More MAX information

[Vraciu]

So I am sure you have all heard the one about the modern cockpit with the crew requirement of one pilot and a German Shepherd. The dog is there to bite the pilot if he touches anything.

I think pretty much the design of the airplane is headed in the direction of having a meat robot on board just so you have a scapegoat when the automation screws up.

It is sort of like an abusive parent: "Hand fly? What are you thinking Rogers!? We categorically only hand fly when absolutely necessary!" followed by "You incompetent idiot! Even a child knows Pitch Plus Power equals Performance. I don't care if the MFD is triggering brain seizures, and the autopilot is has decided it doesn't want to live anymore, why do you think we pay you so much?"

The pilot is there to feed the dog.   The dog is there to bite the pilot if he touches anything.

As for the rest, you may have a point.   My dad once laughed at me when I said he would one day be a rarity for having trained in the T-37 (because it had then just been retired).   He replied, “Someday you may be a rarity because you trained in recips!”

Or a rarity because I was trained at all if the pilotless cockpit ever becomes reality. 

[Mister Fork]

This statement more than likely comes from someone who has never been an airline pilot and flown the 737, because it’s not the case.  Use of the autopilot and automation is an effective tool in reducing pilot fatigue during those long days that often occur three or four in a row.  Hand fly to 10,000 feet?  Yeah, occasionally, but not “normally”. 

(cough WestJet pilots who were flying the MAX /cough)

[Vraciu]

(cough WestJet pilots who were flying the MAX /cough)

They’re wrong.   Most of us do NOT do that.   Maybe that’s WestJet’s culture.   (*Cough* Pilots who almost flew a perfect 737 into the water on a visual approach. /cough)

[Puma44]

(cough WestJet pilots who were flying the MAX /cough)

This is the statement in Save’s post:  “I read in another forum, US and European pilots normally fly their 737 (regardless of  model) manually to 10k feet, whereas this procedure is not so common elsewhere.”

Nothing (cough) mentioned about WestJet pilots (cough).  Just a generalization about 737 pilots from someone who didn’t have factual, first hand knowledge.  Not a poke at Save but, the writer in the forum he read.  Nothing against WestJet pilots either.  It’s the pilot’s choice on how much hand flying is done.  It’s also their consequence and judgement as to how fatigued they are when it really counts.  For instance, a single engine approach to minimums at night, at the end of a four day trip, on the last leg of the day into home base. 

Then, we could get into a whole other discussion about distractions and how the autopilot can greatly reduce pilot workload and fatigue.  A wise old Captain years ago said, “Use all available tools”.  He also added that its important to know how to use the tools properly.  But, I digress.

[Vraciu]

An autopilot is the single greatest device in increasing situational awareness via reduction in workload, IMHO.    It is dangerous when used as a crutch.    I think that’s the lesson here.

I’ve seen lots of guys nearly come to grief trying to be a hero and handfly an approach instead of monitoring the autopilot.   Fatigue and loss of SA are the primary causes.

[Arlo]

I'm on autopilot so far, in this whole thread.

[Toad]

In an earlier post I alluded to an e-mail I got from an aviator friend and mentor. It had a screed that had some pretty inflammatory statements in it. I didn't post it because I couldn't verify or even justify throwing that bomb.

It did have one bit that I find interesting.

Boeing, the FAA and worldwide aviation agencies track not only accidents, but also INCIDENTS…crap that was going sideways but didn't result in a crash. The number of unqualified pilots ... was plain to see in the number of errors being committed daily.

Airbus saw this eventuality decades ago and implemented automatic safety systems in anticipation of unqualified aircrews.

I had never really thought of the Boeing/Airbus competition in that way before. I do remember when Airbus first came on the scene with their automation and all knowing computers, there was much discussion in the pilot lounge about the difference in philosophy. Boeing always giving the pilot the ultimate authority to control the aircraft and Airbus having the HAL 9000 to override poor Dave if he tried something which the control laws did not allow.

Back then nearly everyone preferred the Boeing philosophy. We were pilots, dammmit, and it was our aircraft!

Maybe I have to reshape my opinion. Maybe the marketing wizards of Airbus saw this vast expansion of the airline industry world wide. Maybe they understood there would never be enough highly skilled pilots to fill the need this expansion created. Maybe they built a family of aircraft that could in most cases be operated by data input managers. Maybe instead of laughing at them, I need to tip my hat to them for their foresight.

[Vraciu]

But even Airbus’ vaunted automation kills people. 

My informal surveys among pilots who’ve flown both give the edge to Boeing.   The 777 and 787 guys especially.   The FBW in those jets gives the pilot feedback the Bus does not and that is apparently huge.   I can understand why. 

[Puma44]

In an earlier post I alluded to an e-mail I got from an aviator friend and mentor. It had a screed that had some pretty inflammatory statements in it. I didn't post it because I couldn't verify or even justify throwing that bomb.

It did have one bit that I find interesting.

I had never really thought of the Boeing/Airbus competition in that way before. I do remember when Airbus first came on the scene with their automation and all knowing computers, there was much discussion in the pilot lounge about the difference in philosophy. Boeing always giving the pilot the ultimate authority to control the aircraft and Airbus having the HAL 9000 to override poor Dave if he tried something which the control laws did not allow.

Back then nearly everyone preferred the Boeing philosophy. We were pilots, dammmit, and it was our aircraft!

Maybe I have to reshape my opinion. Maybe the marketing wizards of Airbus saw this vast expansion of the airline industry world wide. Maybe they understood there would never be enough highly skilled pilots to fill the need this expansion created. Maybe they built a family of aircraft that could in most cases be operated by data input managers. Maybe instead of laughing at them, I need to tip my hat to them for their foresight.

I agree that automation/technology is a great workload reducer and SA maintainer for pilots.  But, when HAL takes a dump, and “Why’s it doing that occurs”, a well trained and proficient pilot has to be ready and take full and safe command of the situation. 

[Vraciu]

I'm on autopilot so far, in this whole thread.

Time to downshift to manual mode!   

[eagl]

Yeah, but that being said even you guys segregated the -200 from the rest of the fleet at the end. 

I don’t see differences as sufficient to go from a -200 to a -8, but that’s just me.   Eagl flies the MAX, perhaps he can provide some perspective.

I think SWA is the worlds largest user of the 737. Right now SWA's fleet has been simplified to NG -700 and -800, and MAX 8.  SWA and SWAPA (our union) were happy to continue flying the MAX.  SWA does not have a MAX sim yet.  The 40+ year old checklist for runaway trim is effective against inadvertent MCAS activation, and in the MAX the switches are in the same location so differences training in a sim hasn't been seen as necessary at SWA even after MCAS was highlighted.

At this point Boeing could slap a big sticker on the glareshield that reads "in the event of runwaway trim, do that pilot $hXt" and it would be all good, as far as I'm concerned, and people who place their lives in the hands of a 200 hr pilot are gonna get what they get because to put it mildly, it's an unforgiving environment.  But nobody asked me to make the rules so I'm gonna do whatever the company and the FAA tells me.

[Toad]

That’s why I said “in most cases”.

When the SHTF Airbus’s HAL 9000 sometimes isn’t up to the task at hand

They’re betting that most of the time HAL can handle it with data input managers. When HAL fails it’s acceptable losses.

Risk evaluation just like an insurance company or Boeing for that matter.

[eagl]

I have never heard anything about MCAS being remotely controllable, could be enabled or disabled inflight, etc etc.  That sure sounds like a conspiracy theory.

What IS true is that the software has configurable features.  For example, before these crashes, if you didn't buy the AOA gauge feature, you wouldn't get the AOA display in the MAX and if my memory is correct, would also not get the AOA mismatch warning even though the planes had more than one AOA gauge and used them for features like MCAS where you'd really want to know if the AOA gauges were in disagreement.

That's where Boeing is going to get roasted IMHO.  This was an OPTION, even though the hardware was providing info to MCAS which was a required standard feature.  And MCAS could be triggered inappropriately by an AOA disagree that wouldn't trigger a warning unless you bought the AOA gauge display feature.  After the Lion air mishap, SWA got Boeing to turn on the AOA gauges, which pretty much involved just uploading a config file the next time the plane was at a maintenance base with the right software upload gadget and technicians.  To my understanding, this will now be standard on all MAX aircraft since it sure appears that an AOA disagree *that was not displayed as a warning due to it being an optional additional cost feature* triggered MCAS, leading to 2 crashes.

Oops, talk about your all-time marketing foul-ups.

[bustr]

Did these last two crashes happen becasue the AOA was not updated to the visual screen?

[Vraciu]

That’s why I said “in most cases”.

When the SHTF Airbus’s HAL 9000 sometimes isn’t up to the task at hand

They’re betting that most of the time HAL can handle it with data input managers. When HAL fails it’s acceptable losses.

Risk evaluation just like an insurance company or Boeing for that matter.

No doubt.   Acceptable losses.   Good term.