FAA is part of the executive branch. Short of passing a law that grounds the 737 MAX, legislators don't really have a say here.
Interestingly, Trump has also come out against the plane, but his uninformed Twitter ramblings are by and large (rightfully) ignored by the executive branch. And he's not against the 737 MAX for valid reasons, but for luddite ones.
What I dont understand is why the airlines themselves (Southwest and American) are refusing to halt the planes - this seems totally irresponsible with what is known at this point.
It’s pretty safe to assume that at this point every fricking pilot out there knows about MCAS and how to deal with it if this specific problematic behavior occurs.
What is known at this point is that another 737 Max crashed for some reason, which might have been unrelated to the cause of the last crash, while being flown by an airline with a questionable safety record.
If this turns out to have been a terrorist attack or something like that, a lot of people are going to have to eat their words, and millions of dollars will have been wasted for nothing.
787's were grounded in 2013 for battery related issues, when it was a new airplane make/model. There were emergency landings, but no crashes. Here we have crashes, and no grounding. At the time of the grounding there were 50 affected aircraft, lasting from January to April. Grounding 737 MAX 8's would be ~350 groundings, and ostensibly could include MAX 9's.
Looks like it only took two events for the FAA to ground them. I think they were instantly grounded because everyone knew the dangers of lithium-ion batteries catching fire.
'But the FAA said that other civil aviation authorities had not "provided data to us that would warrant action".'
Pretty sure the data is that two planes crashed in five months in perfect weather conditions, killing everyone on board. Statistically, that's sufficiently improbable that it warrants investigation.
Will this basically be negated by enough other countries grounding it though? It seems to me that if the EU, China, the UK, and other major countries are all grounding it then many others are likely to follow suit basically making it irrelevant if there are one or two holdouts (even if one of them is the U.S.)
At that point, not only will Boeing be at fault, but heads at FAA as well.
On the other hand, FAA is known to be very strict when it comes to safety. So, I feel like they must think that US pilots are trained for what the alleged issue seems to be (MCAS).
From a customer perspective I would have appreciated a joint approach of the major aviation agencies. The way it is handled right now, I can’t judge whether the EU is reacting shortsighted or if the US is too careless. One seems to be true?
As a customer, what stake do you personally have in this plane not being grounded? Isn't it always better to be cautious, like the EU/China seem to be?
It's easier for the EU, they don't have many MAX planes. It's likely too early to say something definitive and in times of social medial pressure one conformes if possible.
Can someone with flight experience help me with this question?
So, MCAS is watching the AOA sensor and dipping the nose to prevent aerodynamic stall. When activated (and altering the pilots loudly) what would happen to airspeed in the valid-AOA and borked-AOA sensor states? I would have thought in the bogus-AOA case, airspeed would be increasing MUCH faster? Is this factored into regarding validation of the AOA input? Or are airspeed indicators unreliable near aerodynamic stall? Or ..? It just feels like MCAS should be able to detect the contradiction state from other variables without requiring the pilot to act.
I feel that the US have lost in reputation here while, e.g. China has gained. It didn't have to be that way.
China was the first to ban the 737 MAX. When they did it people could counter that it was political. But since so many countries, including some of the US's closest allies, have followed suit then they have come out as being serious and safety-conscious.
On the other hand, by refusing to ban the US are seen as putting corporate interests above safety.
Personally, I think the least risky/safest approach is for the FAA to follow its normal procedures.
Changing them on-the-fly leads to ambiguity up and down the line, which leads to mistakes and gaps.
Of course, I don't know for sure what that actually means in this case. But I'd guess if the lobbyist head of the FAA were blocking a grounding recommendation, that would leak in about a millisecond, so I'm guessing the FAA is investigating this normally.
Does anyone know if this system could just be safely turned off? It seems to be a system that automates the stall avoidance when the plane hits a stall warning. It seems that all pilots should know how to avoid stalls and how to deal with them when they happen. As long as the stall warning still happens, I don't see an issue with turning off the stall avoidance system.
[+] [-] poof131|7 years ago|reply
While this may not be the cause of the most recent crash, the Lion crash alone seems to indicate a problem with Boeing and the FAA’s relationship. This probably extends to Airbus and other regulators as indicated in another comment about his or her carriers safety incidents tripling due to flying two aircraft of the same “type” but not really.[4] At a minimum the MCAS changes should have been communicated to pilots and indicates a process problem at Boeing with insufficient pilot involvement and too much engineering and business input. And the FAA probably needs to be much stricter in the training and documentation requirements between models.
[1] https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/u-s-p...
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19077371
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18438607
[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19376565
[+] [-] _cerv|7 years ago|reply
- not everything is back from the Lion Air incident, but internally there was strong confidence that a lack of pilot familiarity with the adjusted mechanics of MCAS contributed to the disaster
- reproducing these failures has been extremely hard and has required a lot of cooperation with other airlines and agencies, and that has been difficult
- training for the 737-8 and -9 was just short of non existent because in practice, these planes don’t fly differently.
- since Lion Air, Boeing has been in somewhat of a “panic mode” but confidence isn’t that the airframe and engine mechanics are at fault
- Lion and Ethiopian Air are near the bottom when it comes to maintenance and follow up with Boeing
- as of this morning, it sounded like there are more uncertainties with this incident given that the pilot indicated troubles after take off, but I’m find it hard to back up that claim in what’s already been published
This isn’t about greed or the FAA being in the pocket of Boeing, it’s that there were already adjustments made to fix MCAS and the investigation from Ethiopia isn’t in yet.
[+] [-] hnnmzh|7 years ago|reply
Have you read this complaint from an actual pilot?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19374386
Quoting the HN post:
"My post flight evaluation is that we lacked the knowledge to operate the aircraft in all weather and aircraft states safely.
The instrumentation is completely different - My scan was degraded, slow and labored having had no experience w/ the new ND (Navigation Display) and ADI (Attitude Director Indicator) presentations/format or functions (manipulation between the screens and systems pages were not provided in training materials. If they were, I had no recollection of that material).
We were unable to navigate to systems pages and lacked the knowledge of what systems information was available to us in the different phases of flight. Our weather radar competency was inadequate to safely navigate significant weather on that dark and stormy night. These are just a few issues that were not addressed in our training."
[+] [-] Svip|7 years ago|reply
Another commenter mentioned that Ethiopian Airline is considered Category 1 by the FAA, and is a member of the Star Alliance. Surely that indicates a decent track record?
I'm not saying it _is_ the plane, but as the EASA Emergency Airworthiness Directive points out, while a connection between the two incidents cannot be established, neither can one be ruled out. And for that reason, they are grounding the planes as a prudent temporary measure till we know more.
[+] [-] cm2187|7 years ago|reply
Now it may be a lack of pilot training, but by Boeing’s own account a B737 pilot should be qualified to pilot a Max. Then how come a small, insignificant feature can result in the crash of the plane? It would have to be not insignificant at all.
[+] [-] rbanffy|7 years ago|reply
We should not rush to conclusions, since one of the investigations is in its infancy, but, from all the pilot reports that have been accumulating since the introduction of these models, it looks like the impact of the differences between models in the 737 family on crews were underestimated and training for them was not as thorough as it should have been.
[+] [-] sundayfunday|7 years ago|reply
https://overcast.fm/+nmn7rqq0/06:04
It’s a short interview but in short,
* Boeing left out info on the new flight control system in the pilots manual they trained with
* the training to fly the new planes was 56 minutes of PowerPoint presentations on an iPad
* he would not have known how to correct the system in the Lion Air crash had he have been the pilot
[+] [-] chipsa|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] twblalock|7 years ago|reply
Nobody knows why this plane crashed. The flight recorders have just been recovered and so far there has been nothing in the news about what was on them.
The plane might be to blame. The airline or the pilots might be to blame, and by the way, that airline has a bad safety record. It might have been a bomb, or a fire caused by a passenger, or many other things.
The sudden rush to judgment on this case is unjustified by the evidence. If it turns out this was not Boeing's fault, a lot of people are going to have to eat their words, and millions of dollars will have been wasted for nothing.
[+] [-] crubier|7 years ago|reply
It might not be justified by a theoretical formal proof. It irks me that a lot of the HN population seems to always want to reason using formal proofs like if it was a silver bullet.
In this situation, bayesian inference is appropriate, and tells us that grounding planes is highly justified. This succession of two relatively similar events in a new plane is enough to raise the probability of "this aircraft model has a problem" a lot, and definitely enough to justify grounding them.
Also, the risk / benefit ratio is not symmetric, what is better:
- Ground them for nothing and lose money
- Not ground them to save money, and see a third crash happen, killing 150 again
If you take into account those two effects, it's clear that grounding the planes is a sane option.
Finally ask yourself: would you board this plane today if you had a ticket? What would you think when there is turbulence after takeoff and the plane suddenly pitches down for a second? What color would your pants be?
[+] [-] Animats|7 years ago|reply
Yes. And the recorders have angle of attack data. We'll know within days if it's another AOA sensor problem.
Southwest, the biggest US operator of 737 MAX aircraft, bought the "AOA Disagree" option on their aircraft, and recently added an AOA indicator. Many operators didn't get that option; Lion Air didn't have it. If you have that, you get a warning that the flight control system is seeing bogus AOA data. It is somewhat less of a safety issue if you have the backup systems.
Why this aircraft was ever offered without "AOA Disagree" sensing is unclear. The single active AOA sensor can force the nose down. The pilots can switch to the other flight control computer and use the other AOA sensor, but at that point they're losing control of the aircraft.
[+] [-] sankoz|7 years ago|reply
Could you substantiate the above claim ? Whatever I have read indicates Ethiopian has a very good safety record.
e.g. The airline has a safety rating of six stars out of a possible seven on respected aviation site AirlineRating.com. Source: https://thepointsguy.com/news/despite-recent-crash-ethiopian...
[+] [-] Legogris|7 years ago|reply
The prudent thing would be to err on the side of caution and suspend it until we know. What's millions of dollars (which I think is way exaggerated for a temporary suspension until the evidence is in) compared to a real risk of loss of human lives?
[+] [-] kalleboo|7 years ago|reply
And if it turns out there is a fault, hundreds of lives can be saved. What losing side of the wager do you want to be on?
[+] [-] nraynaud|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gdubs|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Axsuul|7 years ago|reply
The FAA is notorious for their draconian ways which has become the impetus behind why air travel is now the safest mode of transportation today. In fact, there hasn't been a hull loss on US soil since 2009, a magnificent safety record.
The FAA is a very hands-on agency. There is an inherent difference to how planes are maintained that touch US soil vs. those in other parts of the world. For example, many planes that fly in South America would never pass FAA inspection and would never be considered airworthy. That means a flight itinerary of LAX-SCL vs. LAX-PTY-SCL are very different when it comes to safety since the plane that departs from Panama is not inspected by the FAA.
So not only is the FAA risking an insurmountable amount of fallout for making this statement, they also have the credibility and processes to stand behind it. With that said, I think it makes prudent sense for other countries to ground their 737 MAX planes since they simply don't have the FAA.
[+] [-] bencoder|7 years ago|reply
Until 3 weeks ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Air_Flight_3591
[+] [-] dingaling|7 years ago|reply
Under the ODA scheme, the FAA delegated testing and certification of the 787 and 737-8 ( Max ) to Boeing.
That's not hands-on, that's arms-length.
[+] [-] peteradio|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mindentropy|7 years ago|reply
If a plane has enormous costs for maintenance then it should be justified for grounding or prevent them from buying.
This is very similar to cars. A car which is very costly to maintain but very reliable does not inspire much confidence for me when I am driving in remote areas. A car which is easy to maintain, reliable and with low costs and big service network with plenty of spare parts inspires a lot of confidence and I will take it anywhere.
[+] [-] lagadu|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] js2|7 years ago|reply
I have been in numerous conversations today with Southwest Vice President of Flight Operations Captain Alan Kasher, who informed me that the MAX aircraft has 17,000 recordable parameters and Southwest has compiled and analyzed a tremendous amount of data from more than 41,000 flights operated by the 34 MAX aircraft on property, and the data supports Southwest's continued confidence in the airworthiness and safety of the MAX.
I have also had conversations with TWU 556 President Lyn Montgomery, who represents Southwest Flight Attendants, AMFA National President Bret Oestreich, SWAPA Safety Committee and SWAPA Government Affairs Committee members, as well as leaders from other Pilot labor unions. I relayed to them that SWAPA is extremely confident that our entire fleet, including the MAX, is safe based on the facts, intelligence, data, and information we presently have. We fully support Southwest Airlines' decision to continue flying the MAX and the FAA's findings to date.
I will continue to put my family, friends, and loved ones on any Southwest flight and the main reason is you, the Pilots of SWAPA. We have lobbied hard for our training to continue to evolve and improve, and due to having the finest union Training and Standards Committee in the industry, that is occurring.
We now have Extended Envelope Training (EET) in addition to our regular annual training and since SWAPA and others have brought awareness to the MCAS issue, we have additional resources to successfully deal with either a legitimate MCAS triggered event or a faulty triggered MCAS event. SWAPA also has pushed hard for Angle of Attack (AOA) sensor displays to be put on all our aircraft and those are now being implemented into the fleet. All of these tools, in addition to SWAPA Pilots having the most experience on 737s in the industry, give me no pause that not only are our aircraft safe, but you are the safest 737 operators in the sky.
https://swaparesources.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets/pdf...
via https://www.swapa.org/
[+] [-] Legogris|7 years ago|reply
What's going on at the FAA?
[+] [-] CydeWeys|7 years ago|reply
Interestingly, Trump has also come out against the plane, but his uninformed Twitter ramblings are by and large (rightfully) ignored by the executive branch. And he's not against the 737 MAX for valid reasons, but for luddite ones.
[+] [-] tibbydudeza|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bookofjoe|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kerng|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sfilargi|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] js2|7 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19378827
[+] [-] twblalock|7 years ago|reply
If this turns out to have been a terrorist attack or something like that, a lot of people are going to have to eat their words, and millions of dollars will have been wasted for nothing.
[+] [-] tzakrajs|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cmurf|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] KindOne|7 years ago|reply
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-lithium-ion-b...
[+] [-] Emma_Goldman|7 years ago|reply
Pretty sure the data is that two planes crashed in five months in perfect weather conditions, killing everyone on board. Statistically, that's sufficiently improbable that it warrants investigation.
[+] [-] atlasunshrugged|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paxys|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jedi72|7 years ago|reply
It will cause a very big stink if one crashes in the US.
[+] [-] iscrewyou|7 years ago|reply
On the other hand, FAA is known to be very strict when it comes to safety. So, I feel like they must think that US pilots are trained for what the alleged issue seems to be (MCAS).
[+] [-] kartan|7 years ago|reply
And people will die and families will suffer.
[+] [-] Jach|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baxtr|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AsyncAwait|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] curiousgal|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] chappi42|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] verytrivial|7 years ago|reply
So, MCAS is watching the AOA sensor and dipping the nose to prevent aerodynamic stall. When activated (and altering the pilots loudly) what would happen to airspeed in the valid-AOA and borked-AOA sensor states? I would have thought in the bogus-AOA case, airspeed would be increasing MUCH faster? Is this factored into regarding validation of the AOA input? Or are airspeed indicators unreliable near aerodynamic stall? Or ..? It just feels like MCAS should be able to detect the contradiction state from other variables without requiring the pilot to act.
[+] [-] ElBarto|7 years ago|reply
I feel that the US have lost in reputation here while, e.g. China has gained. It didn't have to be that way.
China was the first to ban the 737 MAX. When they did it people could counter that it was political. But since so many countries, including some of the US's closest allies, have followed suit then they have come out as being serious and safety-conscious.
On the other hand, by refusing to ban the US are seen as putting corporate interests above safety.
[+] [-] jmull|7 years ago|reply
Changing them on-the-fly leads to ambiguity up and down the line, which leads to mistakes and gaps.
Of course, I don't know for sure what that actually means in this case. But I'd guess if the lobbyist head of the FAA were blocking a grounding recommendation, that would leak in about a millisecond, so I'm guessing the FAA is investigating this normally.
[+] [-] stingrae|7 years ago|reply