7 ms·

74gear[1] on YouTube is a 747 Captain. It's a great aviation channel in general if anyone is interested in that stuff. He had mentioned two things that really i

74gear[1] on YouTube is a 747 Captain. It's a great aviation channel in general if anyone is interested in that stuff. He had mentioned two things that really illustrated to me your point a while back: A) Stuff breaks on planes. All the time. They are complex machines, but they typically have so many redundancies that unless there is a completely catastrophic failure, they are still perfectly safe to fly. An example: a starter is out in one of the engines, but there are four starters for an engine. Once the issue is known, if they can't fix it where they are currently at, they will do an empty flight (well, crew only) to the next maintenance hub and get it fixed. Before a plane even gets off the ground they have a checklist and do their best to determine if the plane is airworthy and safe to fly or not. If they feel the plane is unsafe, they can refuse to fly it. It is important to them to make sure the plane is safe to fly because: B) They also don't want to die. That last bit really hit hard for me for some reason, it's hilarious but at the same time eye opening. I think that I just never really thought of it in that way before. Maybe it's just me. [1] https://www.youtube.com/@74gear https://www.youtube.com/@74gear

_ea1k 3y ago
Regarding that last part, you'd be surprised at how many people at the FAA/DOT also haven't come to this realization.
- bombcar 3y ago
  The last part doesn't always work the way you'd like it to - most aviation disasters these days have very definite things the pilots could have done to save themselves and everyone, which they failed to do.
  - _ea1k 3y ago
    Yep, and a regulator who thinks that the answer is millions of dollars in spending to build a system and hire admins. Understanding of self preservation could replace the same things with better training and empowerment of pilots to override unsafe decisions.
- mckn1ght 3y ago
  They should be forced to read all the certification application material during test flights of the vehicles in question.
satellite2 3y ago
Yes but do the flight crew have the ability to tell if a plane is safe to fly? Without a deep understanding of the design of the plane they rely a lot on the metrics that the plane manufacturer display and on the manufacturers manuals to interpret them.
- vkou 3y ago
  > Yes but do the flight crew have the ability to tell if a plane is safe to fly? Do you have the ability to tell if a street is safe to cross? Most of the time, yes. Sometimes, you can't tell for sure, but you cross anyways. Sometimes, you are dead wrong about your judgement. Shit happens. Nobody expects 100% certainty. The problem here may be that Boeing may be falling to meet the expectation of 99.????% certainty, and regressing down to 99.????% certainty, due to a broken corporate culture.
- burnte 3y ago
  > Yes but do the flight crew have the ability to tell if a plane is safe to fly? Yes, it's literally part of the job of the pilots, by federal regulation. If the captain feels the flight isn't fit to fly, the captain can say it's a no go, period.
breadwinner 3y ago
> They are complex machines, but they typically have so many redundancies But Boeing reduced redundancies, presumably to cut costs. The 737 MAX planes that crashed only had one AoA sensor. Where else did they cut costs? Where else did they reduce redundancies? The public trust has been lost. Boeing needs to design a new plane from scratch, this time let engineers design the plane without interference from accountants.
- schlauerfox 3y ago
  This is VERY bad engineering practice, you throw away knowns for unknowns. A blue sky design isn't a fix. Especially if your corporate culture has the wrong leadership. First year engineers take engineering economics for a reason. Money is always an object.
  - breadwinner 3y ago
    Is there never a case where it is cheaper + better to start over? I think sometimes there is. The design of 737 MAX was flawed from the get-go. They made the engines bigger because bigger engines run hotter and burn less fuel. Ordinarily this would require the fuselage to be raised as well, so that the bigger engine can fit under the wing. Instead they changed the position of the engine. Instead of being hung under the wing, as in earlier models, the engines have been moved forward and upward, potentially leading to an aerodynamic stall under certain circumstances. Instead of going back to the drawing board and getting the airframe hardware right, Boeing relied on something called the ‘Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System,’ or MCAS. [1] It's just poor design. If software fails, then any plane should be designed to have a neutral center of gravity in order to give the crew the greatest amount of time to recover from the loss. [1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/how-the-boeing-737-max-disaster-looks-to-a-software-developer https://spectrum.ieee.org/how-the-boeing-737-max-disaster-lo...
    - Retric 3y ago
      Never is a loaded word. It’s almost impossible for a completely fresh design to be safer on day one. There’s so many different ways to fuck up many of them are counterintuitive because nobody ever considers if someone could install this backwards until someone does. 20+ years of debugging written with people’s lives tests just about everything in a way engineers never really think about
trompetenaccoun 3y ago
>It's a great aviation channel in general if anyone is interested in that stuff. It's an aviation channel for people who aren't into aviation. Lot's of clickbait + obvious optimization of titles and topics to appeal to the masses. The Mr Beast of pilots.
- Arn_Thor 3y ago
  Ok, so you don’t like the titles. Do you have any problems with the actual content—the thing that matters?
- rpmisms 3y ago
  Mentour Pilot is for people interested in aviation. He does breakdowns/analyses of plane incidents—not just crashes. He's also a certified trainer on at least one type.
  - wlonkly 3y ago
    It's funny, I was also thinking about Mentour Pilot, both because of the whole discussion here, and because of the post upthread talking about clickbait. I love Mentour Pilot once I get into one of the videos, but looking at all the attention-grabbing (and clickbaity!) stills on his video list makes me have to force myself to remember that it's fine once the video starts.
    - ricktdotorg 3y ago
      if you're a Chrome user, consider installing the Clickbait Remover for Youtube extension: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/clickbait-remover-for-you/omoinegiohhgbikclijaniebjpkeopip https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/clickbait-remover-f.... or the add-on for Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/clickbait-remover-for-youtube/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/clickbait-rem... they both do the job well. i've not been mildly irked by clickbait-y thumbnails for ages! great for mental health.
      - 3y ago

_ea1k 3y ago

Regarding that last part, you'd be surprised at how many people at the FAA/DOT also haven't come to this realization.

bombcar 3y ago
The last part doesn't always work the way you'd like it to - most aviation disasters these days have very definite things the pilots could have done to save themselves and everyone, which they failed to do.
- _ea1k 3y ago
  Yep, and a regulator who thinks that the answer is millions of dollars in spending to build a system and hire admins. Understanding of self preservation could replace the same things with better training and empowerment of pilots to override unsafe decisions.
mckn1ght 3y ago
They should be forced to read all the certification application material during test flights of the vehicles in question.

satellite2 3y ago

Yes but do the flight crew have the ability to tell if a plane is safe to fly? Without a deep understanding of the design of the plane they rely a lot on the metrics that the plane manufacturer display and on the manufacturers manuals to interpret them.

vkou 3y ago
> Yes but do the flight crew have the ability to tell if a plane is safe to fly? Do you have the ability to tell if a street is safe to cross? Most of the time, yes. Sometimes, you can't tell for sure, but you cross anyways. Sometimes, you are dead wrong about your judgement. Shit happens. Nobody expects 100% certainty. The problem here may be that Boeing may be falling to meet the expectation of 99.????% certainty, and regressing down to 99.????% certainty, due to a broken corporate culture.
burnte 3y ago
> Yes but do the flight crew have the ability to tell if a plane is safe to fly? Yes, it's literally part of the job of the pilots, by federal regulation. If the captain feels the flight isn't fit to fly, the captain can say it's a no go, period.

breadwinner 3y ago

> They are complex machines, but they typically have so many redundancies But Boeing reduced redundancies, presumably to cut costs. The 737 MAX planes that crashed only had one AoA sensor. Where else did they cut costs? Where else did they reduce redundancies? The public trust has been lost. Boeing needs to design a new plane from scratch, this time let engineers design the plane without interference from accountants.

schlauerfox 3y ago
This is VERY bad engineering practice, you throw away knowns for unknowns. A blue sky design isn't a fix. Especially if your corporate culture has the wrong leadership. First year engineers take engineering economics for a reason. Money is always an object.
- breadwinner 3y ago
  Is there never a case where it is cheaper + better to start over? I think sometimes there is. The design of 737 MAX was flawed from the get-go. They made the engines bigger because bigger engines run hotter and burn less fuel. Ordinarily this would require the fuselage to be raised as well, so that the bigger engine can fit under the wing. Instead they changed the position of the engine. Instead of being hung under the wing, as in earlier models, the engines have been moved forward and upward, potentially leading to an aerodynamic stall under certain circumstances. Instead of going back to the drawing board and getting the airframe hardware right, Boeing relied on something called the ‘Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System,’ or MCAS. [1] It's just poor design. If software fails, then any plane should be designed to have a neutral center of gravity in order to give the crew the greatest amount of time to recover from the loss. [1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/how-the-boeing-737-max-disaster-looks-to-a-software-developer https://spectrum.ieee.org/how-the-boeing-737-max-disaster-lo...
  - Retric 3y ago
    Never is a loaded word. It’s almost impossible for a completely fresh design to be safer on day one. There’s so many different ways to fuck up many of them are counterintuitive because nobody ever considers if someone could install this backwards until someone does. 20+ years of debugging written with people’s lives tests just about everything in a way engineers never really think about

trompetenaccoun 3y ago

>It's a great aviation channel in general if anyone is interested in that stuff. It's an aviation channel for people who aren't into aviation. Lot's of clickbait + obvious optimization of titles and topics to appeal to the masses. The Mr Beast of pilots.

Arn_Thor 3y ago
Ok, so you don’t like the titles. Do you have any problems with the actual content—the thing that matters?
rpmisms 3y ago
Mentour Pilot is for people interested in aviation. He does breakdowns/analyses of plane incidents—not just crashes. He's also a certified trainer on at least one type.
- wlonkly 3y ago
  It's funny, I was also thinking about Mentour Pilot, both because of the whole discussion here, and because of the post upthread talking about clickbait. I love Mentour Pilot once I get into one of the videos, but looking at all the attention-grabbing (and clickbaity!) stills on his video list makes me have to force myself to remember that it's fine once the video starts.
  - ricktdotorg 3y ago
    if you're a Chrome user, consider installing the Clickbait Remover for Youtube extension: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/clickbait-remover-for-you/omoinegiohhgbikclijaniebjpkeopip https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/clickbait-remover-f.... or the add-on for Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/clickbait-remover-for-youtube/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/clickbait-rem... they both do the job well. i've not been mildly irked by clickbait-y thumbnails for ages! great for mental health.
    - 3y ago