[HN Gopher] Boeing Backs Simulator Training for 737 Max Pilots i...
___________________________________________________________________
Boeing Backs Simulator Training for 737 Max Pilots in Reversal
Author : JumpCrisscross
Score : 28 points
Date : 2020-01-07 22:18 UTC (41 minutes ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bloomberg.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bloomberg.com)
| qaq wrote:
| How much does it cost per pilot is it really that bad?
| CodeSheikh wrote:
| What difference does it make when the actual hardware is still
| flawed? I still refuse to fly in 737 MAX and its variants. Boeing
| can convince AA and Southwest pilots to give them vote of
| confidence but consumers are not stupid.
| alkonaut wrote:
| If the hardware is fixed (redundant sensors where necessary
| etc., but obviously not "smaller engines") and the software is
| fixed, and training is fixed so pilots can handle the
| situations that can occur, and authorities believe the plane is
| safe - then I believe the plane is safe. It's at least then
| _safe enough_ that I wouldn't pay hundreds of dollars to avoid
| it. Would I prefer an A320neo departing from the next gate at
| the same price? Sure.
| SilasX wrote:
| > and authorities believe the plane is safe
|
| After the FAA let themselves get hoodwinked by Boeing, this
| means a lot less than it used to, and it will take time to
| restore a reputation for being a legit independent check.
| pageandrew wrote:
| If pilots and pilot unions are satisfied with the results, I'm
| satisfied with the results. There's no-one more safety
| conscious in the aviation industry than pilots, since they're
| responsible for the souls on board their aircraft, including
| their own.
| r00fus wrote:
| They should be forced to add the 3-sensor config on the plane
| and have that supported by the MCAS for all planes.
|
| A single sensor failing and causing unlimited automatic
| shifts in pitch is a nightmare I will not fly on.
| phire wrote:
| The new software has been updated to use both sensors. It
| won't activate when sensors disagree by more than 5.5
| degrees.
|
| The new software now only does a single stabilizer
| movement. They have eliminated all known failure conditions
| which might cause multiple movements.
|
| With only a single movement, the pilots will be able to
| counteract the force.
|
| Two sensors is not quite as good as three sensors. It can't
| know which sensor is bad. But it can disable itself and
| prevent unintended activations.
|
| The new software, when combined with adequate pilot
| simulator training to both disable MCAS when it encounters
| an issue, and to fly the plane in with MCAS disabled makes
| things safe enough.
| qaq wrote:
| It's no longer unlimited
| hetspookjee wrote:
| Well, that's a relief.
| comex wrote:
| And it's now 2-sensor.
| cameldrv wrote:
| The fix means MCAS doesn't activate unless two sensors
| roughly agree, and it only activates once, which means that
| the plane is still controllable with just the yoke after
| MCAS activation. MCAS will also deactivate if the yoke is
| pulled back (questionable IMO, since it is supposed to
| compensate for mishandling), and you can leave the electric
| trim on and undo what MCAS did without fear of it
| activating again.
|
| IMO the risk of a mistaken activation that leads to an
| accident is extremely remote with these changes.
| peteradio wrote:
| I thought the MCAS would typically be activated while the
| pilot would already be pulling pack on the yoke. So I'm a
| little confused under what circumstances MCAS would ever
| activate. Does it activate while yoke is pulled back but
| the pilot can additionally yank harder to deactivate?
| mrtksn wrote:
| Their jobs are on the line too which complicates things. I
| don't recall many pilots expressing distrust towards Boineng
| and FAA, the narrative always was "Don't worry, the issue is
| handled by professionals, these planes are safe". The planes
| turned out not to be safe.
| pfundstein wrote:
| The pilots weren't aware of the issue, or how to disable
| MCAS.
| mrtksn wrote:
| So their claims of safety were not well informed?
|
| I think that's not the case, I think the problem is that
| they trust a system that got corrupted or never was that
| robust in the first place.
|
| Seeing how this thing unfolded, I don't really believe
| that people making claims are in good authority to do
| those claims.
| stefan_ wrote:
| Consumers are not stupid? Most of them (are) drive(n) to the
| airport in cars. That is the most dangerous part of the whole
| journey.
| mrtksn wrote:
| I always suspect that this claim is based on somewhat
| dishonest play with statistics but never seen anybody
| conveying the message dug deeper.
|
| Safer in what regard?
| FartyMcFarter wrote:
| It is still stupid to get into a plane that is vastly less
| safe than others for no good reason.
| alkonaut wrote:
| The reason is usually that it's several hundred dollars
| more expensive to take the second cheapest flight. Or
| requires a stopover.
|
| And if you aren't aware of what plane is operating your
| flight then you risk having to cancel very late and re-book
| a likely much more expensive ticket.
| DuskStar wrote:
| > And if you aren't aware of what plane is operating your
| flight then you risk having to cancel very late and re-
| book a likely much more expensive ticket.
|
| I always try to select my seats at time of booking, which
| requires knowing the model+revision of the plane. Is that
| weird?
| DuskStar wrote:
| It's only vastly less safe as a multiple to the other
| options, and not unsafe on an absolute basis.
|
| Similarly, driving NYC to LA is vastly less safe than
| flying from NYC to LA commercially. That doesn't make the
| roads unsafe.
| tus88 wrote:
| Isn't the MAX still grounded?
| GiorgioG wrote:
| Toooooo...late!
| prostaff wrote:
| This is all because of the McDonnell Douglas team when Boeing
| took them over.
|
| www.aeroworxglobal.com
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Had Boeing done this six months ago the MAX might be in the air
| right now.
| nsxwolf wrote:
| Had they done it even before that a lot of people might still
| be alive.
| Someone1234 wrote:
| I don't believe that's accurate. The 737 Max failed re-
| certification multiple times with additional fixes being needed
| (the most recent of which was in the last week[0], with the
| wire harness issue).
|
| [0] https://simpleflying.com/737-max-wiring-scrutiny/
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-01-07 23:00 UTC)