News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Airlines scour the world for scarce 737 Max simulators. Parent comment

Re:Airlines scour the world for scarce 737 Max simulators by jrockway on Wednesday January 22, 2020 @04:31AM (#22115971)
I don't think the simulator is designed to QA test the airplane. It's only for training pilots, and pilots are only trained on procedures that airlines deem worth training for. This is things like engine failures at inopportune moments, stall recovery, etc. The idea is not to simulate the outcome of strange circumstances, but to get pilots comfortable with procedures. So if there is some bug, it doesn't matter -- if you're training pilots to take off after v1* is called out and an engine fails at that exact moment, the instructor is not looking to see that "hey we applied the brakes and the airplane stopped OK with light rain and 3 knots of wind", they are looking to see that the pilot continues the takeoff anyway and doesn't try to stop on the runway. The pass condition is following procedure, not "well that's not the procedure but it looks like everyone lived anyway".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_speeds#V1_definitions

The various data that feeds into training procedures comes from actually flying the real airplane.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Airlines scour the world for scarce 737 Max simulators by superbrane on Wednesday January 22, 2020 @05:00AM (#22116100)
Since the planes become more software dependent, the pilots should be trained on procedures to recognize/evaluate/react to software problems/glitches as well. The problems with the B-MAX were actually related to bad software (MCAS). There is probably some delay between how pilots are training and the importance of software in their job.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Airlines scour the world for scarce 737 Max simulators by HPsquared on Wednesday January 22, 2020 @08:50AM (#22117496)
I think, functionally speaking, a software failure is no different to that of hardware-based control / instrumentation systems (think of all the odd behaviour that could be caused by a short circuit or a bad connection somewhere in the wiring). The difference is that software systems tend to be more complex, and failures are in theory less random and more systematic - it's more a case of stepping on an unlikely combination of inputs (i.e. a bug that occurs in an untested corner-case) than encountering a random component failure which is more likely the case for a hardware system.

Edit: actually I suppose I just made your point

[ Parent | on HN ]