Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday March 27 2019, @03:43AM   Printer-friendly
from the do-the-crew-get-hazard-pay? dept.

Southwest Boeing 737 Max makes emergency landing in Orlando; FAA cites engine issue unrelated to recent crashes

The crew of a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 Max declared an emergency shortly after takeoff and returned to Orlando's main airport on Tuesday after reporting an engine problem, the Federal Aviation Administration said.

The FAA grounded this type of aircraft earlier this month following two fatal crashes of the popular model.

Airlines aren't allowed to fly passengers under the FAA's order. The Southwest plane, which was not carrying passengers, was bound for Victorville, Calif., where the carrier is storing the aircraft in a facility in the western Mojave Desert.

[...] The FAA said it is investigating the Southwest incident on Tuesday and that the issue was not related to other concerns about the 737 Max that led the agency to ground the plane.

Also at CNN.

See also: Boeing is handling the 737 Max crisis all wrong

Previously: Second 737 MAX8 Airplane Crash Reinforces Speculation on Flying System Problems
Boeing 737 Max Aircraft Grounded in the U.S. and Dozens of Other Countries
DoJ Issues Subpoenas in 737 Max Investigation
Pilot Who Hitched a Ride Saved Lion Air 737 Day Before Deadly Crash
Airline Cancels $4.9 Billion Boeing 737 MAX Order; Doomed Planes Lacked Optional Safety Features


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by RS3 on Wednesday March 27 2019, @04:37PM

    by RS3 (6367) on Wednesday March 27 2019, @04:37PM (#820748)

    You sound like the AC who eloquently explained to me much about bigger plane dynamics, trim, etc. If so, thank you again.

    I understand your position, but I'm still torn. As an engineer, I feel it's my job to design UI to fit the human, including the general user. Of course much training is needed to safely fly any plane. You've established the fact (and I believe you) that some pilots aren't super astute. Given that fact, airplane manufacturers should design UI to be more foolproof. Killing a bunch of innocent people who have no say in how the plane is flown is not acceptable. Blaming deaths on inept pilots is not okay when the system could have been designed differently, in consideration of possibly inept pilots.

    I wish they would release "black box" voice / data sooner. I'm very anxious to know what exactly those pilots thought was happening when the plane rotated itself so violently, and kept fighting the UI. I don't know, but I've gotten hints that big jets might have several levels of autopilot. Regardless, did they definitely turn all autopilots off? If so, then I strongly blame Boeing and MCAS.

    Is "if the trim wheels start spinning wildly, in opposition to your direct command, turn off this switch" part of _all_ jet pilot training?

    For me much of this whole thing comes down to who's right in the heat of the moment: the machine, sensors, and their product managers, or the human (pilot)?

    We all know human error is often the major factor in many accidents. But when the human operator (pilot) repeatedly contradicts the machine's decisions, maybe the machine should disable itself and let the human know? From what I've read, we already have that behavior in many autopilot systems.

    How about this point of view: I'm going to play the part of a QC design reviewer (Boeing, FAA, NTSB, whoever) talking to the 737 product design mgt. team: "Okay, you want the MAX plane to fly like a non-MAX. What is the contingency plan for when the MCAS fails during flight?"

    Yes, you (or other AC) have established that engine thrust is a major factor in how big jets handle, so the pilots already know that. If I was a pilot, I'd rather know that "there's an automatic compensation system in this plane, and like any tech., it might fail and you'll have to be aware that engine thrust will affect this plane differently than you're used to." I'm pretty sure I could figure it out, as long as I'm told that is the case.

    A couple of days ago I had to drive a fairly large rental vehicle 300+ miles. I'm not trained, nor used to such vehicles, but I'm astute enough to know it's different, it's going to take longer to stop, quick / jerky steering inputs might cause big disaster, too much side g-force also -> disaster, etc. But if I was wearing VR goggles that fooled me into thinking I was driving a Lambo, I surely would have wrecked.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3