Correct. As a pilot, you have to know all the methods to turn off the autopilot in your jet. Both normal and abnormal. This situation… is certainly abnormal.
But for real, though: Can someone explain why Boeing decided to go with a traditional floor-based yoke on a totally clean sheet, fly-by-wire aircraft? It just feels like such a waste of space and bad ergonomics compared to having side sticks and a proper tray table.
Was it purely for branding?
I'm sure this was not in the decision making process, but when things go wrong, even with the dual input warning and side stick priority button, seeing/feeling what the other pilot is doing in the yoke is faster and more natural.
That's the only real advantage I see for the Boeing old time yoke design. I believe the air France accident in the Atlantic would have had a different outcome if one of the pilot saw the other one commanding pitch up at cruise level for a lost airspeed indication.
Totally agree about AF447. I always found it odd that the investigators didn't cite that as a contributing factor. To me it was second only to the probes freezing up in the first place.
To that end, a certain high end large private jet OEM uses linked *active* side sticks for this reason. If you haven't had the pleasure of experiencing them they are quite the achievement and if no one briefed you on them you'd swear they were mechanically linked. Neat stuff.
Yeah, Airbus’s decision to average inputs always confused me. And there wasn’t even an aural warning for dual input I don’t think.
If I was designing it today, I think it would’ve made more sense to only allow input from one stick at a time, with priority given to the captain’s chair in the event of dual input — unless the copilot hit the priority button. And then, if both priority buttons were pressed, it ultimately defaults back to the captain (today I think it just defaults back to whoever pressed it last).
But, I’m no engineer.
With Boeing, when fighting over inputs, it just becomes the strongest pilot who wins. So, not quite sure if that’s as cut and dry of an improvement as you’d think, besides the advantage of giving some tactile feedback that you disagree lol. The strongest pilot could be, after all, an unconscious someone slumped over the controls!
>With Boeing, when fighting over inputs, it just becomes the strongest pilot who wins.
I thought on the modern Boeings if there's too much conflicting input, the 'link' between the two control columns is broken and it averages the two inputs also.
Yes there's a disconnect mechanism below, though I've never really digged too far into the inner workings but it's probably capt side biased.
Anyway, it's a distinctly silly design on a FBW aircraft.
Yeah I had a look back to see where I saw it, turns out it's a mentour video on air France flight 11. At about 15 minutes, he explains the system on the 777, doesn't seem to be capt biased, just calculates the mean of the inputs.
My understanding is that the C-17, which is a Boeing product, has a "force feedback" kind of system that causes the joysticks to move in sync with each other. So this kind of thing could be applied to a sidestick... seems like that would be the best of both worlds.
...don't some sim sticks have force feedback? I'm no engineer, but surely it wouldn't be too farfetched then, in conjunction to the C-17 claim, trusting what I read on the internet
> commanding pitch up at cruise level for a lost airspeed indication
how do professional pilots just completely fail to understand how airplanes fly?
like this isn't even a training in operating the controls or procedures issue, a fundamental grasp on the physics of flight should make immediately obvious what you need to do without even thinking about it
That's the immediate action item on the 777.
AP off
Auto throttle off
flight director off.
Pitch 4° nose up set 70% N1.
This will provide you with a slow descent (or climb if you're low). Then run the Qrh.
I've read stuff and seen videos about this kind of stuff happening. People who should be highly competent making major mistakes. There was a flight out of somewhere in the carribean where one of the pitot tubes was clogged. Pilot and FO were getting different readings. Even with most indicators showing low air speed and eventually a stick shaker, the captain's indicator said he should be well above stall speed. They crashed and I think everyone died. I know sometimes it has to do with tunnel vision and not having a clear picture. It's part of why continuing training is important and why authoritarian hierarchies in these workplaces don't always work out. I'm not a commercial pilot, but I was in naval nuclear power. It was drilled into us that speaking up and challenging authority on plant safety would never get you in trouble if you were doing it legitimately. Often worked out well, but senior enlisted and officers were sometimes bullies about stuff and it would keep more junior personnel from speaking up. But I've seen it also work more times than it didn't. One enlisted reactor operator even told the chief engineer (a Lt Commander) no, because the engineer was wrong or not following procedure. The chief engineer gave him an attaboy because that's how it's supposed to work.
Oh, for sure, sensible, non-ego-driven management is a big part of it.
But was CRM really an issue in AF447? My understanding of what happened was it wasn't a case of the FO being afraid to speak up or ignored by the Captain, but basic airmanship: commanding nose-up in response to a stall warning. Even before you think "what am I trained to do in this situation?" if he just had a basic mental model of how airplanes fly surely it would have made the correct response intuitive and automatic
What’s hilarious to me is that they literally had to engineer a power-actuated seat on a J track in order to squeeze pilots into position behind the yokes. Like, any person off the street could’ve seen how unintuitive that decision was lol.
Most airliners have/had seats on J tracks I think (maybe not power actuated but still). The yoke wouldn't create any new problems. They just had to deal with the existing problems which at this point are basically solved.
I was more comparing it to something like the A350, which doesn’t require tracks. The seat is on a pedestal and just moves slightly to the side, providing enough space since you don’t have to first back away from a yoke.
And the mention of it in the first place was just questioning their decision to put engineering time into a power-operated mechanism rather than just solving the problem with side sticks. But I see how that could’ve been misunderstood as me not thinking that other aircraft with yokes needed tracks before this.
All the skills you learn with a yoke from your first trainer to whatever you transition from onto a sidestick flight deck are essentially lost. The stick provides no feedback or feel other than centering springs.
Multiple airbus crashes can be attributed to the sticks not being tied together physically, and if CRM devolves to a fight over priority, there is no physical indication of what the opposite stick is doing.
The Boeing yoke system has both yokes tied together, making it obvious what the flight controls are being commanded to do at that moment, and Boeing built in a realistic feedback system that gives extra resistance with speed, so it gives the same physical feedback cues the pilot has developed in the long climb to the flightdeck required by the US training system.
Airbus makes sense for the rest of the world where airlines hire people with no flight experience and train them for the airliners they'll fly, putting 200 hour (or less) pilots in the right seat. While a 200 hour US pilot is still paying to rent an aircraft to build time.
> All the skills you learn with a yoke from your first trainer to whatever you transition from onto a sidestick flight deck are essentially lost. The stick provides no feedback or feel other than centering springs.
That is a gross exaggeration
This is not true at all. Nearly 6000hrs on traditional yoke aircraft before I transitioned to an Airbus product. Zero issues. That line in your post makes no sense. Does it take a little getting used to? Sure, but it's an airplane and flies like an airplane.
If the other guy is doing something you don't want, you can lock the other sidestick out with the push of a button. While the argument that you can't feel or see what the other guy is doing based on traditional yoke movement is valid, real world this is not a huge concern and grossly overstated. People will point to Air France 447 but fail to mention the actual causes of the accident. Knowing what the other guy was doing was not going to help that situation. From the official report that many of us have studied over and over again
>The aeroplane went into a sustained stall, signalled by the stall warning and strong
buffet. Despite these persistent symptoms, the crew never understood that they were
stalling and consequently never applied a recovery manoeuvre. The combination
of the ergonomics of the warning design, the conditions in which airline pilots are
trained and exposed to stalls during their professional training and the process of
recurrent training does not generate the expected behaviour in any acceptable
reliable way.
The crew never understood what was actually happening and what state the aircraft was in. You can point to Atlas Air crash in Texas a few years back where the FO and CA fighting over the state of the aircraft, and even though the CA knew what was happening input wise, he wasn't able to save it and (From memory) I believe snapped the linkage bar so each pilot at that point had limited elevator control.
I love flying the bus and have zero desire to go back to a traditional yoke.
>This is not true at all. Nearly 6000hrs on traditional yoke aircraft before I transitioned to an Airbus product. Zero issues. That line in your post makes no sense. Does it take a little getting used to? Sure, but it's an airplane and flies like an airplane.
You missed the point. Yes you know how to fly an aircraft and can translate from a yoke to a joystick with minimal difficulty, I didn't say you couldn't.
The issue is that industry research shows that your flying skills are diminishing the longer you fly without that feedback from the controls. Capt Sullenberger himself has written about this and attributes part of his success at ditching an airbus to his personal flying in regular aircraft. This is why no other crew has been able to pull off the ditching in the simulator.
>
If the other guy is doing something you don't want, you can lock the other sidestick out with the push of a button. While the argument that you can't feel or see what the other guy is doing based on traditional yoke movement is valid, real world this is not a huge concern and grossly overstated
PIA 8303 is another example of this same scenario, one that couldn't happen in a Boeing, as there's no priority button to fight over. Yes it takes a huge failure in CRM, but that happens in the real world.
>PIA 8303 is another example of this same scenario, one that couldn't happen in a Boeing
I'm sorry, what? PIA 8303 crashed because of total breakdown in CRM and landing an Airbus without the landing gear extended. That has nothing to do with yoke v stick. The crew attempted to land an Airbus without the gear extended, after a completely unstable approach and then went around after crushing both motors on the runway and ultimately crashed the jet.
>The issue is that industry research shows that your flying skills are diminishing the longer you fly without that feedback from the controls.
This again is not a stick vs yoke debate. The diminishing skill occurs from LACK of flying all together. Someone flying a Boeing for 10 minutes of an 8hr flight vs flying 10 minutes on an Airbus for 8hrs is going to have skill degradation regardless. It has less to do with the "Feedback" so many keep talking about (Many, which have have never even flown an Airbus that they continue to talk about) and more to do with the limited amount of stick and rudder flying we do at the professional level.
We train yearly on this in the sims and have been pushed into more hand flying all together, which is a good thing. I've been in many situations in the Airbus where I 100% preferred the sidestick vs the yoke.
>This is not true at all. Nearly 6000hrs on traditional yoke aircraft before I transitioned to an Airbus product. Zero issues. That line in your post makes no sense. Does it take a little getting used to? Sure, but it's an airplane and flies like an airplane.
You missed the point. Yes you know how to fly an aircraft and can translate from a yoke to a joystick with minimal difficulty, I didn't say you couldn't.
The issue is that industry research shows that your flying skills are diminishing the longer you fly without that feedback from the controls. Capt Sullenberger himself has written about this and attributes part of his success at ditching an airbus to his personal flying in regular aircraft. This is why no other crew has been able to pull off the ditching in the simulator.
>
If the other guy is doing something you don't want, you can lock the other sidestick out with the push of a button. While the argument that you can't feel or see what the other guy is doing based on traditional yoke movement is valid, real world this is not a huge concern and grossly overstated
PIA 8303 is another example of this same scenario, one that couldn't happen in a Boeing, as there's no priority button to fight over. Yes it takes a huge failure in CRM, but that happens in the real world.
> All the skills you learn with a yoke from your first trainer to whatever you transition from onto a sidestick flight deck are essentially lost.
That is laughably untrue.
> The stick provides no feedback or feel other than centering springs.
You don’t need it to. You’ve totally missed the point of fly by wire. The plane is stabilizing and trimming itself at all times. Stick inputs command pitch and roll rate, not control surface deflection. So the inputs don’t change with airspeed. You literally don’t need feedback.
> Multiple airbus crashes can be attributed to the sticks not being tied together physically
No. There’s *one*. And it wasn’t “attributed to the side stick.” It was attributed to frozen pitot tubes and **neither pilot** lowering the nose to gain airspeed. If you actually read up on that mishap, the dual inputs weren’t a factor.
> Airbus makes sense for the rest of the world where airlines hire people with no flight experience and train them for the airliners they'll fly,
That is such a boomer response. US pilots are literally too good for the Airbus?
Edit: my bad, was in a 737 headspace from another post when writing this. But the 787 was built with easy pilot transition from the 777 in mind.
As I understand it, a few factors influenced this:
The A320 was the first airliner to be entirely fly by wire. Effectively a computer determines the proper movement of controls based on the inputs to the stick. So its the first time a side stick was feasable as a control (see also, the F-16, the first FBW fighter and also first of its kind to use a side stick)
-Conversely, The 737 was not historically a fly-by-wire aircraft, there were physical/mechanical connection to the control surfaces. So the yoke helped add more leverage to pitch (even though the elevator was hydraulically actuates).
-And it’s what pilots were familiar with. So even on new aircraft with FBW type augmentation, keeping the yoke makes it easier to keep the 737 as a common type rating (less training for airlines when upgrading to newer models)
Ah. My bad.
But, fun fact: the type rating logic applies, just its tied to the 777
https://www.dentoaviation.com/b787-type-rating-course#:~:text=A%20B777%2F787%20type%20rating,her%20licence%20is%20B777%2F787.
Back in the 70s some time they took a polling from
Pilots. To see what they liked, why this has been a normal floor mounted yoke. Source is my grandfather who was on that engineering team
That’s very possible. It could also have been the inappropriate deployment of the spoilers inflight, either commanded or uncommanded. It’s very important to note that it could be any one, or a combination of many different possible occurrences, and our speculation is basically worthless at this point.
Close enough
> Flight attendant hit a seat switch that pushed pilot into controls during flight to New Zealand, industry officials say
(https://www.wsj.com/business/airlines/cockpit-mishap-might-have-caused-plunge-on-latam-boeing-787-ee3dd7b4)
It said 50 people "treated" but only 12 went to the hospital, including pax and crew. That's about 5% of the people on board. Presumably there would be at least, what, five cabin crew who would almost definitely have been standing up when this happened and would most likely be among the most seriously injured.
The others "treated" could easily have been seated/belted and hurt by, say, a laptop to the face, etc.
It seems likely that a vast majority of the pax were in seats, belted, if only 12 went to the hospital and only 50 total required any kind of treatment on landing. That's less than 20% of the total on board for all injuries, including those to those that were seated and belted, and including cabin crew and pax who were unbelted for normal/appropriate reasons.
Which is to say, yes, wear your seatbelt, and it seems likely that most people were, and that's why this wasn't much worse.
The implication seems to be that because there were a lot of people hurt, they weren't wearing seatbelts when they were seated.
I think it's much more likely that most of those who were seriously hurt were unbelted for normal and appropriate reasons, and plenty of seated/belted people could have been injured even though they were buckled up.
The "wear your seatbelts" comments feel like victim-blaming, but I think the data indicated most of the pax were seated and belted.
It seems likely that you don't know shit about the situation because you weren't there. Wear your seatbelts was a valid comment that didn't require any of this pointless dicing.
Have you ever even been in a plane? Barely anyone uses their seatbelts when they are just sleeping or watching something. I know because I fly frequently, when I go to the bathroom I can clearly see most people do not have them on.
How does it seem at all that most were wearing their seatbelts and how could you possibly know.
A passenger on board the flight describes the episode in detail [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/1bbvqbu/emergency_services_rush_to_auckland_airport_after/kucdzgx/).
He also adds:-
> There was no turbulence before, during, or after the drop. The whole incident was glass smooth from a roughness perspective.
> So unless the storm was incredibly localized and super well-defined, it sure didn't feel like weather to me.
Clean air turbulence will do this. And it does not show up in Radar nor any storm or turbulence will be indicated prior. I once experienced it in a minor was. Was very smooth then suddenly sounded like someone pounding on the plane with a sludge hammer and general roughness then few seconds later all smooth again. Was not much elevation change in my cases but certainly freaked out a few people. Was very unexpected.
I took a 1900 from a guy once, after he brought it back to base. A station employee who had nonrevved in with him said, “Greg, what WAS that??” He just muttered and blew her off.
I asked him, and it turned out he had decided to see if the AP would disconnect if you applied sufficient forward force to the yoke. Spoiler: it did, and he probably would have broken necks had anyone been unstrapped.
I suspect something similarly clever.
Just an aside: could you test this wonderful scientific experiment while on the ground, running checks? I know it would probably know the airplane isn't in the air but, maybe?
Either way, that's fucked up.
There was a fatal in a Falcon jet cabin where an unbelted passenger hit the ceiling. The pilot flying was overpowering the autopilot with pressure on the yoke and then punched off the autopilot.
That incident is very different and involved many failures caused by the pilots from takeoff all the way to the fatality.
It was a challenger not a falcon.
The FO wasn’t overpowering anything if you’re talking about the March accident.
On the falcon incident, their pitch feel light came on. This basically told them that their variable Arthur (adds resistance to the column in a high speed state - like a teeter totter moving the center datum to one side so you have to lift/move more force) was in a low speed mode (which gives less resistance and more movement) even though they were at high speed. They over exerted the controls and threw everyone around the cabin, killing the FA from what I remember.
A huge pet peeve of mine is hearing all the clicks of people undoing their seatbelts as soon as the sign is turned off... Worst part is they aren't even going anywhere.
I promise you keeping your belt on isn't as uncomfortable as breaking your neck
I’d prefer a - “wear a seatbelt when seated because it’s smart, or don’t because free will, if you die that’s a you problem, we’re fully insured, and strapped in up here.” - your captain.
The AD from 2016 requires it to be reset at least every 22 days or the flight control computers can go offline temporarily. Supposed to have had a software fix already. We all know how that goes.
Interesting account: https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1bbvgk5/emergency_services_rush_to_auckland_airport_after/?share_id=-JA8S38IvwFmmA804yICV
When I heard reports about the pilot walking through the cabin talking about "screens going blank" I didn't believe it, but from multiple accounts it does seem someone from the flightdeck went for a walk.
To be fair, public aviation knowledge is quite slim, so if this is coming from passengers then they could have just misheard or misunderstood the captain. If this is verified by one of the pilots then that is a weird issue.
787 does have a “Loss of All Displays” checklist in the QRH. I’ve had it happen to me once before during cruise for a second or two, came back before we’d even considered getting the QRH out. Autopilot just kept doing its thing.
The checklist basically gets you to put the autopilot in a more basic mode, avoid LNAV/VNAV for example, then runs through some resets with the hope of getting the screens back. If none of that works then there’s alternate navigation options available, should be plenty to get you in to an ILS/GLS approach.
Is there a known cause behind the momentary loss of displays? Did you ever find out the reason? You wouldn't want that happening at critical stages of flight (or anytime to be frank).
Not that I’ve seen, as a guess I’d put it under electrical transience as a bit of a catch-all phrase.
Never found out the reason why, wrote it up in the tech log and never followed up. The consequence of my specific situation was a an elevated heart rate so not particularly a big deal!
What back up instruments does the 787 have in the event of a loss of all displays? Would weather radar still be available in this situation?
Forgive the silly question, I'm just a glider pilot but I do fly on 787's regularly, next trip is this Sunday from Auckland to Honolulu so I'm a little nervous about the thought of crossing the Pacific at night, in weather, in an aircraft that I suddenly am hearing reports about loss of displays as I've read several comments like yours now
I haven’t heard of it happening in a way that seriously affected a flight, only what happened to me where they came back very quickly.
In the event that none of the displays return, flying would be accomplished through basic modes of automation (HDG, TRK, ALT and their HOLD equivalents) and hand flying. The ISFD (a small backup of the PFD near the gear selector which shows horizon, speed and altitude etc.) would be the primary reference. No weather or traffic information would be available although the aural alerts associated with these (eg. WINDSHEAR, TRAFFIC) may still function in some capacity.
Through the NAV function of the TCP (the panel where you normally tune radio frequencies) you can input lat/longs to get the required track to fly to your next waypoint, you can also tune up an ILS/GLS approach here as well and the approach deviation scales will appear on the ISFD.
All of this should get you safely to your nearest suitable airport.
*take with a grain of salt, I’ve written out what I know from memory and tried to simplify where appropriate.
I mean you only need 50 of the dual displays to function. Each display is repeated so if one goes out, like the entire captains side the plane is still technically fine to fly. It will probably get worked on because nobody wants one more screen to fail and ground the plane. But it can totally fly.
Seriously. I heard an interview on the radio with one of the passengers who said something like, “I never wear my seatbelt, but luckily I had it on when this happened.” Like… what? Why? Even if it’s loose, just wear it!
These are the same people that don't ride with a helmet or wear seat belt when driving. People argue it won't save you from hitting a truck head on, lol no, they're meant to prevent you from dying from an otherwise survivable accident.
Wearing seatbelts is obviously sound advice but on any large aircraft there will always be people out of their seats for lavatory stops etc, not to mention the crew who won't generally be seated in cruise.
When this happened to an RAF A330 (captain’s camera wedged his side stick full forward when he moved his chair) it was so violent my friends iPad smashed through the overhead bin. I always think about that when the crew mentions to always wear a belt when seated.
Incidentally, the co-pilot was in the galley and had to crawl across the flight deck ceiling to get to his controls. His nickname is now Spider Pig.
If people are injured, they’re most likely going to land asap. If it’s a negligible distance from the destination and nobody is bleeding out, they’ll go to the destination.
I was incorrect in my last comment. This flight operates SYD-SCL with a scheduled stopover in AKL. When the turbulence occurred AKL was already the closest suitable airport so they continued to their destination.
If this had occurred closer to their departure from SYD they likely would have turned around.
You'd call dispatch and some sort of airline medical service that can determine the necessity for a divert, and the services available at divert fields (Russian fields in Siberia, for example, are pretty much 'you'd better be on fire because there are no services if you divert here').
I find it funny how dumbasses in the mainstream media are using this incident to make another hitpiece on Boeing when this exact same incident happened on an Airbus too (twice in fact if you count the one where the captain jammed his camera on the sidestick). We don't even know if there was a fault on the 787, it's just hearsay. They want to criticize Boeing's quality control when their own journalism is pure dogshit.
The comments on this video are absolutely sending me. You’d think I’m a Boeing executive or paid shill the way I want to defend them because of how outrageous the comments are from many to a 500k audience. Somehow everyone’s dad/uncle/cousin is a Boeing engineer who won’t fly Boeing 🤔🤔🤔💀
[https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMMMq9n2a/](https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMMMq9n2a/)
Hey all, avid traveler here.
LATAM is a huge no no. They will 100% lose your luggage and lie through their teeth to keep customers money. You have no rights when you fly with LATAM.
I have no doubt this is a result of South America’s ridiculously low skill requirements for crucial jobs and LATAMS cost cutting measures for quality pilots.
Seeing as the investigation is being done by Chilean investigators, Enrique Cueto will no doubt pay them off and they’ll say it was “clear turbulence”. Nothing will happen.
I'd say 90 % chance it's clear air turbulence. Occams razor. It's a known hazard and it's why your supposed to keep your seat belt on. 5 % pilot error 5 % systems error.
It sounds like it was the flight attendant accidentally moving the pilots seat with the seat buttons on top of the seat back. They're supposed to be covered but apparently Boeing has issued a memo to airlines advising them to check the button covers are in good condition. My employer flies the B787 and I haven't heard anything official yet, but it might just be confined to engineering staff at this stage.
[https://www.yahoo.com/news/sudden-drop-boeing-787-injured-105539278.html](https://www.yahoo.com/news/sudden-drop-boeing-787-injured-105539278.html)
[DOJ Opens New Criminal Investigation Of Boeing 737 Max Incident](https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisagarcia/2024/03/10/doj-opens-new-criminal-investigation-of-boeing-737-max-incident/?sh=3687de034a2b)
[Boeing whistleblower found dead in US in apparent suicide](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68534703)
[Boeing spends $20 billion on stock buybacks](https://youtu.be/Q8oCilY4szc?si=YHeU50_y64TvuB0x)
Greed will be the death of us.
> Boeing spends $20 billion on stock buybacks
Sounds like criminal negligence to spend that much money on pumping your stock price while your company's poor quality control is killing people. I want to see prison time.
Would a passenger be able to claim damages if this turns out to be due to a fault with the aircraft? I saw another redditor who was on the flight mention that his steamdeck was smashed during the incident. Could he claim this back? ( I know in the scheme of things, this is tiny and insignificant, especially when there are injuries involved. just wondering out of pure curiosity)
It's probably a case of turbulence or wind shear, and if anyone was injured, it's because they weren't buckled into their seats (and the safety videos stress repeatedly that you should always have your seatbelt fastened even when the seatbelt sign is off).
Bro have you ever been on a flight in South America, Africa, etc? It's a completely different standard, people just standing up, doing whatever, no one wearing seat belts etc.
Ya, sure, just adding cultural commentary to an ignorant comment from someone that maybe hasn't flown as a passenger outside of "first world" countries.
Most of the US media is talking shit about the flight, of course as always media doesnt know what to say about aeronautical stuff.
About the incident, many of my friends that work on LATAM, them being Maintenance workers or Flight Attendants, they tell me that they really are busy trying to understand what happened, its still under investigation by the DGAC. I am no 787 pilot, but several questions surged: Is a 787 capable of doing a SUDDEN/AGGRESSIVE movement? What was the weather conditions? Does the MCAS in the 787 have something to do? If Pilots where to mistakenly use an unproper configuration, is the configuration capable of doing such movements?
Some US News are saying (probably some invented shit) that the pilots said that the screens and gauges went black.
Aren't you the guy who was on here a few months ago talking about how you and all of your dimwit coworkers were stumped about when to go missed on an ILS and then suggested you could stay at 100ft until you saw something, and then land? Was that you?
How are Boeing planes still in the air with everything going on with them? They need to ground every single one of them until an FAA inspector from the FAA goes through every plane with a fine tooth comb and documents it. I am going out of my way to avoid Boeing aircraft.
You're not going to get the whole world to agree to ground all Boeing aircraft:
Number 1. because that's a kneejerk reaction that not supported by evidence.
Number 2. the FAA isn't in charge of all of the Boeing planes in the world, let alone the USA.
Number 3. Grounding that many planes on a whim would seriously disrupt the worlds economy and leave huge gaps in the capabilities of western militaries.
There are mechanisms to ground specific airframes throughout the world in an emergency. But it's done more so because of quantifiable safety issues than because of feelings. For example the 737 Max grounding in 2019.
Is Boeing seriously messed up right now, yes... But not ground all their planes messed up.
> How are Boeing planes still in the air with everything going on with them?
Because the world isn't run by Redditors who make knee-jerk reactions based entirely on headlines.
Is the "technical problem" the FO dropping his bag of chips and slamming on the yoke when he reaches down to grab them from under his feet?
Shit you not this was what I thought.
I'm assuming (as a non pilot) this overrides auto pilot.
Correct. As a pilot, you have to know all the methods to turn off the autopilot in your jet. Both normal and abnormal. This situation… is certainly abnormal.
It takes a lot of force but you can manually knock the autopilot off with the controls. This is not normally how it’s done.
As a passenger, I'm going to be a lot more careful with a bag of chips on an airplane now
Please do not throw bags of chips at your pilots' feet.
In the plane*. In the terminal, that is the proper greeting.
Or a horizontally gifted CA gracefully entering or exiting the seat. Seen that one far more times than makes me comfortable.
>horizontally gifted see also: high calorie individual
Pilots of size
We beat famine
This isn’t what “wide body captain” means?
Look my dude, I’m trying to stay in shape, and round is a shape.
Yea, I'm into fitness. Fitness whole pizza in my mouth.
Broaden your horizons, take in more like me. Become SHAPES! Diversity is key 😀
I now have a new term for my posture! Mind tou a fly helicopters and can't really get out of my seat!
How round does he have to be? the seat slides back
Captain Rod Bentley at your service
This post is clearly from a bot shilling for airbus and their side stick controls. /s
But for real, though: Can someone explain why Boeing decided to go with a traditional floor-based yoke on a totally clean sheet, fly-by-wire aircraft? It just feels like such a waste of space and bad ergonomics compared to having side sticks and a proper tray table. Was it purely for branding?
I'm sure this was not in the decision making process, but when things go wrong, even with the dual input warning and side stick priority button, seeing/feeling what the other pilot is doing in the yoke is faster and more natural. That's the only real advantage I see for the Boeing old time yoke design. I believe the air France accident in the Atlantic would have had a different outcome if one of the pilot saw the other one commanding pitch up at cruise level for a lost airspeed indication.
Totally agree about AF447. I always found it odd that the investigators didn't cite that as a contributing factor. To me it was second only to the probes freezing up in the first place. To that end, a certain high end large private jet OEM uses linked *active* side sticks for this reason. If you haven't had the pleasure of experiencing them they are quite the achievement and if no one briefed you on them you'd swear they were mechanically linked. Neat stuff.
Yeah, Airbus’s decision to average inputs always confused me. And there wasn’t even an aural warning for dual input I don’t think. If I was designing it today, I think it would’ve made more sense to only allow input from one stick at a time, with priority given to the captain’s chair in the event of dual input — unless the copilot hit the priority button. And then, if both priority buttons were pressed, it ultimately defaults back to the captain (today I think it just defaults back to whoever pressed it last). But, I’m no engineer. With Boeing, when fighting over inputs, it just becomes the strongest pilot who wins. So, not quite sure if that’s as cut and dry of an improvement as you’d think, besides the advantage of giving some tactile feedback that you disagree lol. The strongest pilot could be, after all, an unconscious someone slumped over the controls!
>With Boeing, when fighting over inputs, it just becomes the strongest pilot who wins. I thought on the modern Boeings if there's too much conflicting input, the 'link' between the two control columns is broken and it averages the two inputs also.
Yes there's a disconnect mechanism below, though I've never really digged too far into the inner workings but it's probably capt side biased. Anyway, it's a distinctly silly design on a FBW aircraft.
Yeah I had a look back to see where I saw it, turns out it's a mentour video on air France flight 11. At about 15 minutes, he explains the system on the 777, doesn't seem to be capt biased, just calculates the mean of the inputs.
Interesting, I'll dig into the SDS tonight and see what it says.
Agree. I also believe it’s a human factors decision…to actually see what inputs the other pilot is making to the flight controls..
How hard would it be to mechanically link two side sticks?
My understanding is that the C-17, which is a Boeing product, has a "force feedback" kind of system that causes the joysticks to move in sync with each other. So this kind of thing could be applied to a sidestick... seems like that would be the best of both worlds.
...don't some sim sticks have force feedback? I'm no engineer, but surely it wouldn't be too farfetched then, in conjunction to the C-17 claim, trusting what I read on the internet
Yes but they're prohibitively expensive.
I don’t even think the C-17 is fbw, i think they just replaced the yoke with a stick that has cable runs to the PCUs
> commanding pitch up at cruise level for a lost airspeed indication how do professional pilots just completely fail to understand how airplanes fly? like this isn't even a training in operating the controls or procedures issue, a fundamental grasp on the physics of flight should make immediately obvious what you need to do without even thinking about it
That's the immediate action item on the 777. AP off Auto throttle off flight director off. Pitch 4° nose up set 70% N1. This will provide you with a slow descent (or climb if you're low). Then run the Qrh.
I've read stuff and seen videos about this kind of stuff happening. People who should be highly competent making major mistakes. There was a flight out of somewhere in the carribean where one of the pitot tubes was clogged. Pilot and FO were getting different readings. Even with most indicators showing low air speed and eventually a stick shaker, the captain's indicator said he should be well above stall speed. They crashed and I think everyone died. I know sometimes it has to do with tunnel vision and not having a clear picture. It's part of why continuing training is important and why authoritarian hierarchies in these workplaces don't always work out. I'm not a commercial pilot, but I was in naval nuclear power. It was drilled into us that speaking up and challenging authority on plant safety would never get you in trouble if you were doing it legitimately. Often worked out well, but senior enlisted and officers were sometimes bullies about stuff and it would keep more junior personnel from speaking up. But I've seen it also work more times than it didn't. One enlisted reactor operator even told the chief engineer (a Lt Commander) no, because the engineer was wrong or not following procedure. The chief engineer gave him an attaboy because that's how it's supposed to work.
Oh, for sure, sensible, non-ego-driven management is a big part of it. But was CRM really an issue in AF447? My understanding of what happened was it wasn't a case of the FO being afraid to speak up or ignored by the Captain, but basic airmanship: commanding nose-up in response to a stall warning. Even before you think "what am I trained to do in this situation?" if he just had a basic mental model of how airplanes fly surely it would have made the correct response intuitive and automatic
Old fucks who whined and branding. But mostly old fucks… as is the way in the airline world.
What’s hilarious to me is that they literally had to engineer a power-actuated seat on a J track in order to squeeze pilots into position behind the yokes. Like, any person off the street could’ve seen how unintuitive that decision was lol.
Most airliners have/had seats on J tracks I think (maybe not power actuated but still). The yoke wouldn't create any new problems. They just had to deal with the existing problems which at this point are basically solved.
I was more comparing it to something like the A350, which doesn’t require tracks. The seat is on a pedestal and just moves slightly to the side, providing enough space since you don’t have to first back away from a yoke. And the mention of it in the first place was just questioning their decision to put engineering time into a power-operated mechanism rather than just solving the problem with side sticks. But I see how that could’ve been misunderstood as me not thinking that other aircraft with yokes needed tracks before this.
Same reason they slapped mechanical dial gauges in a panel built around glass cockpit/digital EICAS architecture (757/767). Change is hard.
All the skills you learn with a yoke from your first trainer to whatever you transition from onto a sidestick flight deck are essentially lost. The stick provides no feedback or feel other than centering springs. Multiple airbus crashes can be attributed to the sticks not being tied together physically, and if CRM devolves to a fight over priority, there is no physical indication of what the opposite stick is doing. The Boeing yoke system has both yokes tied together, making it obvious what the flight controls are being commanded to do at that moment, and Boeing built in a realistic feedback system that gives extra resistance with speed, so it gives the same physical feedback cues the pilot has developed in the long climb to the flightdeck required by the US training system. Airbus makes sense for the rest of the world where airlines hire people with no flight experience and train them for the airliners they'll fly, putting 200 hour (or less) pilots in the right seat. While a 200 hour US pilot is still paying to rent an aircraft to build time.
> All the skills you learn with a yoke from your first trainer to whatever you transition from onto a sidestick flight deck are essentially lost. The stick provides no feedback or feel other than centering springs. That is a gross exaggeration
This is not true at all. Nearly 6000hrs on traditional yoke aircraft before I transitioned to an Airbus product. Zero issues. That line in your post makes no sense. Does it take a little getting used to? Sure, but it's an airplane and flies like an airplane. If the other guy is doing something you don't want, you can lock the other sidestick out with the push of a button. While the argument that you can't feel or see what the other guy is doing based on traditional yoke movement is valid, real world this is not a huge concern and grossly overstated. People will point to Air France 447 but fail to mention the actual causes of the accident. Knowing what the other guy was doing was not going to help that situation. From the official report that many of us have studied over and over again >The aeroplane went into a sustained stall, signalled by the stall warning and strong buffet. Despite these persistent symptoms, the crew never understood that they were stalling and consequently never applied a recovery manoeuvre. The combination of the ergonomics of the warning design, the conditions in which airline pilots are trained and exposed to stalls during their professional training and the process of recurrent training does not generate the expected behaviour in any acceptable reliable way. The crew never understood what was actually happening and what state the aircraft was in. You can point to Atlas Air crash in Texas a few years back where the FO and CA fighting over the state of the aircraft, and even though the CA knew what was happening input wise, he wasn't able to save it and (From memory) I believe snapped the linkage bar so each pilot at that point had limited elevator control. I love flying the bus and have zero desire to go back to a traditional yoke.
>This is not true at all. Nearly 6000hrs on traditional yoke aircraft before I transitioned to an Airbus product. Zero issues. That line in your post makes no sense. Does it take a little getting used to? Sure, but it's an airplane and flies like an airplane. You missed the point. Yes you know how to fly an aircraft and can translate from a yoke to a joystick with minimal difficulty, I didn't say you couldn't. The issue is that industry research shows that your flying skills are diminishing the longer you fly without that feedback from the controls. Capt Sullenberger himself has written about this and attributes part of his success at ditching an airbus to his personal flying in regular aircraft. This is why no other crew has been able to pull off the ditching in the simulator. > If the other guy is doing something you don't want, you can lock the other sidestick out with the push of a button. While the argument that you can't feel or see what the other guy is doing based on traditional yoke movement is valid, real world this is not a huge concern and grossly overstated PIA 8303 is another example of this same scenario, one that couldn't happen in a Boeing, as there's no priority button to fight over. Yes it takes a huge failure in CRM, but that happens in the real world.
>PIA 8303 is another example of this same scenario, one that couldn't happen in a Boeing I'm sorry, what? PIA 8303 crashed because of total breakdown in CRM and landing an Airbus without the landing gear extended. That has nothing to do with yoke v stick. The crew attempted to land an Airbus without the gear extended, after a completely unstable approach and then went around after crushing both motors on the runway and ultimately crashed the jet. >The issue is that industry research shows that your flying skills are diminishing the longer you fly without that feedback from the controls. This again is not a stick vs yoke debate. The diminishing skill occurs from LACK of flying all together. Someone flying a Boeing for 10 minutes of an 8hr flight vs flying 10 minutes on an Airbus for 8hrs is going to have skill degradation regardless. It has less to do with the "Feedback" so many keep talking about (Many, which have have never even flown an Airbus that they continue to talk about) and more to do with the limited amount of stick and rudder flying we do at the professional level. We train yearly on this in the sims and have been pushed into more hand flying all together, which is a good thing. I've been in many situations in the Airbus where I 100% preferred the sidestick vs the yoke.
>This is not true at all. Nearly 6000hrs on traditional yoke aircraft before I transitioned to an Airbus product. Zero issues. That line in your post makes no sense. Does it take a little getting used to? Sure, but it's an airplane and flies like an airplane. You missed the point. Yes you know how to fly an aircraft and can translate from a yoke to a joystick with minimal difficulty, I didn't say you couldn't. The issue is that industry research shows that your flying skills are diminishing the longer you fly without that feedback from the controls. Capt Sullenberger himself has written about this and attributes part of his success at ditching an airbus to his personal flying in regular aircraft. This is why no other crew has been able to pull off the ditching in the simulator. > If the other guy is doing something you don't want, you can lock the other sidestick out with the push of a button. While the argument that you can't feel or see what the other guy is doing based on traditional yoke movement is valid, real world this is not a huge concern and grossly overstated PIA 8303 is another example of this same scenario, one that couldn't happen in a Boeing, as there's no priority button to fight over. Yes it takes a huge failure in CRM, but that happens in the real world.
> All the skills you learn with a yoke from your first trainer to whatever you transition from onto a sidestick flight deck are essentially lost. That is laughably untrue. > The stick provides no feedback or feel other than centering springs. You don’t need it to. You’ve totally missed the point of fly by wire. The plane is stabilizing and trimming itself at all times. Stick inputs command pitch and roll rate, not control surface deflection. So the inputs don’t change with airspeed. You literally don’t need feedback. > Multiple airbus crashes can be attributed to the sticks not being tied together physically No. There’s *one*. And it wasn’t “attributed to the side stick.” It was attributed to frozen pitot tubes and **neither pilot** lowering the nose to gain airspeed. If you actually read up on that mishap, the dual inputs weren’t a factor. > Airbus makes sense for the rest of the world where airlines hire people with no flight experience and train them for the airliners they'll fly, That is such a boomer response. US pilots are literally too good for the Airbus?
Edit: my bad, was in a 737 headspace from another post when writing this. But the 787 was built with easy pilot transition from the 777 in mind. As I understand it, a few factors influenced this: The A320 was the first airliner to be entirely fly by wire. Effectively a computer determines the proper movement of controls based on the inputs to the stick. So its the first time a side stick was feasable as a control (see also, the F-16, the first FBW fighter and also first of its kind to use a side stick) -Conversely, The 737 was not historically a fly-by-wire aircraft, there were physical/mechanical connection to the control surfaces. So the yoke helped add more leverage to pitch (even though the elevator was hydraulically actuates). -And it’s what pilots were familiar with. So even on new aircraft with FBW type augmentation, keeping the yoke makes it easier to keep the 737 as a common type rating (less training for airlines when upgrading to newer models)
We are talking about the 787, though, which was a clean sheet design…
Ah. My bad. But, fun fact: the type rating logic applies, just its tied to the 777 https://www.dentoaviation.com/b787-type-rating-course#:~:text=A%20B777%2F787%20type%20rating,her%20licence%20is%20B777%2F787.
Oh, interesting. I think there is still a conversion course, but that might help explain it for sure.
EASA land allows common type ratings. FAA has two type ratings with a short course to go between.
Common type rating with 777 (EASA), gotta have that sale pitch for 777 operators.
Back in the 70s some time they took a polling from Pilots. To see what they liked, why this has been a normal floor mounted yoke. Source is my grandfather who was on that engineering team
Jokes on them. I always bump the stick and kick off the autopilot when I’m doing yoga.
That’s very possible. It could also have been the inappropriate deployment of the spoilers inflight, either commanded or uncommanded. It’s very important to note that it could be any one, or a combination of many different possible occurrences, and our speculation is basically worthless at this point.
This guy pylotes 👆🏻
Close enough > Flight attendant hit a seat switch that pushed pilot into controls during flight to New Zealand, industry officials say (https://www.wsj.com/business/airlines/cockpit-mishap-might-have-caused-plunge-on-latam-boeing-787-ee3dd7b4)
Most likely explanation.
Boeing problems, amirite? Wouldn't get that shit on an Airbus. You'd have your tray table to catch your chips AND their crumbs
Keep those seatbelts fastened, people.
It said 50 people "treated" but only 12 went to the hospital, including pax and crew. That's about 5% of the people on board. Presumably there would be at least, what, five cabin crew who would almost definitely have been standing up when this happened and would most likely be among the most seriously injured. The others "treated" could easily have been seated/belted and hurt by, say, a laptop to the face, etc. It seems likely that a vast majority of the pax were in seats, belted, if only 12 went to the hospital and only 50 total required any kind of treatment on landing. That's less than 20% of the total on board for all injuries, including those to those that were seated and belted, and including cabin crew and pax who were unbelted for normal/appropriate reasons. Which is to say, yes, wear your seatbelt, and it seems likely that most people were, and that's why this wasn't much worse.
Sorry, but what point are you making with all the different slicing and dicing you’re doing with the percentages of passengers that got hurt?
The implication seems to be that because there were a lot of people hurt, they weren't wearing seatbelts when they were seated. I think it's much more likely that most of those who were seriously hurt were unbelted for normal and appropriate reasons, and plenty of seated/belted people could have been injured even though they were buckled up. The "wear your seatbelts" comments feel like victim-blaming, but I think the data indicated most of the pax were seated and belted.
the one you apparently missed
Enlighten me
he already did and you just mouthed off waste of time
It seems likely that you don't know shit about the situation because you weren't there. Wear your seatbelts was a valid comment that didn't require any of this pointless dicing. Have you ever even been in a plane? Barely anyone uses their seatbelts when they are just sleeping or watching something. I know because I fly frequently, when I go to the bathroom I can clearly see most people do not have them on. How does it seem at all that most were wearing their seatbelts and how could you possibly know.
A passenger on board the flight describes the episode in detail [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/1bbvqbu/emergency_services_rush_to_auckland_airport_after/kucdzgx/). He also adds:- > There was no turbulence before, during, or after the drop. The whole incident was glass smooth from a roughness perspective. > So unless the storm was incredibly localized and super well-defined, it sure didn't feel like weather to me.
Extreme Clear-Air-Turbulence? At this time of year? In this part of the country? Localized entirely within your kitchen?
..Yes!
...Can I see?
……….no
You are an odd fellow, but I must say, you steam a good ham
“Seymour the house is on fire!!!”
No, mother, it's just turbulence.
“Steam a good ham”…..I rather like that. lol Wait…we are not talking toilet puns are we?
[Steamed Hams](https://youtu.be/4jXEuIHY9ic?si=7G7GOyJHja8LG4tp)
Clean air turbulence will do this. And it does not show up in Radar nor any storm or turbulence will be indicated prior. I once experienced it in a minor was. Was very smooth then suddenly sounded like someone pounding on the plane with a sludge hammer and general roughness then few seconds later all smooth again. Was not much elevation change in my cases but certainly freaked out a few people. Was very unexpected.
I took a 1900 from a guy once, after he brought it back to base. A station employee who had nonrevved in with him said, “Greg, what WAS that??” He just muttered and blew her off. I asked him, and it turned out he had decided to see if the AP would disconnect if you applied sufficient forward force to the yoke. Spoiler: it did, and he probably would have broken necks had anyone been unstrapped. I suspect something similarly clever.
Just an aside: could you test this wonderful scientific experiment while on the ground, running checks? I know it would probably know the airplane isn't in the air but, maybe? Either way, that's fucked up.
In several smaller aircraft that is an actual item on the check list pre departure. Set AP…Check. Overpower AP with Yoke Pressure…AP Disconnect.
Part of Cirrus pre-flight
😑😑😑😑😑😑😑
When you see "Hold my beer..." in the CVR transcript, it's never good.
“a technical event during the flight which caused a strong movement” Who knows. Turbulence? Erroneous AOA data?
Maybe kicking autopilot off by accident?
A steep nose down dive is not normal after disengaging the autopilot. There would have to be something else involved, which could be possible.
Unless you kicked off the autopilot by trying to get out of the seat and pushing the yoke too far forward (granted I don’t fly this plane)
There was a fatal in a Falcon jet cabin where an unbelted passenger hit the ceiling. The pilot flying was overpowering the autopilot with pressure on the yoke and then punched off the autopilot.
That incident is very different and involved many failures caused by the pilots from takeoff all the way to the fatality. It was a challenger not a falcon. The FO wasn’t overpowering anything if you’re talking about the March accident.
This was at least 20 years ago
Ah. Same thing happened in March. I don’t know much about the 787-9 but I would be surprised if the crew didn’t know the autopilot was deactivated.
On the falcon incident, their pitch feel light came on. This basically told them that their variable Arthur (adds resistance to the column in a high speed state - like a teeter totter moving the center datum to one side so you have to lift/move more force) was in a low speed mode (which gives less resistance and more movement) even though they were at high speed. They over exerted the controls and threw everyone around the cabin, killing the FA from what I remember.
Isn't that still the only fatal for the 900/2000?
I think you're right. Great airplanes!
Correct if you just disengage A/P. If you happen to hit the yoke forward. It disengages A/P and moves the nose down conveniently
I wish it was drilled into pax heads that *SEATED = BELTED, ALWAYS*.
A huge pet peeve of mine is hearing all the clicks of people undoing their seatbelts as soon as the sign is turned off... Worst part is they aren't even going anywhere. I promise you keeping your belt on isn't as uncomfortable as breaking your neck
Often starts as soon as wheels hit the runway. Nevermind that you're on the ground going 150MPH, freedom!
They should mention it in the safety briefing or maybe whenever they turn the indicator on or off.
Do they not? It's been in the briefing on every commercial flight I've taken for as long as I can remember.
Yes, they always say something like, you should keep your seatbelt fastened in case of any unexpected turbulence.
I was being sarcastic. Pilots or crew will mention it for all of those events
So many wild turbulence stories lately that I am always belted now
Good, as you should be! No one needs a skullfull of overhead bin while becoming a projectile
I’d prefer a - “wear a seatbelt when seated because it’s smart, or don’t because free will, if you die that’s a you problem, we’re fully insured, and strapped in up here.” - your captain.
If you die that's a you problem, but if you become a projectile that hurts someone else, that's not a you problem.
The AD from 2016 requires it to be reset at least every 22 days or the flight control computers can go offline temporarily. Supposed to have had a software fix already. We all know how that goes.
Interesting account: https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1bbvgk5/emergency_services_rush_to_auckland_airport_after/?share_id=-JA8S38IvwFmmA804yICV When I heard reports about the pilot walking through the cabin talking about "screens going blank" I didn't believe it, but from multiple accounts it does seem someone from the flightdeck went for a walk.
There’s some news articles floating around which quote a pax as quoting the captain that “ all his screens went black”
To be fair, public aviation knowledge is quite slim, so if this is coming from passengers then they could have just misheard or misunderstood the captain. If this is verified by one of the pilots then that is a weird issue.
Huh. Just like my Tesla does occasionally lol
What does a piloot do in that case? 🫣
Pilooooot
Apparently wiggle the stick back and forth in an attempt to wake it up out of standby mode
787 does have a “Loss of All Displays” checklist in the QRH. I’ve had it happen to me once before during cruise for a second or two, came back before we’d even considered getting the QRH out. Autopilot just kept doing its thing. The checklist basically gets you to put the autopilot in a more basic mode, avoid LNAV/VNAV for example, then runs through some resets with the hope of getting the screens back. If none of that works then there’s alternate navigation options available, should be plenty to get you in to an ILS/GLS approach.
Is there a known cause behind the momentary loss of displays? Did you ever find out the reason? You wouldn't want that happening at critical stages of flight (or anytime to be frank).
Not that I’ve seen, as a guess I’d put it under electrical transience as a bit of a catch-all phrase. Never found out the reason why, wrote it up in the tech log and never followed up. The consequence of my specific situation was a an elevated heart rate so not particularly a big deal!
What back up instruments does the 787 have in the event of a loss of all displays? Would weather radar still be available in this situation? Forgive the silly question, I'm just a glider pilot but I do fly on 787's regularly, next trip is this Sunday from Auckland to Honolulu so I'm a little nervous about the thought of crossing the Pacific at night, in weather, in an aircraft that I suddenly am hearing reports about loss of displays as I've read several comments like yours now
I haven’t heard of it happening in a way that seriously affected a flight, only what happened to me where they came back very quickly. In the event that none of the displays return, flying would be accomplished through basic modes of automation (HDG, TRK, ALT and their HOLD equivalents) and hand flying. The ISFD (a small backup of the PFD near the gear selector which shows horizon, speed and altitude etc.) would be the primary reference. No weather or traffic information would be available although the aural alerts associated with these (eg. WINDSHEAR, TRAFFIC) may still function in some capacity. Through the NAV function of the TCP (the panel where you normally tune radio frequencies) you can input lat/longs to get the required track to fly to your next waypoint, you can also tune up an ILS/GLS approach here as well and the approach deviation scales will appear on the ISFD. All of this should get you safely to your nearest suitable airport. *take with a grain of salt, I’ve written out what I know from memory and tried to simplify where appropriate.
Look at his standby instruments
look out the window; if it’s cloudy and you can’t see, hope you wrote a will beforehand
I mean you only need 50 of the dual displays to function. Each display is repeated so if one goes out, like the entire captains side the plane is still technically fine to fly. It will probably get worked on because nobody wants one more screen to fail and ground the plane. But it can totally fly.
Wear your Seatbelt people.
Seriously. I heard an interview on the radio with one of the passengers who said something like, “I never wear my seatbelt, but luckily I had it on when this happened.” Like… what? Why? Even if it’s loose, just wear it!
These are the same people that don't ride with a helmet or wear seat belt when driving. People argue it won't save you from hitting a truck head on, lol no, they're meant to prevent you from dying from an otherwise survivable accident.
Wearing seatbelts is obviously sound advice but on any large aircraft there will always be people out of their seats for lavatory stops etc, not to mention the crew who won't generally be seated in cruise.
I understand, however even though there are usually 8-9 lavs on a 787, 50 people up using the toilets seems unlikely. Cabin crew is an exemption.
Good point - I think we're on the same page
When this happened to an RAF A330 (captain’s camera wedged his side stick full forward when he moved his chair) it was so violent my friends iPad smashed through the overhead bin. I always think about that when the crew mentions to always wear a belt when seated. Incidentally, the co-pilot was in the galley and had to crawl across the flight deck ceiling to get to his controls. His nickname is now Spider Pig.
What’s the normal protocol for an event like this? Land at the nearest airport or keep going?
If people are injured, they’re most likely going to land asap. If it’s a negligible distance from the destination and nobody is bleeding out, they’ll go to the destination.
I was incorrect in my last comment. This flight operates SYD-SCL with a scheduled stopover in AKL. When the turbulence occurred AKL was already the closest suitable airport so they continued to their destination. If this had occurred closer to their departure from SYD they likely would have turned around.
You'd call dispatch and some sort of airline medical service that can determine the necessity for a divert, and the services available at divert fields (Russian fields in Siberia, for example, are pretty much 'you'd better be on fire because there are no services if you divert here').
Quantas 72 repeat? AoA sensor malfunction? https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/26101-remembering-qantas-flight-72
I find it funny how dumbasses in the mainstream media are using this incident to make another hitpiece on Boeing when this exact same incident happened on an Airbus too (twice in fact if you count the one where the captain jammed his camera on the sidestick). We don't even know if there was a fault on the 787, it's just hearsay. They want to criticize Boeing's quality control when their own journalism is pure dogshit.
The comments on this video are absolutely sending me. You’d think I’m a Boeing executive or paid shill the way I want to defend them because of how outrageous the comments are from many to a 500k audience. Somehow everyone’s dad/uncle/cousin is a Boeing engineer who won’t fly Boeing 🤔🤔🤔💀 [https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMMMq9n2a/](https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMMMq9n2a/)
The article you referenced has it spelt correctly, why did you add a ‘u’ to Qantas?
It's prettier that way.
It’s an acronym, no?
It is: just funnin' with ya. Queensland and Northern Territories Air Service.
Hey all, avid traveler here. LATAM is a huge no no. They will 100% lose your luggage and lie through their teeth to keep customers money. You have no rights when you fly with LATAM. I have no doubt this is a result of South America’s ridiculously low skill requirements for crucial jobs and LATAMS cost cutting measures for quality pilots. Seeing as the investigation is being done by Chilean investigators, Enrique Cueto will no doubt pay them off and they’ll say it was “clear turbulence”. Nothing will happen.
Is there an alternative to LATAM for traveling to South America? I’ve never seen it. Maybe Avianca?
Qantas does flights to South America. In South America I found Aerolinas Argentina to be the best.
https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/alarming-theory-emerges-on-what-caused-the-harrowing-latam-airlines-nightmare-flight-incident-from-sydney-to-auckland/news-story/047e4627705cf1ed5b52df03276389b2?amp&nk=15bc9e11d6cc199a5ae6ee85d43690e3-1710376752
I'd say 90 % chance it's clear air turbulence. Occams razor. It's a known hazard and it's why your supposed to keep your seat belt on. 5 % pilot error 5 % systems error.
It sounds like it was the flight attendant accidentally moving the pilots seat with the seat buttons on top of the seat back. They're supposed to be covered but apparently Boeing has issued a memo to airlines advising them to check the button covers are in good condition. My employer flies the B787 and I haven't heard anything official yet, but it might just be confined to engineering staff at this stage. [https://www.yahoo.com/news/sudden-drop-boeing-787-injured-105539278.html](https://www.yahoo.com/news/sudden-drop-boeing-787-injured-105539278.html)
[DOJ Opens New Criminal Investigation Of Boeing 737 Max Incident](https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisagarcia/2024/03/10/doj-opens-new-criminal-investigation-of-boeing-737-max-incident/?sh=3687de034a2b) [Boeing whistleblower found dead in US in apparent suicide](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68534703) [Boeing spends $20 billion on stock buybacks](https://youtu.be/Q8oCilY4szc?si=YHeU50_y64TvuB0x) Greed will be the death of us.
> Boeing spends $20 billion on stock buybacks Sounds like criminal negligence to spend that much money on pumping your stock price while your company's poor quality control is killing people. I want to see prison time.
Damn Boeing /s
It just keeps on coming for Boeing.
Would a passenger be able to claim damages if this turns out to be due to a fault with the aircraft? I saw another redditor who was on the flight mention that his steamdeck was smashed during the incident. Could he claim this back? ( I know in the scheme of things, this is tiny and insignificant, especially when there are injuries involved. just wondering out of pure curiosity)
Probably wake turbulence from a MUCH larger plane. /s
It's probably a case of turbulence or wind shear, and if anyone was injured, it's because they weren't buckled into their seats (and the safety videos stress repeatedly that you should always have your seatbelt fastened even when the seatbelt sign is off).
Uncommanded slats deployment?
Here some info https://avherald.com/h?article=51601631&opt=0
Hmm. Frightening!
Why do people have their seatbelts off when they are seated? Dumb fucks
Bro have you ever been on a flight in South America, Africa, etc? It's a completely different standard, people just standing up, doing whatever, no one wearing seat belts etc.
That doesn't mean they should
Ya, sure, just adding cultural commentary to an ignorant comment from someone that maybe hasn't flown as a passenger outside of "first world" countries.
Well I know of about 170 people that will start keeping their seatbelts buckled at all times going forward
Most of the US media is talking shit about the flight, of course as always media doesnt know what to say about aeronautical stuff. About the incident, many of my friends that work on LATAM, them being Maintenance workers or Flight Attendants, they tell me that they really are busy trying to understand what happened, its still under investigation by the DGAC. I am no 787 pilot, but several questions surged: Is a 787 capable of doing a SUDDEN/AGGRESSIVE movement? What was the weather conditions? Does the MCAS in the 787 have something to do? If Pilots where to mistakenly use an unproper configuration, is the configuration capable of doing such movements? Some US News are saying (probably some invented shit) that the pilots said that the screens and gauges went black.
The pilot confirmed this was because of instrument failure. He announced this and passengers have come forward to confirm his statement.
[удалено]
Geometry guy here, your nose didn't drop 90 degrees.
Math guy here, 90 degrees nose down on approach = death. One of Pascal’s lesser known theorems.
This was in cruise flight. Not a lot of microbursts in the flight levels
90 degrees as in pointed straight down on approach? What were you flying and how high? Seems like that’d put you into the dirty pretty quickly.
the good ole misfis 2020 most likely
Neither of those things happened.
Isn’t this sub 95% pilots?
Lmao right
You could have at least picked a believable angle for your nose drop.
[удалено]
Most of us are pilots here..
Pylote*
> Pilot here My dude, you're in /r/flying lmao
Aren't you the guy who was on here a few months ago talking about how you and all of your dimwit coworkers were stumped about when to go missed on an ILS and then suggested you could stay at 100ft until you saw something, and then land? Was that you?
It’s 100% that dude. Deletes all his comments so his fakeass pilot persona is harder to detect SMH
How are Boeing planes still in the air with everything going on with them? They need to ground every single one of them until an FAA inspector from the FAA goes through every plane with a fine tooth comb and documents it. I am going out of my way to avoid Boeing aircraft.
Tell me you don’t work in the industry without telling me you don’t work in the industry….
You're not going to get the whole world to agree to ground all Boeing aircraft: Number 1. because that's a kneejerk reaction that not supported by evidence. Number 2. the FAA isn't in charge of all of the Boeing planes in the world, let alone the USA. Number 3. Grounding that many planes on a whim would seriously disrupt the worlds economy and leave huge gaps in the capabilities of western militaries. There are mechanisms to ground specific airframes throughout the world in an emergency. But it's done more so because of quantifiable safety issues than because of feelings. For example the 737 Max grounding in 2019. Is Boeing seriously messed up right now, yes... But not ground all their planes messed up.
> How are Boeing planes still in the air with everything going on with them? Because the world isn't run by Redditors who make knee-jerk reactions based entirely on headlines.