Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
kalvado
Posts: 2897
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Thu Sep 24, 2020 12:40 am

Antarius wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Antarius wrote:

No one is debating that point.

That doesn't mean an aircraft type is not safe because of an errant warning. There are plenty of other indicators to tell you to do so. (Again, not including MCAS and it's issue in this)

Think about it in such a way: if people became confused by automation, automation is at least a contributing factor. Believe it or not - see exhibit 1: crashed plane on the ground.
That is the proof, not some "doesn't mean". It IS less safe because it crashed. And while we're at this... Sky IS blue. Milk IS white. Earth IS round.


Pretty much every single aircraft type on earth fits in this category.

Which one - blue, white, or round? or designed in 1960s?
I may have some bad news here....

Message is - mistakes must be worked on. Being wrong is not a sin. Failure to recognize and correct is a sin.
 
Antarius
Posts: 2512
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Thu Sep 24, 2020 12:47 am

kalvado wrote:
Antarius wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Think about it in such a way: if people became confused by automation, automation is at least a contributing factor. Believe it or not - see exhibit 1: crashed plane on the ground.
That is the proof, not some "doesn't mean". It IS less safe because it crashed. And while we're at this... Sky IS blue. Milk IS white. Earth IS round.


Pretty much every single aircraft type on earth fits in this category.

Which one - blue, white, or round? or designed in 1960s?
I may have some bad news here....

Message is - mistakes must be worked on. Being wrong is not a sin. Failure to recognize and correct is a sin.


Displaying errant warnings and having crashed. It's not just the "designed in 1960s" aircraft.

You're pushing an anti 737 agenda, I see that, but there are huge holes in your argument.
2020: SFO DFW IAH HOU CLT MEX BIS MIA GUA ORD DTW LGA BOS LHR DUB BFS BHD STN OAK PHL ISP JFK SJC DEN SJU LAS TXL GDL
 
kalvado
Posts: 2897
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Thu Sep 24, 2020 1:11 am

Antarius wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Antarius wrote:

Pretty much every single aircraft type on earth fits in this category.

Which one - blue, white, or round? or designed in 1960s?
I may have some bad news here....

Message is - mistakes must be worked on. Being wrong is not a sin. Failure to recognize and correct is a sin.


Displaying errant warnings and having crashed. It's not just the "designed in 1960s" aircraft.

You're pushing an anti 737 agenda, I see that, but there are huge holes in your argument.

My only agenda here is against design under influence (DUI). And no sane person should agree with DUI!
If that translates into anti-737, that tells a thing or two about certain organizations, though...
 
Antarius
Posts: 2512
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Thu Sep 24, 2020 2:02 am

kalvado wrote:
Antarius wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Which one - blue, white, or round? or designed in 1960s?
I may have some bad news here....

Message is - mistakes must be worked on. Being wrong is not a sin. Failure to recognize and correct is a sin.


Displaying errant warnings and having crashed. It's not just the "designed in 1960s" aircraft.

You're pushing an anti 737 agenda, I see that, but there are huge holes in your argument.

My only agenda here is against design under influence (DUI). And no sane person should agree with DUI!
If that translates into anti-737, that tells a thing or two about certain organizations, though...


Only when that standard is applied to one type and manufacturer.

If the 737 NG is unsafe, then so is the a320, the a330, the 767, the 777 etc
2020: SFO DFW IAH HOU CLT MEX BIS MIA GUA ORD DTW LGA BOS LHR DUB BFS BHD STN OAK PHL ISP JFK SJC DEN SJU LAS TXL GDL
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 725
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Thu Sep 24, 2020 12:54 pm

Todays 737 is just the result of a really bad path Boeing and the FAA went on together over the years. So many safety features are now mandatory for new aircraft and the 737 has none of them. Just to name a few of them: Outdated crew alerting system, outdated over wing emergency exits that are only compliant because the artificial height chosen fitted the 737, outdated avionics.

All that is not per se unsafe, but if you have a lot of old flying cans and statistically you always will get a set of bad pilots in the cockpit, you risk crashes that with a modern cockpit architecture (like 787) are not possible. Thats why these rules are there in the first place. But if you get 1000 exceptions to keep an old can certified you cut corners that will show up at one point.

You can not build a new Mustang based on the 1964 original model and not install seat belts and airbags to cut costs and "grandfather" the 50 year old requirements into the modern world.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24620
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Thu Sep 24, 2020 1:09 pm

Antarius wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Antarius wrote:
No one is debating that point.

That doesn't mean an aircraft type is not safe because of an errant warning. There are plenty of other indicators to tell you to do so. (Again, not including MCAS and it's issue in this)

Think about it in such a way: if people became confused by automation, automation is at least a contributing factor. Believe it or not - see exhibit 1: crashed plane on the ground.
That is the proof, not some "doesn't mean". It IS less safe because it crashed. And while we're at this... Sky IS blue. Milk IS white. Earth IS round.

Pretty much every single aircraft type on earth fits in this category.

Yes, there was once this airplane designed by an advanced society and flown by an airline from an advanced society and approved by regulators from an advanced society that ended up at the bottom of the Atlantic because of an errant signal, namely airspeed. You see there was this natural phenomena everyone is aware of called icing that blocked some sensors. These advanced designers from this advanced society decided that the pilot should be able to figure out the airspeed was not reliable and do some checklists then fly pitch and power till the problem was sorted out, presumably by this other natural phenomena called melting, and the regulator of this advanced society approved this approach. Unfortunately, the pilot flying was not up to the task and the PNF was out of the loop since his inputs were being canceled by the PF due to post-space-age logic run amok. After the tragedy some better airspeed sensors were fitted, some airlines were told to do a better job of training their pilots, and life went on. To this day the same plane with the same potential issues flies without a protest being heard.
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: 2778
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Thu Sep 24, 2020 1:12 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
Todays 737 is just the result of a really bad path Boeing and the FAA went on together over the years. So many safety features are now mandatory for new aircraft and the 737 has none of them. Just to name a few of them: Outdated crew alerting system, outdated over wing emergency exits that are only compliant because the artificial height chosen fitted the 737, outdated avionics.

All that is not per se unsafe, but if you have a lot of old flying cans and statistically you always will get a set of bad pilots in the cockpit, you risk crashes that with a modern cockpit architecture (like 787) are not possible. Thats why these rules are there in the first place. But if you get 1000 exceptions to keep an old can certified you cut corners that will show up at one point.

You can not build a new Mustang based on the 1964 original model and not install seat belts and airbags to cut costs and "grandfather" the 50 year old requirements into the modern world.


AF447 and AirAsia 8501 had modern cockpits and they still crashed.

Good design is what matters without design errors. It doesn't matter how pretty the display is if parts can still fail (and the pilots bypass the safety systems) or they overload the pilot with too much information.

Explain why the crash rate is not significantly different with the A320 vs NG when the A320 has the "Modern Cockpit and safety systems" and the NG is an 1964 Mustang with a tach and Speedo (according to you).

The more modern cockpit doesn't seem to make a difference.

The one thing that does seem to make a difference on the 320 though is the brake to Vacate system which allows Pilots to get away with doing things they shouldn't be doing (landing downwind with a significant tailwind component) more often. However the right solution to that is not to perfect Brake to Vacate and install it on 737 - its just have Pilots land in the right direction into the wind in the first place. That is much safer with big winds - touching down at 90 knots (120 TAS with 30 knot headwind vs 150+ Knots with a 30 knot tailwind) is a radical difference in safety and potential crash energy.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2897
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Thu Sep 24, 2020 1:31 pm

Revelation wrote:
Antarius wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Think about it in such a way: if people became confused by automation, automation is at least a contributing factor. Believe it or not - see exhibit 1: crashed plane on the ground.
That is the proof, not some "doesn't mean". It IS less safe because it crashed. And while we're at this... Sky IS blue. Milk IS white. Earth IS round.

Pretty much every single aircraft type on earth fits in this category.

Yes, there was once this airplane designed by an advanced society and flown by an airline from an advanced society and approved by regulators from an advanced society that ended up at the bottom of the Atlantic because of an errant signal, namely airspeed. You see there was this natural phenomena everyone is aware of called icing that blocked some sensors. These advanced designers from this advanced society decided that the pilot should be able to figure out the airspeed was not reliable and do some checklists then fly pitch and power till the problem was sorted out, presumably by this other natural phenomena called melting, and the regulator of this advanced society approved this approach. Unfortunately, the pilot flying was not up to the task and the PNF was out of the loop since his inputs were being canceled by the PF due to post-space-age logic run amok. After the tragedy some better airspeed sensors were fitted, some airlines were told to do a better job of training their pilots, and life went on. To this day the same plane with the same potential issues flies without a protest being heard.

And again, people are so defensive they feel no difference between faulty display and ACTION taken automatically on faulty data. And not just some convenience action (I shed no tears when my porch light sensor gets dirty) - this is CRITICAL CONTROL action. A whole 2 levels of escalation.
Of course, we may go on discussing the difference between action and inaction - it's just a couple more layers of cheese slices, after all.
UPD: make it 3 levels of escalation: machine is OVERRULING human input based on a faulty data.
Last edited by kalvado on Thu Sep 24, 2020 1:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 725
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Thu Sep 24, 2020 1:31 pm

morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
Todays 737 is just the result of a really bad path Boeing and the FAA went on together over the years. So many safety features are now mandatory for new aircraft and the 737 has none of them. Just to name a few of them: Outdated crew alerting system, outdated over wing emergency exits that are only compliant because the artificial height chosen fitted the 737, outdated avionics.

All that is not per se unsafe, but if you have a lot of old flying cans and statistically you always will get a set of bad pilots in the cockpit, you risk crashes that with a modern cockpit architecture (like 787) are not possible. Thats why these rules are there in the first place. But if you get 1000 exceptions to keep an old can certified you cut corners that will show up at one point.

You can not build a new Mustang based on the 1964 original model and not install seat belts and airbags to cut costs and "grandfather" the 50 year old requirements into the modern world.


AF447 and AirAsia 8501 had modern cockpits and they still crashed.

Good design is what matters without design errors. It doesn't matter how pretty the display is if parts can still fail (and the pilots bypass the safety systems) or they overload the pilot with too much information.

Explain why the crash rate is not significantly different with the A320 vs NG when the A320 has the "Modern Cockpit and safety systems" and the NG is an 1964 Mustang with a tach and Speedo (according to you).

The more modern cockpit doesn't seem to make a difference.

The one thing that does seem to make a difference on the 320 though is the brake to Vacate system which allows Pilots to get away with doing things they shouldn't be doing (landing downwind with a significant tailwind component) more often. However the right solution to that is not to perfect Brake to Vacate and install it on 737 - its just have Pilots land in the right direction into the wind in the first place. That is much safer with big winds - touching down at 90 knots (120 TAS with 30 knot headwind vs 150+ Knots with a 30 knot tailwind) is a radical difference in safety and potential crash energy.


The original A320 has a 80s cockpit so does the A330. This are old designs that should not have been allowed to be recertified for the NEO versions. They have a lot of flaws, almost as many as the 737s. I just do not know what the Airbus have to do with the grounded Boeing aircraft.

Would you buy a modern car with 1950s safety systems?

Fact is: The 737 is only allowed to fly because political and monetary motives pushed an agenda of countless exceptions a modern aircraft like the 787 does not have. The 787 is without doubt a very safe aircraft due to its advanced design and cockpit.

You will find bad pilots on every aircraft and obviously they can crash them. Countless crashes of 737s, A320s, A330/340s, B767s, 777s etc. have happened over the years that were attributed to bad piloting. Pilots can be bad on all aircraft.

According to you it is important that a pilot can fly an aircraft without automation. I agree here. This is no excuse though to allow the absence of safety features nor to defend piss poor design. The max has all three of them coming together. Flights with bad piloting on an aircraft with 60s safety and added features that are designed piss poor. What a great achievement.

Wonder though why we have no 787s, A350s and A380s crashing.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24620
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Thu Sep 24, 2020 1:47 pm

kalvado wrote:
And again, people are so defensive they feel no difference between faulty display and ACTION taken automatically on faulty data. And not just some convenience action (I shed no tears when my porch light sensor gets dirty) - this is CRITICAL CONTROL action. A whole 2 levels of escalation.
Of course, we may go on discussing the difference between action and inaction - it's just a couple more layers of cheese slices, after all.

If you think anyone is defending MCAS you are wrong.

In the case of TK1953 the system took action but gave visual (mode change displayed, throttles moved) and aural (annunciation) of what it was doing.

In AF447 the post-apollo system canceled out the PNF's inputs and gave no feedback to him to let him know that this was happening.

In both cases there was a point where the pilots were expected to take responsibility and sort out what was happening.

I'd say the 737 did a better job in TK1953 of letting the pilots know what was happening compared to the A330 in AF447.

In TK1953 it seems the pilots were so focused on saving a bad approach that they didn't monitor the key flight parameters.

In AF447 the PF was doing things no designer would expect under the circumstances but they thought the PNF would catch it and work with the PF to sort things out, but their design choices prevented the PNF from saving the flight on his own and the desired level of coordination did not happen.
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
 
kalvado
Posts: 2897
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Thu Sep 24, 2020 2:18 pm

Revelation wrote:
kalvado wrote:
And again, people are so defensive they feel no difference between faulty display and ACTION taken automatically on faulty data. And not just some convenience action (I shed no tears when my porch light sensor gets dirty) - this is CRITICAL CONTROL action. A whole 2 levels of escalation.
Of course, we may go on discussing the difference between action and inaction - it's just a couple more layers of cheese slices, after all.

If you think anyone is defending MCAS you are wrong.

In the case of TK1953 the system took action but gave visual (mode change displayed, throttles moved) and aural (annunciation) of what it was doing.

In AF447 the post-apollo system canceled out the PNF's inputs and gave no feedback to him to let him know that this was happening.

In both cases there was a point where the pilots were expected to take responsibility and sort out what was happening.

I'd say the 737 did a better job in TK1953 of letting the pilots know what was happening compared to the A330 in AF447.

In TK1953 it seems the pilots were so focused on saving a bad approach that they didn't monitor the key flight parameters.

In AF447 the PF was doing things no designer would expect under the circumstances but they thought the PNF would catch it and work with the PF to sort things out, but their design choices prevented the PNF from saving the flight on his own and the desired level of coordination did not happen.

And again - I see a total difference between a computer finding itself between fighting humans (not that different from mechanics between two conflicting human inputs on Amazon 767) and automatic overruling human input based on simple relay logic response to a faulty single-source data. Last statement goes to both MCAS and TK crash; moreover - one may draw a direct parallel between two events in terms of design ideologies: idea of single input being deemed faulty once, only to be repeated in a more perverted form. Ever heard about institutional knowledge? Is that a real thing?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24620
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Thu Sep 24, 2020 2:51 pm

kalvado wrote:
And again - I see a total difference between a computer finding itself between fighting humans (not that different from mechanics between two conflicting human inputs on Amazon 767) and automatic overruling human input based on simple relay logic response to a faulty single-source data. Last statement goes to both MCAS and TK crash; moreover - one may draw a direct parallel between two events in terms of design ideologies: idea of single input being deemed faulty once, only to be repeated in a more perverted form. Ever heard about institutional knowledge? Is that a real thing?

A force feedback stick is technology honed by the gaming industry and the defense industry for many years now, yet we don't hear about Airbus putting money over safety, they just keep selling flying these post-apollo aircraft with a pretty obvious and serious flaw that can be easily addressed. No one complains, they are too busy enumerating Boeing flaws, some real and some imagined, while excusing the home team.
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
Stitch
Posts: 27236
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Thu Sep 24, 2020 3:08 pm

kalvado wrote:
UPD: make it 3 levels of escalation: machine is OVERRULING human input based on a faulty data.


Qantas 72 shows that might not always save you. In that incident, there were three air data inertial reference units feeding data into the flight control primary computer of the A330-300 so one could presume the system was "fail safe". Yet an unknown at the time (those pesky "unknown unknowns") software design limitation in said FCPU allowed the faulty data from one of the ADIRUs to initiate two severe uncommanded pitch-down maneuvers that might have led to the loss of the airframe if not for the skill of the PIC and ended up injuring a number of passengers and cabin crew.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2778
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Thu Sep 24, 2020 3:20 pm

You also have LH 1829 - If the Pilot had not taken over the Co-pilot would have made it into a lawn dart when the AOA probes froze. EICAS didn't do a lot for them.

From AVHerald https://avherald.com/h?article=47d74074

"The BFU reported that according to flight data and cockpit voice recorder the first officer (35, ATPL, 6,473 hours total, 5,179 hours on type) was pilot flying, the captain (52, ATPL, 16,384 hours total, 12,414 hours on type) pilot monitoring. After the aircraft climbed clear of top of clouds at about FL200 the flight data recorder recorded a fixed value of +4.2 degrees for the left hand AoA sensor, less than a minute later the FDR began to record a fixed value of +4.6 degrees for the right hand AoA sensor. The aircraft subsequently turned to fly direct to LATEK waypoint, during this turn the captain noticed the Alpha Protection Band had unusually and significantly increased. The first officer therefore reduced the climb rate from 800 to 500 feet per minute to enable the aircraft to accelerate. A short time later the first officer disengaged the autopilot and gave a brief nose down input.

The aircraft however continued to pitch down, inputs to counter the pitch down remained without effect. About 45 seconds after the nose down began the first officer alerted the captain who took control of the aircraft, that at this time had reached a rate of descent of 4000 feet per minute and a pitch of -3.5 degrees. The captain provided a maximum nose up input which caused the aircraft to pitch up again and the rate of descent decreased and the aircraft entered level flight.

The captain was able to maintain altitude by providing a continuous nose up input deflecting the side stick about 50% of its travel. The autopilot could not be engaged again, and a manual nose up trim was not possible."

Interesting - Manual nose up trim not possible either...I don't think Airbus redesigned that system since then - Just to forestall what I'm sure will be the next debate once we are done with EICAS.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2897
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Thu Sep 24, 2020 3:22 pm

Revelation wrote:
kalvado wrote:
And again - I see a total difference between a computer finding itself between fighting humans (not that different from mechanics between two conflicting human inputs on Amazon 767) and automatic overruling human input based on simple relay logic response to a faulty single-source data. Last statement goes to both MCAS and TK crash; moreover - one may draw a direct parallel between two events in terms of design ideologies: idea of single input being deemed faulty once, only to be repeated in a more perverted form. Ever heard about institutional knowledge? Is that a real thing?

A force feedback stick is technology honed by the gaming industry and the defense industry for many years now, yet we don't hear about Airbus putting money over safety, they just keep selling flying these post-apollo aircraft with a pretty obvious and serious flaw that can be easily addressed. No one complains, they are too busy enumerating Boeing flaws, some real and some imagined, while excusing the home team.

You're starting to talk in the right direction. You're discussing design ideology which goes through multiple families of the aircraft.
That's my thing for today - consistency in approaches and ability to learn. "Yessir!" is not the only type of lesson to be learnt.
Now the question is - are there ideologies to discuss in Boeing, at least within single family, or there is a complete loss of design strategy, hence control over the big picture?
I am bringing up the thesis - no, it was lost in NG, and MAX is only amplifying these issues. You're bringing up some problems other aircraft may or may not have. WHich is, again, a fair point - but completely outside my message. No consistent approaches, no ability to follow up and learn from previous mistakes, in my oppinion, becomes more and more clear. And that brings the shadow of "had been" to the Boing's history...
 
hivue
Posts: 2078
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Thu Sep 24, 2020 5:26 pm

Revelation wrote:
In AF447 the PF was doing things no designer would expect under the circumstances but they thought the PNF would catch it and work with the PF to sort things out, but their design choices prevented the PNF from saving the flight on his own and the desired level of coordination did not happen.


I believe all Airbus models provide an aural warning for dual side stick inputs. It's up to the crew, through adequate training, proper CRM, etc. -- nothing way out of the ordinary -- to then handle the situation. It's no more correct to imply that an A330 is un-flyable in the case of competing side stick inputs than it is to imply, say, that the 737 MAX is an aerodynamically unstable design without MCAS.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
Chemist
Posts: 761
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Thu Sep 24, 2020 6:59 pm

kalvado wrote:
AABusDrvr wrote:
keesje wrote:

The aircraft was fighting the pilots instead of helping them while the crew alert system gave incorrect, confusing information. Similar to the MAX crashes. Boeing got away with TK1951 and the MAX Lionair crash, blaming the crew. FAA was in the pocket.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytime ... s.amp.html


The aircraft was not "fighting" the pilots, the automation didn't perform as expected due to erroneous information from one (of two installed) radio altimeters. They failed to notice the airspeed decay or notice the airspeed trend vectors indicating the airspeed decay. All while pressing an unstable approach, that by their own procedures should have resulted in a go around.

Automation can be a wonderful tool to manage workload, or it can become a terrible crutch that can lead you down the path to disaster in a hurry. There is a reason some airlines require the pilot flying to "follow through" on the controls below a certain altitude, even when the automation is flying the airplane. It's a trust but verify relationship, and you need to be ready to step up, or down the automation level as required to manage the situation.

The airplane flies just fine without both the radio altimeter or auto throttles, and neither is required for dispatch (with restrictions). If it's not doing what you expect it to, just turn it off and drive on.

As stated above, it's like the Tesla driver who uses the autopilot while watching a movie, or using a PED, and then wonders why they hit a bridge abutment, or stopped car on the shoulder.

Automation performed as expected DUE TO POOR DESIGN.
Again, design choices of WWII equipment - simple relay logic - is all what could be done back then. For 2020... some companies are way behind times. I am at the point when I would consider designing NG as a fundamental mistake. Hydraulic computers, relay logic.... In there any wood in the primary structure?
Same problem - people are unable to keep up with external circumstances. Human nature. Wise people learn from other's mistakes, smart people learn on their own mistakes, Boeing doesn't learn on it's own ones...


My bicycle has no automation to keep me upright should my own personal balance fail. It's an archaic design - no electronics. It's poor design for modern times.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24620
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Thu Sep 24, 2020 7:06 pm

Chemist wrote:
My bicycle has no automation to keep me upright should my own personal balance fail. It's an archaic design - no electronics. It's poor design for modern times.

You need to refuse to accept pre-Wright technology.
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
 
dagKentWA
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2020 10:02 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Thu Sep 24, 2020 7:25 pm

Revelation wrote:
Chemist wrote:
My bicycle has no automation to keep me upright should my own personal balance fail. It's an archaic design - no electronics. It's poor design for modern times.

You need to refuse to accept pre-Wright technology.

My favorite car is my 1959 Austin Healey Sprite (the "Bugeye"). It has a manual transmission, manual steering, manual (not power assisted) brakes, no seat belt. My connection to the road is very intimate. And I have to say very aware of what is going on. I hate my car with auto everything, seat belts, air bags and anti-lock brakes. How many accidents do you see on the road where multiple cars are pushed into each other because they were following too close? ABS isn't a guarantee of stopping before the back end of the car in front of you, but most drivers treat it that way. Technology allows a driver to become complacent and not keep driving skills sharp (if they ever had such skills).

When the county I live in mandated bicyclists where a helmet, incidents of head injury skyrocketed. Wearing a helmet gave cyclists (usually teen boys and young men) a sense of invincibility, and as a result, they did stupid things. But a bike helmet can only do so much to protect.

A pilot MUST have basic flying skills and not become too reliant on technology. (And my Bugeye has a built-in theft prevention device, since practically no one can drive a manual transmission these days!)
 
kalvado
Posts: 2897
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Thu Sep 24, 2020 7:30 pm

Chemist wrote:
kalvado wrote:
AABusDrvr wrote:

The aircraft was not "fighting" the pilots, the automation didn't perform as expected due to erroneous information from one (of two installed) radio altimeters. They failed to notice the airspeed decay or notice the airspeed trend vectors indicating the airspeed decay. All while pressing an unstable approach, that by their own procedures should have resulted in a go around.

Automation can be a wonderful tool to manage workload, or it can become a terrible crutch that can lead you down the path to disaster in a hurry. There is a reason some airlines require the pilot flying to "follow through" on the controls below a certain altitude, even when the automation is flying the airplane. It's a trust but verify relationship, and you need to be ready to step up, or down the automation level as required to manage the situation.

The airplane flies just fine without both the radio altimeter or auto throttles, and neither is required for dispatch (with restrictions). If it's not doing what you expect it to, just turn it off and drive on.

As stated above, it's like the Tesla driver who uses the autopilot while watching a movie, or using a PED, and then wonders why they hit a bridge abutment, or stopped car on the shoulder.

Automation performed as expected DUE TO POOR DESIGN.
Again, design choices of WWII equipment - simple relay logic - is all what could be done back then. For 2020... some companies are way behind times. I am at the point when I would consider designing NG as a fundamental mistake. Hydraulic computers, relay logic.... In there any wood in the primary structure?
Same problem - people are unable to keep up with external circumstances. Human nature. Wise people learn from other's mistakes, smart people learn on their own mistakes, Boeing doesn't learn on it's own ones...


My bicycle has no automation to keep me upright should my own personal balance fail. It's an archaic design - no electronics. It's poor design for modern times.

Scale of consequences. Even at a full speed, you usually still land in one piece. Even then, a modern update includes a helmet for protection.
Now, let's scale up and talk about the safety systems of cars...
 
kalvado
Posts: 2897
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Thu Sep 24, 2020 7:41 pm

Revelation wrote:
Chemist wrote:
My bicycle has no automation to keep me upright should my own personal balance fail. It's an archaic design - no electronics. It's poor design for modern times.

You need to refuse to accept pre-Wright technology.

People just don't realize what they ask for.
MAX is pretty safe plane even with MCAS - if you consider how things worked 50-60 years ago. 10 accidents per million departures is your baseline:
https://www.1001crash.com/stats/graph/accrate_en.gif
Same with the great 1959 vehicle. Fatality rate was just 10-20x higher than it is today (red line):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... deaths.png
Life expectancy was some 15 years shorter those days, less than 70 years for US.

You want to go back in time and shed those 15 years? Sure you can. Drive nothing-auto car, smoke a lot... It will add up.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2626
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Thu Sep 24, 2020 7:48 pm

morrisond wrote:
You also have LH 1829 - If the Pilot had not taken over the Co-pilot would have made it into a lawn dart when the AOA probes froze. EICAS didn't do a lot for them.

From AVHerald https://avherald.com/h?article=47d74074

"The BFU reported that according to flight data and cockpit voice recorder the first officer (35, ATPL, 6,473 hours total, 5,179 hours on type) was pilot flying, the captain (52, ATPL, 16,384 hours total, 12,414 hours on type) pilot monitoring. After the aircraft climbed clear of top of clouds at about FL200 the flight data recorder recorded a fixed value of +4.2 degrees for the left hand AoA sensor, less than a minute later the FDR began to record a fixed value of +4.6 degrees for the right hand AoA sensor. The aircraft subsequently turned to fly direct to LATEK waypoint, during this turn the captain noticed the Alpha Protection Band had unusually and significantly increased. The first officer therefore reduced the climb rate from 800 to 500 feet per minute to enable the aircraft to accelerate. A short time later the first officer disengaged the autopilot and gave a brief nose down input.

The aircraft however continued to pitch down, inputs to counter the pitch down remained without effect. About 45 seconds after the nose down began the first officer alerted the captain who took control of the aircraft, that at this time had reached a rate of descent of 4000 feet per minute and a pitch of -3.5 degrees. The captain provided a maximum nose up input which caused the aircraft to pitch up again and the rate of descent decreased and the aircraft entered level flight.

The captain was able to maintain altitude by providing a continuous nose up input deflecting the side stick about 50% of its travel. The autopilot could not be engaged again, and a manual nose up trim was not possible."

Interesting - Manual nose up trim not possible either...I don't think Airbus redesigned that system since then - Just to forestall what I'm sure will be the next debate once we are done with EICAS.


You seem to be faulting the first officer with your "made it into a lawn dart" comment. The plane was misbehaving, not the pilot (and yes first officers are pilots).
 
morrisond
Posts: 2778
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:19 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
morrisond wrote:
You also have LH 1829 - If the Pilot had not taken over the Co-pilot would have made it into a lawn dart when the AOA probes froze. EICAS didn't do a lot for them.

From AVHerald https://avherald.com/h?article=47d74074

"The BFU reported that according to flight data and cockpit voice recorder the first officer (35, ATPL, 6,473 hours total, 5,179 hours on type) was pilot flying, the captain (52, ATPL, 16,384 hours total, 12,414 hours on type) pilot monitoring. After the aircraft climbed clear of top of clouds at about FL200 the flight data recorder recorded a fixed value of +4.2 degrees for the left hand AoA sensor, less than a minute later the FDR began to record a fixed value of +4.6 degrees for the right hand AoA sensor. The aircraft subsequently turned to fly direct to LATEK waypoint, during this turn the captain noticed the Alpha Protection Band had unusually and significantly increased. The first officer therefore reduced the climb rate from 800 to 500 feet per minute to enable the aircraft to accelerate. A short time later the first officer disengaged the autopilot and gave a brief nose down input.

The aircraft however continued to pitch down, inputs to counter the pitch down remained without effect. About 45 seconds after the nose down began the first officer alerted the captain who took control of the aircraft, that at this time had reached a rate of descent of 4000 feet per minute and a pitch of -3.5 degrees. The captain provided a maximum nose up input which caused the aircraft to pitch up again and the rate of descent decreased and the aircraft entered level flight.

The captain was able to maintain altitude by providing a continuous nose up input deflecting the side stick about 50% of its travel. The autopilot could not be engaged again, and a manual nose up trim was not possible."

Interesting - Manual nose up trim not possible either...I don't think Airbus redesigned that system since then - Just to forestall what I'm sure will be the next debate once we are done with EICAS.


You seem to be faulting the first officer with your "made it into a lawn dart" comment. The plane was misbehaving, not the pilot (and yes first officers are pilots).


If it wasn't for the Captain it would have been a lawn dart - the FO wasn't putting enough input into it. The Video game wasn't working like normal and he gave up. "Dad" had to fix it for him.
 
StTim
Posts: 3733
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:18 pm

dagKentWA wrote:
Revelation wrote:
My favorite car is my 1959 Austin Healey Sprite (the "Bugeye"). It has a manual transmission, manual steering, manual (not power assisted) brakes, no seat belt. My connection to the road is very intimate. And I have to say very aware of what is going on. I hate my car with auto everything, seat belts, air bags and anti-lock brakes. How many accidents do you see on the road where multiple cars are pushed into each other because they were following too close? ABS isn't a guarantee of stopping before the back end of the car in front of you, but most drivers treat it that way. Technology allows a driver to become complacent and not keep driving skills sharp (if they ever had such skills).

When the county I live in mandated bicyclists where a helmet, incidents of head injury skyrocketed. Wearing a helmet gave cyclists (usually teen boys and young men) a sense of invincibility, and as a result, they did stupid things. But a bike helmet can only do so much to protect.

A pilot MUST have basic flying skills and not become too reliant on technology. (And my Bugeye has a built-in theft prevention device, since practically no one can drive a manual transmission these days!)


I love the frogeye. But back to the automation analogy. My car (now some 23 years old) has some automation which I am very happy to have and some I miss from a previous car.

What I like.

Auto windscreen wipers - just takes the time slot out of actioning them for most occasions, but still need monitoring.
Auto headlights - again takes load of the process of driving.
Cruise control - not common until recently here in this small island. But having it allows me to set a speed and then spend my time looking at the other road users and not worry about have I gone over the limit. Especially useful in road works where speed limits (instant and average) are managed by cameras. I would not be without it now.
Multi function steering wheel - control more functions without taking my hands from the wheel.

What I miss from a previous car.

Auto dimming rear view mirror. Much better then the lever operated dimming in every respect. Again a real boon to the driver.

What I have never had on any car I have owned.

Automatic gearbox. To me the manual gear box gives you connection to the car and the road. I have driven automatics and find they lead me to a disconnection to the road.


So for me - automation varies but I would not like to go back to the 70's where every thing was manual.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2626
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Fri Sep 25, 2020 12:01 am

morrisond wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
morrisond wrote:
You also have LH 1829 - If the Pilot had not taken over the Co-pilot would have made it into a lawn dart when the AOA probes froze. EICAS didn't do a lot for them.

From AVHerald https://avherald.com/h?article=47d74074

"The BFU reported that according to flight data and cockpit voice recorder the first officer (35, ATPL, 6,473 hours total, 5,179 hours on type) was pilot flying, the captain (52, ATPL, 16,384 hours total, 12,414 hours on type) pilot monitoring. After the aircraft climbed clear of top of clouds at about FL200 the flight data recorder recorded a fixed value of +4.2 degrees for the left hand AoA sensor, less than a minute later the FDR began to record a fixed value of +4.6 degrees for the right hand AoA sensor. The aircraft subsequently turned to fly direct to LATEK waypoint, during this turn the captain noticed the Alpha Protection Band had unusually and significantly increased. The first officer therefore reduced the climb rate from 800 to 500 feet per minute to enable the aircraft to accelerate. A short time later the first officer disengaged the autopilot and gave a brief nose down input.

The aircraft however continued to pitch down, inputs to counter the pitch down remained without effect. About 45 seconds after the nose down began the first officer alerted the captain who took control of the aircraft, that at this time had reached a rate of descent of 4000 feet per minute and a pitch of -3.5 degrees. The captain provided a maximum nose up input which caused the aircraft to pitch up again and the rate of descent decreased and the aircraft entered level flight.

The captain was able to maintain altitude by providing a continuous nose up input deflecting the side stick about 50% of its travel. The autopilot could not be engaged again, and a manual nose up trim was not possible."

Interesting - Manual nose up trim not possible either...I don't think Airbus redesigned that system since then - Just to forestall what I'm sure will be the next debate once we are done with EICAS.


You seem to be faulting the first officer with your "made it into a lawn dart" comment. The plane was misbehaving, not the pilot (and yes first officers are pilots).


If it wasn't for the Captain it would have been a lawn dart - the FO wasn't putting enough input into it. The Video game wasn't working like normal and he gave up. "Dad" had to fix it for him.


That's such an unfortunate attitude to have in 2020. And plenty of old captains have been responsible for thousands of deaths.
 
Opus99
Posts: 1091
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Fri Sep 25, 2020 1:07 pm

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... SKCN26G1H8

If the EASA is happy with it then I’m happy with it. Bye to that public commentary
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 725
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Fri Sep 25, 2020 1:49 pm

Opus99 wrote:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-737max-easa-idUSKCN26G1H8

If the EASA is happy with it then I’m happy with it. Bye to that public commentary


From the article:

Ky said Boeing had agreed to install the computerised third-sensor system on the next version of the plane, the 230-seat 737 MAX 10, followed by retrofits on the rest of the fleet later.


So lot of work for certification and then more work on the MAX-8 and 9 ahead.

Also

Turning to Boeing’s next development, Ky said EASA would examine the 400-seat 777X development “much more closely” than it would have done if the MAX grounding had not happened and pay particularly close attention to flight control systems.


Which could lead to a prolonged certification campaign here. Luckily the EIS is already pushed out so there is more time for Boeing to make sure everything is ok.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24620
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Fri Sep 25, 2020 2:47 pm

Opus99 wrote:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-737max-easa-idUSKCN26G1H8

If the EASA is happy with it then I’m happy with it. Bye to that public commentary

Isn't it funny how some things go off the table, then on the table, then back off the table really quickly?

Cologne-based EASA, which regulates air safety in 32 mainly European Union countries, has locked horns with the FAA and Boeing over the scope of an international review into 737 MAX systems following two fatal crashes in 2018 and 2019.

All but one of the differences has been resolved, he said, with EASA, supported by some unions, calling for pilots to be able to manually cut power to a “stick shaker” alarm system suspected of distracting Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines crew.

Looks like EASA is not feeling the need to demand EICAS either.

FluidFlow wrote:
Turning to Boeing’s next development, Ky said EASA would examine the 400-seat 777X development “much more closely” than it would have done if the MAX grounding had not happened and pay particularly close attention to flight control systems.


Which could lead to a prolonged certification campaign here. Luckily the EIS is already pushed out so there is more time for Boeing to make sure everything is ok.

No worries, it has SpaceX-era systems.
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
Stitch
Posts: 27236
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Fri Sep 25, 2020 2:49 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
Turning to Boeing’s next development, Ky said EASA would examine the 400-seat 777X development “much more closely” than it would have done if the MAX grounding had not happened and pay particularly close attention to flight control systems.


Which could lead to a prolonged certification campaign here. Luckily the EIS is already pushed out so there is more time for Boeing to make sure everything is ok.


Well the 777's flight control system is a modern FBW one and EASA already said they were going to perform their own certification process in parallel with the FAA so the time impact should not be much greater, if at all, since rather than wait for the FAA to complete their certification and add on any of their own requirements, those requirements will be done at the same time as the FAA's.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 725
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Fri Sep 25, 2020 3:14 pm

Revelation wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:
Turning to Boeing’s next development, Ky said EASA would examine the 400-seat 777X development “much more closely” than it would have done if the MAX grounding had not happened and pay particularly close attention to flight control systems.


Which could lead to a prolonged certification campaign here. Luckily the EIS is already pushed out so there is more time for Boeing to make sure everything is ok.

No worries, it has SpaceX-era systems.


I am actually not worried that the 777X has actually bad systems or design compared to the 737 that was poorly fixed together with 1000 exceptions to somewhat pass the line.

But having to please 2 agencies will create a lot of internal paperwork and silly work. It is always like this when dealing with government agencies. Dealing with two of them will be a nightmare even with perfect systems.

I am much more worried for the implementation of the third AoA input (the synthetic one) on the MAX-10. It took almost two years to fix MCAS (since the Lion Air crash) and related issues. Now adding a third AoA input and change the architecture again to be able to 1. produce a reliable synthetic AoA out of other signals on a computer system that is ancient and 2. also upgrade the systems to deal with 3 AoA inputs and act accordingly.

This will add a lot of work for Boeing ahead of the MAX-10 certification and will also extend the MAX-10 certification campaign. Then pilots will need new procedures again as with 3 AoA inputs there will be again a different way of dealing with the aircraft when 1 of the 3 fails.

Then the system has to be retrofitted on all the MAX-8 and -9.

This will be a nightmare for a long time. Wonder when the MAX-10 will be flying in commercial service...
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24620
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Fri Sep 25, 2020 4:02 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
This will be a nightmare for a long time. Wonder when the MAX-10 will be flying in commercial service...

I suspect Boeing is now agreeable to the 3rd AoA source because it's done enough engineering to convince itself it can do it. It does have a working example on 787. If it needs more processing power, an external processor complex can be added. I wrote about this earlier in the thread.

The fact that both FAA and EASA are anticipating approval this fall and RTS by the end of the year means at least Phase 1 of the nightmare should soon be over.

The public statements also suggest FAA and EASA management are not seeing any show stoppers in the area of training.

The way forward for 777x and MAX10 seem burdensome but manageable.

The true nightmare is the impact of COVID-19, an even bigger nightmare than MCAS since it impacts the entire air transport industry.

BTW Bloomberg has a similar article but perhaps more detailed than the Reuters one above, published by Seattle Times:

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... max-return
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
Revelation
Posts: 24620
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Tue Sep 29, 2020 2:50 pm

Revelation wrote:
BTW Bloomberg has a similar article but perhaps more detailed than the Reuters one above, published by Seattle Times:

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... max-return

AvWeek ( https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... -third-aoa ) has some extended comments from EASA's Patrick Ky from the same event:

Among FAA-mandated changes Boeing made to the MCAS is ensuring the two sensors compare readings and are within 5.5 deg. before triggering nose-down stabilizer inputs. The third sensor required by EASA will independently calculate a reading to supplement the two existing ones, Ky said. In the meantime, EASA will approve operational protocols that allow pilots to safely manage a scenario where the two sensors disagree significantly.

“This was one of the essential criteria for us, that we have confidence in the fact that one sensor breakdown does not lead to a catastrophe,” Ky said. “My pilots and safety analysts all said that what was planned as a provisional measure for the coming two years was easy enough in terms of security.”


“We spent an enormous amount of time looking at this problem,” Ky added. “It is not so much the number of probes which is important but more the probability that if one of both of the sensors give incorrect information that would spark a catastrophic chain of events.”

It seems EASA did spend a lot of time going through the exercise of figuring out exactly what procedures to follow when one of the two AoAs is faulty, which is a good thing.

He also reiterated the need to be able to disable the stick shaker, as has several pilot's unions.

I found it very interesting that he emphasized EASA has re-certified MAX's flight controls and information about altitude and speed:

The European agency’s insistence on ensuring multiple failure scenarios were either manageable by pilots or improbable enough to present risks helped expand Boeing’s work beyond the MCAS software into other areas. Runaway trim scenarios figured prominently, prompting extensive analysis of how much time pilots have to respond, and the difficulties presented by the last-ditch step of using a manual trim wheel to move the stabilizer.

“We worked very hard on our side to insist on independently re-certifying all the elements we considered critical,” Ky said. “We have recertified all the flight controls, including information about altitude and speed. That made for a number of difficulties with our Boeing and FAA colleagues as we were going beyond simply correcting the contributing factors. If we had listened to the FAA and Boeing we would have settled for making modifications to the MCAS which was the contributing factor for both accidents.”

By independently re-certifying MAX's flight controls and information about altitude and speed and ensuring that multiple failure scenarios are either manageable or very improbable, EASA is all aboard with MAX meeting all relevant regulations even though it does not have EICAS.

It seems all this extra scrutiny has improved safety without noticeably stretching the RTS time line, other than maybe a week or two for EASA's flights.

They apparently did get Boeing to agree to a third AoA source but apparently Boeing has two years to deploy a solution.
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
Stitch
Posts: 27236
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Tue Sep 29, 2020 6:23 pm

Proposed US House bill would give FAA new oversight powers over Boeing along with funding.

The bill, which has bipartisan support, would give the Federal Aviation Administration a say in which Boeing employees carry out safety oversight work on the agency’s behalf, rebalancing a system that reviews of the crashes have blamed for the FAA missing safety problems with the jets.

The legislation also would provide the FAA an extra $30 million a year to beef up its own engineering and technical teams and calls for some two dozen other changes to the nation’s aviation safety regime.


The US Senate is considering similar legislation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/tr ... story.html
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24620
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Tue Sep 29, 2020 6:55 pm

Stitch wrote:
Proposed US House bill would give FAA new oversight powers over Boeing along with funding.

The bill, which has bipartisan support, would give the Federal Aviation Administration a say in which Boeing employees carry out safety oversight work on the agency’s behalf, rebalancing a system that reviews of the crashes have blamed for the FAA missing safety problems with the jets.

The legislation also would provide the FAA an extra $30 million a year to beef up its own engineering and technical teams and calls for some two dozen other changes to the nation’s aviation safety regime.


The US Senate is considering similar legislation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/tr ... story.html

Sounds great, but these days "bipartisan support" means not much more than one member of each party supports the measure.
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
 
Vicenza
Posts: 144
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2020 3:21 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Tue Sep 29, 2020 7:01 pm

Revelation wrote:
Revelation wrote:

They apparently did get Boeing to agree to a third AoA source but apparently Boeing has two years to deploy a solution.


But let's not butter it up....Boeing had, in reality, no choice but to 'agree', and exactly as the situation should be.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24620
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Tue Sep 29, 2020 7:09 pm

Vicenza wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Revelation wrote:
They apparently did get Boeing to agree to a third AoA source but apparently Boeing has two years to deploy a solution.

But let's not butter it up....Boeing had, in reality, no choice but to 'agree', and exactly as the situation should be.

True, yet earlier in this thread we had a media source quoting insiders as suggesting Boeing hopes to change the regulator's minds about the need for the 3rd AoA source after the RTS has happened.

In a way EASA has already left a small opening by saying they can certify the plane as-is because the odds of needing the 3rd AoA source are low enough to allow for two years operation.

Exact quote of Ky was “My pilots and safety analysts all said that what was planned as a provisional measure for the coming two years was easy enough in terms of security" and "easy enough" suggests there is some wiggle room.
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
Stitch
Posts: 27236
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Tue Sep 29, 2020 7:12 pm

Revelation wrote:
Sounds great, but these days "bipartisan support" means not much more than one member of each party supports the measure.


While Committee Republicans have in the past been been critical of the Democrats’ focus on making changes to the FAA’s safety oversight system and did not take part in the House Investigation into the crashes, it sounds like they are all onboard now due to the expert reviews highlighting problems with how the FAA conducted approvals.
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 142
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Tue Sep 29, 2020 10:38 pm

I keep reading that the 3rd AOA sensor, initially released on the 737-10, then required on the other MAX aircraft within 2 years.. is to be 'synthetic'.. What does that mean? I don't understand the applicaton of that term in this scenario? It's a 'real' sensor... what does 'synthetic' imply?
learning never stops...

FischAutoTechGarten is the full handle and it reflects my interest. It's abbreviated to fit A.net short usernames.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24620
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:04 pm

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
I keep reading that the 3rd AOA sensor, initially released on the 737-10, then required on the other MAX aircraft within 2 years.. is to be 'synthetic'.. What does that mean? I don't understand the applicaton of that term in this scenario? It's a 'real' sensor... what does 'synthetic' imply?

No, it's not a real sensor, it's an estimate of AoA created using data from other sensors.

Here's one person's description of generic AoA synthesis:

A method for estimating airspeed, angle of attack, and sideslip without using conventional, pitot-static airdata system is presented. The method relies on measurements, from GPS, an inertial measurement unit (IMU) and a low-fidelity model of the aircraft’s dynamics...

Ref: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/76350932.pdf

Boeing hasn't said how they will go about doing this for the 737 (or even if they accept the requirement for the 3rd sensor as far as I know).

The main idea is to not just stick a 3rd physical AoA sensor on the outside of the aircraft because it can become fouled with ice like the other two, or maybe flying through a big enough flock of birds would wreck the external sensors, etc.
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
 
MrBretz
Posts: 557
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:13 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Wed Sep 30, 2020 1:42 am

Rev, I scanned the paper and noted in the introduction the words cascaded Kalman filters. Looks like a new processor and getting the proper inputs to it. I have no idea how that gets implemented.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24620
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Wed Sep 30, 2020 3:27 pm

MrBretz wrote:
Rev, I scanned the paper and noted in the introduction the words cascaded Kalman filters. Looks like a new processor and getting the proper inputs to it. I have no idea how that gets implemented.

By using Apollo-era technology, of course! Boeing's got this one! :biggrin:

It was during a visit by Kálmán to the NASA Ames Research Center that Schmidt saw the applicability of Kálmán's ideas to the nonlinear problem of trajectory estimation for the Apollo program leading to its incorporation in the Apollo navigation computer. This Kalman filter was first described and partially developed in technical papers by Swerling (1958), Kalman (1960) and Kalman and Bucy (1961).

The Apollo computer used 2k of magnetic core RAM and 36k wire rope [...]. The CPU was built from ICs [...]. Clock speed was under 100 kHz [...]. The fact that the MIT engineers were able to pack such good software (one of the very first applications of the Kalman filter) into such a tiny computer is truly remarkable.

— Interview with Jack Crenshaw, by Matthew Reed, TRS-80.org (2009) [1]

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalman_filter

Any/all kidding aside, none of us knows how it will be done. As above Boeing may be stalling (no pun intended) till after RTS to try to not have to do a third AoA source.

PS: It's the last day of Q3, get your comments in to this historic thread before it gets closed!
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
 
dagKentWA
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2020 10:02 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Wed Sep 30, 2020 3:39 pm

Revelation wrote:
PS: It's the last day of Q3, get your comments in to this historic thread before it gets closed!


OK, I'll byte (since we've been talking about computing... :lol: I see that Boeing has scheduled flight BOE701, the Max used for FAA, TC & EASA, to fly today. Must be the FAA administrator's turn (as announced last week that it would be this week), since he has to fly it personally before he'll let it RTS.
 
Spetsnaz55
Posts: 224
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:38 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Wed Sep 30, 2020 3:59 pm

Dickson is in the air !
 
planecane
Posts: 1578
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Wed Sep 30, 2020 5:10 pm

Revelation wrote:
MrBretz wrote:
Rev, I scanned the paper and noted in the introduction the words cascaded Kalman filters. Looks like a new processor and getting the proper inputs to it. I have no idea how that gets implemented.

By using Apollo-era technology, of course! Boeing's got this one! :biggrin:



In fairness, the Space Shuttle used a lot of Apollo era technology all the way through 2011 and the end of the program. It had to perform some quite sophisticated automated tasks for both ascent and landing.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24620
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Wed Sep 30, 2020 5:56 pm

Spetsnaz55 wrote:
Dickson is in the air !

Aww, I thought you were referring to Dickinson...

Image

Ref: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/if-y ... -hdctdc9zg
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
Revelation
Posts: 24620
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Wed Sep 30, 2020 6:05 pm

Update: Apparently the flight is over and there will be a presser soon.

Ref: https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 2826781696
Ref: https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 9844508673

Boeing gives good press, look at the KC-46 and 777x parked in the background.
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
 
Chemist
Posts: 761
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Wed Sep 30, 2020 6:20 pm

planecane wrote:
Revelation wrote:
MrBretz wrote:
Rev, I scanned the paper and noted in the introduction the words cascaded Kalman filters. Looks like a new processor and getting the proper inputs to it. I have no idea how that gets implemented.

By using Apollo-era technology, of course! Boeing's got this one! :biggrin:



In fairness, the Space Shuttle used a lot of Apollo era technology all the way through 2011 and the end of the program. It had to perform some quite sophisticated automated tasks for both ascent and landing.


In fairness, it's been mentioned earlier than the 737 uses the Motorola 68020, which is much newer than Apollo-era. It was used in Macs in the 80's.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24620
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Wed Sep 30, 2020 6:20 pm

Stitch wrote:
Proposed US House bill would give FAA new oversight powers over Boeing along with funding.

The bill, which has bipartisan support, would give the Federal Aviation Administration a say in which Boeing employees carry out safety oversight work on the agency’s behalf, rebalancing a system that reviews of the crashes have blamed for the FAA missing safety problems with the jets.

The legislation also would provide the FAA an extra $30 million a year to beef up its own engineering and technical teams and calls for some two dozen other changes to the nation’s aviation safety regime.


The US Senate is considering similar legislation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/tr ... story.html

The bill has made it out of committee.

The article has a nice summary of this bill:

The bill would require American aircraft manufacturers to adopt safety management systems and complete system safety assessments for significant design changes, ensure that risk calculations are based on realistic assumptions of pilot response time, and share risk assessments with the FAA.
...
The House bill would extend airline whistleblower protections to U.S. manufacturing employees, require FAA approval of new workers who are performing delegated certification tasks for the agency, and impose civil penalties on those who interfere with the performance of FAA-authorized duties.

Ref: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... SKBN26L30I
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
 
danipawa
Posts: 477
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2016 1:18 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Wed Sep 30, 2020 11:00 pm

Lets go !!
 
tax1k
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2016 5:02 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020

Wed Sep 30, 2020 11:42 pm

Anyone know why the MAX is showing up in AC flight schedules for November?

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