Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
2175301
Posts: 1777
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Fri May 22, 2020 7:59 pm

Ertro wrote:
Revelation wrote:
FAA deciding it won't approve current gen cockpits on new clean sheets


I am somehow perplexed how this statement has been developing. I could be very wrong but I have the impression that this started at some press interview of somebody not actually from FAA at all and then that very ambiguous press quote was mangled and massaged several times in here each time changing a little bit what was said and now over the time it has evolved into some kind of a fact when that "fact" is 10th hand rumour at best.

Does there exist any actual direct source to state this as a fact or even anything more than a.net figment of imagination?

And second question. What does "current gen" exactly mean in this context?


Without looking at the exact ANet records. Within a few days of each other there was the statement by CEO Calhoun, and my friend on the NMA project told me that they needed to develop a new cockpit based on the issues identified during the 737Max investigations based on the regulators. Of course, technically there is no "law" or "regulation" currently in place that requires that. However, I have worked with regulators for years in the Nuclear Power industry and have a really good idea how this comes about and why it could be very real.

The vast majority of Nuclear Power Plants in the world (USA included) were constructed and licensed under earlier generation standards; that in retrospect, we would now do differently. In fact, the new requirements are in fact often much different.

The plant I was directly employed at was constructed and licensed under the Atomic Energy Commission as part of their "Atoms for Peace" initiative (pre Nuclear Regulatory Commission). The NRC regulations only allow the NRC to force compliance to newer standards in the older plants in the event of a truly major issue (such as several lack of instrumentation issues that led to the 3 Mile Island partial core meltdown: There were no water level instruments for the reactor - because it was supposed to be always flooded; and the operators did not know that there was a steam bubble in the reactor that uncovered the core, and shut pumps down that was pumping cold water into the reactor. There are now multiple, with different technology, reactor water level instrument systems - a NRC forced retrofit).

But that does not mean that the regulators (the NRC) does not desire that plants upgrade and modify existing systems to current standards - or at least to closer to current standards.

The plants also find that the original license does not allow for adoption of modern instruments and other improvements without an NRC approved license change. So what the NRC often does is say; we can approve that if you upgrade your Closed Cooling water system to "Safety Related" and many other changes. Over the years not only was the Closed Cooling system upgraded, the Spent Fuel system was completely re-piped to modern standards, additional emergency feed pumps were added, 2 additional emergency diesel generators were added, etc. Every one of those were multi million dollar projects. Not a one of them was required by regulations or law.

One could say to the NRC that we believe we have the technical justification to change this license item - and we will prevail in court. The NRC says "Fine" we'll be happy to approve it then after 5-7 years of legal battles and likely millions of $ in legal and other fees. It's just cheaper and faster to say OK, and incorporate the requested change in the plant or the design of an new project.

I have also consulted or even been assigned to other nuclear plants - and its the same story everywhere (just different systems or upgrades, with the exception of the 3 Mile Island upgrades that the entire industry had to do)

The 737Max crashes identified in part that the historic pilot-aircraft interface appears to be more complicated than desired. Airbus has reported similar concerns although they have more focused on general pilot competency and interface.

I can easily see Both EASA and the FAA taking the lead and telling Boeing with just verbal comments that they will need to do better than that for a future clean sheet (as the NMA Project was then preparing for launch). That while the regulators have not yet developed what they are looking for and the regulations; that just don't expect to be able to propose a cockpit that meets the current rules (and likely even propose to us a new possible standard) Now Boeing (or Airbus) might be able to win use of the existing rules in court. It's not worth the cost of the delay to go there. Cheaper and faster to just say "OK."

Having worked in the Nuclear Industry and seeing how these back and fourth request for upgrades between the various companies and regulators work for items that are not in the current "rules"... This is to me personally a highly likely probability. Its the way the regulators work on many items. Thus I believed my friend when they said that they would have to design a new cockpit, and none of the existing ones would work; and I posted that comment.

Have a great day,
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 23958
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Fri May 22, 2020 8:00 pm

keesje wrote:
There was an over reliance on pilot awareness and responds. And it saved a lot of time and money to grandfather cockpit design and requirements from previous versions.

Insiders fully supported and defended this design philosophy on thise site, even after the crashes.

FAA finally had to pull the breaks after international experts (JTAR) slammed these practises.

This reaches further than the 737MAX. Also the 777X and NMA /FSA are re evaluated, as we have seen over the last 12 months. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... -approval/

That was October 2019. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... wn-planes/ is new and gives us a truer read of how FAA is viewing things.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on Tuesday said it plans changes to how new airplane models are certified, but will preserve Boeing’s central role in that process — despite criticism that Boeing mistakes in certifying the 737 MAX allowed design flaws that killed 346 people in two crashes.

In a report released Tuesday, the FAA responded to recommendations made in January by an advisory committee set up by U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, who oversees the FAA.

In a statement, the FAA said those recommendations confirmed that its existing safety protocols are “sound,” though there are “areas where we have opportunities to improve.”

Still haven't seen a "come to Jesus" moment, have you?
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13841
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Fri May 22, 2020 8:12 pm

Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
There was an over reliance on pilot awareness and responds. And it saved a lot of time and money to grandfather cockpit design and requirements from previous versions.

Insiders fully supported and defended this design philosophy on thise site, even after the crashes.

FAA finally had to pull the breaks after international experts (JTAR) slammed these practises.

This reaches further than the 737MAX. Also the 777X and NMA /FSA are re evaluated, as we have seen over the last 12 months. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... -approval/

That was October 2019. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... wn-planes/ is new and gives us a truer read of how FAA is viewing things.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on Tuesday said it plans changes to how new airplane models are certified, but will preserve Boeing’s central role in that process — despite criticism that Boeing mistakes in certifying the 737 MAX allowed design flaws that killed 346 people in two crashes.

In a report released Tuesday, the FAA responded to recommendations made in January by an advisory committee set up by U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, who oversees the FAA.

In a statement, the FAA said those recommendations confirmed that its existing safety protocols are “sound,” though there are “areas where we have opportunities to improve.”

Still haven't seen a "come to Jesus" moment, have you?


The "US Friends of Congress & FAA" commitee assigned by U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, who oversees the FAA, is ok as long as Boeing and FAA fully implement JATR recommendations.

Otherwise EASA and CAAC need more time. No exemptions and Boeing / US congress powerplay this time.

What 2175301 heard and the JATR report seem fully aligned here.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2167
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Fri May 22, 2020 9:18 pm

keesje wrote:
There was an over reliance on pilot awareness and responds. And it saved a lot of time and money to grandfather cockpit design and requirements from previous versions.

Insiders fully supported and defended this design philosophy on thise site, even after the crashes.

FAA finally had to pull the breaks after international experts (JTAR) slammed these practises.

This reaches further than the 737MAX. Also the 777X and NMA /FSA are re evaluated, as we have seen over the last 12 months. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... -approval/


Boeing has had the philosophy that the skilled pilot would be piloting the plane for the critical parts of the flight, using autopilot once above FL10 but back off when below FL10. Reality today is the autopilot is being used for all portions of the flight, so the pilot has less skills as most of the time is spent watching not flying. The new cockpit concept must address this change.

Another issue is that often changes to an existing model only look right at the changes, but tend to not address how those changes affected the legacy portions. Certification from now on will probably have to look from scratch at the full aircraft. Easy with a clean sheet that has a digital design, the 787 is doing quite well with this. But the 737 has parts on it that were designed by slide rule, they have worked fine but no way to review how it really interacts.
 
Dieuwer
Posts: 2413
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2017 6:27 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sat May 23, 2020 12:47 am

Boeing should take the time now - when a lot of people work from home and nobody wants to buy a plane for the next 3 years or so anyway - to spend all their time designing a super fuel efficient (-50%) aircraft. Look at different construction materials, plop solar panels on the roof, whatever.
 
moa999
Posts: 928
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sat May 23, 2020 2:03 am

Dieuwer wrote:
to spend all their time designing a super fuel efficient (-50%) aircraft.

Yes. Because they haven't been doing this at all for the past five years
/S

No chance of getting 50% efficiency savings. We are at the margins which is why making a new design profitable is so difficult.
 
Dieuwer
Posts: 2413
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2017 6:27 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sat May 23, 2020 2:05 am

Think outside the box.
How about a crossover between a regular plane and a zeppelin? Pump the cargo hold full with helium or whatever.

Or something like this: https://www.hybridairvehicles.com/
 
talonone
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 10:32 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Sat May 23, 2020 11:19 am

moa999 wrote:
Dieuwer wrote:

No chance of getting 50% efficiency savings. We are at the margins which is why making a new design profitable is so difficult.


When the train arrived in France, at the beginning of the XVIII century, everybody said that the top speed it will be around 30kmph. Other wise the passengers will all die because will not be possible to breathe!
Today in Europe the HSR is doing 350kmph!
The space and human stupidity are endless. Maybe the space is not... but the human stupidity for sure!
 
LucaDiMontanari
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:37 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Sat May 23, 2020 3:39 pm

talonone wrote:
When the train arrived in France, at the beginning of the XVIII century, everybody said that the top speed it will be around 30kmph. Other wise the passengers will all die because will not be possible to breathe!
Today in Europe the HSR is doing 350kmph!


This is a killer phrase that kills itself. Would one really compare 1800's railroads with today's airliners in terms of technology level? Surely not - the may be compared to the Wright Flyer, both were new born technologies at that time. But both, aircraft and train, are matured today, so you need to compare today's HSR also with today's aircraft. Trains may look a bit fancier today than 1980 but are running at 300km/h for decades and won't go much faster. The technology is mostly matured out and every achievement comes with an incrementally higher price tag and at some point it is no longer worth the effort. And so do aircraft: it took roughly 30 years from having no planes at all to Lindbergh's Spirit of St. Louis. It took another 30 years from Lindbergh's Atlantic crossing to regular scheduled jet services on the TATL routes and then it took another 30 years, until the A320 made its maiden flight. Since then another three decades passed and all we achieved, is bolting a new engine to that plane recently. I think it is a safe bet to say, that we will still consider an A320NEO as a modern and efficient aircraft by 2050...

So to say, one can't do much anymore, as the biggest chunk of work already has been done in the past. If we talk about a 737 replacement, this will need to fit in a code C stand thus having no more than 36m of wingspan, while it should still bear a high aspect ratio, which limits the achievable wing area, and so on. It won't look too different from today's planes. The same on a NMA, may it be a narrow body or a wide body. Dieuwer is right - we are restrained by some inconvenient physical limitations we can not design away and we have almost maxed them out already.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 23958
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Sat May 23, 2020 5:41 pm

LucaDiMontanari wrote:
talonone wrote:
When the train arrived in France, at the beginning of the XVIII century, everybody said that the top speed it will be around 30kmph. Other wise the passengers will all die because will not be possible to breathe!
Today in Europe the HSR is doing 350kmph!


This is a killer phrase that kills itself. Would one really compare 1800's railroads with today's airliners in terms of technology level? Surely not - the may be compared to the Wright Flyer, both were new born technologies at that time. But both, aircraft and train, are matured today, so you need to compare today's HSR also with today's aircraft. Trains may look a bit fancier today than 1980 but are running at 300km/h for decades and won't go much faster. The technology is mostly matured out and every achievement comes with an incrementally higher price tag and at some point it is no longer worth the effort. And so do aircraft: it took roughly 30 years from having no planes at all to Lindbergh's Spirit of St. Louis. It took another 30 years from Lindbergh's Atlantic crossing to regular scheduled jet services on the TATL routes and then it took another 30 years, until the A320 made its maiden flight. Since then another three decades passed and all we achieved, is bolting a new engine to that plane recently. I think it is a safe bet to say, that we will still consider an A320NEO as a modern and efficient aircraft by 2050...

So to say, one can't do much anymore, as the biggest chunk of work already has been done in the past. If we talk about a 737 replacement, this will need to fit in a code C stand thus having no more than 36m of wingspan, while it should still bear a high aspect ratio, which limits the achievable wing area, and so on. It won't look too different from today's planes. The same on a NMA, may it be a narrow body or a wide body. Dieuwer is right - we are restrained by some inconvenient physical limitations we can not design away and we have almost maxed them out already.

I agree with what you wrote, we have hit a lot of limits. We see things like RR getting the blade coatings wrong on T1000 as evidence that they are pushing the limits of what can be done just to hit some aggressive performance targets.

I would point out that the first post said XVIII century = 18th century = 1700s but you are correct that trains really weren't a thing till the 1800s.

I think the next avenue for cost savings will be single pilot operation with high levels of automation and ground remote operation acting as the second pilot. It will probably get rolled out via freighters first then mainline pax operation later. It'll cost a lot to roll out, but in the end will save a lot of money.

I think this very well may be why Boeing is rethinking its cockpit strategy. They already seem to be accepting that higher levels of automation will be needed to deal with future generations of pilots. Airlines want to spend less in training, pilots aren't coming through the pipeline who have military training hand flying simpler aircraft under duress. Why not put everything into the airplane to get it as close to self flying capability as you possibly can, or at least design in the architectural interfaces needed to get to that point in anticipation of it becoming the norm? Why not start with a self flying core capability similar to a drone, and design in the human interfaces for the current generation, with a pathway to single pilot then no pilot?

It may not happen in one iteration, but aiming towards single pilot or no pilot operation for a plane that will EIS in the 2030s and be mainline platforms into the 2050s makes sense to me. I haven't read of anything else coming out that can really change the economics of airliners in any appreciable way other than getting rid of pilots.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13841
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sat May 23, 2020 11:25 pm

Lets not try to bring this as new insights of Boeing in future design, meeting less capable pilots elsewhere. Boeing tried to upgrade an old cockpit one time too much, aircraft crashed and now they are ordered to design the next one meeting the latest standards.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
AvFanNJ
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:47 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sun May 24, 2020 12:37 am

keesje wrote:
Lets not try to bring this as new insights of Boeing in future design, meeting less capable pilots elsewhere. Boeing tried to upgrade an old cockpit one time too much, aircraft crashed and now they are ordered to design the next one meeting the latest standards.


No, it was not that they tried to update it one time too much, it was that they did it badly. That cockpit still had room for upgrade and modernization but Boeing didn't sweat the details when they went about doing it. Tying AOA data into just a single sensor was wantonly reckless, no way to defend such a ghastly decision such as that. And giving MCAS post certification 4 times the authority the FAA approved was also an inexplicably wanton act of recklessness and one that Boeing hasn't and likely couldn't explain. Undoubtedly cost driven moves but not the result of trying to update the 737 NG into the MAX. Had this program been mainly engineer driven, instead of accountant driven, the MAX would've turned out fine. It was only that Boeing lost its way and forgot its roots that led the MAX program to this disaster.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2664
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sun May 24, 2020 12:45 am

keesje wrote:
Lets not try to bring this as new insights of Boeing in future design, meeting less capable pilots elsewhere. Boeing tried to upgrade an old cockpit one time too much, aircraft crashed and now they are ordered to design the next one meeting the latest standards.


Meeting standards not yet defined - well in excess of current.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10263
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sun May 24, 2020 2:25 am

keesje wrote:
Lets not try to bring this as new insights of Boeing in future design, meeting less capable pilots elsewhere. Boeing tried to upgrade an old cockpit one time too much, aircraft crashed and now they are ordered to design the next one meeting the latest standards.

Boeing said or the new head of the FAA who is well beloved and held in high regard by all?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 23958
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sun May 24, 2020 2:39 am

keesje wrote:
Lets not try to bring this as new insights of Boeing in future design, meeting less capable pilots elsewhere. Boeing tried to upgrade an old cockpit one time too much, aircraft crashed and now they are ordered to design the next one meeting the latest standards.

You may have had a point if NMA was proposing a 737 style cockpit, but it wasn't, and it's a nonsense to suggest it was.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2167
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Sun May 24, 2020 2:48 am

Revelation wrote:
LucaDiMontanari wrote:
talonone wrote:
When the train arrived in France, at the beginning of the XVIII century, everybody said that the top speed it will be around 30kmph. Other wise the passengers will all die because will not be possible to breathe!
Today in Europe the HSR is doing 350kmph!


... Since then another three decades passed and all we achieved, is bolting a new engine to that plane recently. I think it is a safe bet to say, that we will still consider an A320NEO as a modern and efficient aircraft by 2050...

So to say, one can't do much anymore, as the biggest chunk of work already has been done in the past. If we talk about a 737 replacement, this will need to fit in a code C stand thus having no more than 36m of wingspan, while it should still bear a high aspect ratio, which limits the achievable wing area, and so on. It won't look too different from today's planes. The same on a NMA, may it be a narrow body or a wide body. Dieuwer is right - we are restrained by some inconvenient physical limitations we can not design away and we have almost maxed them out already.

I agree with what you wrote, we have hit a lot of limits. We see things like RR getting the blade coatings wrong on T1000 as evidence that they are pushing the limits of what can be done just to hit some aggressive performance targets.

I think the next avenue for cost savings will be single pilot operation with high levels of automation and ground remote operation acting as the second pilot. It will probably get rolled out via freighters first then mainline pax operation later. It'll cost a lot to roll out, but in the end will save a lot of money.

I think this very well may be why Boeing is rethinking its cockpit strategy. They already seem to be accepting that higher levels of automation will be needed to deal with future generations of pilots. Airlines want to spend less in training, pilots aren't coming through the pipeline who have military training hand flying simpler aircraft under duress. Why not put everything into the airplane to get it as close to self flying capability as you possibly can, or at least design in the architectural interfaces needed to get to that point in anticipation of it becoming the norm? Why not start with a self flying core capability similar to a drone, and design in the human interfaces for the current generation, with a pathway to single pilot then no pilot?

It may not happen in one iteration, but aiming towards single pilot or no pilot operation for a plane that will EIS in the 2030s and be mainline platforms into the 2050s makes sense to me. I haven't read of anything else coming out that can really change the economics of airliners in any appreciable way other than getting rid of pilots.


Look to Defense Aviation. The US Navy is implementing a carrier auto landing system that will autoland all planes onto the carrier, the pilots will be trained to do it manual but nearly all landings will be in auto. Imagine the sophistication to address cross winds, the gusts and eddies at the stern, the wave pitch, roll and bounce, the right impact point to catch the 2nd cable etc. Not simple stuff. The MQ-25 will be a drone that will be autonomous, basically told to go to this point and cruise at a speed, altitude, and course, then fuel aircraft once it arrives. Yes, the control room will be monitoring but only 'flying' remotely a small portion of the time when something not programmed in needs to happen. Same with autonomous trucks and later planes. The autoland system is being installed in the fleet now, no longer R&D, the others are coming in a few years. The Loyal Wingman is similar a pilot could have several wing men that are flying ahead of but flying an offset course of the piloted plane, or do missions not directly tied to the pilots planes motion.

Boeing should have considered, but has been shocked with the liability if the plane drops out of auto due to some problem and the pilot needs to solve an issue in seconds. The best and average pilots probably can solve nearly all problems, but the least capable pilot may not be able to. Pilots are not trained to be control engineers, nor should they be required to, so the cockpit needs to be designed to do all the time all functions not best for the pilot, basically autonomous except for decisions about which runway to use, which taxiway, when to hold and when to proceed, as well as scan for traffic. The liability cost of a failure can run in the $10's of billions to Boeing, about $10m per plane if 1,000 planes are made. Time to design a fail safe cockpit.

Of course, not all things can be automated, even autonomous drones need some commanding. But to be done proper there need to be 3 flight computers with different hardware and programming so one programming error does not occur on multiple computers. Things like pitot tubes may need to be in threes for each flight computer so each is stand alone and each can control all systems. If the input or output of any computer does not agree within a tolerance limit, the pilot would need to decide which is the primary and which two are not. The system can hint which one it believes is correct, but the pilot (or remote ground pilot) would make that call.

Training would be easier, a plane not in service could be the simulator with a truck coming alongside with the simulation part and plugging in. With the simulator plugged in the APU and Engines would be locked out. It would be the same program as the real planes, full motion simulators would be the cockpit placed onto the actuators quite like current aviation simulators. But no lag in the program versions. This is what the plan is for the T-7A, a hugh cost saver.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sun May 24, 2020 10:27 am

Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
Lets not try to bring this as new insights of Boeing in future design, meeting less capable pilots elsewhere. Boeing tried to upgrade an old cockpit one time too much, aircraft crashed and now they are ordered to design the next one meeting the latest standards.

You may have had a point if NMA was proposing a 737 style cockpit, but it wasn't, and it's a nonsense to suggest it was.


... There will simply be no cockpit... :duck:
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
 
Noshow
Posts: 1512
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sun May 24, 2020 12:05 pm

It will be the controlled from the drone room next to the Catereria somewhere?
 
morrisond
Posts: 2664
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Sun May 24, 2020 12:30 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
Boeing should have considered, but has been shocked with the liability if the plane drops out of auto due to some problem and the pilot needs to solve an issue in seconds. The best and average pilots probably can solve nearly all problems, but the least capable pilot may not be able to. Pilots are not trained to be control engineers, nor should they be required to, so the cockpit needs to be designed to do all the time all functions not best for the pilot, basically autonomous except for decisions about which runway to use, which taxiway, when to hold and when to proceed, as well as scan for traffic. The liability cost of a failure can run in the $10's of billions to Boeing, about $10m per plane if 1,000 planes are made. Time to design a fail safe cockpit.



They were shocked by the pilots inability to fly it manually. Given the recent PIA accident as another example of very poor airmanship - I would suggest the safest route forward is to fully automate the flight and no pilot involvement at all unless training standards are heavily revised.

More along the lines of having them Master manual flight and be the back up - but be very good at it. Let the computers do the rest. They should not be systems engineers - but if there is an issue it has full link up to the ground where it can be diagnosed remotely(or flown by an expert) There should be a manual mode that has no computer involvement(by hitting the big red button) that even the lowest common denominator pilot can fly safely - as in Cessna 172 level of control difficulty.

Hell to keep Pilot skills sharp have them play an in-flight video game where they manually fly the aircraft to destination and compare how good they were compared to the computer.

The only involvement they would have in a normal flight would be to give the go ahead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvrT7bmmLPI
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2167
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sun May 24, 2020 1:27 pm

They could set up the plane to play simulator for either the pilot or first officer while in autopilot cruise. Would have to have a weird screen color to totally say - I'm in the sim. The autopilot could auto shut down the sim.

The Big Red Button is a great idea.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3511
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sun May 24, 2020 2:01 pm

So it seems to me that we are saying wouldn’t it be great if we had a system that could automatically fly the plane, some sort of automatic piloting function but in the case of an emergency turn off the automation have have an aircraft with docile handling characteristics such that the requirements for hands on flying skills required are are reduced and the person required to do these skills could maintain their proficiency through some sort of simulated flying system. We’d also need these pilots to know when to press the Big red ‘automatic pilot disengage’ button and so all they would need to know is the functioning elements of the systems to be able to determine if turning this off is beneficial or not.

I must admit it’s a great plan although I’ve heard it somewhere before I think...

Free


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4112
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sun May 24, 2020 3:21 pm

Some observations regarding next generation longer distance transportation.

Current US trains struggle to maintain overall speeds of 60 mph. Intermediate stops (an advantage RRs have) do not have optimal loading, which should avoid stairs (movable platform?). Maintaining an overall speed of 80 mph would make a very competitive trip for routes under 300-500 miles. There are people who for one reason or another need/want ground transportation.

Railroads versus freeways. put the following in all caps, color it red, increase the size, add italics. No Grade Crossings on freeways. What this means is that autonomous freeway vehicles already have the infrastructure for the 22nd century. There is no conceivable financial model to upgrade the intra-continental system to no grade crossings. Collisions and deaths and slowdowns continue the inescapable consequence.

Some improvements in grade crossings are possible, but today the are not all that much better than 1900s tech. And already identified rail corridors do have some possibilities. RRs may meet all of the challenges, but they just might fail spectacularly. Freeways and autonomous driving are formidable.

Planes are super for anything over 500-1000 miles. There are hints regarding what ultra-next generation planes could do on the lower margins of that range, even going down to 100 miles. I am a rail fan, and a bedroom/roomette offer something unique, comfortable, and pampering. But I fear optimized for load and range planes and autonomous freeway vehicles is where the real fight will take place.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4112
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sun May 24, 2020 5:02 pm

addenda to previous post: Boeing and the NMA will not be affected by RR or autonomous driving. The big proviso will be how an NMA will affect the NSA. Boeing's survival means no more than one more catastrophic failure. Should the NMA be somewhat competitive abused down to 2000 mile flights. Would an NSA mostly be competitive with the 321neo? The virus means about 2 more years of uncertainty. But what is uncertain is that medium long range transportation, < 1000 miles, is up in the air.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
Dieuwer
Posts: 2413
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2017 6:27 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sun May 24, 2020 5:39 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
Planes are super for anything over 500-1000 miles. There are hints regarding what ultra-next generation planes could do on the lower margins of that range, even going down to 100 miles. I am a rail fan, and a bedroom/roomette offer something unique, comfortable, and pampering. But I fear optimized for load and range planes and autonomous freeway vehicles is where the real fight will take place.


Maglev could compete in the 500 - 1000 mile range, depending on where the train stations are located.
 
nry
Posts: 115
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 11:42 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sun May 24, 2020 6:08 pm

Dieuwer wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
Planes are super for anything over 500-1000 miles. There are hints regarding what ultra-next generation planes could do on the lower margins of that range, even going down to 100 miles. I am a rail fan, and a bedroom/roomette offer something unique, comfortable, and pampering. But I fear optimized for load and range planes and autonomous freeway vehicles is where the real fight will take place.


Maglev could compete in the 500 - 1000 mile range, depending on where the train stations are located.


With heavy government subsidies to build it.
B727, B737, B747, B757, B767, B777, B787, DC9/MD80, DC10, MD11
A319, A320 (+neo), A321, A330, A340
L1011
ATR77, CRJ200, CRJ700, E145, E170, E175
 
2175301
Posts: 1777
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sun May 24, 2020 6:28 pm

Dieuwer wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
Planes are super for anything over 500-1000 miles. There are hints regarding what ultra-next generation planes could do on the lower margins of that range, even going down to 100 miles. I am a rail fan, and a bedroom/roomette offer something unique, comfortable, and pampering. But I fear optimized for load and range planes and autonomous freeway vehicles is where the real fight will take place.


Maglev could compete in the 500 - 1000 mile range, depending on where the train stations are located.



You could upgrade all the existing rail corridors to no grade crossings for far less than it would cost to build a Maglev system.

Maglev only becomes competitive in theory if transporting passengers medium to long distances. Not for freight; yet freight pays a key part of the bills.

In the early 1990's I costed out building an electric high speed rail system running from Chicago to Minneapolis (cheaper to build than Maglev). One line up through Wisconsin with local stops in Milwaukee, between Appleton/Green Bay, Wausau, Eau Claire); and the other line with local stops in Rockford, Dubuque, Rochester); when they did not run as express only. It would have been able to carry about 80% of the people flying to Minnapolis or Chicago cheaper. This would have good connections right to both the Minneapolis Airport and O'Hara field. It was obvious though that the idea would be dead without all 3 states involved passing eminent domain rights to allow the acquisition of the required land rights. Chance of that then - and today: Zero. I actually talked to some legislators in Wisconsin about the idea.

Have a great day,
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13841
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sun May 24, 2020 6:30 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
addenda to previous post: Boeing and the NMA will not be affected by RR or autonomous driving. The big proviso will be how an NMA will affect the NSA. Boeing's survival means no more than one more catastrophic failure. Should the NMA be somewhat competitive abused down to 2000 mile flights. Would an NSA mostly be competitive with the 321neo? The virus means about 2 more years of uncertainty. But what is uncertain is that medium long range transportation, < 1000 miles, is up in the air.


Globally most flights are < 1000 miles. If an NMA can't be fully competitive there, better start with a clean sheet of paper again

Image
https://www.planestats.com/farn2_2018jul

On high speed trains, up to 500nm, the winning factor is comfort and simplicity. Board in a regular station, without security, waiting lines etc, sit in a spacey comfortable seat without seatbelts, get a decent meal, have some real time to do some work & deboard quickly, as simple as stepping out of a train. Find yourself in a taxi/metro minutes later if you've been there before.

nry wrote:
Dieuwer wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
Planes are super for anything over 500-1000 miles. There are hints regarding what ultra-next generation planes could do on the lower margins of that range, even going down to 100 miles. I am a rail fan, and a bedroom/roomette offer something unique, comfortable, and pampering. But I fear optimized for load and range planes and autonomous freeway vehicles is where the real fight will take place.


Maglev could compete in the 500 - 1000 mile range, depending on where the train stations are located.


With heavy government subsidies to build it.


Always.

I think the world doesn't fully realize yet what the Chineze created in little more then a decade.
The better you look at the lengths, mountainous areas, deserts, bridges, stations, the more impressed you get.
https://i.redd.it/m7o53d5qapz31.jpg
If anywhere else in the world this would have been realized, it would be legendary. Films, documentaries by the dozens.
Now we are either too jealous or nationalists, so ignore / dismiss. Unlike us, the Chinese don't really care how we think on e.g. "subsidies" or "government" .
They are internally focussed, on to the next projects, e.g. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/06/ ... explainer/ .
Last edited by keesje on Sun May 24, 2020 6:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Dieuwer
Posts: 2413
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2017 6:27 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sun May 24, 2020 6:54 pm

nry wrote:
Dieuwer wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
Planes are super for anything over 500-1000 miles. There are hints regarding what ultra-next generation planes could do on the lower margins of that range, even going down to 100 miles. I am a rail fan, and a bedroom/roomette offer something unique, comfortable, and pampering. But I fear optimized for load and range planes and autonomous freeway vehicles is where the real fight will take place.


Maglev could compete in the 500 - 1000 mile range, depending on where the train stations are located.


With heavy government subsidies to build it.


And how many subsidies did they airlines get over the last couple of decades? It has been one trillion dollar bailout after the other.
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 864
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sun May 24, 2020 7:42 pm

nry wrote:
With heavy government subsidies to build it.

That can be said about literally every mode of mass-transit. Highways, rails, airports, lighthouses, easements, all of it is subsidized.
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 840
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sun May 24, 2020 8:05 pm

Image
https://www.planestats.com/farn2_2018jul

This is a fascinating metric. Thanks for sharing. I am somewhat inclined to believe the #’s are askew a bit for the North American and US market.

Would love to see the average seat and flight length mileage broken down in this geographic region too.
I am in full agreement, if the NMA cannot be utilized upon sub 1000 mile routes efficiently too, it’s time for Boeing to go back to the drawing board.
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4904
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Mon May 25, 2020 1:52 am

Revelation wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
So? When were there closed source cockpits? though I don't remember Ever seeing an avionics bay with only ONE type of avionics in it? I have seen Collins and Bendix as well as Aerospatiale in the same Avionics bay. I think the A320 Avionics bay is about as Diverse as one can get.

The term refers to the source information needed to build each board in the bay is open to everyone. This means the software codes, board schematic and other design documents are available to all and sundry. The avionics industry is not close to getting to this state. Some other areas are somewhat closer. For instance I've read of a few efforts to provide mobile telephones that are completely open sourced.

seahawk wrote:
That is "project blindness". If you are on the project team and present the project for decision, you should be convinced that it is ready, that does not mean it really is though. And if they really needed a new cockpit (still not sure why to be honest unless it was again mix and match from existing stuff) and missed the needs on cargo capacity, the project was far from ready.

I would say this is more a case of requirements creep. The requirements changed due to external forces (FAA deciding it won't approve current gen cockpits on new clean sheets) and internal forces (new CEO of Boeing and BCA decide cargo is more important than their predecessors did).


If not mistaken? This has already happened in the 777 avionics in the use of Computer blades rather than Boxes, The Blades came from a few manufacturers and If not mistaken? They were open source but they were also IBM standard size blade boards and they were designed that way. In the future? there won't be avionics boxes in the larger Jets I guess except for the Inertial navigation units as they're ring Laser Gyros . Not sure how they might be open sourced as Collins, Bendix and Aerospatiale all build their Own models. and I'd guess? They're not interchangeable as they're all different Protocols for processing information, Though? I could be wrong.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4904
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Mon May 25, 2020 2:10 am

PM wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:

The problem is this downgauging trend will continue across the full spectrum of sizes. What will say the huge number of 787-8 customers downgauge to? You have the MOM gap. If most 787 and A330CEO customers want to downgauge then that means we now have huge demand for the 797. Demand for the A321XLR will also continue to increase.


The flaw in all this is - if you are right - airlines will want to "downgauge" to your hypothetical 797 over the next few years. But the NMA, if it ever sees the light of day, won't be ready anywhere near quickly enough. And by the time it is, airlines could be upgauging again.

I think quite a few 787 / A330 operators will downgauge through cutting frequencies rather than buying new smaller planes.

I'm not sure where you get the assumption there will be that much downgauging . Unless you believe the Covid-19 virus will change travel for many years to come.
I personally do not subscribe to that theory. There will be a vaccine, and social distancing will ease. So? 787 and A330 sized airplanes will remain in vouge and the 777X-9 and -8 along with whatever Airbus Builds to compete with them? Will become the VLA of tomorrow.
I don't think we'll ever see airliners in the 400+ seat range again unless Specifically asked for by the airlines just like Juan Trippe of Pan-AM asked Boeing for the 747.
 
LucaDiMontanari
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:37 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Mon May 25, 2020 6:12 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
Some observations regarding next generation longer distance transportation.

Current US trains struggle to maintain overall speeds of 60 mph. Intermediate stops (an advantage RRs have) do not have optimal loading, which should avoid stairs (movable platform?). Maintaining an overall speed of 80 mph would make a very competitive trip for routes under 300-500 miles. There are people who for one reason or another need/want ground transportation.

Railroads versus freeways. put the following in all caps, color it red, increase the size, add italics. No Grade Crossings on freeways. What this means is that autonomous freeway vehicles already have the infrastructure for the 22nd century. There is no conceivable financial model to upgrade the intra-continental system to no grade crossings. Collisions and deaths and slowdowns continue the inescapable consequence.

Some improvements in grade crossings are possible, but today the are not all that much better than 1900s tech. And already identified rail corridors do have some possibilities. RRs may meet all of the challenges, but they just might fail spectacularly. Freeways and autonomous driving are formidable.

Planes are super for anything over 500-1000 miles. There are hints regarding what ultra-next generation planes could do on the lower margins of that range, even going down to 100 miles. I am a rail fan, and a bedroom/roomette offer something unique, comfortable, and pampering. But I fear optimized for load and range planes and autonomous freeway vehicles is where the real fight will take place.


These points seem to be specific US-American, very little technology-related but rather struggling from politics and low population density in large parts of the country? This is not to be meant an offensive question, as I just can't see any of these points being a factor over here in Europe, but rather see autonomous driving more as a thing that intensifies traffic congestion on roads. We do not have these 16-lane freeways over here, but lots of old, tight and narrow city centers instead. But maybe there is a better place to discus it in the non-aviation part, as this thread might otherwise be heavily derailed. Pun not intended, but it came handy at that point :rotfl:
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4111
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Mon May 25, 2020 7:09 pm

morrisond wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
Boeing should have considered, . . . Time to design a fail safe cockpit.

They were shocked by the pilots inability to fly it manually. Given the recent PIA accident as another example of very poor airmanship - I would suggest the safest route forward is to fully automate the flight and no pilot involvement at all unless training standards are heavily revised.

More along the lines of having them Master manual flight and be the back up - but be very good at it. Let the computers do the rest. They should not be systems engineers - but if there is an issue it has full link up to the ground where it can be diagnosed remotely(or flown by an expert) There should be a manual mode that has no computer involvement(by hitting the big red button) that even the lowest common denominator pilot can fly safely - as in Cessna 172 level of control difficulty.

Hell to keep Pilot skills sharp have them play an in-flight video game where they manually fly the aircraft to destination and compare how good they were compared to the computer.
The only involvement they would have in a normal flight would be to give the go ahead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvrT7bmmLPI



Going full blown over the top, overblowing all things totally out of perspective is a rather effective way to kill any meaningful and reasonable discussion.

Congrats on your achievement.
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 23958
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Mon May 25, 2020 7:21 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
So it seems to me that we are saying wouldn’t it be great if we had a system that could automatically fly the plane, some sort of automatic piloting function but in the case of an emergency turn off the automation have have an aircraft with docile handling characteristics such that the requirements for hands on flying skills required are are reduced and the person required to do these skills could maintain their proficiency through some sort of simulated flying system. We’d also need these pilots to know when to press the Big red ‘automatic pilot disengage’ button and so all they would need to know is the functioning elements of the systems to be able to determine if turning this off is beneficial or not.

The way I approached this is: how can one justify the spend it is going to take to do something beyond 787 level cockpit tech? What areas for improvement are within reach? What areas for improvement should one address if you are launching a plane for 2030 EIS and 20+ year lifespan? I can't see anything more reachable than something aiming for one-person cockpit as soon as practical.

The recent PIA crash seems to be a case where a computer would have done a better job than the humans did, if the present interpretation of events holds. Would a human in the cockpit try to salvage such an unstable approach if there was a human monitoring on the ground? Would a computer cockpit even let the human continue the approach? It seems like the ATC was suggesting alternates to the crew, but the crew was task focused. Would a person on the ground with equal responsibility for safe operation allow the approach to continue?
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
morrisond
Posts: 2664
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Mon May 25, 2020 7:37 pm

PW100 wrote:
morrisond wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
Boeing should have considered, . . . Time to design a fail safe cockpit.

They were shocked by the pilots inability to fly it manually. Given the recent PIA accident as another example of very poor airmanship - I would suggest the safest route forward is to fully automate the flight and no pilot involvement at all unless training standards are heavily revised.

More along the lines of having them Master manual flight and be the back up - but be very good at it. Let the computers do the rest. They should not be systems engineers - but if there is an issue it has full link up to the ground where it can be diagnosed remotely(or flown by an expert) There should be a manual mode that has no computer involvement(by hitting the big red button) that even the lowest common denominator pilot can fly safely - as in Cessna 172 level of control difficulty.

Hell to keep Pilot skills sharp have them play an in-flight video game where they manually fly the aircraft to destination and compare how good they were compared to the computer.
The only involvement they would have in a normal flight would be to give the go ahead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvrT7bmmLPI



Going full blown over the top, overblowing all things totally out of perspective is a rather effective way to kill any meaningful and reasonable discussion.

Congrats on your achievement.


Thank you - I appreciate the compliment.

Unless of course you think ECAM is the solution and exactly how did that help the PIA flight?

Unless you are going to train Pilots properly better to take the responsibility away from them entirely.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4904
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Mon May 25, 2020 7:45 pm

DanniS wrote:
incitatus wrote:
DanniS wrote:
I know I'm turning into a broken record already, but I think that's a tad unfair. Widebodies have ostensibly been the favored plane for TATL and other long haul flight types. Widebodies have the cargo space both for cargo and for amenities and food. And, while it's obvious Boeing's putting a LOT of great work into their new wing design, I don't know if you could apply it to a widebody, and then mounting the engines on those "flimsy" things... Or would you prefer the big engines on-body as a passenger? :P

There's still a lot of work to do in aerospace engineering. Putting a lot of new tech together at once is very, very risky.


But there hasn't been a narrow body that can offer significant coverage of the transatlantic market. The 757 had a very limited envelope. United wanted to use it in routes for which its range was not adequate, such as TXL-EWR.

Most passenger airlines (not all, I agree) see cargo as a mere add-on. Their business is to fly passengers and their presence in the cargo market is just a byproduct of empty cargo holds. As for amenities of a wide-body, I do not understand what is meant. What matters is personal space. Those that can afford upgrade from an A380 to a Gulfstream. There is nothing extra intrinsic of the wider cabin of a commercial aircraft layout that makes passengers demand it.

Boeing offered to make an extended range model that could have flown New York-Berlin easily (probably all the way to Moscow for most parts of the year). Practically no one wanted it.

Again, with a potential 60% fuel burn reduction inbound, a narrowbody that could fly Vancouver to London or New York to Moscow may be inbound by 2035, but I certainly wouldn't want to be on it.

the sweet spot in the Boeing lineup would be the 767-300 class of fuselage I'd bet. enough cabin to seat comfortably with Dual aisles and a cargo bay able to haul a bit of cargo. Not too big and Not too small.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2167
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Mon May 25, 2020 7:46 pm

morrisond wrote:
PW100 wrote:
morrisond wrote:
They were shocked by the pilots inability to fly it manually. Given the recent PIA accident as another example of very poor airmanship - I would suggest the safest route forward is to fully automate the flight and no pilot involvement at all unless training standards are heavily revised.

More along the lines of having them Master manual flight and be the back up - but be very good at it. Let the computers do the rest. They should not be systems engineers - but if there is an issue it has full link up to the ground where it can be diagnosed remotely(or flown by an expert) There should be a manual mode that has no computer involvement(by hitting the big red button) that even the lowest common denominator pilot can fly safely - as in Cessna 172 level of control difficulty.

Hell to keep Pilot skills sharp have them play an in-flight video game where they manually fly the aircraft to destination and compare how good they were compared to the computer.
The only involvement they would have in a normal flight would be to give the go ahead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvrT7bmmLPI



Going full blown over the top, overblowing all things totally out of perspective is a rather effective way to kill any meaningful and reasonable discussion.

Congrats on your achievement.


Thank you - I appreciate the compliment.

Unless of course you think ECAM is the solution and exactly how did that help the PIA flight?

Unless you are going to train Pilots properly better to take the responsibility away from them entirely.


Boeing screwed up with the MAX big time, but they also found they are now responsible for the actions of people they have no control over. The only way to limit that exposure is to gain control of it. PIA is clearly pilot error, but an autonomous system would have prevented this pilot from the aggressive descent he set up.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27092
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Mon May 25, 2020 7:58 pm

The 737 MAX cockpit is not the problem. MCAS is not the problem.

The problem was Boeing developed flight-control systems that they felt the pilots didn't need to know about, much less be trained on.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2167
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Mon May 25, 2020 8:21 pm

Stitch wrote:
The 737 MAX cockpit is not the problem. MCAS is not the problem.

The problem was Boeing developed flight-control systems that they felt the pilots didn't need to know about, much less be trained on.


and didn't properly design those systems they kept hidden from the pilots.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27092
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Mon May 25, 2020 8:29 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
and didn't properly design those systems they kept hidden from the pilots.


I think the system worked as designed, but without the pilots knowing it was there or what it did/how it did it, they became confused when the plane started acting in a way they felt was erratic and they did not know how to compensate for how the plane was flying.

Proper knowledge and proper instruction (via accurate simulation) would have given them the understanding of what was happening. It might even have led to changes in how often and how much MCAS could engage depending on pilot feedback from said training.
 
flyingcello
Posts: 208
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:31 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Mon May 25, 2020 9:14 pm

Stitch wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
and didn't properly design those systems they kept hidden from the pilots.


I think the system worked as designed, .


Indeed...it worked as designed. Unfortunately it was designed poorly...with no redundancy despite being safety critical. Where was the systems engineering? The engineering which should have identified the failure of a single sensor as critical.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2167
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Mon May 25, 2020 11:06 pm

flyingcello wrote:
Stitch wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
and didn't properly design those systems they kept hidden from the pilots.


I think the system worked as designed, .


Indeed...it worked as designed. Unfortunately it was designed poorly...with no redundancy despite being safety critical. Where was the systems engineering? The engineering which should have identified the failure of a single sensor as critical.


Agreed, as I noted up thread

Boeing screwed up with the MAX big time, but they also found they are now responsible for the actions of people they have no control over. The only way to limit that exposure is to gain control of it. PIA is clearly pilot error, but an autonomous system would have prevented this pilot from the aggressive descent he set up.


.The risk actuaries at Boeing did not properly asses the risk on the MAX, in hindsight they found their risk to be far higher than imagined - it looks like it almost took Boeing down. Any new clean sheet basically has to be autonomous, even if it still has two in the cockpit.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos