Comment by neuronic | Hacker News Reader

Comment by neuronic | Hacker News Reader

Let's preface this by saying I am aware that cause of the accident has not been determined. Seeing reports of experienced pilots being assigned to 737 MAXs without prior flight experience of this precise model, prompts me to make this comment.

As a passenger I expect pilots to fully know the plane they are flying and to previously have flown this exact type and model of aircraft in training sessions without any passengers whatsoever. 737 MAXs seem to have significant differences compared to other 737 models and airlines appear criminally negligent in the use of these aircraft.

I used to be a mere bus driver as a college job and I _had_ to train on all models before transporting any sort of organism with a central nervous system.

But apparently, flying hundreds of people at hundreds of mph at several thousand feet above the ground doesn't require this sort of familiarity with the machine. Having flown other 737s and skimming a manual 20mins before departure was often deemed sufficient, resulting in flabbergasted and overwhelmed pilots.

Boeing, FAA, airlines... whoever is ultimately blamed in all of this, the crash has revealed some scary stories in regards to aviation - all for the sake of cutting costs because people demand to fly across continents for $100.

I expect them to have flown the plane, but not necessarily empty. I'm fine with them flying with someone who does already have experience with it as their first flight. (And maybe second and third.)

But the idea that they can learn the differences from the manual in a short car ride is ridiculous in the extreme.

To clarify, I meant passengers. Copilots and engineers are fine and likely even necessary to properly train and deal with the new challenges.

As a daily driver of your own car, if you do own one, then it might be apparent how different they can be. I constantly switch between automatic Mercedes and BMWs.

Both have a near identical handle on the right side of the steering wheel. One turns on wipers (BMW), the other one shifts gears... (Benz). Imagine that on a plane with worse consequences than accidentally shifting into neutral when it rains.

You don't do non-revenue training flights on full-size jetliners. It's way too expensive. You learn to fly (period) on small planes that can't hold passengers at all, then you train in simulators for a specific model, and then finally you're paired up with a more experienced pilot once you start flying it for real.

They definitely did not do the proper training that was merited here, but the proper training is not and never was flying a large jetliner empty.

That makes a lot of sense, but shouldn't simulators be updated/upgraded for significantly different models?

One would expect that X hours in a simulator help you adapt to a new aircraft type.

I didn't intend to demand economically stupid things like flying an large aircraft empty for training, just wanted to express that as a passenger I want my pilot to know their way around the machine that keeps me 10km above ground at 600km/h.

> That makes a lot of sense, but shouldn't simulators be updated/upgraded for significantly different models?

According to Boeing, the FAA, the EASA, and various other regulators around the world, the 737 MAX is not significantly different to earlier 737s.

I work in the simulation industry, and once a simulator is certified for training, you cant "update it" to another model. The customer has to buy a new 737 MAX sim. However, since the 737ng and 737 MAX are common type (meaning that in the eyes of the authorities, if you're licensed for one, you're licensed for both) customers aren't REQUIRED to get a 737 MAX sim granted that they already have a 737ng sim.

Just to clarify: you can udpate a simulator and recertifie it. e.g. in regard to the motion or visual systems etc etc. But to transform a simulator into another aircraft would be beyond economically sane.

Funny enough, I remember seeing a 737 doing circuits at Prestwick airport. I believe there is (or used to be) some requirement for an airline to do a minimum number of circuits on a new type. Kinda fun to see. Apparently a lot of fun for pilots to do.

Yeah, each time a new type comes out, or a new plane is manufactured, you do empty test flights. But you don't do that just to train up a pilot.

> this exact type and model of aircraft in training sessions without any passengers whatsoever

Nobody does that in a "live aircraft", that's what simulators are for (and the whole flight training curriculum, from the first lesson to being able to fly a commercial jet).

And in this case the Boeing's selling point of the MAX was "not even the new simulator training is needed."

Then we read that the MAX was the "best selling model." It seems, based on the false advertising, that included not acknowledging the differences. Even the "less serious" ones:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19374386

"I had my first flight on the Max [to] ZZZ1. We found out we were scheduled to fly the aircraft on the way to the airport in the limo. We had a little time [to] review the essentials in the car. Otherwise we would have walked onto the plane cold. My post flight evaluation is that we lacked the knowledge to operate the aircraft in all weather and aircraft states safely.

The instrumentation is completely different - My scan was degraded, slow and labored having had no experience w/ the new ND (Navigation Display) and ADI (Attitude Director Indicator) presentations/format or functions (manipulation between the screens and systems pages were not provided in training materials. If they were, I had no recollection of that material)."

As someone who (obviously) has no experience in aviation - just train the pilots so they are properly prepared. I care exactly zero what the surrounding conditions are if they suffice.

It just looks like they didn't even get proper simulator training in too many cases.

Both crashes happened outside the FAA's sphere. I don't see how we can blame them for foreign pilots not being trained well enough.

FAA is not responsible for the crashes but for not taking any precautionary measure in the US even with reports as the one linked above coming in. Their role isn't just reactive but also proactive. The report above is coming from a US pilot:

> State Reference : US

> B737 MAX First Officer reported feeling unprepared for first flight in the MAX, citing inadequate training.

From another comment below (a simulator industry insider):

> However, since the 737ng and 737 MAX are common type (meaning that in the eyes of the authorities, if you're licensed for one, you're licensed for both) customers aren't REQUIRED to get a 737 MAX sim granted that they already have a 737ng sim.

This is where the FAA could have intervened. Pilots consider them different enough to warrant training so it should have been clear for the FAA too. But they accept this compromise to allow companies to cut costs.

And the scary thing is that a new pilot will also get to train on an old NG sim before flying a (different) MAX plane. Unlike experience pilots, a new one would have little flying experience to fall back on and the FAA allows them to fly a plane after being trained on what might as well be a sim for a different plane.

>> As a passenger I expect pilots to fully know the plane they are flying

Never going to happen. Modern aircraft are far too complex for anyone to have this sort of complete knowledge, let alone be able to use it properly in a crisis. This one reason, of many, that pilots work from checklists created by the manufacturer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com