|
14 Mar 19 - 01:45 PM (#3982053) Subject: BS: BOEING BOING GONE From: robomatic I heard Donald Trump say something right, and that was that Boeing 737 MAX 8s got to be grounded. I was surprised and disappointed that the NTSB hadn't already done it and I supposed it was because the President had told them not to. The loss of one brand new aircraft due to designed-in-control behavior is already really really bad. That this happens again is horrific. This is not the first time that Boeing has screwed up big-time with their aircraft, but it is a sign of something rotten. I hasten to add that in general I have a very positive feeling about Boeing aircraft. Alaska Airlines flies only 737s and they are the most iconic civilian transport aircraft of this period. They are quite simply the DC3s of the jet age. Deservedly so. I expect more of the manufacturer, Boeing. I have not forgotten the recent crash of a Boeing 767 which augured in just when it was expected to land. This crash got less publicity than it deserved because it was a cargo plane. Although it is unlikely to be caused by the same thing, I am paying attention to the news on the investigation in case it turns out that software was involved. Now, stuff like this has happened to very good aircraft in the past. DC3s had some stupid accidents when they were new. The 727 had some as well. But I am afraid that in this case Boeing executives and maybe engineers took some short cuts they should not have. Their products are still the best out there, but these accidents should not have happened. |
|
14 Mar 19 - 02:37 PM (#3982062) Subject: RE: BS: BOEING BOING GONE From: Joe Offer Hi, Robomatic, I like your reference to the 737-200, which carried parcels, livestock, and passengers all over Alaska. I think it was the last passenger aircraft built with hydraulic controls. Later planes have been "fly-by-wire." Back in about 2002, I got a ride out of Palmer in a small plane with a friend of a friend, Alaska Airlines Capt. Rex Gray, who flew a 737-200 "mud hen" in the state for 35 years. Rex also tried his hand at radio. Here's his Alaska Public Radio tribute on the retirement of the 737-200: Wikipedia says the 737 has been continuously manufactured since 1967. It is the best-selling jetliner in history, with over 10,000 aircraft produced. My stepson was about 11 when we flew with Rex, and Rex let him take the controls. The following Christmas, my stepson got a present from Rex - some flight charts and a pilot's log, with two hours logged for that first flight. My stepson is now 29 and has logged hundreds of hours of flight. He's now a flight instructor, building up hours so he can become an airline pilot. -Joe- |
|
14 Mar 19 - 02:51 PM (#3982065) Subject: RE: BS: BOEING BOING GONE From: Mrrzy Remember Airbus' maiden flight? |
|
14 Mar 19 - 04:01 PM (#3982088) Subject: RE: BS: BOEING BOING GONE From: Donuel its just a software and firmware problem. FOR THE LAST 6 MONTHS! that they knew about. If they let the cat out of the bag, then they would have had to pay for new training world wide they tried to save a $$$ |
|
14 Mar 19 - 08:51 PM (#3982114) Subject: RE: BS: BOEING BOING GONE From: robomatic Joe: Very cool: Some 737-200 memories: The jets, to supply the (Alaska) interior with goods and people, had a cargo section up front; a bulkhead in the middle behind which passengers sat in the rear. Out on the engines were solid metal pipe-like channels mounted from the lower lip of the jet engine intakes. They were about an inch and a half in diameter and three feet long. They fed pressurized air from the engine compressors to a downward spray of air to keep pebbles and loose gravel from getting sucked into the engines on the unimproved strips at St. Mary's and Aniak. I was in the back passenger sections of one of these shortly after the unhappy* incident where a 737 in Hawaii had lost not just cabin pressure but a substantial piece of cabin roof. As we were taxiing out the young male attendant was briefing us on the seatbelts and emergency oxygen and some wiseacre asked "what do we do when the roof comes off?" and the kid immediately stuck out a foot and said: "Velcro sneakers!" *The attendant had been sucked out of the plane and lost, the belted passengers all survived. |
|
16 Mar 19 - 12:44 AM (#3982396) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: JennieG Anyone else remember a song - could be from the 60s? or early 70s - sung by Roger Miller "Boeing Boeing"? "Going, going, skywardly heavenly"...... I could google it, but I'm feeling lazy. |
|
16 Mar 19 - 10:42 AM (#3982491) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: Mrrzy I remember Aloha Airlines. That copilot had ice in her veins. Great piloting, getting that plane down. The nose of this latest flight was set on Dive, I read. |
|
17 Mar 19 - 01:57 PM (#3982684) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: Mrrzy Hey, you pilots, would turning the autopilot off help, or was it not yet on? |
|
17 Mar 19 - 02:40 PM (#3982695) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: Bonnie Shaljean Alaska Airlines was my go-to transport between Seattle & San Francisco, back in the day. I totally second what Robo said. I took a small harp (without a case, for some reason) on there once. The crew never even blinked (I suppose they'd seen everything by that time), just showed me a nifty little stow-hole behind the last row of seats where it fitted perfectly. |
|
17 Mar 19 - 02:46 PM (#3982697) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: DaveRo I was taken to see a play called Boeing-Boeing in the '60s. Starred Patrick Cargill. |
|
17 Mar 19 - 08:27 PM (#3982746) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: Joe Offer The technology behind the problem is interesting. To save the cost of building an entirely new airliner, Boeing took the tried-and-true 737 and updated it. It's amazing to me that they can take such an old design and still make it do wonderful things. Boeing added bigger engines, and that changed the center of gravity on the aircraft and made the nose tend to tip upward. Boeing then did a software design to make the plane stay level - but that made the plane perform unusually in some circumstances. I've ridden the 737-800 and 737-900, and they were a lot more comfortable than the earlier 737s. I don't think I've been on a MAX. I think the MAX will prove to be an excellent aircraft once the glitches are ironed out - I just hope no more lives are lost before that happens. Here's an interesting article: |
|
17 Mar 19 - 08:32 PM (#3982747) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: Joe Offer Another thing that's amazing to me, is how long airplanes last. My kid is flying Cessnas built in the 1970s every day, and he thinks of them as fairly new. Some of the planes he flies are from the 1950s. But he thinks his (my) 2006 Honda Civic is too old.... I'm going to have to raise his rent. He's getting away with $600 a month for car, insurance, food, and housing - and whatever else his mother buys for him. -Joe- |
|
17 Mar 19 - 09:28 PM (#3982752) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: robomatic One argument is that the realities of physics regarding air resistance and lift haven't changed, hence aerodynamic designs haven't been updated much. There are some legendary airplanes which date from the 30s, such as the Monocoupe, whose performance within horsepower limits have not been improved upon. On the other hand, there are new developments such as electrically powered airplanes, that could in theory increase efficiency and performance 'envelopes'. However, many of the new changes involve increased complexity. One of the oldest improvements was variable pitch propellors. These have been around since the 30s but they cost money require maintenance, and I believe that each one has its own log book. Small airplane engines are built first for reliability, second for lightness, hence they have not changed much in sixty years. Any change for efficiency probably requires electricity, whereas an existing small engine will run by itself with no battery. It gets its spark from dual magnetos. The commercial aircraft world has long since taken the complexity plunge, ergo the autopilots, dual energy sources, backup systems, etc. But that world was originally an analog world, and the electronics and pneumatics and hydraulics that made things work were inherently built and understood in a more intuitive way. You can visualize the routes and connections of various tubes and hoses and get an idea of what's going on, sort of like looking at an animal skeleton and following the tendons and ligaments. There were certainly 'black boxes' in the analog control world, but they were far simpler than the new digital world. This is not only true of aircraft, but of the industrial world in general. When you go digital you have to think differently, and a whole host of issues open up that were not there before. Consider your car's automatic speed control. When they first appeared in the higher end vehicles in the 50s and 60s, they were analog- pneumatically controlled. You set them for a speed, and they maintained that speed as a minimum. But if you headed downhill, your car's speed went up. The automatic controller was there to do a single thing, not protect you from a speeding ticket. Today's car takes a precise speed setting and monitors it with far greater precision, if you go over the speed limit, it can hit the brakes for you and stay right on target. But every part of that control has to be designed in by a programmer. In the analog days you decided when your headlights went on. Today there is a standard setting in my Chevy which I leave on and the car puts on the headlights for me. But, as happened with a friend, he took his car in for service and someone in the shop turned his lights full off. Until he figured out what was happening he was driving around with no lights at all, and unaware of it because the street lights in town do a good illumination job. And I have seen cars in town with no lights on and quite possibly unaware of it. The situation is far more complex and ingrained with large commercial aircraft, and there is no doubt in my mind that aviation company %ies are well aware of it. What a button means now can be variable. If you push it multiple times, does it go on/off; function a function b function a recycle; function a, function b function c etc? Or even a new function depending on the situation? I've talked with a cargo pilot who described that not understanding how the computer 'thinks' you can get in trouble, and this does happen in real flying situations. 99+ percent of the time this sophistication makes aviation more reliable and safe, but I believe that Boeing got sucked into some bad design decisions and is now facing the consequences. I trust that they will study the causes and learn from them, but I also think these two 737 MAX crashes were avoidable and are a crying shame. |
|
17 Mar 19 - 09:49 PM (#3982755) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: Joe Offer Robomatic, I didn't know you knew all this stuff. This is fun! Are you a pilot yourself? Or the stepfather of a pilot, like I am? -Joe- |
|
18 Mar 19 - 06:35 AM (#3982812) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: Donuel The 737 is practically a sports car of the sky. I've been in 60 degree banks and quick landings aboard 737s. |
|
19 Mar 19 - 01:56 AM (#3983018) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: robomatic I have a VFR license which I got in high school, have not pursued it although I have an airplane 'up on blocks' in my yard. Read a good deal about aviation and planes. Particularly many books by Robert Serling. Robert Serling specialized in the history of various aircraft and commercial aviation. And his brother was well known for a TV show. He told lots of good tales: The DC3 was a big hit when it came out in the 30s. It was an enlarged, sleeper version of the DC2, and as a transport plane during WWII it outclassed the German Junkers 52 which the Germans were quite fond of. But, every so often, a DC3 would augur in and leave only bits so no one knew what the problem was. But it was not grounded. Then one night, in turbulence, a pilot tried to hang up his microphone on the wall hook, and it fell down the control well, which was a wedge shaped opening in the floor through which the control column went in order to link the control yoke to the ailerons and elevators. The controls were wedged solidly forward, and the pilot managed to extricate the mike in time to regain control. A leather boot was then installed over all the DC3 controls and no more auguring in. Robert Serling lived a lot longer than his brother. His last book was about the early history of Alaska Airlines. |
|
19 Mar 19 - 04:19 AM (#3983030) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: Mr Red About 10 years ago I worked at Smith Industries (now GE) on aircraft displays and such. What they told me about fly-by-wire was that the wire was not similar but exactly a LAN. Two parallel ones. Not sure how the two were arbitrated, but if they didn't show the same command they must have throw-up a warning. The hardware was pure LAN, the data packet protocol was not yer regular TCP/IP though, so maybe there is more error checking, handshaking etc. The big effort at the time was stuff for the 787 dreamliner. One thing that came back to us was that they were having problems with volt drops because there was so much carbon fibre and less aluminium. The structure was the "ground", and using electrical controls probably meant higher currents than older aircraft too. An example of how things can go wrong in such a simple process is: A meeting was called and sent through e-mails though some people heard verbally. The GE takeover had mandated that the e-mail service (security?) was ported through Cincinatti. Which normally worked fine despite the change. UNTIL daylight saving time or to be more precise the gap between the UK change date and the US one! I turned up only to be told the reason for cancellation. WELL who'dathoughtit! |
|
19 Mar 19 - 09:10 AM (#3983099) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: Donuel I have flown aboard passenger DC3s and barfed in my hat. There were tornado warnings that day. |
|
19 Mar 19 - 09:19 AM (#3983100) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: Donuel The previous passenger in my seat was so bored they had practiced their stitching, sealing the barf bag closed. |
|
19 Mar 19 - 11:48 AM (#3983115) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: Jack Campin Alaska Airlines was my go-to transport between Seattle & San Francisco, back in the day. I totally second what Robo said. I took a small harp (without a case, for some reason) on there once That could be rather alarming for other passengers who thought you knew something they didn't. Did anybody rummage through their carry-on bag to look for their white nightshirt? |
|
20 Mar 19 - 12:19 AM (#3983241) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: robomatic Mr. Red: I was thinking of you when the subject of fly-by-wire came up, but I can't imagine it would ever be done via a network. I've worked in industrial electrical field (no aviation background) but in the industrial world they kept away from networks until about thirty years ago. And by networks I'm talking digital buses. From the point of view of anyone in the computer/ communications field what was being done was primitive, but considering the consequences of damage or miscommunication or error the cost difference between dedicated electrical controls and anything like a bus was minor. One of my earlier projects involved an early bus system which was put in by some very bright people in our company, but the maintenance people in the industrial areas (our clients) eventually tore it all out and put in the system they were familiar with. For the past twenty years there have been many industrial buses out there. According to wikipedia the electrical fly-by-wire system is basically doing electrically what the hydraulics and cables used to do physically. I was talking to a pilot yesterday about this issue and he said and he was specifically talking Boeing that as an example of fly-by-wire dynamics there were two trim systems. One was directly controlled by the pilot and the other was controlled by the autopilot. Large aircraft have sophisticated control systems and they act automatically to protect the plane and the pilot has to be aware of them and able to shut them off and this is typically worked into the checklist. There are cases where taking off of a rough strip can cause enough of a jostle to trip a microswitch and make the system think there is a problem on takeoff. A trained pilot is aware of all this stuff (normally). While not aeronautical, a case I'm personally familiar with is installing a big transfer switch. A transfer switch is where you have more than one potential electrical source and you want to power a hospital from only one at a time. The regular source is the regular power system, but if the power system fails, you want to switch to a back-up system, and that is where the switch comes in. You can have a big physical massive switch just like a humongous wall switch. That would be like the regular heavy duty aircraft controls. You can also install a set of interlocked breakers which will do the same exact thing, only it is managed through wires. Works like a charm and maybe even faster and it can be easier to wire up and install but you HAVE TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING. Which is what is being done on the modern airliners. By the way Charles Sullenberger, the pilot of the 'miracle' landing on the Hudson River, came out criticizing FAA and Boeing today. |
|
20 Mar 19 - 01:12 AM (#3983246) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: Jon Freeman Not a subject I've a clue on but aircraft do use buses. CAN (which I've at least heard of in relation to cars) and various ARINC things have cropped up in searches.I've nothad much joy finding what's used where in my brief look though. But perhaps this may be of interest. For a Boing 777. It looks to me as if everything goes through ARINC 629 data buses but maybe I'm misinterpreting things and I'm no electronics engineer. |
|
20 Mar 19 - 02:04 AM (#3983247) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: robomatic Way cool! Goes on my bedtime reading list! Did you find it with a search or are you in the technical biz by way of such systems? |
|
20 Mar 19 - 02:15 AM (#3983248) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: Jon Freeman Search. The most I am an occasional hobby type programmer/ even rarer dabbler with the microprocessors like PIC and Arduino. Somewhere along that line I came across (but have never used) the CAN bus and found out about its automotive use so that and aviation was my starting point. That led me to ARINC and a subsequent search for something like "Fly By Wire ARINC" turned that up in the results. |
|
20 Mar 19 - 04:09 AM (#3983260) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: David Carter (UK) CAN (Controlled Area Network) is 1980s, although it is still used a lot in cars. I am familiar with its use in controlling large telescopes (the ones I used also being 1980s). Airbus seem to use a different strategy for back up of flight control systems, having a fallback which is electrical but not electronic. |
|
20 Mar 19 - 10:29 AM (#3983365) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: Mrrzy Anybody read Airframe by Crichton? |
|
20 Mar 19 - 10:52 AM (#3983371) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: robomatic Jon: Thanks. That article looks pretty interesting in giving an overview of the thinking that went into FBW (Fly-By-Wire). There's always more than one way to skin a cat so I'm not surprised David Carter that Airbus has a difference. But it points out that each type of plane will have its own system, hence users, in this case Pilots, Co-Pilots and Flight Engineers (if indeed, flight engineers still exist) will get indoctrinated into the system they fly with. Clearly, part of the problem that got Boeing into its current mess was their desire to take a very successful airplane designed in the 1960s into the new era with a minimum of retraining. But they clearly over-reached. In fairness I think they thought they cold do this safely and unfortunately it turned out they did not succeed. They have to bear considerable responsibility. I have not read Airframe but I will get it on my reading list. I'll probably print out the document Jon found and alternate Crichton's work with the FBW paper, which looks like fun. |
|
20 Mar 19 - 01:00 PM (#3983404) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: Jon Freeman Both CAN and ARINC date back to the 1980s. In terms of only looking at automotive and aviation, it looks as if they have been pretty much confined to their original target industry. But Airbus did use CAN (or an adaption of it) for certain systems in the A380. |
|
21 Mar 19 - 05:58 AM (#3983531) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: Donuel Meanwhile back in DC the first director of the Trump FAA has been appointed. This administrtion left the FAA under the direction of acting directors with connections to Boeing for the last 2 years. Steve Dickenson the new Director used to head up Delta |
|
22 Mar 19 - 07:09 PM (#3983984) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: robomatic The additional stories coming out combined with the revelation that Boeing had a safety upgrade available for a price, a pitifully low price compared to the price of the overall plane, have actually depressed me. While not exactly on a par with the VW scandal of the past few years, this is an example of a corporation falling down on their principles and practices in just as major a way. I think the CEO of Boeing needs to go. And probably some other high deciders. Major Malfunction! |
|
23 Mar 19 - 07:32 AM (#3984078) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: Donuel The current policy of Deregulation has obviously shown the world that it has no place in aviation. |
|
24 Mar 19 - 05:30 PM (#3984419) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: robomatic The New York Times is, for me, one of the best sources anywhere for news of journalistic quality in the pre-internet use of the word 'journalism'. This article came out today, and I hope most of you can access it through the link. Sometimes the NYTimes paywall may be a problem. While I do not question the facts or the quotes in the article, I think it may give a more critical take on the Boeing 737 Max program than necessary, mainly through the article's title. Basically I think Boeing and some of its managers are guilty of some poor decisions regarding the MCAS control system and their attitude toward making a safety upgrade an 'optional' add-on for the 737 Max8. I don't think the entire 737 project was a bad poorly executed program. I don't think the NY Times article really says that, but some of its headings imply it. |
|
24 Mar 19 - 07:14 PM (#3984427) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: Donuel Actions always have unintended consequences. When reporting facts it is only fair to allude to the unintended. Admittedly this is a balancing act but the take away headings are fair. For Boeing to be conscientious enough to foresee every possible outcome for every decision they make is an impossibly high bar, but that is what we ideally hope for. Changing regulatory policy for a more internal industry review does not help the flying public. |
|
26 Mar 19 - 10:27 PM (#3984710) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: robomatic This is the latest article, again from the New York Times, to make me very concerned over what is happening to Boeing which led to this issue and these two crashes. There had also been a nagging concern in my mind ever since the issue of the software control came up: As I understand it, the software control was an additional piece of hardware AND software, with an additional set of switches to turn off the system which the pilots in the crashes did not know about. Apparently the day before the earlier crash (in Indonesia), the jet had had the same exact problem but a pilot in the jump seat had been aware of it and rescued the plane and pilots. The next day, none of those pilots were in the same plane when the same problem led to its destruction. The problem is twofold: The extra control system with the lack of training and documentation, and the lack of reporting on the part of the folks who had a major control problem. Did they not pass this on to their mates? It reminds me of driving across borders in the U.S. Northeast in winter. If the snow removal trucks only cleared the road on their side of the border (I'm thinking Vermont, New Hampshire and Massachusetts here), you could lose control of your vehicle on the bit in the middle that they mutually felt no responsibility for. If they bothered to clear the middle border part, there was no problem. |
|
27 Mar 19 - 09:46 AM (#3984754) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: Donuel Boeing engineering has allowed design hazards to exist for want of a single washer to lead to puncture of the fuel tank. Ironically it was the fix that caused multiple fuel leaks. Without the input of more intuitive minds there will be more 'unexpected' disasters'. Being on the predictive side of the intuitive fence I have seen the prejudice against my side first hand. Elon Musk has gone a long way to correct this with great success. |
|
27 Mar 19 - 11:57 AM (#3984780) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: robomatic Is this what you are referring to Don'l? |
|
27 Jan 21 - 09:08 PM (#4090284) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: robomatic Boeing stock took a big hit today. It is being blamed on the double whammy of Boeing 737 MAX grounding of two plus years now and a report of losses due to the Covid pandemic travel limitations and delayed delivery. I have also heard of whistleblower allegations and the documentary of a couple of years ago about construction quality in Boeing's non-Washington facilities. When chickens come home to roost, do they fly Boeing? |
|
27 Jan 21 - 09:58 PM (#4090295) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: Donuel Chickens with unclipped wings are like the new 737s, the last 20 feet of altitude presents difficulties. |
|
28 Jan 21 - 06:05 AM (#4090316) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: JHW Joe mentioned the bigger engines creating the original problem which they 'cured' by software. 'Boeing added bigger engines, and that changed the center of gravity on the aircraft and made the nose tend to tip upward. Boeing then did a software design to make the plane stay level - but that made the plane perform unusually in some circumstances' Doesn't get a wide mention. Hard to know what to believe these days but as they are being allowed to fly again I've heard nothing about the engines, only new software. So do we now rely on software to make things fly that shouldn't? |
|
28 Jan 21 - 11:31 AM (#4090355) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: JHW Further thought. My car relies on software to change gear, seven gears, automatic. I hope it keeps working but if it stops the car stops. It doesn't fall out of the sky. |
|
28 Jan 21 - 09:36 PM (#4090427) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: robomatic Well, not just Boeing but their competitors have heavy software involvement in the control system.* In the case of the 737 family in particular, from its first inception in the 1960s it was to be a small commuter type carrier/ feeder. Its undercarriage permitted it to be lower to the ground than larger craft, to facilitate mobile stairways at smaller airports. That led to its engines being attached directly to its wings, unlike the podded mounting on most other Boeing jets where the engines are lower and the overall clearance of the aircraft requires it to be higher above ground level. As the airplane model evolved its capacity increased and it grew longer and its engines grew as well, both more powerful and especially more effient. More efficient subsonic jets led to a wider overall engine as the turbofans add width. I think this was occurring on the previous incarnation of the jet, the NG. But with the MAX Boeing was competing with a model of Airbus that was also more efficient. So they flattened the front of the engine mount for ground clearance but I believe they also pushed the engine forward of the wing to a greater amount than previously. This then changed the unloaded CG (Center of gravity). Both the engine performance and the engine location led to new airplane handling characteristics. None of this is actually bad. These aircraft are long tubes loaded with people and cargo and their CGs are precisely determined for every flight. The tricky bit was not that the 737 MAX was in any way less safe, but that now it did not behave just the same as the rest of the 737 family of Boeings and they wanted to make transition of pilots from older 737s to be simple and not involve a lot of extra training, simulator time and sign-offs with instructors. So the existing software was augmented by another piece of software, which was treated as, pardon the expression, 'seamless'. I'm not going to go any further into the weeds here, and I'm not in the business, just familiar with digital equipment and how it relates (or doesn't) to software. Another factor was that the software took data from angle-of-attack sensor mounted on the outside of the fuselage, and in this case it took readings from a single misreading instrument and Boeing charged extra for a backup instrument, so there was none. This should never have happened. The main fault lies with Boeing design and corporate decisions with other potential modes of thought that the Boeing and FAA oversight and approval process was somewhat incestuous and again did not take a rigorous enough approach to the software development and integration. I think it is also true that a pilot who takes a bottom-up approach to understanding how his cockpit works might have been able to identify and pull the fuses to the control section of the instruments that was misbehaving. There had been an incident in one of the planes just the previous day. Back in the days when I hung out in Starbucks a lot I got to talk to a pilot who flew Boeings (and was a big fan of the brand). He mentioned that he tended to know more than younger pilots about the stuff that matters when the error signals fly. Long story short. Much as I am disappointed in Boeing and think they deserve a comeuppance, I personally would have no fear of flying in a 737 MAX. -------------------------------------------------------------- *There was a nasty Airbus A330 accident in 2009 where the automatic system apparently disengaged the autopilot due to ice on the pitot tubes and the crew did not catch what was really happening in time to regain control of the plane. |
|
29 Jan 21 - 06:30 AM (#4090460) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: JHW Thanks for all that story. The constant rebuilding of the aircraft hasn't had much press. The software and sensor was blamed. Doubt I'll be flying anywhere but you don't know what your plane will be on the day. |
|
29 Jan 21 - 09:26 AM (#4090483) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: Donuel I am thankful for robo's areodynamic expertise. For a layman's understanding Boeing marketed the 737 MAX like crappy cars with a cheap base model and more expensive models with 'luxury' options. |
|
29 Jan 21 - 10:30 AM (#4090505) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: Jon Freeman "So do we now rely on software to make things fly that shouldn't? I guess you could say that this can be the case, particularly with fighter planes. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relaxed_stability, especially the Intentional instability bit: The latest generation of fighter aircraft often employ design elements which reduce stability to increase maneuverability. Greater stability leads to lesser control surface authority, therefore a less stable design will have a faster response to control inputs. This is highly sought after in fighter aircraft design. |
|
29 Jan 21 - 03:56 PM (#4090552) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: Donuel In another age I experimented with aircraft design, not like Burt Rutan, but for an aircraft alternative for trucks and trains thats even more fuel efficient. Picture a giant proportioned craft that would measure 6 feet long and two feet wide at the back edge of a delta wing. It is a canard with a fairly large front wing and in full size a two story high fuselage. It has 3 stablizers on the delta wing as well as 2 engines. Manuverable? No Fast? Hell no Could it stall? well surprisingly No For better CG control the front wing could move forward and back for different loads. It is for exremely heavy loads from point a to point b with as little altitude extremes as possible. I built a 6 ft long version and it flew beautifully powered by the smallest gas engine available mounted on top of the delta wing. It flew at a fast walking speed. |
|
29 Jan 21 - 04:09 PM (#4090554) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: Donuel important note: The delta wing had minimal lift and a high drag coeffient with ailiorons pointed high in normal flight. Trimed out in accordance with front wing position it could go faster |
|
29 Jan 21 - 06:30 PM (#4090571) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: robomatic Dynamic control is pretty much the in thing. Once you dispense with direct or pneumatic linkages and go all electric (fly by wire), you can let the digital control system interfere totally, partially, with all sorts of filters between pilot and airstream. Ultimately you dispense with the pilot. There are too many inputs and things are happening too fast. Once you get rid of the pilot you don't need to support all that bother of keeping them alive or limit the g forces. You immediately get smaller, faster, cheaper, deadlier, harder to see on radar, yada yada. And impossible to stop. |
|
29 Nov 21 - 07:28 PM (#4127589) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: robomatic Today Fresh Air interviewed Peter Robison, the author of a new , "Flying Blind", detailing the Boeing 737 Max development that incorporated a flawed control system. He seemed well briefed on the issues coporate and governmental, which led to profit over design decisions and flawed oversight. |
|
30 Nov 21 - 07:12 AM (#4127622) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: Donuel I listened to it twice. Deregulation Its the gift that keeps on giving. |
|
30 Nov 21 - 08:48 AM (#4127636) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: Donuel In this case it was deregulation via budget starvation. 'Fixing" a fly by wire aircraft with multiple software patches is DANGEROUS BUSINESS. To undo the crashing auto input was not in the pilots manual - it was in the glossary however. Boeing is still blaming 'foreign' pilots. Boeing saved a shitload of money by NOT providing training as usual. Let Boeing choke on all the evil they themselves created. |
|
02 Dec 21 - 07:45 PM (#4127844) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: robomatic Doneul: I'm not here to defend Boeing. Far from it. But I feel that the bulk of the evil was a departure from the high ideals of pride of design and safety (engineering) to the concentration of profits at the expense of the former. If you listened to the interview on Fresh Air, you would have heard that the reporter emphasized that. If you read a book like Sutter's "747" you would have eperienced first hand the kind of decisions that a great aeronautical engineer went through in designing and bringing to production a great product went through. Meanwhile, Boeing had made horrible decisions before. A famous case I can recall was the loss of a Boeing 747 cargo jet in Japan due to a faulty repair. At that time we were aware of it because Boeing Corporate took responsibility fairly quickly. This was also brought up in the Fresh Air broadcast. Unfortunately, power in the company shifted to a less morally committed type of executive. And a slide to degradation occurred. It is all too true and all too scary when this occurs. It is NOT and indictment of Capitalism nor any other formalized 'ism so much as it is a reminder that honor and standards are always with us, and we lose sight of them at our peril. The other major failure was the embedding of federal oversight into Boeing coporate. This was understandable to an extent. If there is a high standard of quality and ethics with the manufacturer, their people are the most understanding of the product. But the principle of oversight is for a second or third party to be competent and observant. Clearly, the demarcation was muddied here. What happened was outrageous and Boeing has fallen greatly in the moral universe. It is not unlike Volkswagen's emissions testing scandal, only Boeing has immediate blood on its hands, whereas Volkswagen has merely succeeded in poisoning the planet. |
|
02 Dec 21 - 07:47 PM (#4127845) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: robomatic How bad was the relationship between Boeing and FAA? Trump had to issue the grounding order! |
|
02 Dec 21 - 08:21 PM (#4127848) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: Donuel Amazing but someone else probably deserves the credit. Trump's next home. It is enormous but has many new rules. |
|
03 Dec 21 - 06:49 AM (#4127878) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: Donuel A pilot faced with a mystery loss of control might have 3 minutes to identify and correct the situation. Working around multiple software patches is not the way to go. I would have hoped a reset button would actually work despite todays complex tech. Alas I am not an engineer. |
|
05 Dec 21 - 01:56 PM (#4128107) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: Donuel 105 years after the most documented disaster of the Titanic, it is now confirmed that a fire in the coal bunkers of the ship turned the bunker vertical walls red hot and soft leaving them warped. The fire started before the NY voyage began and ended a day before the sinking. Testimony shows it was the exactly the bunker that burned was the one that gave way at its bottom making the ship inevitably sink. The cover up started at the top and the hundred odd firemen were not called to testify. Finally one fireman was called and dismissed with a scorned judgment of the chair. If this became widely known, negligence would have fallen on White Star Inc., instead it was concluded the sinking was a just a freak accident. Sometimes the corporate 'fix' lasts a long time. |
|
06 Dec 21 - 01:52 PM (#4128210) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: robomatic Well, damn, Don'l, if only Boeing would pay more attention to their coal bunkers they might have more better luck on takeoff! |
|
06 Dec 21 - 03:21 PM (#4128224) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: Donuel Our modern version of coal bunkers on fire are lithium batteries. |
|
07 Dec 21 - 08:35 AM (#4128292) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: Jon Freeman Wikipedia places the coal bunker theories in its Titanic Conspiracy Theories page. There does at least seem to be some truth, or at least there was a bunker fire but as far as I can make out, the consensus amongst experts is that the event made no difference to the fate of the ship. I guess one can take things either way (although I will side with the debunkers on this on) but one page attempting to summarise a response to one broadcast promotiing a version of the theories is here. |
|
09 Dec 21 - 04:17 PM (#4128502) Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone From: Donuel The fire theory was ruled out in its day. It would have made White Star guilty without question. What gives the fire theory (real fire but questionable cause for ultimate sinking) a bit more inertia is a never before submitted photo of the burned paint on the hull from the outside before the voyage began. The second cooberating factor is from today's fire forensic engineers whose results show internal bulkhead warpage similar to what old time witness' testified to seeing. Like the Warren Commision I can only assume that the fix was in from day one of the Titanic Commission. My bias proves nothing. |