Aircraft becoming far too complex to fly...

What's Hot
13567

Comments

  • JezWyndJezWynd Frets: 6021
    PC_Dave said:
    JezWynd said:
    PC_Dave said:
    I think you underestimate how many man hours go into testing software, systems, and most importantly, safety, when a new aircraft is designed. It takes on average 10 years from inception of design to prototype. Yes, this whole thing is an awful tragedy, but to say that Boeing have been lax in their approach is simply not true.
    But it's not a new aircraft it's an incremental update (too far?) to an existing model. Hence the need for software to make it familiar to existing users. The problem appears to be that sufficient training was not given to pilots, as it was assumed they knew how to fly the 737. Whether this should be laid at Boing's door or that of individual airlines who didn't recognise the scope of the changes we shall find out.
    It’s a new aircraft as far as design and build is concerned. 

    Also, Boeing provide all the tools and training, it’s up to the airlines to get the relevant people trained up.
    We'll have to agree to disagree re whether it's a new aircraft. I'd say not, as they took the existing airframe and then made alterations to accommodate the larger engines - this resulted in the attitude of the aircraft being altered which necessitated software to regain normal trim.

    Totally agree re your second point. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the two failures were down to insufficient training by the airlines in question. But I also wouldn't be surprised to find that Boeing made a selling point of the fact that their aircrews were already familiar with the aircraft. This is all guesswork as we don't have enough information yet.

    What can't be disputed is that the FAA have become far too cosy with the manufacturers - if there had been due diligence this may not have happened and 300 people would still be alive.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • JezWyndJezWynd Frets: 6021
    JezWynd said:
    goldtop said:
    And now Trump's done the decent thing.
    Resigned? Cool!
    An excellent contribution to the universe. Well done.
    Never a pencil when you need one.










    1reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • m_cm_c Frets: 1211
    JezWynd said:

    We'll have to agree to disagree re whether it's a new aircraft. I'd say not, as they took the existing airframe and then made alterations to accommodate the larger engines - this resulted in the attitude of the aircraft being altered which necessitated software to regain normal trim.

    Totally agree re your second point. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the two failures were down to insufficient training by the airlines in question. But I also wouldn't be surprised to find that Boeing made a selling point of the fact that their aircrews were already familiar with the aircraft. This is all guesswork as we don't have enough information yet.

    What can't be disputed is that the FAA have become far too cosy with the manufacturers - if there had been due diligence this may not have happened and 300 people would still be alive.
    A key selling point of the MAX, was that pilots would not have to be retrained.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • PC_DavePC_Dave Frets: 3396
    m_c said:
    JezWynd said:

    We'll have to agree to disagree re whether it's a new aircraft. I'd say not, as they took the existing airframe and then made alterations to accommodate the larger engines - this resulted in the attitude of the aircraft being altered which necessitated software to regain normal trim.

    Totally agree re your second point. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the two failures were down to insufficient training by the airlines in question. But I also wouldn't be surprised to find that Boeing made a selling point of the fact that their aircrews were already familiar with the aircraft. This is all guesswork as we don't have enough information yet.

    What can't be disputed is that the FAA have become far too cosy with the manufacturers - if there had been due diligence this may not have happened and 300 people would still be alive.
    A key selling point of the MAX, was that pilots would not have to be retrained.
    I’d argue that point, as the flight systems were more similar to the 787 as opposed to the 37NG.

    I’ve flown all 3 in a simulator and I can confirm that.
    This week's procrastination forum might be moved to sometime next week.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • m_cm_c Frets: 1211
    PC_Dave said:
    m_c said:
    JezWynd said:

    We'll have to agree to disagree re whether it's a new aircraft. I'd say not, as they took the existing airframe and then made alterations to accommodate the larger engines - this resulted in the attitude of the aircraft being altered which necessitated software to regain normal trim.

    Totally agree re your second point. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the two failures were down to insufficient training by the airlines in question. But I also wouldn't be surprised to find that Boeing made a selling point of the fact that their aircrews were already familiar with the aircraft. This is all guesswork as we don't have enough information yet.

    What can't be disputed is that the FAA have become far too cosy with the manufacturers - if there had been due diligence this may not have happened and 300 people would still be alive.
    A key selling point of the MAX, was that pilots would not have to be retrained.
    I’d argue that point, as the flight systems were more similar to the 787 as opposed to the 37NG.

    I’ve flown all 3 in a simulator and I can confirm that.
    And that's why I think there could a lot of fallout from this.
    At what point does a major re-design not become a 'new' plane?

    Lets stretch an existing model, jack it up a bit, bolt on a couple far bigger engines with different aerodynamics, add an extra safety system while not really telling anybody anything about how it works, and as long as you can fly the older version, you can go fly this one after a few hours of training.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • goldtopgoldtop Frets: 6101
    Boeing's position is becoming clearer:

    "Boeing's 737 Max series, now steeped in controversy and grounded around the world, is the fastest-selling model in the history of the firm. The company has delivered 376 Max planes to airlines -- but a further 4,636 from around the world are unfulfilled, according to Boeing's latest reports."

    Not many in the UK, but I just noticed that Ryanair had ordered 135 of them!

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • boogiemanboogieman Frets: 12315
    m_c said:
    PC_Dave said:
    m_c said:
    JezWynd said:

    We'll have to agree to disagree re whether it's a new aircraft. I'd say not, as they took the existing airframe and then made alterations to accommodate the larger engines - this resulted in the attitude of the aircraft being altered which necessitated software to regain normal trim.

    Totally agree re your second point. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the two failures were down to insufficient training by the airlines in question. But I also wouldn't be surprised to find that Boeing made a selling point of the fact that their aircrews were already familiar with the aircraft. This is all guesswork as we don't have enough information yet.

    What can't be disputed is that the FAA have become far too cosy with the manufacturers - if there had been due diligence this may not have happened and 300 people would still be alive.
    A key selling point of the MAX, was that pilots would not have to be retrained.
    I’d argue that point, as the flight systems were more similar to the 787 as opposed to the 37NG.

    I’ve flown all 3 in a simulator and I can confirm that.
    And that's why I think there could a lot of fallout from this.
    At what point does a major re-design not become a 'new' plane?

    Lets stretch an existing model, jack it up a bit, bolt on a couple far bigger engines with different aerodynamics, add an extra safety system while not really telling anybody anything about how it works, and as long as you can fly the older version, you can go fly this one after a few hours of training.
    Yup. Reading Gassage’s links, it looks like putting the new MCAS software onboard was the only way to get the Max version approved by the authorities, as the bigger engines had significantly changed the way it handled. Seems that there may be failings by Boeing in not pushing the fact that there were some big pilot behaviour changes needed in case of emergencies. Although it looked a very similar set up and pilots would find it familiar, it was in fact a very different animal in certain circumstances.  
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 71963
    PC_Dave said:

    It’s a new aircraft as far as design and build is concerned.
    The whole point of ‘grandfathering’ is that Boeing claim it’s *not* a new design and so doesn’t need the same level of thoroughness in certification as a new type.

    PC_Dave said:

    I’d argue that point, as the flight systems were more similar to the 787 as opposed to the 37NG.

    I’ve flown all 3 in a simulator and I can confirm that.
    That’s the exact problem. Is it a new aircraft or not? If it is, it should have had far more oversight and should not have been certified without a more rigorous system of sensor error checking and pilot training.

    Boeing have tried to spin it one way or the other depending on which suits them.

    I really do think the fall-out from this needs to be a much more critical approach to grandfathering.

    The irony is that the original 737 was given a head start for safety because it wasn’t a groundbreaking design even in 1967 - a lot of it was derived from the 727 which initially had a poor accident record.



    "Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski

    "Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand." - Homer Simpson

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • SnapSnap Frets: 6256
    edited March 2019

    Update on my previous comment. So, they are out of service until at least May. Well, if they are back on the fleet when I fly in August, I can honestly say, I will be a little twitchy for sure.

    Mind you, I've flown on planes that have no doubt been less safe than the Max. Christ, I've even flown Garuda in the 90s when they still allowed smoking in the back few rows. Lovely. Plane stunk of piss too, which is always reassuring. 36 hours on that thing. Each way.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • vasselmeyervasselmeyer Frets: 3665
    I travelled on an internal USSR Aeroflot flight in 1991. The plane was a Tupolov of indeterminate age, with some seats missing seatbelts, condensation dripping on me from above, loose luggage piled up against the emergency exit and a hefty Soviet air stewardess screaming "Sit down, god damn you!" at the boarding passengers. I just went to sleep...I didn't want to know about it if anything bad was going to happen.

    Compared to that, a 737 Max would be heaven.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • JezWyndJezWynd Frets: 6021
    Boeing not looking good as this unfolds -

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/business/boeing-737-software-update.html?

    To qualify to fly the plane, the pilots at American were given a 56-minute iPad training and about a dozen white papers on the differences between the Max aircraft and previous 737 jets, union officials said. Mr. Weaks of Southwest said his members were trained with an e-learning module on a company-issued iPad that consisted of under three hours of video presentations.

    Both Southwest and American now say they expect to have simulators including the 737 Max systems by the end of this year. American ordered the simulator after the Lion Air crash.

    The meetings last year between Boeing officials and the unions were cordial but direct. The pilots from Southwest and American who met with Boeing were frustrated that they hadn’t been notified of the newly installed software system in the 737 Max planes before the crash in Indonesia. The so-called maneuvering characteristics augmentation system, or MCAS, is an automated system intended to prevent the plane from stalling.

    “It was a very frank discussion,” said the American union’s safety chairman, Mr. Michaelis. “This is to our knowledge the first time pilots were not informed of a major system on an airplane that could affect flight controls.”

    0reaction image LOL 3reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • p90foolp90fool Frets: 31369
    HAL9000 said:

    Back in 1960 the fatal accident rate was about 11 per million flights. This has been steadily dropping and in 2017 (the last year I could quickly find figures for) was approximately 0.1 per million flights. 
    I wouldn't be at all surprised if the last million flights leading up to 1960 included World War 2...
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • crunchmancrunchman Frets: 11414
    p90fool said:
    HAL9000 said:

    Back in 1960 the fatal accident rate was about 11 per million flights. This has been steadily dropping and in 2017 (the last year I could quickly find figures for) was approximately 0.1 per million flights. 
    I wouldn't be at all surprised if the last million flights leading up to 1960 included World War 2...

    No.  Over a 15 year period, a million flights is only 67,000 per year, or 183 per day.


    Given that there were 704 Douglas DC6s built between 1946 and 1958, and that was just one model of plane, I think it's safe to assume that there were a lot more than 183 flights per day during that period.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • strtdvstrtdv Frets: 2356
    More information on this today. They don't know about the Ethiopian Airlines crash for sure, but the Lion Air crash seems to have been caused by the airspeed angle sensor being faulty and feeding the MCAS system wrong information.

    The 737 Max measures wind angle in 2 ways, but only the sensor at the front feeds into the MCAS system.

    Also, the MCAS system is materially different than the one the FAA signed off on. On paper it alters the angle of the plane by up to 0.6 degrees at a time (to prevent overcorrection or instability), while in practice it alters it by up 2.5 degrees at a time.

    I'd imagine Boeing will be found liable for the crashes. The required safety factor for critical systems (those likely to cause an accident if they go wrong) is a less than 1 in 10 million chance of failure, and a single sensor without a backup seems unlikely to achieve that.


    Robot Lords of Tokyo, SMILE TASTE KITTENS!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 71963
    strtdv said:
    More information on this today. They don't know about the Ethiopian Airlines crash for sure, but the Lion Air crash seems to have been caused by the airspeed angle sensor being faulty and feeding the MCAS system wrong information.

    The 737 Max measures wind angle in 2 ways, but only the sensor at the front feeds into the MCAS system.

    Also, the MCAS system is materially different than the one the FAA signed off on. On paper it alters the angle of the plane by up to 0.6 degrees at a time (to prevent overcorrection or instability), while in practice it alters it by up 2.5 degrees at a time.

    I'd imagine Boeing will be found liable for the crashes. The required safety factor for critical systems (those likely to cause an accident if they go wrong) is a less than 1 in 10 million chance of failure, and a single sensor without a backup seems unlikely to achieve that.
    They've known this since shortly after the Lion Air crash and the recovery of the FDR - and were working on a 'fix' *before* the Ethiopian crash, so it's hard to see how they are going to escape liability, since it's certain they knew it was a problem.

    Read the two long threads on Airliners.net about it - it's going to be a watershed for both Boeing and the FAA I think. A clear case of 'regulatory capture' and complete lack of proper oversight and failure-mode analysis, driven by the need to avoid changes which would invalidate the 'grandfathering' allowances. There's even a possibility the Max will never fly again without substantial redesign - the handling characteristics that forced the introduction of MCAS are a contravention of the basic safety directives.

    They even mis-classified the potential consequences of a failure to 'hazardous' from 'catastrophic', allowing a higher level of risk, when it's now quite clear that catastrophic applies.

    "Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski

    "Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand." - Homer Simpson

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • strtdvstrtdv Frets: 2356
    The cynic in me reckons that they did some rough sums and calculated that the additional cost of extra safety systems and the further delay to an already behind schedule was greater than the payout that would be faced in the event of a catastrophe, and so decided to go for the quicker, cheaper, less safe option.
    Robot Lords of Tokyo, SMILE TASTE KITTENS!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • crunchmancrunchman Frets: 11414
    strtdv said:
    The cynic in me reckons that they did some rough sums and calculated that the additional cost of extra safety systems and the further delay to an already behind schedule was greater than the payout that would be faced in the event of a catastrophe, and so decided to go for the quicker, cheaper, less safe option.
    Not that sure I'm that cynical.

    They could (will?) lose a lot more in revenue from lost sales.  So far they have delivered 376 planes.  To have 2 out of 376 crash within 2 years is dreadful by modern standards.

    They did have orders for over 5000 in total.  I suspect that quite a lot of those orders will be cancelled and Airbus might sell a lot of the latest A320 variant.  Lost sales will probably cost a lot more than the payouts they will have to make.  They are going to take an emormous hit from this - and rightly so.

    Some of the people at the top who signed off these decisions should go to jail as well.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • stickyfiddlestickyfiddle Frets: 26754
    strtdv said:
    The cynic in me reckons that they did some rough sums and calculated that the additional cost of extra safety systems and the further delay to an already behind schedule was greater than the payout that would be faced in the event of a catastrophe, and so decided to go for the quicker, cheaper, less safe option.
    To be fair to them, they'd have looked at the risk-adjusted cost of a payout, accounting for the likelihood of an accident, based on their internal sums. 

    Doesn't make it better tho...
    The Assumptions - UAE party band for all your rock & soul desires
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • goldtopgoldtop Frets: 6101
    strtdv said:
    The cynic in me reckons that they did some rough sums and calculated that the additional cost of extra safety systems and the further delay to an already behind schedule was greater than the payout that would be faced in the event of a catastrophe, and so decided to go for the quicker, cheaper, less safe option.
    To be fair to them, they'd have looked at the risk-adjusted cost of a payout, accounting for the likelihood of an accident, based on their internal sums. 

    Doesn't make it better tho...
    That was the Ford's approach with the Pinto debacle: https://users.wfu.edu/palmitar/Law&Valuation/Papers/1999/Leggett-pinto.html


    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 71963
    strtdv said:
    The cynic in me reckons that they did some rough sums and calculated that the additional cost of extra safety systems and the further delay to an already behind schedule was greater than the payout that would be faced in the event of a catastrophe, and so decided to go for the quicker, cheaper, less safe option.
    I think the real problem for them wasn't so much cost, it was that they were behind Airbus in getting their next-generation small airliner to the market - Airbus were ahead with the upgraded A320. If they'd spent the time necessary to develop a proper 737 replacement, they would have lost a lot of orders to Airbus from airlines who didn't want to wait... so they added bigger engines to the old 737NG. The compromises that resulted from that and the use of grandfathering to avoid regulations problems with some parts of it, and the lack of pilot training because they couldn't admit how different it actually is, led to where we are now.

    "Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski

    "Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand." - Homer Simpson

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
Sign In or Register to comment.