The system that is suspected (and again I feel it's jumping to conclusions to list anything at this point) is actually a stall avoidance system that is independent of the autopilot and is on all the time. It pushes the nose of the aircraft down when it detects a high angle of attack which could result in an incipient stall. If this happened close to the ground and the crew wasn't paying attention I suppose it could cause this type of mishap. I don't know any pilots that aren't closely monitoring controls even if they are on autopilot at that phase of flight, and both that system and any autopilot system allows the pilot to "fly through" the controls, so it's not like the autopilot can just take over and the pilots have to "wrestle" (a term I've read more than once) controls away in some superhuman feat of strength. It is possible and indeed far more probable that the way the system works in some phases of flight has not been conveyed adequately to pilots, training failures are common in mishap investigation, far more common than mechanical failures. It's also possible that an instrument failed that led them to take the opposite action they should have, like Air France Flight 447 (and lots of others). Being new to an air frame, as all pilots by definition are with the Max, plus inadequate training and simulators, are all danger points. If I were to speculate, and it would be sheer speculation at this point, it would be that this is a combination training and pilot error issue which won't be clearly anyone's fault and by the time we've determined that it will all be a somewhat muddled memory anyway. The reputation risk is the piece you have to determine to decide if the stock is oversold or not. Will Southwest stop flying the 737, given that a single fleet is integral to their entire business model? Probably not. Will anyone start buying A-380s again instead of 777s because of this? Not likely. Will some companies end up canceling Max orders in favor of A-320s? Sure, but there's only so many Airbus can tool up to make in the short term so if you need a 737 type aircraft you may end up with them anyway, and in 3 years when Airbus is at max production this will be something that mostly only aviation buffs and pilots remember. I could very well be wrong on the impact on reputation, but I don't think I'm wrong on focusing on that as the only real moving part in this equation.
So Boeing doesn't actually build simulators, there is an entire industry out there that builds and operates those. They just provide tech services, software, and the hardware to make the instrument panels look real. And pilots generally don't know much if anything about how the flight control software is working except at a system level, it's super arcane embedded software. I mean the software is actually manipulating the ailerons in minute amounts hundreds of times a minute in response to sensors that are detecting turbulence at the leading edge of the wing to dampen the impacts to the aircraft, for example. Pilot's know that system is there, and the system level concept of how it works, they don't know and don't need to know the software routines that are running it or how they react to every different sensor input. But yes, per my last post training is vital and they very well could have fallen down here on that. That said, if you listen to pilot gripes I think you'd need to listen to pilot gripes on every model of aircraft every day to determine if the Max one's were exceptional. As a maintenance officer I've literally seen gripes about systems not working when that system was not an installed piece of equipment on that particular aircraft (I may or may not have been guilty of generating something similar myself), so you gotta take that all with a grain of salt!
You might be right. Does the flight recorder also record aircraft inputs and sensor data? I would expect that a modern aircraft would. I see it the same way. Probably a software fix and not severe enough to warrant the drop in the stock. Although, how will Boeing get their planes re-certified for flight? If the issue doesn't come down to pilot error (not sure how that would be proven), do they have any legal liability for the two crashes? If it does come down to a software design bug, they would have to disclose and fix that in order to get their planes back in the air. But if they do that, then they would also be admitting fault for the crashes.
Well, yeah...but: Its completely plausible that the autopilot was attempting to do the right thing for the flight condition (i.e pitch down), which would seem counter-intuitive to a human pilot. I can't think of a situation where fighting the autopilot would be advisable. To your point, the new flight characteristics of the system should have been thoroughly disclosed, and optimal procedures conveyed (I'm not sure if they were or were not). Not saying having the autopilot was wrong...just saying that fighting the autopilot is wrong. If you don't like the way the autopilot is behaving...shut it off.
Yes I have read about the issue with the stall avoidance system as well. And this is what is perceived as the initial cause of the plane nose-diving in error in the first place. But even if might be the issue with the stall avoidance system initially, there was still an issue with autopilot that somehow didn't allow the pilot to "fly through" the autopilot, using your term; somehow the plane didn't allow the pilot to pull up. Because during the last communication that the pilot had with the control tower, he did report problems with the flight control which I take it means that he just couldn't control the plane anymore. Whether this inability to control the plane during the autopilot is due to training issue or faulty design of the autopilot system which is a mechanical issue is what is to be determined, might be both. My bet: Boeing is going to blame it more on the training issue and the pilot association is going to blame it more on the mechanical issue (if found to be faulty as well) and the lack of training provided by Boeing. Apparently the only training that pilots to fly the Max series planes go through is a 56-minute video. Like I said, that's going to depend on PR. But from now on, I will be paying closer attention to the type of the plane when booking flights and they better be continuing to publish plane types information.
Airplane Pilot vs Missile Guidance Engineer terminology, I suppose. The design engineers refer to the autopilot as anything that translates inputs from the "guidance system" (human or computer) into control deflections....at least in the missile world (where there is rarely a human in the loop). More generic terminology would be "Computer-Aided Flight Control System", as opposed to autopilot.
No it was NOT obviously because it was attempting to drive the plane to the ground otherwise there wouldn't have been a crash. And in this situation it was obviously advisable that the pilot takes over and fly the plane manually which was what he was trying to do. He tried but he couldn't! That was the problem. I wonder if they consult pilots when designing those planes, the flight control system, the autopilot system. If not, maybe this is what they should do. Before those nerds design those systems, they should let the pilot test drive it first to see if it's operable by a human, and even under extreme circumstances where he/she has to make nano-second decisions.
Okay, when an aircraft is beginning to stall...you pitch the nose down, and trade altitude for airspeed. If youre too low, your screwed anyway (Presumably, the stall system is aware of the ground....) Aerodynamics are complicated and highly non-linear, especially near stall when you start getting separation of flow on the wing. The computer (presumably) detected a flight condition where the onset of stall was likely, thus it pitches down...even if stall onset was not intuitive to the pilot, based on their past experience (or inadequate training). Did they try to shut off the stall avoidance system? I haven't read that..(doesn't mean it didn't happen). There is the possibility that the flight control system was behaving incorrectly... I just doubt that. These things are over-designed because there is so much at stake.
Yeah but the pilot gripes in this case specifically griped about the autopilot system and how it nosedives suddenly in an unexpected manner and there is no information in the flight manual. I mean yes people complain but in this case planes really crashed just like how the pilot described in the gripes. So all the other times might be "crying wolf", this time it's real. And it's just so unfortunate that so many people died when the "wolf" turned out to be real.
It makes sense that if I was Boeing and designing a new airplane, I would want to optimize as much as possible about the aircraft without having to require all pilots flying it to basically learn how to fly all over again. The new 737 should be "easier" to fly than the older 737. Just like when we buy a new car, we don't have to take a class on how to operate it or get re-certified by the DMV if we already have a class-C driver's license. Things would be a lot more dangerous if pilots had to retrain every time they switch planes. Adding onto Sig's previous point, I don't think this will have long-term consequences in terms of how airlines and consumers operate. Most consumers just go onto Kayak or Expedia and look for the cheapest flight with shortest layover. 3 months from now, I doubt they will be concerned with the make and model of aircraft. Although honestly, if I had a flight booked for a 737 Max 8 this week, I would seriously consider other transportation options. I know that the odds of the plane crashes are extremely low, lower than the risk I would be taking in driving to the airport, but the idea of knowing that I'm about to die in a few minutes in a horrible plane crash as the plane is quickly losing altitude seems a lot more horrible than dying in a car accident.