
Plane Tests Must Use Average Pilots, NTSB Says After 737 Max Crashes - tompic823
https://www.wsj.com/articles/plane-tests-must-use-average-pilots-ntsb-says-after-737-max-crashes-11569506401?mod=rsswn
======
dahart
This seems like a good thing, they should be testing with people who don’t
know the answers. Though I can’t help but wonder if this is a very subtle re-
framing of the Max accidents to shift blame back towards pilots. This approach
of a regulatory agency recommending “average pilot” testing makes both the
agency and Boeing look good, and tends to downplay the fact that Boeing
intentionally avoided training the pilots, and that the system was only
recoverable if you had some extremely specific knowledge. This wasn’t an issue
of the quality of the pilots, this was an issue of the quality of the
training, which we know was kept from all pilots to attempt to save time and
money.

~~~
treis
>Though I can’t help but wonder if this is a very subtle re-framing of the Max
accidents to shift blame back towards pilots.

Blame is a loaded word. Boeing assumed that pilots could be relied upon to
recover from a MCAS induced runaway trim. Practice has shown that they can't.
Whether Boeing or the pilots is at fault is, from a safety perspective,
irrelevant. The bottom line is that an assumption was made, it was wrong, and
a couple planes crashed. Using average pilots instead of highly experienced
test pilots is a sensible step to prevent a repeat.

~~~
dahart
I appreciate the attempt to be diplomatic, and I agree that using average
pilots is sensible. But, with respect, I could not disagree more with the rest
of that.

> Blame is a loaded word.

Boeing’s response to the accidents was to blame the pilots, there is precedent
for this word in this situation.

[https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/23/business/american-airlines-
bo...](https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/23/business/american-airlines-boeing-
pilots-union/index.html)

> Boeing assumed that pilots could be relied upon

No, Boeing intentionally hid information from pilots. This is well known.

[https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-withheld-information-
on-...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-withheld-information-on-737-model-
according-to-safety-experts-and-others-1542082575)

> Whether Boeing or the pilots is at fault is, from a safety perspective,
> irrelevant

No. If you want to fix the problem, you must know what the problem is. The
cause may be irrelevant to the people who are dead, but it is _absolutely_
relevant to solving the problem in the future _especially_ from a safety
perspective.

~~~
totally
It sounds like you're advocating for blame-ful post mortems. Is that the case
and what's your reasoning?

~~~
aeonsky
Yes, when 400 people die for a company to save money, you must assign blame
and put people in jail.

~~~
fennecfoxen
I have downvoted your comment, because I believe it does more to obscure
understanding than to enlighten.

> when 400 people die for a company to save money

Let me take a step back and ask: Why?

Is it because we're vindictive, and demand blood? Or is it because this
actually does something to help keep people from dying in the future?

If the latter is more important than the former -- which I hope is the case --
how can we trust that we're pursuing a course that improves the future of
society while also using rhetoric to the effect of "when 400 people die for a
company to save money"?

Consider, for instance: Part of reason for the company "saving money" is that
it results in lower costs for planes, and ultimately lower airfare for
customers who pay airlines' capital expenses, potentially resulting in fewer
miles driven and fewer accident. Is reducing this statistical danger more or
less than the danger of the planes? Quite possibly, it's not -- but using this
rhetoric certainly won't help us find out.

More broadly the "omg greed" narrative, which -- to me, at least -- just
doesn't make too much sense. If the corner-cutting that led to 737 Max
problems is to be understood as a "greed" move, it's a pretty incompetent one,
because Boeing is almost certainly out billions over the mess. People who seek
to maximize profits for their own self-interest also seek to mitigate risk,
for the same reason. I would suggest that a "hubris" narrative, or something
similar, is probably more appropriate here.

If this is so, the remedies are entirely different, and the assertion that we
MUST jail people, because it fits our "greed" narrative and whatever cognitive
bias we drag into the picture, ensures that we will not remedy the problem
effectively. This means _people may die._

~~~
tomxor
> the assertion that we MUST jail people, because it fits our "greed"
> narrative and whatever cognitive bias we drag into the picture, ensures that
> we will not remedy the problem effectively. This means people may die.

You don't send people to jail because of "greed", broadly speaking you might
divide it into two categories: A) this specific person is a threat to society;
B) this person did something morally unconscionable, irresponsible, negligent
etc. The reasoning for following through with B is not merely vindictive, it's
societal value is in sending a message that this behaviour is not OK! that is
a preventative measure - "you must be morally responsible".

This is entirely applicable to this scenario: greed is NOT the problem, trying
to make cheaper planes is NOT the problem, trying to beat the competition is
NOT the problem - The problem is attaining those goals by gambling with
peoples lives by cutting corners that significantly compromise safety, that is
gross negligence.

... So yes! send the people responsible to jail, please show the next in line
that this behaviour is not tolerated.

------
ebg13
Uh oh. What are they going to do when they discover that there aren't any
average pilots?

[https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-
air-...](https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-force-
discovered-the-flaw-of-averages.html) (HN discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11230287](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11230287))

[https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/the-
inv...](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/the-invention-of-
the-normal-person/463365/) (HN discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11155889](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11155889))

~~~
dahart
I _love_ those articles, and the lesson learned from them. But there is no
automatic parallel in this situation, in fact the opposite here. The NTSB
isn’t suggesting that Boeing model a single “average” pilot. They’re
suggesting that Boeing test using many pilots who are not highly trained in
test procedures. The “flaw of averages” problem is one of combining averages
in multiple dimensions and assuming the result is still average. That flaw is
absent when you test with multiple average people and categorize the results
for each dimension separately.

Also, the outcome of the flaw of averages was to make various parts of the
plane adjustable. In the case of an air emergency, your response time is not
adjustable, you either solve it or you die. The NTSB’s suggestion is to
understand how normal people react to ensure both ergonomics and training are
adequate.

In any case, recommending that testing be done with people less knowledgeable
than the experts, who don’t instantly know the right answers, can likely only
result in better outcomes, not worse.

~~~
alexis_fr
I like the idea that they pick pilots at random:

\- Either it’s Boeing’s fault for improper UX,

\- Either it’s Boeing’s fault for pilot certifications not being stringent
enough.

In either case, the aircraft manufacturer must improve. I think of it as an
“integration test”, “let’s see how the pilot+plane integrate together”.

Not necessarily Boeing, btw. It could be Airbus. It could even be a move from
the US regulator which advantages Boeing compared to Airbus depending on
whether Airbus planes were tested with skilled pilots.

~~~
mlyle
It's always fun to look at the performance figures in aircraft manuals.

Somewhere, a skilled test pilot got those numbers in a pristine plane.

But mere humans in a real-world plane will typically not obtain them.

------
rowanG077
Actually they must use the worst pilots. If they use average pilots that means
50% of the pilots might be out of their depth flying that plane. What kind of
insanity is this?

~~~
sudhirj
This assumes the skill variance among pilots is pretty low. Average not in
skill (I don’t think there’s a way to rate or rank pilots) but in specialised
Boeing plane specific training. The problem with Boeing’s assumption was that
pilots would have specialised training on that model, and the regulators seem
to be trying to remediate that.

~~~
rowanG077
If the skill variance is pretty low then you might as well use test pilots.
Their skill will hardly be better then the worst of the worst.

I don't think there is actual data on skill variance among professional
airline pilots so I rather they just force testing on groups which are
statistically more significant to get into crashes.

~~~
sudhirj
But aren’t test pilots specially clued on to the plane, the features they’re
testing and how to react in problem situations? That’s like testing car
airbags with stuntmen who know how to crash without getting hurt anyway.

~~~
salawat
Keep in mind that even with test pilots briefed on the behavior, one of the
three ended up losing the plane during testing of single event upsets of the
Flight Computer.

[https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-
aerospace/newly...](https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-
aerospace/newly-stringent-faa-tests-spur-a-fundamental-software-redesign-
of-737-max-flight-controls/)

------
situational87
The primary design objective of the 737 max was to avoid pilot retraining.
Until that stops being a major economic driver in aviation no problem was
solved here.

Changing MCAS another dozen times and updating the manuals does nothing to
prevent this from happening in new future system design.

~~~
sokoloff
There’s a tension between progress (some of which offers fuel [and ecological]
savings) and cost.

If you can make a plane that saves an airline $1MM/year/copy but costs them
$4MM extra and $500K/yr in training costs, you won’t sell as many as if it
costs them $3MM extra and requires no retraining (or even $5MM/$0). Sometimes
that difference is enough to make the project not viable economically.

Certification is incredibly expensive. The airplane I fly the most was built
in 1997 on a type certificate (the basis of certification) originally approved
in 1958. That’s incredibly common.

Passengers complain about terrible seats, terrible service, jam packed flights
and then search for tickets on price as the overwhelming factor. It’s little
surprise that airlines are competing mostly on price.

I’m not sure what you’re suggesting here as the solution to make it [pilot re-
training?] “not a major economic driver”. It could be “reduce training costs
for everyone” or “increase training costs for everyone” or something else.

~~~
londons_explore
This problem would be resolved if type certifications expired.

Eg. A newly certified plane type can be produced for 15 years before requiring
recertification to new standards.

In effect, this forces Boeing to come up with new designs, since the chances
of old designs meeting new standards are low. It'll give them a big incentive
to find ways to get the cost of certifications down.

Up to them if they choose to evolve the plane with the standards, or do a
ground-up redesign every 15 years.

~~~
mannykannot
> It'll give them a big incentive to find ways to get the cost of
> certifications down.

That is exactly what went wrong in the 737 MAX process -- the goal was achived
by using political pressure to weaken the oversight.

With proper oversight, type-certificate extension is a sound process. Without
it, no form of certification is effective.

------
ak86
I'd say that's a clickbait title. The actual report is at:
[https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/...](https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/ASR1901.pdf),
and framing it as a recommendation to change the test procedure to use
'average' pilots seems like a big liberty.

To me, the thrust of the article is on making sure human factors are
incorporated into flight certification process. As they highlight, although
uncommanded MCAS input was part of the certification tests, it was only marked
as a 'major' risk rather than more severe classifiers. This wasn't because of
any phenomenal test pilots, but just because the FAA (rather than Boeing)
guidelines behind the certification assume immediate assessment and diagnosis
of the issue.

The report goes into a lot of depth about other human factors, for example,
how transport-category planes should have straightforward highlighting of the
primary issue since often the primary cause bubbles through various
interconnected systems, and the main pilot response tends to be to identify
the root cause under stress and then having to fix it.

To the extent I could re-summarize the report, I'd say "Plane Certification
Processes Must Consider Real-World Scenarios And Factor Human Response to In-
Flight Failures in Plane Design"

------
dredmorbius
The irony here is that when I wrote "The Tyranny of the Minimum Viable User"
I'd specifically excluded cases such as commercial aviation, where a minimum
qualifying standard can be used.

By that logic, aircraft certification should be based on the minimum
qualifying pilot.

[https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/69wk8y/the_tyr...](https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/69wk8y/the_tyranny_of_the_minimum_viable_user/)

------
ohduran
Wouldn't you need the worse pilot you can get? Average doesn't account for the
fact that 50% of the sample are WORSE.

~~~
myself248
Robert Sheckley has a short story called The Minimum Man, which is about
precisely this. An unlucky, clumsy, error-prone schlub who gets hired by
basically-NASA for testing purposes.

Turns out, when he's placed in a life-or-death situation, he finds some focus
and skill, and is no longer the minimum man. So they have some ways to counter
that tendency....

~~~
growlist
That correlates with something interesting I learnt about leadership a while
back - evidence shows that it's very hard to predict ahead of time whether
someone will be a good leader from one context to another, with predicted good
leaders often underperforming, and vice versa (might be a little out of date
now).

~~~
dsfyu404ed
Wartime general vs. peacetime general is the classic example.

------
zaroth
I have 15 hours in a Cessna 172, I’d be happy to give it a go!

But in all seriousness, in no way shape or form should the testing be informed
by the skill assessment of the test operator.

The analysis should be looking at the tasks that had to be performed during
the test, whether they were properly identified by easily selected checklists,
and quantitative measurements of the complexity and physical difficulty of the
tasks.

If it comes anywhere close to a question of the skill or strength of the
specific test-taker then something has gone terribly horribly wrong.

In old school UI testing you would do GOMS analysis which allowed calculating
the difficulty of specific tasks based on the actual manipulations required to
perform them. The skill of the particular operator is not generally a factor
in these types of analysis.

The subtitle of TFA states;

> _Safety board says FAA should embrace data-driven approach to assumptions
> about pilot responses_

This is a much more reasonable statement. For instance, the maximum physical
force required to perform the task must be an industry standard that pilots
are all certified to be able to perform.

~~~
londons_explore
You could take a probabilistic approach...

In this 1 in a million situation, 90% of tested pilots managed to follow the
procedures to recover. Therefore the chance of a fatal crash is 1 in 10
million.

Let the manufacturer decide if they want to make the situation rarer or the
training better to reduce the overall crash risk.

~~~
ses1984
How about if that info was available to the public? I don't want to put my
health and safety on a scale against someone's profitability.

~~~
ummonk
It won't be someone's profitability, it'll be the ticket price that you pay.

~~~
ses1984
Because there is no relationship there at all, nope none, zero.

~~~
ummonk
The aviation market consistently has margins that are just slightly above
zero. Change the costs and ticket prices change in response; the profits stay
constant.

------
elliekelly
This makes a lot of sense. They need similar requirements for evacuation
testing. Regulations say all passengers in a plane need to be able to evacuate
within 90 seconds. As Americans get bigger and airplane seats get smaller the
airlines "comply" with the 90 second requirement by conducting an evacuation
test in completely unrealistic circumstances.[1] The test participants are all
handpicked, fit, airline employees who prepare and practice for the drill. The
test "starts" with everyone in their seat (seat backs & try tables up) and
with their life jacket already on.

And in recent years the FAA hasn't required these tests as frequently. Why?
Because even with all the preparation that goes into it, the mad-rush to the
exits in a _staged_ emergency, tends to be quite dangerous for the
participants.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIaovi1JWyY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIaovi1JWyY)

------
adwww
I wonder if a bigger factor would be the test pilots knowing in advance what
the test was.

Eg. being told, "next we are testing what happens when MACS fails", whereas in
a real life situation the pilot has to diagnose what has happened, recall the
correct remedial action, then act on it.

~~~
simion314
Also this test pilots may know the inner working of the plane where the real
pilots were not told that MCAS was added behind their backs and some
buttons/switches changed behavior.

Also were this test pilots had accessed to extra diagnose data where regular
pilots were not provided even with a sensor disagree message

~~~
pilsetnieks
There wouldn't be a sensor disagree message because there was only one AOA
sensor, prone to failure, with no redundancy.

~~~
paulclinger
MCAS was only using data from one of the AOA sensors (picked during restart),
but two were still present, so sensor disagree light/message (when available)
would show disagreement between the sensors.

~~~
simion314
And Boeing decided to make it an optional paid feature, though I am not sure
if it was added later by request from airlines or they designed it like this.

------
huffmsa
Of course it should be. But the precedent was set in the early days of
aviation when test pilots were flying experimental aircraft from alpha to v1.
You don't want to kill rookies who freak out in a flat spin, so you put your
coldest mfer in the seat.

And then they do barrel rolls during the first public flight of your 707.

But now that we've got such accurate virtual cockpits, we don't have to worry
about killing pilots as much.

------
BuildTheRobots
If you test for average pilots, then you've still got approx 50% of pilots who
aren't capable. Whatever happened to testing for the lowest common denominator
- especially in life and death situations?

~~~
PeterisP
How about we take below-average pilots, have them run the test right after
their normal full shift ends without any rest in between, and give them a
glass of whisky for encouragement?

~~~
doctor_eval
Welcome to the Aperture Laboratories Aircraft Enrichment Centre!

------
jacquesm
Those can be found in the spherical cow aisle.

I'm sure the intentions are good but shouldn't the goal here be to use the
_least_ qualified, but still qualified pilots for testing? After all if the
average pilots are passing the test but the least qualified, but still
qualified pilots do not then it is a matter of time before the next crash.
Boeing sells their planes all over the globe and I suspect that the average
and the mean could be quite a ways apart and that the least good but still
qualified pilot still sits comfortably below either.

------
bronco21016
Perhaps a portion of testing could be performed in the simulator using a
random sample of line pilots?

The current advanced qualification program in use at the airlines kinda is set
up to test operational policies. All pilots of a fleet (essentially a random
sample of abilities) go into the sim once a year and perform a check on what’s
considered a ‘normal’ flight in the sim where anomalies are presented without
being pre-briefed and the crew must over come them just as if they were out
flying the line. The data is aggregated and problematic trends are identified
and corrected.

Translate the same to new aircraft certification. Get the airplane basically
ready and train some pilots in the sim. Just regular line pilots who will be
flying the aircraft for their airline. Then spend an appropriate amount of
time giving them realistic scenarios (without pre-briefing the anomalies) that
test the boundaries of the aircraft performance and see how the human/machine
interaction occurs and if there are problems that need to be addressed. In the
case of the MAX, MCAS was a new system so scenarios to test pilot interaction
with it would’ve been a requirement and I’m sure these issues could’ve been
identified.

This already happens to some degree when airlines take delivery of a new
aircraft. They make proving runs to hammer out any small bugs and get good
real world data on fuel usage, performance, etc. My proposal is simply to
expand the scope of proving runs in the sim with a good dose of abnormal
operations using normal every day line pilots.

------
Stevvo
Sounds like FAA & Boeing are trying to place blame on pilot error for the MAX
crashes, to deflect attention from the MCAS issue and the FAA's failure to
notice it. I agree with the conclusions as the majority of aircraft accidents
are pilot error, but in the case of MAX there is nothing the pilots could have
done to save those aircraft.

------
chrisseaton
Half of pilots are going to be below average - why not test against their
ability?

~~~
maxaf
You’re thinking of median, not average, but your question stands.

~~~
DaiPlusPlus
The arithmetic mean (I.e. the average) is the 50th-percentile (I.e. the
median) in a normal distribution. The question absolutely stands - unless
pilot ability is not a normal-distribution.

~~~
Lewton
In anything with a lower bound (passing to become a pilot) the distribution
can be heavily skewed (ie cutting off the bottom 20% of a normal distribution)

Which means that more than half would be below average!

------
nesky
Why not use a system akin to that of jury duty? If you fly X type of jet
you're in a pool of 'random' testers for X jet as opposed to using data driven
methods to shake out average pilots.

I'd have to assume the pilots in some fashion would be incentivised to not be
chosen to test for fear of simply being an average pilot in the first place.

------
esemor
If Boeing needs a less than average pilot I can surely use the paycheck

~~~
dangus
I don’t think pilots are paid what you think they are...

------
NetBeck
>Typically, overseas regulators follow the FAA’s lead. But after the MAX
crashes revealed shortcomings in the FAA’s certification process, that’s no
longer certain.

>Before the MAX is cleared to fly passengers again, both EASA and the FAA will
require flight tests of the new updated software. In addition, Ky said, EASA
will require Boeing to demonstrate the stability of the jet in flight tests
that include high-speed turn and stall maneuvers with MCAS switched off.

Source: [https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-
aerospace/europ...](https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-
aerospace/european-aviation-safety-agency-sets-strict-demands-for-737-max-
return-to-flight/)

------
ape4
As a developer I never find any bugs when I test my programs

~~~
rossdavidh
Yeah, my immediate reaction to this article was that it sounded similar to the
well known fact in web programming, that you need to have user tests by people
who have never used the website before, otherwise you won't be able to find
out which parts of the UI are confusing.

------
wespiser_2018
This is probably a good idea, using testers closer to your target audience
should improve results a degree. However, I think this is kind of missing the
point. Wasn't the problem with the MCAS system on the max that the system was
added to the airframe without re-qualification required? Shouldn't the
solution address how Boeing and the FAA qualify aircraft for qualifications,
not how the aircraft itself was tested?

------
ch33zer
Make sure you read the actual report before commenting. The article is
misrepresenting the recommendations:
[https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/...](https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/..).

Also, kudos to the airline industry, their postmortem culture is second to
none, even software engineering.

------
soapboxrocket
Regardless of the report and the article, I worked with the Boeing pilots for
years.

On the plus side they always argued that emergency equipment in the cockpit
should be able to be operated by almost any idiot off the street to ensure
safety.

On the negative side they had special expeditions from the FAA that allowed
them to skip mandatory training on emergency equipment that airline pilots had
to take.

------
shanecleveland
I live on the Kitsap Peninsula across the Puget Sound from Seattle. I enjoy
tracking aircraft on a phone app that circle over us fairly low when
approaching or taking off from SeaTac, Everett and Boeing Field. I recently
spotted a 737Max and assumed it was part of some testing. Curious what phase
they are in and how much in-flight testing is going on.

------
crooked-v
I'm immediately reminded of the whole thing with Captain Sully, where initial
recreations in simulators could safely land the plane on the ground... but
only because the pilots already knew exactly what to do, instead of having any
realistic delays to evaluate the state of the plane and consider landing
options.

------
objektif
That awkward moment when you are called in for a plane test and you realize
you are mediocre.

~~~
gniv
I had the same thought. But there are non-controversial (and, um, non-ego-
hurting) ways of defining average: hours of flight, hours of training, number
of certifications etc.

~~~
objektif
I just think average is not the right word here. Less experienced is better.
Yeah jokes aside some sort of a “rabdomized” selection methodology of multiple
pilots should be sufficient.

------
sdfafafa
If we assume the distribution of pilot talent for a Max 737 is symmetrical,
then mean=median so the tests only require the better half of pilots land the
plane.

Which is a pretty bad standard.

A better standard is that the 20% percentile commerical pilot can land the
plane.

------
gummydog
I'm not sure the criteria for determining an 'average' pilot but if becoming a
test pilot is a big incentive for trying to be the best you can wouldn't this
drag the average pilot quality down?

~~~
dredmorbius
There's a role for test pilots in aircraft development, and _certification_
pilots, used in rating an aircraft for commercial use.

You'll want the good ones for that first task.

~~~
VBprogrammer
I think trying to think of pilots as being good or bad on some abstract scale
is almost certainly an oversimplification.

The reality is probably more like for developers, some of the best developers
in terms of achievements are not people you'd want to work with on a daily
basis. In the same way that an F1 driver wouldn't necessarily be the world's
best bus driver.

~~~
dredmorbius
A principle in software is to never write the most complicated code you
possibly can, because maintenance is harder than writing, and if you could
only just barely write it in the first place, you won't be able to maintain
it.

The principle for pilots is similar.

As to skills assessments, you're right, it's difficult. But you can use some
general proxies. Certification pilots should be drawn from a standard pool,
not a test-pilot pool. Some sense of performance on some standardised battery
of qualification flights or simulator check-flights might be used, with
scoring based on success or performance in identifying and addressing
conditions encountered.

The fact that a _precise_ quantity cannot be confidently stated doesn't mean
that _no_ quantity or range can be given.

And for the sake of the certification pilots, I'm assuming check-out flights
would either be in simulators _or_ with a more qualified check pilot
assisting.

~~~
VBprogrammer
I think the point that I was trying to make is that a test pilot probably has
attributes / skills which make them well qualified as test pilots but perhaps
wouldn't make them particularly good line pilots and vice versa.

An ideal test pilots should excel in stick and rudder skills and have the
ability to work around mechanical / system problems.

For a line pilot attributes like organisational skills and planning,
interpersonal skills and meteorology skills are much more valuable.

~~~
dredmorbius
Good points, though I'd argue that for a certification flight, you still want
to _both_ emphasize conventional operational training and activities _and_ a
minimum set of qualifications for those.

------
ineedasername
Seriously, what not below average pilots? Assuming an even distribution (yes,
which it might not be) then roughly half the pilots are below average. If the
bottom 25% can't do it, that's a problem, no?

------
gigatexal
Eek. How are they measuring average? Those with a median amount of hours under
their belts? Those with average IQ? The term seems likely to cause a ruckus as
who wants to be called average.

------
Merrill
They need to establish minimum upper body strength qualifications, since MAX
pilots have to be able to manually trim the horizontal stabilizer using the
wheel and cable mechanical controls.

------
Havoc
That actually strikes me as a really good insight/improvement to come out of
this mess.

Using the top 1% talent or whatever is sure to gloss over flaws that will bite
avg pilots in the ass in real life

------
lutorm
Shouldn't they use pilots with the absolute minimal skills required to pass
the ATP test and get into a 737 cockpit?

If you use average, that still leaves ~half the pilots to crash...

------
alexhutcheson
Good luck finding a pilot who will admit to being average!

------
ryanmarsh
Surely they mean “later in development”. Test pilots are chosen for their
extreme skill precisely because a new aircraft isn’t proven safe.

------
LinuxBender
The test should use a minimum viable pilot with the minimum required amount of
sleep.

How many hours are pilots allowed to operate without deep sleep?

------
mothsonasloth
Surely there are only two types of pilots?

* Pilots

* Dead / disqualified pilots

~~~
doctor_eval
Well, there are also pilots who haven’t died yet.

------
jupp0r
If they use average pilots, it still means that reactions of the other half of
pilots will be worse than the ones they tested.

------
confidantlake
Like many others have pointed out, "average" is not bad enough. They need to
be trying it with the worst pilots.

------
tlb
I would like even the bottom 0.1% of pilots to be able to recover the plane
from a common hardware failure.

------
dclowd9901
Let's add to this: A plane should also be recoverable without usage of a
manual by a trained pilot.

------
aussieguy1234
Test with an average pilot, but have an expert backup pilot on board who can
take over, just in case.

------
wintorez
No! Plane tests must use bad pilots. They must use tired pilots. They must use
pilots under stress.

------
mywacaday
So test pilot at Boeing would not be something a pilot would want on their C.V
in the future?

~~~
AWildC182
No... A test pilot at Boeing could get hired at any of the major airlines in
heartbeat but why do that when you can just keep being a test pilot and throw
in for astronaut selection every few years?

------
hwc
How about below-average pilots? Just-barely-good-enough-to-get-hired pilots?

------
TickleSteve
Who is going to apply for the job of being an "average" pilot??

~~~
wespiser_2018
By flight hours?

------
exabrial
Out of all the unfortunate hyperbole from the 737 MAX (which I think
fundamentally is a safe aircraft), this change will improve air safety across
all airliners. Pilots should be held to the highest of standards, but
assessment should be done with average joes.

------
ngcc_hk
average can meant many things even in stat. like modal ...

But if only 50% ...

Should it be "normal", "common", ... or most, not just professional test pilot

------
basementcat
Shouldn’t tests use _below_ average pilots?

------
OrgNet
NTSB apparently need better employees for making such a recommendation... (ie:
it is not ok for 1/2 of the pilots to not be 100% in control of their plane)

~~~
inimino
100% control of any complex system does not and can not exist.

~~~
OrgNet
well, at least they could try. but yeah I know that most software sucks and
can't be predicted 100%

~~~
inimino
They do try. Avionics is miles ahead of everyday commercial stuff like your
desktop computer in reliability and correctness.

This is not just about software, a plane is a complex physical system and the
idea of absolute control is a fantasy. This is why you need alternatives,
failsafes, contingency plans, and training in dealing with unexpected failure
modes.

~~~
OrgNet
> Avionics is miles ahead of everyday commercial stuff like your desktop
> computer in reliability and correctness.

What OS that they use that is so much better?

~~~
inimino
Embedded systems aren't using your everyday desktop operating systems, if
that's what your asking.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avionics_software](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avionics_software)

> Avionics software is embedded software with legally mandated safety and
> reliability concerns used in avionics. The main difference between avionic
> software and conventional embedded software is that the development process
> is required by law and is optimized for safety.

------
Simulacra
Please don’t. I am a multi engine rated, average pilot. Please don’t use
someone like me as the basis for your safety.

~~~
salawat
You're hired!

~~~
Simulacra
I applied to be a rampie for Buffalo Airways but competition was too fierce
and I missed out....

------
not_a_cop75
What about below average pilots? If half of them are still going to crash,
shouldn't the true idiots in the industry be the test dummies? No pun
intended.

~~~
oliveshell
Fortunately, true idiots don’t get licensed as airline transport pilots.

~~~
not_a_cop75
True, but that doesn't mean there aren't "true idiots in the industry".
Thankfully, most commuter planes drive like buses and don't have the
excitement to draw idiocy like extreme sports does.

