Aircraft becoming far too complex to fly...

What's Hot
24567

Comments

  • MayneheadMaynehead Frets: 1782
    Maynehead said:
    Here is his full quote.

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

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

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

    Take the (original) iPhone for example. It was the most complex mobile phone ever released, yet it was one of the simplest to use.
    I don't see that being a contradiction of what Trump said. I'm sure if you sat down and pressed him on the issue he would agree with you. He says older and "simpler" is far better.
    Careful, you're making him sound a rational and reasonable guy!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • Maynehead said:
    Maynehead said:
    Here is his full quote.

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

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

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

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

    Bye!

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • goldtopgoldtop Frets: 6101
    US pilots have also reported sudden nose-down 'corrections' in the Max: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/13/us/pilot-complaints-boeing-737-max/index.html

    In other news, Canada has just grounded it.

    IMHO, this is way beyond speculation, This is now a case of other international Airline Authorities spelling it out. 

    Those who are saying they would not be worried about getting on a Max - maybe do the maths to see how risky 737-Max flights are against flights of competitor aircraft.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • JezWyndJezWynd Frets: 6021
    Canada just grounded Max 8 & 9's citing the flight data for both incidents being so similar.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • goldtopgoldtop Frets: 6101
    And now Trump's done the decent thing.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • dariusdarius Frets: 619
    People really REALLY don't understand how safe modern commercial flying is. You have a 1 in 1.2m chance of being in an airline crash and a 1 in 11m chance of dying in it. You have a 1 in 5000 chance of dying in a car.

    I fly a lot for my job and I never even check what kind of plane I'm going to get in.
    I really really do understand how safe it is to fly. It's part of my job. 
    And after the Ethiopian crash I won't be getting on a 737max8 until I see the fix for these crashes.  EASA did exactly the right thing, ground  first, prove it later.  FAA and Boeing reacted way too slowly. You can't argue everything is fine when 300 people have died. THREE. HUNDRED. 


    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 4reaction image Wisdom
  • JezWyndJezWynd Frets: 6021
    goldtop said:
    And now Trump's done the decent thing.
    Resigned? Cool!
    1reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • GassageGassage Frets: 30826

    *An Official Foo-Approved guitarist since Sept 2023.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • JezWynd said:
    goldtop said:
    And now Trump's done the decent thing.
    Resigned? Cool!
    An excellent contribution to the universe. Well done.

    Bye!

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 71960
    edited March 2019
    There’s a lot of stuff on airliners.net as well.

    I actually think that if the cause of both crashes is indeed found to be faults in the way MCAS works, a hard look will have to be taken by the regulators at ‘grandfathering’ of old designs. Essentially Boeing has taken the 737 so far beyond its original form that it becomes unstable under certain circumstances and needs a software fix for that, but the software can then make things worse if it gets faulty data. That’s not an inherently safe system.

    This does seem to be the first time since the 1960s - actually since before the original 737 was introduced - that a new aircraft appears to be less safe than its predecessor. Ironically the problem is that the number of incidents is so small that it’s hard to be sure yet, but that alone shows how rigorous the industry has been in prioritising safety - and they need to continue to take the awkward path of possibly excessive caution which has got us there.

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

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

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • 57Deluxe57Deluxe Frets: 7329
    surely someone should come up with an App for your phone that allows you to take over control of the plane you're flying on if the pilot decides to renege on his manifesto pledge to fly you to your destination...
    <Vintage BOSS Upgrades>
    __________________________________
    1reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • PC_DavePC_Dave Frets: 3396
    I think you underestimate how many man hours go into testing software, systems, and most importantly, safety, when a new aircraft is designed. It takes on average 10 years from inception of design to prototype. Yes, this whole thing is an awful tragedy, but to say that Boeing have been lax in their approach is simply not true.
    This week's procrastination forum might be moved to sometime next week.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • boogiemanboogieman Frets: 12314
    Although I don’t understand a lot of the technical jargon, a quick skim read of Gassage’s links seem to point to the fact that if one single sensor misfires or goes faulty then the MCAS system decides there’s a problem and overrides the pilot decision, unless they disable it. That apparently involves “quick action” and a procedure that some pilots don’t even seem to be aware of. Who thought that was a good idea and how did it get passed by the US safety authorities?  

    I always presumed there’d be at least one redundancy system in the case of a faulty sensor, but it doesn’t look to be the case. Unless I’ve misread it, a system where the software polls all the other sensors to see if they agree with the faulty one is “an optional extra”??!!  Madness. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 71960
    PC_Dave said:

    Yes, this whole thing is an awful tragedy, but to say that Boeing have been lax in their approach is simply not true.
    If the cause of these crashes is something to do with MCAS, exactly that is true. A safety-critical software system without enough redundancy and error-checking built into how it handles sensor data *is* lax.

    boogieman said:

    I always presumed there’d be at least one redundancy system in the case of a faulty sensor, but it doesn’t look to be the case. Unless I’ve misread it, a system where the software polls all the other sensors to see if they agree with the faulty one is “an optional extra”??!!  Madness. 
    Making anything like that an optional cost item reminds me of some early calculators which had some features deliberately crippled in order to market an apparently different model at a lower price point.

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

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

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • goldtopgoldtop Frets: 6101
    Beggars belief that there are ANY optional extras for safety when you knowingly change a design from inherently stable to unstable.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • m_cm_c Frets: 1211
    I've been following the thread on pprune, and I find it quite scary when there have been numerous reports of nose down events, yet Boeing said there wasn't any inherent problem.

    IIRC the big problem with MCAS (other than the obvious single sensor reliance), is it doesn't disable when the pilots think it has, so the pilots end up continually fighting it, and think there's some other problem they need to handle, when in fact it's just the MCAS continually cutting in.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • JezWyndJezWynd Frets: 6021
    PC_Dave said:
    I think you underestimate how many man hours go into testing software, systems, and most importantly, safety, when a new aircraft is designed. It takes on average 10 years from inception of design to prototype. Yes, this whole thing is an awful tragedy, but to say that Boeing have been lax in their approach is simply not true.
    But it's not a new aircraft it's an incremental update (too far?) to an existing model. Hence the need for software to make it familiar to existing users. The problem appears to be that sufficient training was not given to pilots, as it was assumed they knew how to fly the 737. Whether this should be laid at Boing's door or that of individual airlines who didn't recognise the scope of the changes we shall find out.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • PC_DavePC_Dave Frets: 3396
    JezWynd said:
    PC_Dave said:
    I think you underestimate how many man hours go into testing software, systems, and most importantly, safety, when a new aircraft is designed. It takes on average 10 years from inception of design to prototype. Yes, this whole thing is an awful tragedy, but to say that Boeing have been lax in their approach is simply not true.
    But it's not a new aircraft it's an incremental update (too far?) to an existing model. Hence the need for software to make it familiar to existing users. The problem appears to be that sufficient training was not given to pilots, as it was assumed they knew how to fly the 737. Whether this should be laid at Boing's door or that of individual airlines who didn't recognise the scope of the changes we shall find out.
    It’s a new aircraft as far as design and build is concerned. 

    Also, Boeing provide all the tools and training, it’s up to the airlines to get the relevant people trained up.
    This week's procrastination forum might be moved to sometime next week.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • olafgartenolafgarten Frets: 1648
    Relating back to the original post, if you take out the exaggeration Trump does have a point.

    The MCAS system while aiming to improve safety, in this case wasn't tested thoroughly enough and appears to be faulty. 

    The are multiple issues and some of them may or may not be true.

    The pilots apparently didn't know how to disable MCAS because the shutdown mechanism had changed. 

    It is possible that the sensors were damaged or gave incorrect readings due to external factors, possibly a fire. 

    MCAS appears to have no real redundancy or an automatic shut off in the case of suspected incorrect readings. 

    The issue of safety has always been present in all automation and a large focus of recent Computer Science research is how to make AI safe and explainable. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • m_cm_c Frets: 1211
    boogieman said:

    I always presumed there’d be at least one redundancy system in the case of a faulty sensor, but it doesn’t look to be the case. Unless I’ve misread it, a system where the software polls all the other sensors to see if they agree with the faulty one is “an optional extra”??!!  Madness. 
    I know of a security system that had two PLCs (logic computers) installed, and both of them had to agree before the system would fully activate. Doesn't sound too bad, but a full system activation also resulted in a £20k+ repair/clean up bill.
     On newer systems, each PLC had it's own set of sensors, so any sensor failure would be detected and deactivate the entire system.

    To save money on retrofitted systems, somebody decided the PLCs should share some of the same sensors, as it was deemed too expensive to fit the duplicate sensors, and the shared sensors would never fail in such a way as to cause a full system activation.
    I'm sure you can guess what happened.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
Sign In or Register to comment.