Aircraft becoming far too complex to fly...

What's Hot
HAL9000HAL9000 Frets: 9549
...claims man who doesn’t hold a pilot’s licence.

Sorry, but in many areas the technology (even if difficult for a layman to really understand it) has improved things beyond all recognition.

My first car was a 1961 Hillman Minx. Mechanically simple, easy to get your head round, but I needed to be under the bonnet most weekends. I currently own a Honda Civic - loads of technology which has been totally and utterly reliable. Far more complexity than any of my first few cars and far more dependable.

Back to aircraft then...

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. During that time aircraft have become hugely more complex and measurably safer.

The technology may well be complex, but as long as it’s making things safer and more reliable then I’m all for it.
I play guitar because I enjoy it rather than because I’m any good at it
0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
«134567

Comments

  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 24601
    edited March 2019
    Not sure .. with the latest Boeing crash I can't see how the eye witnesses and claims the software malfunction add up. Witnesses on the ground claimed there was a fire and lots of black smoke - looks like one of the hi-tech engines exploded. We won't know for sure until the black box data has been analysed.

    Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • 77ric77ric Frets: 539
    The new max8 Boeing’s have an anti stall system that as I understand it, pushes the aircrafts nose down if it detects a stall, something that pilots would be trained to do anyway, to increase airspeed to stop the engines from stalling. The problem that arises is if the aircraft is too low to induce a dive safely or if the engines fail, then such a reaction would be dangerous and pilots would react to differently, now presumably the automated systems can detect these scenarios and would react in a different way. The suggestion is that perhaps the system doesn’t quite work in the expected way under certain conditions. 

    Im sure I read that this isn’t the first max 8 crash that the anti stall system has been suggested as the culprit. Obviously it’s to early to tell with the recent crash yet. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • dariusdarius Frets: 619

    The first Max8 crash looks like its down to automation in the airplane fighting pilot actions. The plane used all the data it had, decided it was stalling, pointed the nose down to protect the airplane. Pilots had more data (visual) and knew this was wrong. They tried to takeover by manual pull back, which was always the way in the old 737s. Trouble is Boeing changed this on the Max8, pull back does not override, you need to click some buttons (or something similar). Turns out almost every pilot flying the new Max8 was unaware of this feature change. Learned behaviours, poor communications, massive consequences.

    Another similar crash, same plane, within weeks. I will actively avoiding this airplane type until airworthiness changes are incorporated.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • crunchmancrunchman Frets: 11411
    edited March 2019
    I'm sure I read that Boeing were already working on a software mod to be delivered in April.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • JezWyndJezWynd Frets: 6021
    More concerning to my mind is that the FAA have farmed out responsibility and oversight of safety management to employees of the companies making the planes. All due to budget cuts apparently. F***ing unbelievable. The FAA used to be the gold standard in air safety, now it's looking like the rubber stamping dept of whoever pays for it.

    The problem with the nose down on the Max series is well know by pilots and can be cured by disabling the autopilot system they say, but Boeing have been extremely lax in providing training and documentation on this new series of the 737.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • PC_DavePC_Dave Frets: 3396
    JezWynd said:
    More concerning to my mind is that the FAA have farmed out responsibility and oversight of safety management to employees of the companies making the planes. All due to budget cuts apparently. F***ing unbelievable. The FAA used to be the gold standard in air safety, now it's looking like the rubber stamping dept of whoever pays for it.

    The problem with the nose down on the Max series is well know by pilots and can be cured by disabling the autopilot system they say, but Boeing have been extremely lax in providing training and documentation on this new series of the 737.
    I'm intrigued by that statement. I worked for Boeing up until late last year, and the main focus around the Max had been training, documentation, and simulation work.
    This week's procrastination forum might be moved to sometime next week.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • EricTheWearyEricTheWeary Frets: 16253
    PC_Dave said:
    JezWynd said:
    More concerning to my mind is that the FAA have farmed out responsibility and oversight of safety management to employees of the companies making the planes. All due to budget cuts apparently. F***ing unbelievable. The FAA used to be the gold standard in air safety, now it's looking like the rubber stamping dept of whoever pays for it.

    The problem with the nose down on the Max series is well know by pilots and can be cured by disabling the autopilot system they say, but Boeing have been extremely lax in providing training and documentation on this new series of the 737.
    I'm intrigued by that statement. I worked for Boeing up until late last year, and the main focus around the Max had been training, documentation, and simulation work.
    Obviously I don't know anything in particular but the idea that Boeing failed to roll out adequate training has been made several times today on the radio, one of the people saying this was the head of a pilot's organisation in the USA. Apologies this is a bit vague and it's a bit over my head but the clear message going out, rightly or wrongly, is that pilots were not properly informed. Including no access to simulators which was specifically mentioned. Appears that either Boeing didn't provide the training or they have utterly shit PR people. 
    Tipton is a small fishing village in the borough of Sandwell. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • roundthebendroundthebend Frets: 1129
    77ric said:
    The new max8 Boeing’s have an anti stall system that as I understand it, pushes the aircrafts nose down if it detects a stall, something that pilots would be trained to do anyway, to increase airspeed to stop the engines from stalling.
    Stalling an aircraft is not about the engines, it is about keeping enough airflow over the wings to maintain lift. If the combination of airspeed and angle of attack result in a disrupted or significantly reduced airflow then the plane will stall and begin to fall from the sky. Pushing the nose down should address both of the causes.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • goldtopgoldtop Frets: 6101
    PC_Dave said:
    JezWynd said:
    More concerning to my mind is that the FAA have farmed out responsibility and oversight of safety management to employees of the companies making the planes. All due to budget cuts apparently. F***ing unbelievable. The FAA used to be the gold standard in air safety, now it's looking like the rubber stamping dept of whoever pays for it.

    The problem with the nose down on the Max series is well know by pilots and can be cured by disabling the autopilot system they say, but Boeing have been extremely lax in providing training and documentation on this new series of the 737.
    I'm intrigued by that statement. I worked for Boeing up until late last year, and the main focus around the Max had been training, documentation, and simulation work.

    I think the idea is that Boeing presented the changes as incremental and not requiring airlines to spend significant time/money getting their pilots retrained for the aircraft's auto-stability systems. And early signs are that the MCAS system is a sufficient departure from what pilots know that it's a bit risky just after take-off.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 71950
    edited March 2019
    Fretwired said:
    Not sure .. with the latest Boeing crash I can't see how the eye witnesses and claims the software malfunction add up. Witnesses on the ground claimed there was a fire and lots of black smoke - looks like one of the hi-tech engines exploded. We won't know for sure until the black box data has been analysed.
    Eyewitnesses to air crashes are notoriously unreliable, and it was *highly* unlikely to have been an engine problem - the pilots reported control difficulties very early in the flight, but nothing about engine trouble.

    *If* the witnesses are correct, to me it sounds like it could have been a fire in the rear cargo hold which damaged the flight control systems. That could explain both a trail of smoke and debris falling from the plane, as well as loss of control.

    The aircraft did not stall - it hit the ground in a full nose-down dive under power - you don't need witnesses for that, the size of the hole in the ground and the size of the pieces of what's left of the plane prove that. The Lion Air crash which is suspected to have been due to the MCAS anti-stall system was a nose-down high-speed impact as well.

    At this point I don't think the grounding is an over-reaction. The cause of the second crash is unknown at this point but there are enough similarities that a generic fault can't be ruled out.

    But aircraft are not becoming too complex to fly - pilots are possibly not being trained adequately to fly them, which is a completely different issue. As already said, aviation safety has improved consistently the more automation there has been. The problem now is that pilots sometimes seem to be unfamiliar with how to cope in the extremely rare cases where something goes seriously wrong and the automation has unintended results - which is a worrying problem, since that's really the whole point in having pilots.

    "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
  • MayneheadMaynehead Frets: 1782
    Complexity is not necessarily a bad thing, but poor design almost always is.

    If the auto-pilot cannot be automatically overridden by manual control, then to me this is a case of extremely poor design.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • GassageGassage Frets: 30824
    Just regarding the 737 Max, why bother guessing? Wait until the report comes out. Speculation is useless and just fuels misinformation.

    *An Official Foo-Approved guitarist since Sept 2023.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • PC_DavePC_Dave Frets: 3396
    Gassage said:
    Just regarding the 737 Max, why bother guessing? Wait until the report comes out. Speculation is useless and just fuels misinformation.
    ^^This
    This week's procrastination forum might be moved to sometime next week.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • SnapSnap Frets: 6256
    I think I've got a flight on a 737 Max 8 this summer. Two flights actually. Gut feel - safe.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • vasselmeyervasselmeyer Frets: 3664
    People really REALLY don't understand how safe modern commercial flying is. You have a 1 in 1.2m chance of being in an airline crash and a 1 in 11m chance of dying in it. You have a 1 in 5000 chance of dying in a car.

    I fly a lot for my job and I never even check what kind of plane I'm going to get in.
    1reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • HAL9000HAL9000 Frets: 9549
    JezWynd said:
    More concerning to my mind is that the FAA have farmed out responsibility and oversight of safety management to employees of the companies making the planes. All due to budget cuts apparently. F***ing unbelievable. The FAA used to be the gold standard in air safety, now it's looking like the rubber stamping dept...

    Didn't this come from His Donaldness wanting to remove obstacles and trying to make US aircraft more competitive in the international market?

    Perhaps the 737 Max8 could replace the current Airforce One...
    I play guitar because I enjoy it rather than because I’m any good at it
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • Here is his full quote.

    Airplanes are becoming far too complex to fly. Pilots are no longer needed, but rather computer scientists from MIT. I see it all the time in many products. Always seeking to go one unnecessary step further, when often old and simpler is far better. Split second decisions are....

    ....needed, and the complexity creates danger. All of this for great cost yet very little gain. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want Albert Einstein to be my pilot. I want great flying professionals that are allowed to easily and quickly take control of a plane!

    Bye!

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • MayneheadMaynehead Frets: 1782
    Here is his full quote.

    Airplanes are becoming far too complex to fly. Pilots are no longer needed, but rather computer scientists from MIT. I see it all the time in many products. Always seeking to go one unnecessary step further, when often old and simpler is far better. Split second decisions are....

    ....needed, and the complexity creates danger. All of this for great cost yet very little gain. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want Albert Einstein to be my pilot. I want great flying professionals that are allowed to easily and quickly take control of a plane!

    Again, I would say to that it's not the complexity that's the problem, it's the design. Good design helps the pilot do their job, bad design will hinder them.

    Take the (original) iPhone for example. It was the most complex mobile phone ever released, yet it was one of the simplest to use.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • Maynehead said:
    Here is his full quote.

    Airplanes are becoming far too complex to fly. Pilots are no longer needed, but rather computer scientists from MIT. I see it all the time in many products. Always seeking to go one unnecessary step further, when often old and simpler is far better. Split second decisions are....

    ....needed, and the complexity creates danger. All of this for great cost yet very little gain. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want Albert Einstein to be my pilot. I want great flying professionals that are allowed to easily and quickly take control of a plane!

    Again, I would say to that it's not the complexity that's the problem, it's the design. Good design helps the pilot do their job, bad design will hinder them.

    Take the (original) iPhone for example. It was the most complex mobile phone ever released, yet it was one of the simplest to use.
    I don't see that being a contradiction of what Trump said. I'm sure if you sat down and pressed him on the issue he would agree with you. He says older and "simpler" is far better.

    Bye!

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 71950
    People really REALLY don't understand how safe modern commercial flying is. You have a 1 in 1.2m chance of being in an airline crash and a 1 in 11m chance of dying in it. You have a 1 in 5000 chance of dying in a car.

    I fly a lot for my job and I never even check what kind of plane I'm going to get in.
    Yes, but the statistics can be misleading - you spend far more of your life in a car than a plane, and take far more journeys in one. Planes are safer per passenger mile, but that's only because planes always travel large distances compared to other forms of transport - in fact cars are almost three times safer per passenger *journey*.

    Deaths per billion

    JourneysHourskm
    Bus4.311.10.4
    Rail20300.6
    Van20601.2
    Car401303.1
    Foot4022054.2
    Water90502.6
    Air11730.80.05
    Pedal cycle17055044.6
    Paragliding970 
    Skydiving7500 75000 
    Motorcycle16404840108.9
    Space Shuttle 17000000700006.6

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety


    Personally, I wouldn't get on a 737Max right now if I had the choice. Yes, aircraft are still very safe, but this particular type has an apparently high accident rate that hasn't been properly accounted for yet. The two crashes may be completely unrelated and just a statistical anomaly... but they may not be.

    "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! 3reaction image Wisdom
Sign In or Register to comment.