Air Asia Pilot Response Leads To Plane Crashing (wsj.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Air Asia Pilot Response Leads To Plane Crashing (wsj.com)

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday December 1, 2015 @11:38AM from the find-it-and-fix-it dept.

hcs_$reboot writes: The investigation took a year, but we finally know why Air Asia Flight QZ8501, en route to Singapore from the Indonesian city of Surabaya on December 28 last year, crashed into the Java Sea, killing all 162 people on board. The crash was caused by a combination of system malfunctions and improper pilot responses to cascading electrical and rudder-system problems. A cracked solder joint on the Airbus A320 resulted in an electrical interruption that caused computer-generated warnings of a rudder malfunction. The problem occurred four times during the flight. The first three times, the flight crew responded according to standard procedure, investigators said. The fourth time, however, the flight-data recorder indicated actions similar to those of circuit breakers being reset. That led the autopilot to disengage. Investigators said the crew was unable to react appropriately to "a prolonged stall condition," ending in the crash. The investigation points to weaknesses in pilot training in dealing with upsets, or when an aircraft is angled greater than 45 degrees.

226 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Typical of those poorly trained... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 11:50 · Score: -1

Asians. They only have a fraction of the training that pilots have in the west. Also, they typically also only have a fraction of the experience.
1. Re: Typical of those poorly trained... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 11:55 · Score: -1
  
  And that is why they constantly crash.
2. Re: Typical of those poorly trained... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 11:56 · Score: -1
  
  They just don't put the same value in life.
3. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 11:56 · Score: -1
  
  They make up for it with sheer numbers. A plane or two full of people won't make any meaningful difference in their eventual overwhelming domination - it's simply a numbers game.
4. Re: Typical of those poorly trained... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 11:57 · Score: -1
  
  Life is cheap in Asia.
5. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 12:09 · Score: -1
  
  Typical of almost any industrial accident world wide. It's almost never a true equipment failure. It's almost always due to poor training or maintenance of the equipment or a combination of both.
6. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by hcs_$reboot · 2015-12-01 12:15 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  TFA
  
  The AirAsia pilots had not been trained for that scenario, [the investigator] added, because the manual provided by the plane's manufacturer said the aircraft, an Airbus 320, was designed to prevent it from becoming upset and therefore upset recovery training was unnecessary
  
  --
  Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
7. Re: Typical of those poorly trained... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 12:15 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  The pilot that was pulling back on the side stick all the way to the ground was a European. The Asian was trying to pitch down and recover but the opposing inputs from the pilots were averaged out by the flight computer.
8. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by WolfWithoutAClause · 2015-12-01 12:16 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  OK I have a few issues with your post:
  a) you're being extremely racist
  b) the copilot was actually French, and not Asian.
  c) it was the copilot that pulled back on the stick, while the stall warnings were on
  d) they were both pretty experienced- thousands of hours flying
  
  --
  -WolfWithoutAClause
  "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
9. Re: Typical of those poorly trained... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 12:18 · Score: 1
  
  You realise almost the same poor pilot response happened on AF447 with three French pilots in the cockpit? Unfortunately poor training is becoming somewhat universal.
10. Re: Typical of those poorly trained... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 12:43 · Score: 0
  
  But one of them was proven to be under the influence of Republicanism.
11. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 12:46 · Score: 0
  
  Racist assholes, the only have a fraction of the brain and skills of experienced airline pilots. Also, they still feel that they need to post their stupid claims on message boards on the internet.
12. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2015-12-01 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  Sadly, there are a million things that can go wrong on any/every flight and it's impossible to train for all of them. Sooner or later a combination of events will occur that will be outside the envelope of the crew's training or their ability to respond effectively.
  And, of course, sometimes it's just simple stupidity or poor training, or both.
  I used to do a lot of flights to SE Asia, and if something happens way out over the water, you're just fucked, plain and simple.
  I was always amazed at how reliable the engines were to be able to run for 12 hours straight in freezing cold temperatures without just blowing up or conking out for one reason or another.
  
  --
  Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
13. Re: Typical of those poorly trained... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 12:47 · Score: 0
  
  That doesn't mean he wasn't corrupted by those Asians that have respect for life.
14. Re: Typical of those poorly trained... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 12:48 · Score: 0
  
  They have respect for life.
15. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by Proudrooster · 2015-12-01 13:19 · Score: 5, Informative
  From the Official Report
  During the interview with the Indonesia AirAsia management, one of the discussion topics was related to upset recovery training. The approved Operation Training Manual covers the upset recovery training in Chapter 8. The module consisted of ground and simulator training. The ground training provides the flight crew with the background, definition, cause of aircraft upset, aerodynamic and aircraft systems in relation with aircraft upset. Recovery methods consider various aircraft attitude and speed including post upset conditions.
  The upset recovery training had not been implemented on Airbus A320 training, since it is not required according to the Flight Crew Training Manual and has not been mandated by the DGCA.
  worse.......
  The Airbus A320 QRH chapter Computer Reset stated that: In flight, as a general rule, the crew must restrict computer resets to those listed in the table, or to those in applicable TDUs or OEBs. Before taking any action on other computers, the flight crew must consider and fully understand the consequences. The consequences of resetting FAC CBs in flight are not described in Airbus documents. It requires good understanding of the aircraft system to be aware of the consequences.
  So we have a case of...
  1. Alarm keeps going off
  2. Reboot computer, hoping it will shutoff pesky alarm, but instead we don't understand consequences and knock out autopilot.
  3. Without autopilot plane rolls and stalls, both human pilots do opposite things and make condition uncoverable.
  Training issue....
  Planes break, computers fail, and humans spill coffee. Pilots need the training to respond with automaticity when bad things happen We see this time and time again.
16. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 13:33 · Score: 0
  
  "events will occur that will be outside the envelope of the crew's training or their ability to respond effectively"
  True but sadly this was not one of those situations. I have not read the complete report yet, but the summary provided in TFA clearly shows a complete breakdown of CRM discipline, no positive control of the airplane and a complete and total loss of situational awareness.
17. Re: Typical of those poorly trained... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 14:19 · Score: -1
  
  YES. Into COWS. Mooooooo! It hurts! YOU ASIAN COWS!
18. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by WolfWithoutAClause · 2015-12-01 14:29 · Score: 2
  
  > Sooner or later a combination of events will occur that will be outside the envelope of the crew's training or their ability to respond effectively.
  Sure, but what kind of fucktard pulls back on the stick to a stall warning???
  
  --
  -WolfWithoutAClause
  "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
19. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by ShanghaiBill · 2015-12-01 15:10 · Score: 0
  
  Sadly, there are a million things that can go wrong on any/every flight
  The root cause on this flight was cracked solder, likely do to European mandates for RoHS. Good old PbSn solder should be used on any mission critical electronics. The world uses millions of tonnes of lead every year. A few extra grams per plane would make a minuscule difference, but would have saved hundreds of lives.
20. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by aphelion_rock · 2015-12-01 15:21 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Flight 447 went down fundamentally because the two of the tree pilots ( one in particular) didn't know the fundamentals about flying and held the aircraft in a stalled state until it hit the ocean.
  It amazes me that neither of these pilots owned a license for a light aircraft which is mandatory for all Airliner pilots in my country (Australia)
  The other issue on the airbus is if you pull the stick back until the stall warning goes off then keep it there until the aircraft pitches further up, the stall warning stops when the pitot tubes can no longer get a reliable wind speed.
  Does anyone know if these pilots had light aircraft licenses?
21. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2015-12-01 15:37 · Score: 1
  
  A cracked solder joint that causes repeated spurious warnings, with the procedure being 'pull a circuit breaker and see if it goes away', certainly doesn't exclude poor training; and probably does suggest poor maintenance; but how much more 'true' does equipment failure need to be?
22. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by hcs_$reboot · 2015-12-01 15:43 · Score: 1
  
  Certainly. But this article is not about AF447, it's about Air Asia Flight QZ8501.
  
  --
  Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
23. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2015-12-01 15:56 · Score: 1
  
  As best I can tell from wading through the delightfully obscure document, aircraft parts should be ROHS-exempt(either Article 2, section 4, one or more of subsections c, f, or g).
  
  Have they tightened things further, or do you suspect that somebody in the supply chain got tired of stocking ROHS and non-ROHS versions and Airbus, or the Air Asia maintenance people, didn't browbeat their supplies hard enough to get what they wanted?
24. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 17:07 · Score: 0
  
  This isn't about training for a 1 in a million event.
  Airbus claimed that they didn't need to do basic stall recovery and upset attitude training because the computer would prevent the airplane from getting into a bad attitude in the first place. In reality, most pilots do at least minimal training in stall recovery and unusual attitude recovery, in general aviation pilots flying single engine piston aircraft. The control inputs of the pilots caused this flight to crash. The electrical problem wasn't something anyone would train for but it wasn't what brought the plane down. Better trained pilots would have reacted differently and flown the plane.
25. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by dwywit · 2015-12-01 18:20 · Score: 1
  
  Sadly, there are a million things that can go wrong on any/every flight and it's impossible to train for all of them.
  Yep. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  I don't think there was anything in the manual detailing how to deal with that particular series of events.
  Sooner or later a combination of events will occur that will be outside the envelope of the crew's training or their ability to respond effectively.
  The aircraft was landed safely, and not a single life was lost. If you're prepared to risk your life to bare-minimum and cut-rate maintenance, and inadequately trained pilots, go with a budget airline. If you want maximum confidence that you'll arrive in one piece, spend the money on a Qantas fare.
  It ain't cheap, but it's the best you'll get.
  
  --
  They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
26. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by T-Bucket · 2015-12-01 19:43 · Score: 1
  
  And this is why pilots prefer boeing over airbus. Train the fucking pilots and let them fly the plane, don't try to design them out of the equation.
27. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by hcs_$reboot · 2015-12-01 19:47 · Score: 1
  
  It's not that this kind of incident happens every day, either
  
  --
  Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
28. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by hcs_$reboot · 2015-12-01 19:49 · Score: 1
  
  Yet it is not that difficult: '$ man A320'
  
  --
  Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
29. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by TheTurtlesMoves · 2015-12-01 19:58 · Score: 2
  
  I am a NZer and currently live in the EU. I know several pilots personally. While AU and NZ run a similar progression to the US (with much stricter medicals and stuff), the EU for airline pilots does not. We must start with small planes, then get a instrument ratings, turbine ratings etc. Accumulate quite a few hours before we can even consider than an airline will take us on for big plane rating.
  
  In the EU you do like a uni degree in commercial airlines and 3 years later your rated for the big stuff. Out of the blocks with far far less hours flying that we would have.
  
  --
  The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
30. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by AK+Marc · 2015-12-01 20:48 · Score: 1
  
  b) the copilot was actually French, and not Asian.
  c) it was the copilot that pulled back on the stick, while the stall warnings were on
  So it was AF447 again. Someone should teach the French pilots what to do in a stall.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
31. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by AK+Marc · 2015-12-01 20:55 · Score: 2
  
  Please provide a list of airlines who do not train their pilots what to do in a stall. I'll avoid those airlines. Apparently Air France and Air Asia are two.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
32. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by kbg · 2015-12-01 22:51 · Score: 1
  
  I don't get this. The purpose of training is to be able to handle both known and unknown scenarios. It doesn't matter if the Airbus 320 was designed for this or that. There is always the possibility of something happening that aircraft makers where not anticipating, that is one of the reasons why we have humans in charge instead of just computers, because humans can solve unexpected problems.
  If the pilots wheren't aduquately trained then their supervisors should be held responsible.
33. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by michelcolman · 2015-12-01 22:51 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Air France certainly does train for it now. They didn't use to (and neither did other Airbus operators) because Airbus did not include it in the curriculum. They said their airplanes couldn't stall so it was pointless to train for it. The most we did was an "approach to stall" and recovery without actually stalling.
  I'm sure Air Asia must have trained for it as well since Airbus has updated the curriculum after AF 447 and included stall recovery as a mandatory exercise, sending lots of communications about it to Airbus operators and requiring those exercises to be performed asap during recurrent training or even in separate, dedicated extra sessions.
  But there's something weird going on here. The first officer apparently pulled his stick all the way back and made the plane climb at a rate of more than 10,000 ft/min before it stalled. That's a pretty insane maneuver and I can't find a rational explanation for it no matter what his training was. It's not an "inappropriate response" but rather a completely unprovoked action for no good reason whatsoever.
  It might have been a technical malfunction in the flight control computers. There have been a few cases where Airbus pilots were accused of incorrect inputs in certain incidents where they luckily did live to tell, and where the pilots involved were adamant they did not give those inputs. Maybe there's a bug when the FAC circuit breakers are pulled. I remember one procedure that's sometimes performed on the ground, where such a reset also resets the stabilizer trim so it's vitally important to set the correct trim again. Maybe something like that goes on in the flight control computers during flight as well. Maybe the flight recorder confuses a flight control input with a trim input resulting from a FAC reset? Or maybe some integer overflowed?
34. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by fche · 2015-12-01 23:59 · Score: 1
  
  The same thing happened in this crash, that's the point.
35. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-02 00:11 · Score: -1
  
  So now do we find out if software engineers are real engineers or not?
36. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by KGIII · 2015-12-02 00:18 · Score: 1
  
  I am not a licensed pilot but I've flown a plane on numerous occasions, nothing big like this. Isn't up the exact opposite of the direction you want to go if the plane reaches stall speed? I'm not positive, specifically with jets and their intake, but it seems to me that up would be the wrong direction pretty much always. Pointing the nose down to take advantage of the speed and get the lift needed to recover seems to be a more likely solution but, again, I'm not a pilot even though I know a few and have had the chance to pilot a number of planes.
  (You don't need to be a licensed pilot to pilot planes. You can't land or take off but you can meander about in the air. I usually fly over my property once every couple of years and do a lot of the piloting for that and I've done so with a few other aircraft in other areas. I'm assuming that the actual licensed pilots are not lying when they have let me do so and told me that it was okay. I do understand the basics and have a general idea of the mechanics involved.)
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
37. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by Alioth · 2015-12-02 00:28 · Score: 2
  
  Aviation (and industrial, and marine) accidents are pretty much always an "accident chain" - and if any link in the chain is broken, the accident is prevented. This is why accident investigations don't just end at "Oh it was a cracked solder joint case closed", or "Oh the pilot stalled it what a dumbass case closed". This accident is no different - there will be a long chain of events, any one of them being stopped would break the accident chain and result in the aircraft reaching an airfield and being grounded until an engineer can come and fix the problem.
  So a factor was equipment failure, but it's not the cause. The cause is all the factors in the whole accident chain which may include poor procedures, inadequate training, over-reliance on automation and that kind of thing.
  
  --
  Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
38. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by Alioth · 2015-12-02 00:31 · Score: 1
  
  A friend of mine recently went through the BA (i.e. in the EU) ab-initio pilot training scheme. The training involved quite a lot of light aircraft hours (single and multiengine). About a year was spent flying light aircraft, including quite an intensive session in Arizona because the weather is reliable enough that you can pretty much guarantee to get several hours a day in a Piper Seminole without being grounded by icing or convective activity.
  
  --
  Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
39. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by michelcolman · 2015-12-02 01:08 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly, when you're in a stall, you need to bring the nose down. In any airplane. Except maybe some military jet fighters that have so much engine thrust they can power their way out of any situation.
  As to flying without a license: unless the real pilot is a flight instructor, it's not officially allowed. You can only touch the controls of an airplane if you have a license or during training. Of course it does happen and it's perfectly harmless as long as the actual pilot is paying attention, but officially they are breaking the rules.
40. Re: Typical of those poorly trained... by michelcolman · 2015-12-02 01:15 · Score: 2
  
  Which is precisely why each sidestick has a red override button. And you get a "dual input" aural warning. So that's not an excuse although I do agree that independently moving sidesticks are one of the dumbest ideas ever in aviation.
41. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by michelcolman · 2015-12-02 01:18 · Score: 1
  
  The Air Asia crew didn't even get a stall warning initially. He just pulled back all the way and started climbing with more than 10,000 ft/min. THEN the airplane stalled. I think there's something fishy about this incident, I can see no logical reason for this kind of input.
42. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2015-12-02 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  Sadly, there are a million things that can go wrong on any/every flight
  The root cause on this flight was cracked solder,
  
  Then make that "a million and one."
  
  --
  Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
43. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2015-12-02 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  Sadly, there are a million things that can go wrong on any/every flight and it's impossible to train for all of them.
  Yep. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  I don't think there was anything in the manual detailing how to deal with that particular series of events.
  And fortunately, due to their training, this event didn't fall into the "exceeded their ability to deal with it" category. Kudos to them for managing it and responding properly.
  
  --
  Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
44. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2015-12-02 01:32 · Score: 1
  
  It was more than just the fact of the stall, it was several things. They ignored the "COINCIDENCE" warning and the cockpit design actually prevented the two officers who were flying from actually seeing what the other was doing with the control stick. Their fatal mistake was willfully ignoring or missing the "COINCIDENCE" warning until it was too late to do anything about it. If they'd paid attention to that then they might all still be alive today.
  A total "aviate, navigate, and communicate" failure, especially the "communicate" part.
  
  --
  Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
45. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by dave420 · 2015-12-02 01:52 · Score: 1
  
  Making massive generalisations like that tends to make you look less than rational and detracts from any point you might have had.
46. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by dave420 · 2015-12-02 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  So by using your awesome "make massive generalisations" logic, all Alaskans are irrational fools who jump to conclusions. Yay! This is fun! Thanks!
47. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by tibit · 2015-12-02 02:33 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  the manual provided by the plane's manufacturer said the aircraft, an Airbus 320, was designed to prevent it from becoming upset and therefore upset recovery training was unnecessary
  This is patently false. Fly-by-wire planes have multiple levels of degraded flight envelope protections, predicated by degraded sensor inputs, lost redundancies, etc. All of this is in the fucking manuals, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Stalls that initiate at high altitudes and continue all the way to the ground are a recurring problem and the pilots are to be blamed. If you're in any sort of a plane and there's no reaction to prolonged stick-up input, you have to let go and figure out what the fuck is happening. A mental reset, if you will. Perhaps people who are too easily confused by flight automation shouldn't fly the damn planes.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
48. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by WolfWithoutAClause · 2015-12-02 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  > But there's something weird going on here. The first officer apparently pulled his stick all the way back and made the plane climb at a rate of more than 10,000 ft/min before it stalled. That's a pretty insane maneuver and I can't find a rational explanation for it no matter what his training was. It's not an "inappropriate response" but rather a completely unprovoked action for no good reason whatsoever.
  Maybe it would make sense if everything was working properly.
  With modern fly-by-wire, you're not flying the aircraft, you're telling it what needs to be done. Pulling back all the way on the stick means 'go up, as fast as possible', and the aircraft will go up as fast as it can, and it won't let it stall.
  In a degraded mode what will it do?
  At that point a lot of the fly-by-wire will have shut down; and it may well let you stall it (looks like it does, two aircraft have been lost that way.)
  So maybe the aeronautics have been implicitly training the crew to use over-the-top stick inputs, and that leads to crashes in these kinds of situations.
  
  --
  -WolfWithoutAClause
  "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
49. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-02 04:27 · Score: 0
  
  Someone hard in denial. "This never happens, it must be wrong!"
50. Re: Typical of those poorly trained... by calidoscope · 2015-12-02 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  Which is why I think sidestick control on an airliner is an incredibly dumb idea. With control yokes mechanically linked together, both pilots know what the other is doing. This is the second Airbus lost because of pilots not knowing what the other guy in the cockpit was doing.
  
  --
  A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
51. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by AK+Marc · 2015-12-02 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  You don't need to be a licensed pilot to pilot planes. You can't land or take off but you can meander about in the air. I usually fly over my property once every couple of years and do a lot of the piloting for that and I've done so with a few other aircraft in other areas. I'm assuming that the actual licensed pilots are not lying when they have let me do so and told me that it was okay. I do understand the basics and have a general idea of the mechanics involved.
  They were lying, but not in the way you would think. You need a pilots license to solo, but not to take controls of an airplane. Because takeoff and landing are the hardest parts (not hard, but most risk), they'll likely not let you have the controls at that point, but not for any legal reasons. It's perfectly "legal" for a person without a pilot's license to take off and land his first time in a plane. Not wise, but technically legal.
  
  Of course, all that assumes the pilot is a licensed instructor, and almost all pilots are. The number one first job of pilots is instructor. Most pilots get instructor rating as part of their basic training, like instrument rating and other ratings related to what they are planning on doing (those who want to pilot commercially get turbine and multi-engine ratings, while those planning on only piloting smaller craft may pass on those, but often don't, even if they don't plan on using them).
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
52. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by AK+Marc · 2015-12-02 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  If they had both reacted to the crisis in the same manner, then there wouldn't be that problem. Yes, there was a problem with conflicting inputs, but if both pilots reacted correctly, there'd have been no conflict. When you can't get the aviate right, you shouldn't be communicating, your attention should be on the aviation.
  
  My favorite example of how it's done right was Captain Sullenberger, who had a fatal bird strike, then got the plane as stable as he could, then "navigated" to determine that he couldn't make any airfield, notified ATC he was landing in the Hudson, and didn't speak after. ATC couldn't believe that someone would land there, and asked for clarification, he ignored them. No reason to communicate the same thing twice, when it was obvious they heard it the first time. Also, when you are essentially holding, there's no aviation to do, but once you've made the navigation decision (and 3-seconds of communication to let ATC know), the aviation load increases, and there's no more navigation or communication.
  
  But aviate, navigate, communicate is a rule that's mainly for the untrained to remind them that control of the craft is the priority, communication is one thing a lot of new pilots spend too much effort communicating, and miss some of the basics of control.
  
  In the situation described, they should have been aviating, and ignoring a warning indicated they weren't aviating correctly, in addition to the French pilot's inappropriate inputs.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
53. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by larryjoe · 2015-12-02 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  But there's something weird going on here. The first officer apparently pulled his stick all the way back and made the plane climb at a rate of more than 10,000 ft/min before it stalled. That's a pretty insane maneuver and I can't find a rational explanation for it no matter what his training was. It's not an "inappropriate response" but rather a completely unprovoked action for no good reason whatsoever.
  Apparently pilot-to-pilot communication might have been a problem. From a CNN article:
  [The Malasian accident investigator] also said the cockpit voice recorder showed confusing instructions from the captain to the co-pilot who was manning the controls at the time.
  "The most interesting part that could be heard from the CVR is that whenever the plane went up, the captain said 'pull down.' ... To go down, the captain has to say 'push,' while to go up, the captain has to say 'pull' in reference to moving the side stick handle."
54. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by AK+Marc · 2015-12-02 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  But there's something weird going on here. The first officer apparently pulled his stick all the way back and made the plane climb at a rate of more than 10,000 ft/min before it stalled. That's a pretty insane maneuver and I can't find a rational explanation for it no matter what his training was. It's not an "inappropriate response" but rather a completely unprovoked action for no good reason whatsoever.
  AF447 did the same. They pulled back in level flight until they created the stall that killed them, and fell into the ocean without ever recovering. When in weather, disorientation is quite common (as in 100%), but good pilots will look down, not up. A pilot flying by the seat of his pants, and not looking at his instruments may feel that the "insane maneuver" was a good maneuver.
  
  When you drive in a car, you are always in VFR. You look out the window, and glance down at your instruments every once in a while. When you are in weather at night (both this one and AF447), you should be looking at your instruments almost exclusively, as there's no useful information outside the windows. It's clear that the French pilot (again, both this one and AF447), missed the basics of flight. Pulling up in a stall, not paying attention to warnings, and causing the situation in the first place with an inappropriate climb rate. I hate that every crash comes back to pilot error, but sometimes it really is pilot error, even when exacerbated by a mechanical fault.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
55. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by AK+Marc · 2015-12-02 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  What, are you a cheese eating surrender monkey?
  
  But seriously, it only takes one time in aviation to draw a pattern, because they are so risk averse. So two is quite a warning sign. DGAC should open an investigation into the training in France, because two major complete-loss events for French pilots making the same mistake is quite a large problem.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
56. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by michelcolman · 2015-12-02 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  Also, the voice recorder shows incredibly little communication. Apparently the captain pulled those circuit breakers without even mentioning this action to the F/O? There's nothing on the CVR and the investigators had to guess from secondary system parameters that this is what they did. That would be quite unthinkable in a Western cockpit. We would have had a conversation like
  - "What do you think, should we try those circuit breakers?"
  - "Yeah, sure, give it a try."
  - "OK, it's number X5 and X6, these ones labeled "FAC 1" and "FAC 2", do you agree?"
  - (looking back at the circuit breaker panel) "Yes, those are the ones"
  - OK, pulling the breakers.
  It would still have been the wrong thing to do, but at least there would have been some amount of deliberation. I don't ever want to fly with Air Asia if their CRM is this bad.
57. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by michelcolman · 2015-12-02 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  AF 447 did not climb with 10,000 ft/min. And at least they had unreliable airspeed indications (for a while, so they did not believe the correct indications later) and confusing aural warnings.
  These Air Asia guys just had an autopilot disconnection and a rudder deflection that made the plane turn left. It's beyond me why they would start climbing at such a ridiculous rate.
  I'm seriously wondering whether maybe the flight control computers were adding some sort of correction factor to the flight control input, and this was somehow recorded as a sidestick input even though it wasn't. That would help explain both these accidents, and several other incidents where similar inputs were recorded and the pilots later declared they had never given those inputs.
58. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by WolfWithoutAClause · 2015-12-02 12:12 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe it's related to the AF crash. In that, they pulled back on the stick and the stall warning went away. They pushed forward, and the stall warning came back.
  Apparently, the stall warning system didn't believe the angle of attack readings (which were unusually high, but basically accurate) and that automatically silenced the alarm, even though: stall.
  
  --
  -WolfWithoutAClause
  "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
59. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2015-12-02 13:23 · Score: 1
  
  If they had both reacted to the crisis in the same manner, then there wouldn't be that problem. Yes, there was a problem with conflicting inputs, but if both pilots reacted correctly, there'd have been no conflict. When you can't get the aviate right, you shouldn't be communicating, your attention should be on the aviation.
  Agreed, 100%.
  
  My favorite example of how it's done right was Captain Sullenberger,
  Yep, he had the knowledge, the training, and the skill, coupled with the steadiness and presence of mind to make all the right moves and do all the right things. And the result was the best of all possible outcomes. He's what every pilot should aspire to be.
  
  --
  Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
60. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by KGIII · 2015-12-02 18:14 · Score: 1
  
  That makes sense. I've also probably just misunderstood them - as, now that I think about it, I don't recall them saying that I'm legally prohibited from landing the plane but that I could not land the plane. When I was a wee lad, my family was in a C-130 and I got to pilot that and that was kind of neat. Mostly, I just moved the turned and dove and rose a little. I was pretty young. My feet did not reach the pedals. Then I got to do the same on a commercial flight but I was a bit older. I still have a set of wings and a pilots cover from Panama Airlines. I think that was a 727 but it may have been the DC-10. Considering how different they look, it was that long ago.
  I've considered getting my license a few times but it's just not something that I'd be interested in doing often enough to justify keeping up on it and staying proficient. I also know enough pilots at the personal level so I can just go fly around if I want to without much effort or preparation. A buddy recently bought a Bell helicopter, used of course, and I may take a stab at that. I understand the principles but I've never done it. It should be interesting.
  Funny enough, I'm scared shitless of heights in many areas but flying doesn't bother me. I wasn't scared when I was younger but, today, I don't even like being on a ladder or even looking out the windows of tall buildings. Flying doesn't bother me at all.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
61. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by michelcolman · 2015-12-02 20:01 · Score: 1
  
  No, they started their ridiculous climb before there was any sign of a stall warning. Once they were in the stall, yes, they reacted similarly to the AF crew. But how they got into this mess in the first place, is quite different.
62. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by AK+Marc · 2015-12-02 20:26 · Score: 1
  
  A buddy recently bought a Bell helicopter, used of course, and I may take a stab at that.
  Funny enough, I'm scared shitless of heights in many areas but flying doesn't bother me.
  Yeah, ride in the Bell, have him do a tight turn towards your side. You'll be looking out at the ground like you are falling out of your seat to your death. Your fear of heights will come back while in an aircraft. Planes don't bank nearly as much as helicopters. Though I've not flown a larger helicopter, just the little ones, I haven't the time or money at the moment to get a turbine and dual turbine rating, though they are on the to-do list.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
63. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by KGIII · 2015-12-02 20:52 · Score: 1
  
  I've been in military helicopters on a variety of occasions and, worse, they were piloted by Marines. However, that was before I developed my fear of heights, it'll be interesting. I'll surely do it - if for no other reason than to see how it affects me.
  This is best said aloud but...
  When you're in the Air Force, what do you call those things with rotors on the tail and on the top and engage in vertical take offs?
  A helicopter.
  When you're in the Army, what do you call those same things?
  A chopper.
  How about when you're in the Navy?
  A whirlybird.
  And in the Marines?
  *points upwards towards the sky* Ook Ook!!!
  Yes, I served in the Corps. ;-) I've told the joke at Tun's Tavern which isn't the real Tun's but is a themed joint that's mostly family friendly down in Quantico. It went over well enough but I have a bulldog tattoo and my unit coin so I can get away with it. I'd probably not suggest others try it.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
64. Re: Typical of those poorly trained... by piojo · 2015-12-02 22:40 · Score: 2
  
  Not in China, but I can't speak for the rest of Asia. In China, drivers regularly back up to run over their crash victims again, to kill them and save money on victim compensation. Though I haven't seen any other examples that indicate life isn't valued. Rather, the other stories I've heard are all isolated incidents.
  
  --
  A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
65. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by TheTurtlesMoves · 2015-12-03 00:00 · Score: 1
  
  While we need thousands of hours to even apply for an airline. I should, it was what i was training for before a head injury excluded me from a class 1 medial for 2 years. In the EU you do much much less.
  
  --
  The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
66. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by AK+Marc · 2015-12-03 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  The ride in the back of one is very different than the ride up front. Up front, both seats are designed to have maximum visibility. It feels like one of those amusement park rides where you are suspended from the top and tilted forward 15 degrees to have the perpetual feeling of falling to your death, and that's while the ride is at a stop. When you bank, you'll look to the side and see ground, you'll look up a little and still see ground. Your body will tell you that you are flying at the ground. A mean pilot doing that will add in a little too much pedal (so you'll be more pointed at the ground than ideal, but still quite safe), and you'll literally be pointed at the ground. That one maneuver, that one feeling, was the only one that scared me. Emergency maneuvers aren't scary, you are too busy doing things to be afraid. But that eternity while your mind freezes time to point out you are falling to your death, gives you that fear you shouldn't quite have.
  
  If your friend's big Bell doesn't do it, go ride in an R22 and try it. That tiny thing is all glass and quite responsive to the stick.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
67. Re: Typical of those poorly trained... by david_thornley · 2015-12-03 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  I've noticed a lot more people saying "They have no respect for life" than I've noticed saying "We have no respect for life". I suspect that it's one of the things that is frequently attributed to cultures the speaker doesn't like.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
68. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by KGIII · 2015-12-03 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  I'll have 'em give me a ride. He was a chopper pilot during the Vietnam War so I'll trust him enough to fly with him. He's a bit old now, obviously but still of sound mind and body so it's sure to be scary. I'm sure he will appreciate the chance to make me scared.
  I think I've seen the R22 in a documentary, well a Modern Marvels. It was one of their older ones. It's a kit? Looks delicate as all hell but I guess they're both popular and robust. My friend's Bell is used. I don't know which model it is but it's got seating for five in the rear (three and two facing them) and has room for two pilots. He's also the friend who owns an old 1940s firetruck and a crane for no obvious reason.
  I've managed to accumulate a bunch of strange characters as I've passed through life. There's a lot of interesting people out there.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
69. Re:Typical of those poorly trained... by AK+Marc · 2015-12-03 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  The R22 does look like a kit. Kinda flies like one too. But cheap and not a kit (cheapest fully FAA licensed helicopter), it's the most popular for student pilots. Helps that it flies poorly, so anyone that can master the R22 should be able to move into other helicopters more easily than if they learned on a huge Bell. Bad inputs are muted by the sheer mass of the Bell, leading to a more stable platform. But I haven't flown many different kinds. I'd like to, but the bigger ones are much more expensive to fly.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
70. Re: Typical of those poorly trained... by piojo · 2015-12-03 18:35 · Score: 1
  
  "They have no respect for life"... is frequently attributed to cultures the speaker doesn't like.
  I suspect you're misattributing the cause. Value of life is something you only notice when it's not high enough, and "good enough" is something you define roughly based on whatever you're used to.
  In other words, it's not "us against them". The Chinese don't say life is cheap in the US. The Palestinians presumably don't think life is cheap in Israel. And nobody says "life is cheap in my country", because that's the definition of normal.
  And I don't hate China, but here's another example--four book publisher employees near China were just "disappeared" for publishing books critical of the Chinese government. Every big country does illegal covert operations, but this was flagrant and obvious. You can't just kidnap all the employees of a book publisher! Unless it's not a big deal, because who cares about four people?
  
  --
  A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
Cracked solder joint by PPH · 2015-12-01 11:53 · Score: 1, Insightful

Happy with your RoHS regulations now?

--
Have gnu, will travel.
1. Re:Cracked solder joint by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 12:02 · Score: 0
  
  It's trivial to get lead solder. Is there some requirement that airliners be built to RoHS standards?
2. Re:Cracked solder joint by PPH · 2015-12-01 12:10 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I believe avionics is still exempt from RoHS rules. It was in the original regulations but the EU has removed exemptions as new versions have been adopted.
  Trouble is: There are very few shops left that will do lead solder work. And if they do, the price will reflect the dedicated production tooling and handling procedures needed. Since there are no FAA or JAR requirements to use leaded solder, some avionics equipment is built on RoHS production lines.
  But think of the children! How about you keep the kids from chewing on the flight controls instead?
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
3. Re: Cracked solder joint by rfengr · 2015-12-01 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  Though it is non trivial to get lead based parts. I wonder if it was a crack on a PCB solder joint?
4. Re: Cracked solder joint by fche · 2015-12-01 12:24 · Score: 2
  
  Yes. There are photographs in the official accident report.
  http://kemhubri.dephub.go.id/k...
5. Re:Cracked solder joint by pereric · 2015-12-01 12:42 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Are you sure it cracked because of lead-free solder? Instead of, say, poor soldering process, impurities in the solder, wrongly designed PCB, stress from bad installation? Or perhaps that the should redesign the PCB specs for a new solder composition, but didn’t? It sure could be specifically because of lead-free solder (hard to get the same elasticity or such) but I just don't see that from The Fine Article linked above.
6. Re:Cracked solder joint by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 12:52 · Score: 0
  
  Of course he's sure, it's always the government ruining everything. Without the government, we'd have flying cars, toast that toasts itself, free sex and beer that's soothes and satisfies.
7. Re: Cracked solder joint by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 12:54 · Score: 0
  
  Photo on page 66.
8. Re:Cracked solder joint by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  I can get free sex now, it's the government stopping me from paying for it.
9. Re:Cracked solder joint by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 13:12 · Score: 0
  
  Of course he's sure, it's always the government ruining everything. Without the government, we'd have flying cars, toast that toasts itself, free sex and beer that's soothes and satisfies.
  Well, WITH the government we had over a century of analog voice landlines. But hey, we did to all the way to touch-tone dialing!
  Once the government got out of regulating the telephone industry, the US rapidly got internet, cell phones and smart phones.
10. Re:Cracked solder joint by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 13:14 · Score: 0
  
  Really?
  The Issue with tin solder it whiskers not cracks.
  Lead Solder cracks just fine under heat and vibration.
  Or from Poor Workmanship.
11. Re: Cracked solder joint by aberglas · 2015-12-01 13:21 · Score: 1
  
  So one cracked solder joint made the entire plane unflyable? Who designs these things!
  While it is entirely possible that there is some weird idiot design choice that made this so, it is much, much more likely that the pilots were totally incompetent and did not know the first thing about flying. The co-pilot was French and apparently held the stick hard back. That is the same idiot mistake that a different french pilot made some years ago over the Atlantic.
12. Re:Cracked solder joint by Sir+Holo · 2015-12-01 14:26 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, piston-engine propeller planes still use LEADED fuel.
  Options exist, but pilots don't seem to care.
13. Re: Cracked solder joint by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2015-12-01 15:59 · Score: 1
  
  Apparently the cracked joint just caused spurious errors; but the spurious errors caused the flight crew to pull a breaker in order to reset the system, leaving them without much of their computer assistance; which they apparently needed to get the job done.
14. Re:Cracked solder joint by tompaulco · 2015-12-01 16:26 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, piston-engine propeller planes still use LEADED fuel.
  Options exist, but pilots don't seem to care.
  Pilots don't care? Right. They could pay $30k for a new engine that would run diesel instead of Avgas on their model. Or in many cases that there are simply no alternatives to upgrade to because nothing has passed certification yet.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
15. Re: Cracked solder joint by slazzy · 2015-12-01 17:00 · Score: 1
  
  Sounded like the solder joint caused a warning to go off several times, in attempt to stop the annoying sound they turned off and on a circuit breaker, which then disabled the auto pilot. For some reason they weren't able to fly the plane without auto pilot.
  
  --
  Website Just Down For Me? Find out
16. Re: Cracked solder joint by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 19:07 · Score: 0
  
  That doesn't just have a crack--it looks like a very poor joint to begin with. Looks cold to me. The rust must have been after the accident.
  Notice how the solder sits around the component lead like a donut. It should form a concave cone somewhat like a cartoon volcano.
17. Re: Cracked solder joint by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 19:26 · Score: 0
  
  Report says both channels so it was not just one joint. Could be that it affected redundant channels.
18. Re:Cracked solder joint by tlhIngan · 2015-12-01 19:29 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, piston-engine propeller planes still use LEADED fuel.
  Options exist, but pilots don't seem to care.
  Options exist, but they're not cheap. When an engine replacement costs over $30K, this is a lot of money (most pilots are middle income - and spending even $5k to replace a part can be expensive).
  And it's changing. First. leaded fuel is extremely hard to get - there's only ONE supplier of tetraethyl lead, and they're in the UK. Next, there's only a few refineries around the world who can handle leaded fuel - it requires extreme cleaning and special handling. Finally, the demand is low - in one day, a US refinery can produce an entire's year worth of avgas for North America.
  So the FAA and many other groups, are studying various unleaded fuels for compatibility - the goal is a fuel that would be usable in the entire fleet with zero modifications - i.e., all a pilot has to do is request avgas and it doesn't matter if it's leaded or unleaded. I believe in 2016 the first candidates will be selected for more extensive fleet trials.
  Unleaded fuel is coming, the industry has been preparing for it for years and doing the necessary R&D work to actually produce unleaded avgas that is now being tested. In a few years, hopefully there will be public trials of it. And unleaded avgas has advantages if it means more refineries can produce it - cheaper fuel! Because no special lead handling equipment is required, no special cleaning requirements when switching back to regular unleaded production, and no reliance on sole-source manufacturer making the only supply of tetraethyl lead.
  In the meantime, diesel, or more specifically, kerosene is an option that's gaining ground - hampered initially by the bankruptcy of one of the pioneering companies, all major engine manufacturers, and many others are selling diesel engines that take Jet-A.
  The benefits of Jet-A is that it's more widely available - so if your small plane can take Jet-A, you can find it practically everywhere (because it's what the jets use). In Canada and the Arctic, this is important because Avgas is harder to get, so being able to stock just one fuel is beneficial.
  Oh, and cracked solder joints are a way of life. Cracked solder joints, worn insulation are just facts of life. And even RoHS has nothing to do with it since it only applies to new equipment (and avionics was excluded in the beginning). So unless the equipment was literally brand new, it would be using leaded solder.
19. Re:Cracked solder joint by tlhIngan · 2015-12-01 19:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Happy with your RoHS regulations now?
  Avionics were excluded from the initial lead-free requirement. And even if they aren't now, unless the plane was literally brand new, it will be using leaded solder because chances are the equipment predates the exclusion removal, if not RoHS.
20. Re:Cracked solder joint by drinkypoo · 2015-12-01 22:22 · Score: 1
  
  Options exist, but they're not cheap.
  
  When I drove a 1960 Dodge, I put cheap lead substitute into my engine to protect the valves. Why are aviators so special that they can't use lead substitute? Tolulene? Isooctane?
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
21. Re:Cracked solder joint by thegarbz · 2015-12-01 22:52 · Score: 1
  
  Crappy soldering causes cracked joints. It is just as achievable with lead.
22. Re:Cracked solder joint by thegarbz · 2015-12-01 22:57 · Score: 1
  
  Options exist, but pilots don't seem to care.
  Options don't exist. The alternatives are still undergoing various stages of testing with the goal of phasing out lead in avgas by 2020.
23. Re:Cracked solder joint by thegarbz · 2015-12-01 23:10 · Score: 1
  
  For every great success story there are horror stories of engines being ruined by new fuels. It happens pretty much whenever any fuel changes even if the compositional change is minor (e.g. the introduction of low-sulphur diesel caused the destructive end to many Ford Territory engines).
  Blended fuels (avgas avcat and petrol) are quite complicated mixes that need to meet all sorts of critera, not just octane rating. Aviators aren't special, and one of the unleadded fuels in trial 100SF has a large component of tolulene in it. It's just very important to resolve all the issues on the ground before they go to the air.
24. Re:Cracked solder joint by drinkypoo · 2015-12-01 23:28 · Score: 1
  
  It's just very important to resolve all the issues on the ground before they go to the air.
  I agree, but this has taken a very long time. It's been decades since we took the lead out of everyone else's fuel, and we were forced to adapt. There's no special reason why aviation shouldn't also be forced to adapt. It's not like there aren't aviation engines which don't require avgas, like those turbocharged subaru conversions. I realize you can't just glue one of those into place on every plane, but there's been (once again) goddamned decades to work this out.
  I realize a lot of people would be grounded if they had to swap out their engines, but I'm not sure why I should care. The stuff I depend on is jet-based, and it's not using gasoline anyway.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
25. Re: Cracked solder joint by ColaMan · 2015-12-01 23:59 · Score: 1
  
  Planes at cruise altitude and speed often fly pretty close to 'coffin corner' where stall speed and transonic conditions intersect.
  That is, the air is so thin that they need to fly fast to maintain lift, but if they fly too fast parts of the wing will start exceed the speed of sound at that altitude, which makes a plane that's not designed for it very tough to control.
  And stall recovery of a large commercial jet aircraft can soak up tens of thousands of feet of altitude, so if the crew was distracted, or a particular reset/restart took a while, well, that's a problem.
  
  --
  
  You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
  There is a lot of hype here.
26. Re: Cracked solder joint by michelcolman · 2015-12-02 00:23 · Score: 1
  
  Actually it's not quite the same. The AF 447 pilots were getting spurious and contradictory warnings and incorrect airspeed indications. They slowly climbed above the ceiling of the aircraft until it stalled, while they were both wondering what the hell was going on. In this case, Air Asia 8501, the F/O actually held the stick all the way back and caused the plane to climb at a rate of more than 10,000 ft/min until it stalled. That's just incomprehensible no matter what his training was. There has to be more to this story. Maybe the FAC reset caused a malfunction in the flight control computers and this was erroneously recorded as a flight control input. Or maybe it's just another suicide. But it's certainly not simply another botched stall recovery. The only situation we're ever trained to pull back all the way on the sidestick is during a GPWS "Pull Up!" warning.
27. Re:Cracked solder joint by Alioth · 2015-12-02 00:38 · Score: 1
  
  Actually pilots DO care. Without even getting to the poisonous nature of TEL, it's not even good for my engine.
  The trouble is that there is *no* other avgas available to me than 100LL, and since they started putting ethanol in petrol (gasoline) I can't use normal car fuel any more. (They don't even label ethanol-tainted fuel here).
  91UL is available by try to find an airfield that sells it.
  
  --
  Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
28. Re:Cracked solder joint by Alioth · 2015-12-02 00:41 · Score: 1
  
  Nearly all aircraft engines will run just fine on 91UL avgas (and certainly in the case of Lycoming, most of them are approved). The problem is that there are certain large turbocharged and/or geared engines that will detonate on anything less than 100LL, and while these make a very small percentage of the fleet they actually burn a disproportionate amount of the avgas (they fly a lot of hours since they tend to be more likely used for business/commercial use, and they are thirsty). Airfield operators are often unwilling to have two grades of avgas, so they stick with the one they know everyone can use.
  
  --
  Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
29. Re:Cracked solder joint by Alioth · 2015-12-02 00:45 · Score: 1
  
  It's not the lead, it's the octane rating. Most aviation engines can already run on 91UL avgas and the manufacturer has approved 91UL for them. (For many smaller Lycoming/Continentals, 100LL has far too much lead and actually causes problems for these engines). However, there is a small percentage that needs the 100LL (certain geared and turbocharged engines) to prevent detonation. While these engines only make up a small percentage of the GA fleet, they fly a LOT of hours and are thirsty. Airfield operators generally don't want to supply two grades of fuel, so they stick with the one they can sell to everyone, that's 100LL.
  The other problem is approvals. Any fuel additive would have to be approved by the regulator (FAA/CAA etc) and also the engine manufacturer. There's nothing in it for the engine maker while 100LL is still available, so the engine maker is pretty unwilling to spend money on it. A pilot getting caught using fuel not approved for their aircraft will be prosecuted, so most won't do it. This isn't so with cars.
  
  --
  Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
30. Re:Cracked solder joint by Alioth · 2015-12-02 00:55 · Score: 1
  
  This has nothing to do with RoHS.
  Firstly, avionics were excluded from RoHS.
  Secondly, I've seen dozens of cracked solder joints on boards made with leaded solder. Any boards subjected to heating and cooling are prone to it (power supplies are an obvious candidate, I've lost count on how many pre-RoHS power supplies I've repaired due to cracked solder joints). I've yet to have to fix a cracked solder joint on a RoHS compliant board, but this is probably merely a function of all RoHS based stuff being much newer.
  
  --
  Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
31. Re:Cracked solder joint by AmiMoJo · 2015-12-02 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  There are still plenty of places that can do leaded soldering work. It's used in all sorts of areas, including test and measurement equipment, medical equipment, some vehicle electronics, military applications etc. Until maybe a year ago the place I was using for PCB prototyping charged extra for RoHS compliant work, and they continue to offer it.
  RoHS is more about not putting lead into the environment than into children's mouths.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
32. Re:Cracked solder joint by Thumper_SVX · 2015-12-02 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  When I drove a 1960 Dodge, I put cheap lead substitute into my engine to protect the valves. Why are aviators so special that they can't use lead substitute? Tolulene? Isooctane?
  Because that stuff acts differently in different engines. A car engine is very different from an airplane engine despite the cosmetic similarity. Typically they are very large bore cylinders with a really low operating RPM (they produce peak power very low on the rpm range and don't rev as high as a car engine). This means the physics of intake and exhaust are VERY different which means the same solution won't necessarily work for both. It's also worth bearing in mind that the mean intake temperature on an airplane is significantly lower and leaner (less oxygen) than a car due to altitude.
  It's also worth noting that aviators aren't "special"... rather they're aware of the fact that an engine failure is a much more serious problem in a single-engine plane than in a car... one that can kill you and does frequently. Since this also extends to piston-powered helicopters an engine failure becomes very likely to kill you. One can't really blame aviators for being conservative about what they do with their engines :)
33. Re:Cracked solder joint by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-02 02:37 · Score: 0
  
  It's because of tin whiskers. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_pest
34. Re:Cracked solder joint by tibit · 2015-12-02 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  You're looking at it all wrong. Never mind that RoHS has shit to do with avionics.
  The real issue is: a simple, non-critical hardware problem leads to a 100% human-precipitated failure cascade that amounts to an uncontrolled flight into terrain all the while the airframe and the supporting systems offer you a perfectly flyable, if perhaps a bit annoying, aircraft.
  The broken solder joint was a distraction, like getting a text message while you drive the car. The pilots reacted like an absent-minded american teenager would. The cracked solder joint just put some badly needed light on the human problem.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
35. Re: Cracked solder joint by tibit · 2015-12-02 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  So one cracked solder joint made the entire plane unflyable?
  Not at all. It made it a bit annoying, as if you had a phone beeping about a text message while you're driving. The pilots acted like a distracted teenager - it's a recurring theme.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
36. Re: Cracked solder joint by tibit · 2015-12-02 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  I don't fly planes, but I'm an engineer that deals with process controls from time to time. When I see a message "F/CTL ALTN LAW (PROT LOST)", I know exactly what that means: push the stick too far or too fast, and you'll break/overstress something. Heck, you then look at page 2 and see precisely that, spelled out for these nitwits: "RUD WITH CARE ABV 160KT" - yeah, because you might break your fucking tail off. "AUTO_FLT AP OFF" is in fucking red!. Autopilot off, people - really, is that so hard to get?
  For these who will now scream about "aviate [first], navigate, yada yada" - look, you fools, on modern jets the front ECAM pages are de-facto primary flight instruments . Ignore them at your own peril.
  For the life of me I can't see why any pilot with a modicum of training on the type wouldn't know the importance of these messages, or the displays where they appear. Sometimes I think that we do pilot training on modern types somehow completely wrong.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
37. Re: Cracked solder joint by tibit · 2015-12-02 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  The thing is: they acted instinctively based on some basic flight-or-flight instinct, not on their flight training... :(
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
38. Re: Cracked solder joint by tibit · 2015-12-02 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not a pilot, but if you put me into a cockpit with screaming GPWS and no hints of overspeed, I would pull the stick and push the throttles to the stops. Once I could ascertain the airspeed, I would then let up on the throttle - if I wasn't a part of the debris field by then, of course...
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
39. Re:Cracked solder joint by tibit · 2015-12-02 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  Frankly said, these cracks are inherent to this kind of through-hole board design. The pad is too small, and possibly the pin/lead hole is too small as well. The solder joint looks like leaded solder. Looks like a through-hole design done by a noob.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
40. Re:Cracked solder joint by thegarbz · 2015-12-02 23:10 · Score: 1
  
  They are adapting, but aviation is much like a government department and only marginally better than fusion. Everything takes longer.
  I'm not sure it makes environmental sense to force people to scrap old engines. I somehow think it would be better for the environment and the people who live in it not to crap quite that much perfectly fine machinery as waste, especially since it's not the engine that's the problem. I think the estimates for engine conversions are between $30-50k and the problem is the people who own these planes are the people least likely to afford the replacement engines (small business owners, tour flights, tiny charters, farmers, etc).
  You also have to remember that we didn't tell everyone else to adapt by buying a new car. We gave them the alternative. That's what's being worked on here, it just takes for fucking ever to approve a fuel for use in aviation. Fun fact: Kerosene drawn off a crude distillation unit and run through a merox process is identical in all the regulated specifications to kerosene drawn off a fractionation column after hydrocracking and then run through a merox process, but for some reason the latter is not permitted to be used to make Jet-A1.
  Airline fuels are in a world of their own. Also a lot of fuel regulations come down to where we are polluting, not how much. Kind of like how we need to ensure diesel is less than 10ppm sulphur in many western countries, however we can put up to 2500ppm into Jet-A1 providing we oxidise the mercaptains out of it so it doesn't smell bad. It reminds me about a satirical sketch by Clarke and Dawe about an boat leaking oil: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... "The ship was towed outside the environment"
  Aviation is much like shipping in that regard.
Pilot error? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 11:57 · Score: -1

Not surprise.
Pilot of Air Asia very drunk. Go into airport lounge in Singapore and half people drinking are Air Asia pilot. All can't be just off duty. There dozen of people in there. If I just flew long flight, I would want to be going home, not sitting at bar.
Trying to disable the warning? by joncombe · 2015-12-01 11:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

However whilst the mistake the pilots made is serious it is just as serious in my view that the plane was permitted to fly in this condition in the first place. It seems the problem with this particular plane was well known and had been happening (at least) for a number of days since but had not been fixed.
1. Re:Trying to disable the warning? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2015-12-01 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  Reserting the circuit breaker is like Han whacking the Falcon and saying, "Hold together, baby."
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
2. Re:Trying to disable the warning? by ChuckieG · 2015-12-01 12:24 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  In pilot lingo "issues" like this are called squawks and I would speculate that many commercial carriers (part 135 under FAA) fly with them every single day. I've flown on an AA MD80 with an engine that had to be started with an external APU (starter was broken), SWA 737 with a missing flap track fairing (one of the pylons out on the wing). Inoperative instrumentation is common too. Nothing surprising about this plane flying in this condition. The problem is the pilots didn't focus on the three objectives, drilled in training (in order): Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. Fail on #1 while they were playing with circuit breakers and silencing alarms. The GA stuff I fly has inop equipment all the time (especially rentals)
3. Re:Trying to disable the warning? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 13:01 · Score: 0
  
  Talk to anyone seriously involved in international aviation. You'll quickly become glad the FAA are such a bunch of mean bastards.
  Also ask them about flying on non US/Euro airlines. Bet you 100 bucks they will flat out say "Don't"
4. Re:Trying to disable the warning? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 13:35 · Score: 0
  
  I'm sure this such situation or a variant will be added to the MMEL as a result of this incident.
5. Re:Trying to disable the warning? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 13:39 · Score: 0
  
  Were these commercial airlines, and if so which ones?
  I'd like to avoid them at all costs.
6. Re:Trying to disable the warning? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 13:43 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure Qantas has a good safety record. Better than internal US airlines by far ;)
7. Re:Trying to disable the warning? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 14:31 · Score: 0
  
  All of them, to some extent or another.
8. Re: Trying to disable the warning? by ChuckieG · 2015-12-01 14:50 · Score: 2
  
  Aa and Swa were my examples. Others from my personal experience- Aa MD80 hot start situation on the ramp at SGF. Couldn't get the engine to spool up fast enough which overheats the core from insufficient compressor rpm Tried over and over, engine sounded horrible. Eventually deplaned and they rebooked us. Taxi out in the new plane the soot streak out the tail of the right engine was unbelievable on the old plane. I felt lucky they didn't set the plane on fire with us in it. Took a deice during a snowstorm in Bwi, swa 737. Crew missed about half of the left wing. Said something to the pilots on the way off the plane, their response was they couldn't see way back there. Planes leave with squawks from every airline from every airport every day. As a pilot I know what to look for but it really doesn't worry me because there are multiple redundancies. (These two examples rattled me a little though).
9. Re:Trying to disable the warning? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2015-12-01 16:01 · Score: 1
  
  If they had gone to the trouble of establishing themselves as important characters; that strategy might well have worked.
10. Re:Trying to disable the warning? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 20:05 · Score: 0
  
  Were these commercial airlines, and if so which ones?
  I'd like to avoid them at all costs.
  You can, if budget is not a limitation.
11. Re:Trying to disable the warning? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 22:51 · Score: 1
  
  In addition, we've apparently reached the time where since pilots only land and take off anyway, they simply cannot fly without autopilot any more. Which raises the question why they were allowed to take actions that caused it to disengage and why it didn't automatically engage again, seeing as that the pilots are helpless without it.
  Still, that the plane had been defective for at least half a year and yet was sent up and up and up again boggles the mind.
12. Re:Trying to disable the warning? by michelcolman · 2015-12-02 00:28 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, there are a number of circuit breakers we are allowed to reset. There's a list with some of them marked "on ground only" and others allowed on ground and in flight.
  AFAIK, you can reset a FAC during flight using the push buttons on the overhead panel but not via the circuit breakers.
13. Re:Trying to disable the warning? by joncombe · 2015-12-02 00:47 · Score: 1
  
  It was more than just a squak. The article talks about a faulty rudder control.
14. Re:Trying to disable the warning? by michelcolman · 2015-12-02 00:49 · Score: 1
  
  Would you prefer having about one in ten flights canceled because some light bulb or other is broken?
  Pretty much all airplane systems have built in redundancy. There's an official list called the "minimum equipment list" that specifies which items can be broken, within which time frame they need to be repaired, and what operational limitations they cause. For example, if the red/green/white navigation lights on the wingtips and tail are broken, you can fly during daylight only. If one of the two autopilots is broken, you use the other one (with manual flight remaining as sufficient redundancy in case the other autopilot fails too). Broken fuel pump? No problem, there's two in each tank and the engine will normally run just fine even if they are both broken, using gravity feeding, so you're allowed to depart with one broken pump.
  There are differences between different companies as to how quickly these malfunctions are treated. In my company we rarely fly with a malfunction for more than one or two days, but some companies use the MEL right up to the limit. If something's broken that needs to be repaired after 10 days, they'll fly like that for 10 days and may even apply a MEL extension if the repair is inconvenient for the schedule. Even worse, in some companies pilots are encouraged not to write down "minor" technical issues to avoid grounding the airplane, and wait for some more opportune moment to write down all the failures at once so they can all be repaired in one swoop. Pilots will hand over the aircraft to the next crew with a post-it containing all the technical issues that are not in the tech log. Those are the companies to avoid.
15. Re:Trying to disable the warning? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-02 01:20 · Score: 0
  
  There are a number of areas of concern in this accident.
  1. Maintenance personnel did not respond appropriately to an exponential increase in the failure rate of a flight control system of the aircraft.
  2. Circuit breakers were reset in flight, contrary to the operating handbook of the aircraft.
  3. The airline did not train for a change in roles between pilot not flying and pilot flying in an emergency.
  4. The first officer did not activate a system which would have ignored the co-pilot's incorrect control stick inputs.
  5. The aircraft is designed to sum the commands from the two flight control sticks, if one commands full up elevator and the other commands full down elevator, neutral elevator is the result. The aircraft should have an alert for this condition, to allow the pilots to become aware they are fighting each others inputs.
  6. The aircraft disengaged the autopilot and auto throttles in response to the flight crew cycling circuit breakers with no clear aural cues that these systems were disengaged. A small rudder deflection caused the aircraft to begin to roll which was not noticed until the aircraft had attained an unusual attitude.
  7. The flight crew responded incorrectly to the unusual attitude, resulting in the aircraft entering a condition that was unrecoverable.
  Airbus has a design philosophy that reflects the reality that many of the few remaining aircraft accidents are caused by pilot error and tries to rectify this through automation. This can be argued for and against. It has lead to increased complexity of the flight control systems, and to the complacency of the pilots flying the aircraft.
  Providing the flight crews with training for unusual attitude recovery has been recommended. Since both pilots knew they were in an unusual attitude, and as the aircraft was entirely capable of being flown out of that unusual attitude when it was detected, a system which would have provided correct flight control inputs to correct the unusual attitude might be helpful.
16. Re:Trying to disable the warning? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-02 01:29 · Score: 0
  
  Like you avoided reading the post?
  American and SouthWest, you idiot.
17. Re:Trying to disable the warning? by michelcolman · 2015-12-02 01:32 · Score: 1
  
  There are two rudder travel limiters (which determine the maximum rudder input alowed depending on speed and altitude to avoid breaking the tail off if, for example, one of the pilots would push one of the pedals all the way in during cruise). With one limiter broken, you can still depart normally (the minimum equipment list probably specifies something like maximum 10 days before repair, I'd have to look that up). If the other one breaks during flight, the rudder limit remains fixed where it is until the flaps are extended. At that point full rudder authority is restored.
  So it really shouldn't have been that big of a deal. Even if the other limiter broke too, the airplane could still be flown safely.
  The problem was probably caused by the reset of both FAC computers, which control the rudder limit and a number of other functions.
18. Re:Trying to disable the warning? by michelcolman · 2015-12-02 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  Sometimes it takes a while to find the cause of a problem. Crew writes up a problem "rudder travel limiter warning during flight". The mechanics check the maintenance computer and don't find any defect. Happens all the time, just a square electron passing through the system. "Checked on ground and found OK". Airplane flies for a few days (or weeks), then the problem reoccurs. Again, "Could not reproduce on ground", everything seems fine, spurious problem. By the third time, they probably swap out one of the computers. OK for a few weeks, then it happens again. Hmmm, maybe swap out the other one as well. Meanwhile the plane keeps flying because it is, after all, a very minor problem (the rudder travel limiter is not what caused the crash here). The airplane is even officially allowed to fly with one of the two limiters inoperative, since it can still be landed safely if the other one fails too. Basically the mechanics can just try different tricks and then hope the warning doesn't come back on the next flight. It takes a long time before they'll finally end up opening up the floor and checking the wiring (which is very rarely the cause of anything).
  Six months does seem like an awfully long time, though.
19. Re: Trying to disable the warning? by Muad'Dave · 2015-12-02 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  Took a deice during a snowstorm in Bwi ...
  Read that as taking a deuce. I wondered what part of a snowstorm scared the crap outta you.
  
  --
  Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
20. Re: Trying to disable the warning? by tibit · 2015-12-02 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  Given that the de-icing fluid's performance is not perfect, I'd say that getting off the ground in icing conditions with a part of the wing untreated is like taking off with most of the redundancy gone. I'd be rattled by that too...
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
21. Re:Trying to disable the warning? by mjwx · 2015-12-02 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  I've flown on an AA MD80 with an engine that had to be started with an external APU (starter was broken)
  It should be noted that the parent means American Airlines, not Air Asia here. Air Asia never had any MD aircraft.
  Air Asia operate A320's exclusively (excepting Air Asia X which operates A330's exclusively).
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
22. Re:Trying to disable the warning? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-04 08:03 · Score: 0
  
  Thanks for all your interesting and useful commentary here !
always scapegoat the pilot by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 11:58 · Score: 1

as more and more planes fall out of the sky, and more and more trains run off the rails, they will continue to always scapegoat the pilot / train operator / whatever. how transparent can you get?
1. Re:always scapegoat the pilot by hcs_$reboot · 2015-12-01 12:25 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  as more and more planes fall out of the sky
  Wrong.
  
  they will continue to always scapegoat the pilot / train operator / whatever
  Who is "they"? Anyway the investigation that took a year was performed by rather independent parties. Plus, Airbus interest is to put the blame on the airline / pilots (Air Asia), Air Asia interest is to blame the aircraft (Airbus)... So after a year when all of those people having conflicting interests come up with an agreed outcome, it's likely to be not far from the truth.
  
  --
  Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
2. Re:always scapegoat the pilot by Joe_Dragon · 2015-12-01 16:17 · Score: 1
  
  If It Ain't Boeing I'm Not Going
3. Re:always scapegoat the pilot by TheTurtlesMoves · 2015-12-01 19:40 · Score: 1
  
  The safety records between both airlines is the same. There are just a lot of A320 in air right now. Thing is, it is this instance on letting the pilots do what they want that causes problems.
  
  --
  The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
4. Re:always scapegoat the pilot by hcs_$reboot · 2015-12-01 19:50 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe Airbus (and Boeing) are more keen to sell aircraft, than to ensure pilots are able to fly them
  
  --
  Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
5. Re:always scapegoat the pilot by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-02 00:24 · Score: 0
  
  But actual accident investigations frequently don't blame the train driver. Very often the train drivers involvement in derailments consists of: the train notices a fault and brakes to a stop, the driver phones his signaller "My train stopped itself, can you block the line so I can go take a look" "Sure, OK, I have blocked the Up Fast to all traffic, let me know". Then he spends a while walking back down the line and finds a couple of bogies are derailed, but not far out of alignment, and he sees they've made quite a mess dragging through stuff. He gets back to the cab, and tells the signaller what he saw, eventually a rescue train arrives, and he goes home. No blame for him, did his job just fine. Most of the investigation will focus on the track maintenance crews and management process, since usually there's a serious track fault.
6. Re:always scapegoat the pilot by gustygolf · 2015-12-02 22:11 · Score: 1
  
  Pretty much every crash investigation will give at the very least 2-3 contributing factors to the crash. It's very very rarely that a pilot error alone that leads to the crash.
  Bad maintenance. Lacking training. Failed instrument. Weather. Pilot error. Crew confusion. ATC error. Pick at least two.
  The news outlets though, they try to simplify the cause to fit their headline.
  
  --
  "Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 58 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment" -- slashdot, driving users away.
7. Re:always scapegoat the pilot by TheTurtlesMoves · 2015-12-03 00:04 · Score: 1
  
  The are airline manufactures. It is their job to *build* aircraft. Not train pilots. There is plenty of recommended training that just isn't done in many airlines. Watch mayday or plane crash investigation or something. Or download the accident reports. They are typically available. I think.
  
  --
  The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
23 times by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 11:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

They had the problem 23 times in the last 12 months it says. For real? Maybe it might have been a good idea to fix it?
1. Re:23 times by hcs_$reboot · 2015-12-01 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  Lax airline, pax don't relax.
  
  --
  Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
2. Re: 23 times by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 12:40 · Score: 0
  
  Nah. It's no longer a problem, right?
3. Re: 23 times by hcs_$reboot · 2015-12-01 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  It's the least of their problems.
  
  --
  Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
4. Re: 23 times by guruevi · 2015-12-01 14:19 · Score: 2
  
  Air lines have to pay out of their own pockets to get something fixed, if the plane falls out of the sky, the insurance will pay for it.
  While that is cynical boiling down of the issue, the airlines do try to squeeze out every penny out of their routes and that does include (well documented across the business) lack of training and lack of maintenance.
  Complain about the lack of qualified candidates and churn out as many pilots out of schools regardless of their passion or grades as you can so you can pay them 30k/year, do the same for the techs.
  
  --
  Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
5. Re: 23 times by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2015-12-01 16:06 · Score: 1
  
  On the other hand, unless you have a close-to-exclusive lock on some desirable routes, it can't be inexpensive to have your brand and 'hundreds dead in air crash' splattered across all major media for some days. Sure, the absolute odds are low; but if I'm looking at a list of more or less interchangeable flights between point A and point B; am I going to choose the one whose logo is subconsciously associated with huddles of grieving family members and NTSB officials thoughtfully scrutinizing piles of mangled debris?
6. Re: 23 times by TheTurtlesMoves · 2015-12-01 19:41 · Score: 1
  
  In fact i don't buy the "it is cheaper for a crash". Often a single incident is enough to run an airline out of business for just the reason you described alone.
  
  --
  The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
7. Re: 23 times by KGIII · 2015-12-02 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  You made me think... I can't think of any major airlines that have had that happen to them in a long time. I can't even think of any smaller ones with just one exception and that was the Concorde and that wasn't *entirely* to do with the crash. There might be some puddle-jumper companies that have just two planes and one crash results in their going out of business but I can't think of any and Google's not being very helpful. Am I missing something? You said "often" and "single incident" and I really can't think of any. I can't even think of any minor ones where that is the result for any definition of "often." :/
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
8. Re: 23 times by geniice · 2015-12-02 01:02 · Score: 1
  
  Sure but by that point the bits of management that made the cuts have a good chance of working for someone else.
9. Re: 23 times by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-02 03:57 · Score: 0
  
  KLM
10. Re: 23 times by guruevi · 2015-12-02 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  Really? Most travelers don't really care or have a choice. Air France is still around even though it has made headlines a few years ago, American Airlines is still around even though it is the deadliest airline of them all.
  
  --
  Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
11. Re: 23 times by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-02 18:18 · Score: 0
  
  Well, that's one. I'm not sure that qualifies as often. :/ (As AC - saving posts for something relevant. Nothing personal.)
yet still no info by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 12:04 · Score: 1

Turning off the autopilot doesn't crash the plane.
Sounds the pilot confused the daylights out of the poor guy trying to flyby saying "Pull Down". We still put real instruments in planes tho, don't we? Either pilot should be able to figure up and down....
None of which sheds any light on how the 'greater than 45 degrees angle' comes about!
1. Re:yet still no info by jfdavis668 · 2015-12-01 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  The pilots tried to reboot the computer system to clear the error. This caused the autopilot to turn off. They then didn't do anything, thinking the autopilot was flying. Only when the plane was going out of control did they start trying to fly it themselves.
2. Re:yet still no info by Frosty+Piss · 2015-12-01 13:08 · Score: 1
  
  Why didn't they, after rebooting, re-engage the auto pilot?
  
  --
  If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
3. Re:yet still no info by aberglas · 2015-12-01 13:10 · Score: 1
  
  The pilots tried to reboot the computer system to clear the error. This caused the autopilot to turn off. They then didn't do anything, thinking the autopilot was flying. Only when the plane was going out of control did they start trying to fly it themselves.
  You've never flown a plane, have you.
  The Autopilot is fluff, like cruise control on a car. Turn it off and you just need to do more work, that's all. If a cruise control was wildly changing your speed you would just turn it off, wouldn't you. But not being able to recover from a stall for a pilot is like a driver who does not know how to brake strongly when required. Basic, 101 stuff.
4. Re:yet still no info by TheTurtlesMoves · 2015-12-01 19:43 · Score: 1
  
  You have never flown a A320 have you. On a A320. It is real autopilot and does a hell of a lot to fly the plane. It is not some Cessna hold heading thing.
  
  --
  The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
5. Re:yet still no info by aberglas · 2015-12-01 22:59 · Score: 1
  
  No, I have not flown a heavy. Have You? Or do you know something specific about what magic functions the "Autopilot" does?
  There is the basic fly-by-wire system that controls the primary surfaces, and has some smarts e.g. about pulling too much G. Hopefully that is very hard to turn off otherwise very bad things will happen.
  But on the old heavies autopilots had extra functions like managing a smooth descent, but nothing too special. I would think that landing without one would be very common simulator practice. They are flying near VNE, so need to take care, but that is clearly marked on mechanical ASIs, and I would assume the screens.
  Anyway if you actually know something then speak up, would be interesting to hear.
6. Re:yet still no info by Hognoxious · 2015-12-01 23:16 · Score: 1
  
  The issue isn't that they couldn't fly without the autopilot, it's that they didn't realise they needed to because they thought it was on.
  Well they realised, but too late.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
7. Re:yet still no info by dave420 · 2015-12-02 00:16 · Score: 1
  
  You should probably read up about just what the Airbus autopilots do. They're pretty damned advanced.
8. Re:yet still no info by KGIII · 2015-12-02 00:40 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm... I think the A320 is a bit more advanced than that and Google indicates it is. It can do stuff like autoland and the likes. It's not just the basic autopilot of yore? You can find the training manual via Google. The search result was the first one on my quick search.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
9. Re:yet still no info by michelcolman · 2015-12-02 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  It has to be manually reengaged. Which is normal. Pilots don't expect an autopilot to simply reengage itself automatically while they're flying manually. It just takes one press of a button to turn it back on.
10. Re:yet still no info by TheTurtlesMoves · 2015-12-03 00:02 · Score: 1
  
  At least learn to google for for crying out loud. And heavy has nothing to do with it. I am specifically talking about the A320. Which is heavy by the standard definitions, but it is not some 1960s 747.
  
  --
  The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
Say what? by Austerity+Empowers · 2015-12-01 12:05 · Score: 1

I don't think I've ever been in a passenger jet where any angle ever reached 45 degrees (or more). It seems insensible to train for unlikely scenarios, and even less sensible to expect a pilot to respond properly to very unlikely scenarios quickly and accurately. I'm not sure I can google "proper procedure for A320 rudder malfunction" and get a response before I'd be dead....
1. Re:Say what? by PrimaryConsult · 2015-12-01 12:09 · Score: 1
  
  Especially since the first 2 minutes would be spent trying to enter your credit card information for the wifi while trying to keep the laptop (and credit card) from falling to the back of the plane...
2. Re:Say what? by ChuckieG · 2015-12-01 12:14 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It's called unusual attitude training and even the lowly private pilot has to go through it before getting the VFR ticket. Attitudes in excess of 45 degrees don't crash a plane. The anomaly sounds like a perfect case of distraction that consumed the pilots' attention and they crashed a malfunctioning, but flyable plane.
3. Re:Say what? by Austerity+Empowers · 2015-12-01 13:14 · Score: 1
  
  Sure I am aware of that, and clearly they have tested this plane in its ability to handle that. But the precise procedures for handling the condition would appear to vary from plane to plane, and it seems the role of a passenger pilot would reduce the operating range of the plane from "anything it can do" to "anything it would reasonably do". Clearly the imaginations of everyone involved didn't conceive of this scenario, and clearly the procedures required for the A320 are very different that require more than the standard certification training would cover.
  It seems every time an Airbus crashes, it is the pilots fault, when it is clear the pilot has been doing certain things he was trained to do when encountering a scenario in all his previous experience. And frequently it's the case that's the wrong thing to do, or a misleading thing to do when flying an Airbus plane. For example pulling the circuit breaker, I'm told by a certified pilot is a reasonable action to take on many common planes. But is not procedure for an Airbus.
  I guess where I'm going with this is that Airbus seems to require pilots to do differently things they have learned to do on other craft, possibly leading to their certification, and when confronted with a very rare but possibly survivable situation in Airbus, many do the wrong thing and crash. The deceased pilot is blamed (easy, cheap) but very little that seems like it is necessarily effective is done to fix what seems the actual problem: the plane is difficult to fly.
4. Re: Say what? by ChuckieG · 2015-12-01 14:34 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Yes each aircraft has specific procedures. And training to go with, it's called type certification. Nothing special here. Quit playing with the circuit breakers and fly the damn plane. That's pilot error.
5. Re:Say what? by MightyYar · 2015-12-01 15:08 · Score: 2
  
  Training for unlikely scenarios is the whole point of having human pilots. If we were willing to accept a crash every time something went wrong, we'd just let the computer run the whole show.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
6. Re:Say what? by deadweight · 2015-12-01 15:51 · Score: 2
  
  I train my students ALL THE TIME to deal with bank angles past 45 degrees. It might not be everyday flying with passengers aboard, but anyone confused by it should never be at the controls of any kind of airplane.
7. Re:Say what? by TheTurtlesMoves · 2015-12-01 19:48 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is 2 fold. One as you say it almost never ever happens. Even that "experienced" pilot with thousands of hours under his belt as probably never been in a uncontrolled 45 AOA situation. So all that experience is worth shit. The second is physiology. We tend to refuse to believe reality when the shit hits the fan.
  
  Same things happen in nuclear power plants. Operator, "That can't be right, that would mean we will get a melt down. That simply won't happen on my shift, clearly the instrument is wrong". Pilots do exactly that. For many minutes at a time. till it is far to late.
  
  --
  The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
8. Re:Say what? by TheTurtlesMoves · 2015-12-01 19:50 · Score: 1
  
  Humans are terrible at it. We should have let the machines do this ages ago.
  
  --
  The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
9. Re:Say what? by gnupun · 2015-12-01 23:26 · Score: 1
  
  From TFA:
  
  The global airline industry has been struggling to sharpen flying skills at a time cockpits are becoming increasingly automated. Several accidents have raised concerns that pilots lack the skills to respond to emergencies that simulators can't replicate well.
  
  The lazy humans don't want to learn a skill that can be done by a machine.
  It wouldn't be surprising if this kind of accident were to occur when automated cars are here because the driver won't know how to drive and the automated car can't handle the situation.
10. Re:Say what? by dunkelfalke · 2015-12-02 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  Pulling a circuit breaker because some warning pisses the pilot off is not a reasonable action and has been a cause for several accidents.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
11. Re:Say what? by michelcolman · 2015-12-02 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  You have no idea how many technical problems are solved by pilots. Those incidents just don't make it into the crash statistics because, fortunately, the plane had human pilots. Take the pilots out and you'll have an order of magnitude more crashes. Yes, pilots do screw up sometimes. But that's negligible compared to the number of technical failures they handle correctly.
12. Re:Say what? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-02 06:01 · Score: 0
  
  Well, that pulling back the stick continuously to cause the 45 degree angle and never trying to push the nose down after reaching 45 degrees are things to be avoided is the training they should have received. I think we covered this in my 3rd flight lesson(US).
13. Re:Say what? by TheTurtlesMoves · 2015-12-02 23:56 · Score: 1
  
  oh i do. I am a pilot. No turbine rating or anything. But i have a full instrument rating. Where i am from that means i don't have to be VFR only.
  
  --
  The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
Reporting bias by OzPeter · 2015-12-01 12:05 · Score: 3, Interesting

I love how the headlines on CNN (and now WSJ) lead with "Pilot Error" but the BBC leads with

Faulty equipment was a "major factor" in the AirAsia plane crash last December that killed all 162 people on board, Indonesian officials say.
AirAsia crash: Faulty part 'major factor'
Yes the crew were not fully trained, but according to Airbus the plane couldn't get into the situation it was in, so why train pilots for that? Also the faulty part had been faulty for a significant amount of time. This flight was not the first flight that had issues with the particular equipment.

--
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
1. Re:Reporting bias by JoeyRox · 2015-12-01 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  They should train pilots for that because planes are enormously complex engineering devices that sometimes do things that designers and engineers can't anticipate. We're not even talking about exotic events here - just basic knowledge about how to fly the plane under quasi-manual control without putting it into an uncontrollable drive. Oh, and also train them not to pull circuit breakers that are control critical flight surfaces just because you saw a mechanic do it while the plane was on the ground.
2. Re:Reporting bias by Solandri · 2015-12-01 18:06 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Yes the crew were not fully trained, but according to Airbus the plane couldn't get into the situation it was in, so why train pilots for that?
  The plane can't get into that situation while the computer is in control. The Airbus flight computer has a final mode where it basically tells the pilots, "I give up, you fly the plane." Usually this mode kicks in when the computer is getting contradictory information from the instruments (AF447 where one or more of the pitot tubes clogged, causing simultaneous overspeed and stall warnings). So since it's possible for the pilot to end up in full control of the plane, it is imperative that they train for every likely situation. (AF447 crashed because while in this mode, one of the pilots continuously pulled back on the control stick almost the entire time the plane was in a stall, thus keeping it in the stall.)
  
  That said, several of the recent automation accidents seem to be caused not by the automation itself, but by the crew misinterpreting what mode the computer is in and/or misunderstand what the computer will and will not do when in that mode. Asiana 214 crashed because the pilots thought the computer was in a mode where it would auto-throttle to maintain altitude, when it was in a different mode. TAM 3054 crashed because the thrust reverser on one engine was inoperative so the pilots relied on the autothrottle to slow that engine to idle. But when they moved the other engine control to idle then reverse (to deploy its thrust reverser), that disengaged the autothrottle which caused the other engine to spin up to the full throttle setting it was set at.
  
  It would probably be worthwhile for the major airliner manufacturers to get together and standardize the automation modes and what is/isn't controlled in each mode. Then pilots can be trained against a consistent standard instead of having to re-learn all the automation when they change aircraft (what the second pilot was doing in Asiana 214 - if both pilots had been experienced in the 777, one of them may have noticed the error). The way it is now, it's like on one plane pulling back on the stick makes it pitch up, while on another plane pulling back on the stick sometimes makes it pitch down.
3. Re:Reporting bias by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 20:28 · Score: 0
  
  The plane can't get into that situation while the computer is in control. The Airbus flight computer has a final mode where it basically tells the pilots, "I give up, you fly the plane." Usually this mode kicks in when the computer is getting contradictory information from the instruments (AF447 where one or more of the pitot tubes clogged, causing simultaneous overspeed and stall warnings).
  Not the full story. Airbus has several flight control laws with less and less protections depending on what the computer can or cannot provide: Normal law, Alternate law 1, Alternate law 2, Direct law and finally Mechanical law. So it's more like the computer saying "I can no longer help you with X, Y and Z". Those changes to less protections are irreversible since it is assumed that even if whatever sensor didn't function seems to function once again, it's not reliable, and the reset must be made on the ground. It's also possible to turn off protections manually but pilots never do that because it's not part of any procedure (so the claim that Airbus overrides the pilot isn't strictly true, it won't override a pilot that doesn't fly it as intended).
4. Re:Reporting bias by yes-but-no · 2015-12-01 23:24 · Score: 1
  
  Yes the crew were not fully trained, but according to Airbus the plane couldn't get into the situation it was in, so why train pilots for that?
  The plane can't get into that situation while the computer is in control. The Airbus flight computer has a final mode where it basically tells the pilots, "I give up, you fly the plane."
  Seems in this case pilots never saw the "I give up message". The point is why did the software let the pilot to turn itself off; it should make it really really hard to let the pilot kill the automation [yes it takes crucial seconds, but too many accidents happen because the pilot could not recover the plane later]. May ask consent from all pilots/ introduce a time delay/ask a ground station .. yes this all takes time, but just killing automation these days sounds like sure death. Giving the ability to turn off automation is like a human having the ability to stop his heart from beating(which we don't have and there is a reason why evolution didn't give us that ability)
5. Re:Reporting bias by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-02 00:36 · Score: 0
  
  The computer didn't do that. See the other anonymous response to the parent. The computer only stopped providing the protections that it couldn't provide. Inadequate training meant that the pilots couldn't handle it from then on. My proposed solution is to increase redundancy in the automated systems and remove pilots completely. The problem with third world airlines flying aircraft in the condition as this one was (same fault reported but not fixed 23 times!!!) would also go away because with complete automation the computer would also have the authority to refuse to fly. After all, human pilots can do that. Of course it's very risky for their careers to do the right thing and insist that certain items are addressed before flying. Especially in the third world where pilots' unions are weak or nonexistent and they more often have aircraft in unacceptably poor condition. It should follow from the fact that computers are already "authorized" to hand pilots the problems that it cannot handle. And computers certainly don't suffer from "getthereritis" like human pilots do when they fly against their better judgment out of a desire to get to their destination. Finally, whilst airlines try to cut corners to save costs, "tricking" the computer to fly when it's programmed not to, would be such a grave criminal act that I doubt any executive would take the risk.
6. Re:Reporting bias by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-02 02:06 · Score: 0
  
  Seems in this case pilots never saw the "I give up message".
  They pulled the fuse, that should be enough message that the computer drawing power through that fuse is going to give up.
7. Re:Reporting bias by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-02 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  It would probably be worthwhile for the major airliner manufacturers to get together and standardize the automation modes and what is/isn't controlled in each mode.
  Unfortunately the perspectives of both Airbus and Boeing when it comes to automation are too different to allow this. Boeing gives the last word to the pilot, so the automation may warn the pilot it's doing something stupid, but it will still allow it to crash the plane to the ground if it wants. Boeing's idea is "The pilot knows, we only help." Airbus, on the other hand, gives the last decision to the airplane, so you can't slow it down too much and make it crash to the ground, the computer will keep not allow it. Airbus's idea is "We want to get rid of the pilot, so let's take as much decision from him as possible." I know I'm oversimplifying here, but that's the general idea, or so I read, I'm not in the aviation field. The two ideas go right against each other, so it's hard for them to standardize their automation modes. They simply disagree what should the automation be used for.
  Airbus's method may sound better in the sense that the computer will fail less than humans. But, obviously, it only works within a certain envelope of conditions the computers feel they can manage. Beyond those conditions, it gives the pilots control. And these are the moments in which either the pilot knows what they're doing, or they're going to do some crap, because it's in less than ideal situations that the computer will provide manual control. Unfortunately, making them fly all the time in automated mode makes them lose their skills, so by the time they need them, they have no idea what they're doing. There's a nice book called The Glass Cage: Automation and Us that discusses not only Airbus vs Boeing, but also other fields where automation has started creeping in. It's worth a read.
8. Re:Reporting bias by larryjoe · 2015-12-02 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  The plane can't get into that situation while the computer is in control
  I'm not a pilot, so this might be a stupid question, but if the pilots had known that the autopilot had been turned off, could they have turned it back on in time to stabilize the plane? Or would the pilots not have bothered with re-enabling the autopilot, even if they had know that it had been turned off?
  If there is a plan configuration that is abnormal for a particular situation, such as disabling auto-pilot in mid-flight, couldn't the plane be designed to blare some signal in the cockpit so that the pilots are aware of the situation?
Imagine a programmer who can't debug by JoeyRox · 2015-12-01 12:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

And you'll have a good idea on the skill level of many international commercial jet pilots. Air France 447, Asiana 214, and now Air Asia QZ8501.
1. Re:Imagine a programmer who can't debug by hcs_$reboot · 2015-12-01 12:35 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm the selection of pilots is by far stricter than the selection of programmers. And good programmers make no bug :-)
  
  --
  Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
2. Re:Imagine a programmer who can't debug by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 13:40 · Score: 0
  
  Over the years System level knowledge has been de-emphasized as a part of flight crew training. It's still covered, but not as in depth as it use to be and the increased complexity of the airplane is one of the reasons why it's not covered to the same level. Another reason is cost since you can qualify pilots faster and thus cheaper.
3. Re:Imagine a programmer who can't debug by Michael+Woodhams · 2015-12-01 13:45 · Score: 1
  
  This is an uninformed and incorrect opinion.
  Airline pilot training has a huge emphasis on 'debugging'. Twice a year (I think - not 100% sure) they have several days of simulator training/testing where sadistic trainers throw dozens of complicated failure scenarios at them.
  Airliner safety has improved hugely in recent decades. (The USA recently went over a decade without a passenger jet airliner crash either on USA soil or USA flagged carrier.) New technology has played a large part, yet the proportion of crashes due to pilot error has remained about constant - i.e. improvements in pilot training and performance has kept pace with the safety improvements from technology.
  Improvements can be (and are) made to pilot training, guided by investigations like this one.
  
  --
  Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
4. Re:Imagine a programmer who can't debug by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 13:47 · Score: 0
  
  And you'll have a good idea on the skill level of many international commercial jet pilots. Air France 447, Asiana 214, and now Air Asia QZ8501.
  Good piloting is needed in exceptional circumstances. Captain Lux, Sullenberger (and many others, these are just those that made big press news) save lives because they were good pilots first (and likely good button pushers second). I think every airline should have a "no autopilot" month where the pilots actually fly the aircraft, from takeoff to landing, and everything in between. Sure, it will mean they have to actually fly, but maybe, just maybe, they will learn to actually fly and pay attention to the instruments and their own senses.
5. Re:Imagine a programmer who can't debug by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 14:03 · Score: 0
  
  Shit, I didn't know my coworker was a pilot as well.
6. Re:Imagine a programmer who can't debug by JoeyRox · 2015-12-01 14:45 · Score: 2
  
  I wasn't referring to training. I was referring to the pilots themselves. I've trained lots of programmers how to debug and some of them just don't get it. Sure they'll be able to solve issues that directly relate to problems they've been trained to solve. But they lack a holistic, intuitive sense of the system they're working with and that shows when they're faced with problems that don't neatly fit within their training.
7. Re:Imagine a programmer who can't debug by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 18:54 · Score: 0
  
  Name one 'good programmer' who has made no bugs and I will name you one liar :)
  Real boats rock.
8. Re:Imagine a programmer who can't debug by hcs_$reboot · 2015-12-01 19:42 · Score: 1
  
  Do 'man lsattr' on linux, and check the Bugs section..
  
  --
  Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
9. Re:Imagine a programmer who can't debug by dave420 · 2015-12-02 00:24 · Score: 1
  
  I agree entirely with that, but with one caveat: with all due respect, Sullenberger couldn't have done what he did without the Airbus autopilot making sure his inputs didn't make the situation worse.
10. Re:Imagine a programmer who can't debug by AmiMoJo · 2015-12-02 01:06 · Score: 2
  
  You don't want pilots to debug in mid-air. That's what often causes these accidents. You want them to follow procedure.
  Japan's high speed rail network, the Shinkansen, has never had a fatal accident, despite being the first such network in the world (started running in 1964) and having to deal with regular severe earthquakes and extreme weather. One of the reasons is that drivers are taught not to do anything but follow procedure. They aren't even allowed to work from memory. When a fault occurs they have to open a manual, read each instruction out loud and follow it. Working from memory is error prone.
  We see this time and time again. People who think they know what they are doing, but end up causing an accident.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
11. Re:Imagine a programmer who can't debug by JoeyRox · 2015-12-02 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  'Debug' was mostly a metaphor to relate how international pilots lack critical skill sets to perform their jobs, the same as how programmer's not knowing how to debug lack critical skill sets to perform their jobs.
  
  Trains riding on rails are a bit easier to keep from crashing into things than planes.
Apple response by hcs_$reboot · 2015-12-01 12:09 · Score: 1

"You crash it wrong".

--
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Asian pilots... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 12:10 · Score: -1

Well, if they can't drive, how can they fly...
In other words, pilots can't fly? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 13:04 · Score: 0

In other words, this means that the "pilots" of the plane can't actually fly the plane, they just rely on computers to do everything. If those computers fail, well, they crash the plane.
Great... Air travel is very safe! Put your life in the hands of unskilled morons! Yay? Yeah, I will put my life in my own hands by driving myself.
1. Re:In other words, pilots can't fly? by tompaulco · 2015-12-01 16:38 · Score: 1
  
  Same as any other field. Too much dependence on technology without understanding the basics. Like learning to use a calculator before you learn how to add. If the technology fails, the technology dependent are lost. It's hard to find a good auto mechanic, programmer, or pilot these days who can actually take over when the technology fails. They only know how to keep their hands off the machinery while the technology does its thing.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
2. Re:In other words, pilots can't fly? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-02 04:42 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly and on top of that there is no feedback on Airbus on the damn joystick and thats why one guy pushes down and another up ending with computer deciding what to do, what a horrid idea, same story with throttle on Airbus another great idea from Airbus engines... what a mess..
me check switch.. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 13:18 · Score: 0

plane data lie
reset power
plane data don't lie
splat
No matter how well you trained the idiots ... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 13:42 · Score: -1

Three major air crashes --- two from Malaysia Airline (with one plane still missing somewhere in the Indian Ocean) and one from AirAsia --- all three planes were piloted by people of the same race, the Malays
If you are familiar with Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, you would know that the Malays do not have the mental capacity to do things that are complicated
Even when they are riding motorcycles they ride worse than that of a toddler on a little tricycle
Regarding the training, trust me, the Malaysian / Indonesian governments have given them the *BEST* traning there is, with hundreds of hours inside fancy simulators and then even more hours in actual flight conditions - they are well trained
However, as I state on the topic, no matter how well you train idiots they will still be idiots
1. Re: No matter how well you trained the idiots ... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 13:53 · Score: 0
  
  Those people worship George Bush, so they are subhuman.
Johnny can't fly by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 14:16 · Score: 0

After repeated problem history, auto-pilot flakey and shut off.
Plane is in a stall, descending rapidly.
Pilot commands second to "pull, pull, pull"
This enhances the stall resulting in a crash.
How can this happen?
Pilot had 20K hours including military jet experience.
Co-pilot had 2k hours. A relative newbee, but still qualified in theory.
Flakeys are hard to find, be they in the autopilot or the pilot.
Flakey plus stress is not a good combination.
Apparently, it is possible to be an experienced airline pilot without bothering to learn the most basic stress and stick and rudder skills.
But they did do an outstanding report of the accident.
So wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 14:48 · Score: 0

..No blaming of encryption or Snowden? I thought for sure they would utilize this crisis somehow.
Understandable by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 14:54 · Score: -1

The co-pilot was French and apparently held the stick hard back.
Well to be fair, the first reaction of the French in a crisis is to fall back...
Is It My Imagination by Greyfox · 2015-12-01 15:28 · Score: 1

Is it my imagination or is this sort of thing happening a lot with those airbus planes? "Lot" being a relative term, I suppose, since the vast majority of the planes never have a problem. But it seems like there have been several high profile crashes lately that seem to be the result of a shitstorm of the pilots and the computer fighting one another. It takes a pretty long time for a plane to fall out of the sky like that -- more than enough time, one would think, for either the pilot or the computer to realize that their actions are not fixing the problem and try something else.

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
1. Re:Is It My Imagination by hcs_$reboot · 2015-12-01 17:06 · Score: 2
  
  int a_lot = 2; // This one and AF447
  
  --
  Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
2. Re:Is It My Imagination by Greyfox · 2015-12-01 17:30 · Score: 1
  
  Has it really just been two? I'd swear I'd heard of at least three or four in the last five years, but maybe I'm just getting confused since you hear about the crash and then they release their findings so much later it seems like a new story.
  
  --
  I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
3. Re:Is It My Imagination by robkeeney · 2015-12-02 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  In the "Software Engineering" class I took in college in the early `90s we talked a lot about Airbus planes falling out of the sky because of software problems. It may be just perception, but Airbus planes do seem to crash more than others, and the news stories seem to always mention computer issues. Wikipedia has a list! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
4. Re:Is It My Imagination by Plumpaquatsch · 2015-12-06 20:13 · Score: 1
  
  In the "Software Engineering" class I took in college in the early `90s we talked a lot about Airbus planes falling out of the sky because of software problems. It may be just perception, but Airbus planes do seem to crash more than others, and the news stories seem to always mention computer issues. Wikipedia has a list! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  
  Wow, a list! A list that mentions "computer" once (in the refs) and "software" not even that often. That sure is "always". But you are right, when Boeings fall apart in mid air because one thrust reverser engages, it sure isn't because of software but because the engine was "electronically controlled". And the integer overflow bug in the 787's (that would count as "software", right?) didn't cause any crashes before it was found.
  Anyway, Wikipedia also has a whole category just for Aviation accidents and incidents by aircraft, and yes, Boeing also has accidents.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
ex-Airforce Muslim pilot, with history of killing by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 18:49 · Score: 0

So the Airforce pilot of 20 years lacked training?
His Muslim culture, and history of killing christians was not a factor, in the final analysis?
Perhaps guess it depends who is writing the report....
http://shoebat.com/2014/12/30/pilot-indonesian-plane-went-missing-devout-muslim-slaughtered-christians/
The correct number is 42 by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-01 20:20 · Score: 0

> A cracked solder joint on the Airbus A320 resulted in an electrical interruption that caused computer-generated warnings of a rudder malfunction. The problem occurred four times during the flight.
The report also states that the problem occured 28 (!) times during the previous year, but Air Asia mechs didn't replace the unit. (Its a slide-in rack box, can be swapped for a spare in under 10 minutes).
Furthermore, even in case of lack of repair, if the pilots of the fatal flight turned back on the first or second warning, they would have lived.
It must be said that 3rd world countries should not be allowed to operate modern technology, since they lack the culture of responsibility and conscience that is required to properly maintain complicated equipment.
1. Re: The correct number is 42 by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-02 00:08 · Score: 0
  
  Second that, though your sokution is too harsh. We must train and educate to get them to the same level.
  I see tbis behavior in software related incidenta, too. Intermittent failures are tough cookies, and most eastern cultures just lack the stamina and willigness to figure out root causes. They tend to err on the side of 'it won't happen again, no worries', while western cultures tend to 'worry disaster in making, have to fix'. Also I find that root cause analysis is something westerners tend to do naturally, while easterners tend to blame anything or anyone out of their control so as not to loose face.
Your speak-n-spell is set to Oirish by Hognoxious · 2015-12-01 22:59 · Score: 1

because the two of the tree pilots
As they say, "if you pay peanuts you get monkeys". Or possibly squirrels.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
1. Re:Your speak-n-spell is set to Oirish by KGIII · 2015-12-02 00:08 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm... But, on the other hand, you might get an elephant. Elephants seem to like peanuts. I know 'cause I've fed peanuts to elephants. I did try to feed a pumpkin to an alligator but it didn't appear interested in the pumpkin.
  Wait... What was the subject again?
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
2. Re:Your speak-n-spell is set to Oirish by Hognoxious · 2015-12-02 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  If there's such a word as unarboreal, elephants are definitely the most. Apart from whales.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2015-12-02 00:26 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Re:ex-Airforce Muslim pilot, with history of killi by dave420 · 2015-12-02 01:03 · Score: 1

It was clearly not written by a bunch of tiny-minded xenophobic assholes.