Message boards :
Politics :
Boeing: Profits 1st, Safety 2nd? (Part 3)
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 . . . 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 . . . 17 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
![]() Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 15993 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 ![]() ![]() |
Really? The Boeing 737 MAX flight control system is too much of an unreliable unknown not to require repeated external testing to see if it still seems to work well enough? I mean really, there is so little trust in that flight system? My safety-critical training demands that safety critical systems are guaranteed to fail safely, and that all aspects of operation are proven safe. My personal take on the Boeing way of design is that their flight systems 'hopefully work well enough' and we give the pilots an electrical switch to switch off the power if things go 'unexpected'. Letting that sort of ad-hoc design go flying with hundreds of lives dependent upon a pilot instantly flipping a "do not die yet" switch AND still successfully flying the plane without that flight system functionality is the crazy big WOW-WHAT-THE-HELL!!! For such a desperate last moment get-out-of-death system, safest is to never have that switch switched on! You need this https://www.youtube.com/user/UGOT2CTHIS Dan will teach you about the number one cause. Not my choice of channel. I prefer the level-headed reporting from such as blancolirio and AVweb. They give a good reminder of the importance of allowing the pilots to simply fly the aircraft, rather than being left bewildered and overloaded in a cockpit of deadly confusion... How many false alarms were triggered by a singular point of failure in the Boeing 737 that left two flight crews fatally bewildered?... Has that been redesigned and fully safely fixed?... Do we add a third Boeing 737 flight crew to that list for the latest 'everyone-dead' crash off Indonesia? Fly safe folks! Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 29175 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 ![]() ![]() |
For such a desperate last moment get-out-of-death system, safest is to never have that switch switched on!So no fuses or circuit breakers. No fuel shutoff valves. Wonderful engineering. BTW Juan Brown likes Dan Gryder. Dan just doesn't hold back on the number one cause, like most everyone else and the NTSB never ever says the number one cause. |
![]() Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 15993 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 ![]() ![]() |
For such a desperate last moment get-out-of-death system, safest is to never have that switch switched on!So no fuses or circuit breakers. No fuel shutoff valves. Wonderful engineering. There is a world of difference between systems that are positively working to maintain safe flight, as opposed to systems that are idle yet can unexpectedly catastrophically kill that flight... There is supposed to be enforced the design doctrine that aircraft systems must fail safely or must fail to a benign state... Something that instead has to be actively turned off to avoid deadly catastrophe for normal flight is an inherently deadly design... Your example there of a fuel shut-off is a very good safety feature that is only ever to be used either only whilst safely on the ground or only until AFTER some catastrophe has already happened... BTW Juan Brown likes Dan Gryder. Dan just doesn't hold back on the number one cause, like most everyone else and the NTSB never ever says the number one cause. Indeed, there is a world of difference in the expense of merely training a pilot to fly vs the extra time needed training a pilot to fly for other than normal conditions... Myself, I was taught to drive by a police driving instructor. At the time I was annoyed that I was taken through extra lessons (and lesson fees) to learn aspects somewhat beyond what the driving test required. Ok, so that made for an easy driving test. The real payback has been in much reduced insurance costs due to that training paying off greatly for various 'events' out on the road in the real world. Similarly, I learnt to fly fixed wing aircraft at an RAF airfield. That was quite an experience for the 'ways of the military' that again is initially hard but usefully good. And then we have where that 'extra' initial cost good safe sense might be dangerously neglected for the sake of greedy short term profit and ignorance... Unless such 'additional' training is made a requirement...? Fly safe folks! Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
![]() Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 15993 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 ![]() ![]() |
And is this where Boeing is trying to make their 777x into another 737 MAX?... Boeing 777X In Trouble Insider Reveals: The FAA Says Aircraft Certification Is Still Years Away To me, that sounds like a deadly Ouch! Incredible. Deadly greedy. Ignorant. Fly safe folks! Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 29175 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 ![]() ![]() |
There is supposed to be enforced the design doctrine that aircraft systems must fail safely or must fail to a benign state... Something that instead has to be actively turned off to avoid deadly catastrophe for normal flight is an inherently deadly design... The auto-pilot is one system designed exactly the opposite of your safe idea. When it fails it will do so with whatever pitch, roll and yaw inputs it last had. You might be lucky and that be straight and level, or you might not be so lucky and it is pitch down adverse yaw, wing low. That is of course if it fails and happens to alert the pilot that it no longer is in control. All too often they only blink an idiot light which can take some too long time for a pilot to realize, especially with the pilot is head down briefing an approach plate. Is the idiot light even wired so if a circuit breaker trips the light comes on or is the power for the light through the now open circuit breaker? Indeed, there is a world of difference in the expense of merely training a pilot to fly vs the extra time needed training a pilot to fly for other than normal conditions... Hence why the training must include the very real possibility of run away trim inputs and making how to shut off electric trim inputs a memory checklist item. Frankly for any airplane with full motion simulator there should be at least one flight where they have to fly a severely mistrimmed aircraft to experience the control column forces needed to maintain control. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, Troubleshoot. That order. (There are a couple of exceptions to troubleshoot last, such as fire in the cockpit or explosive decompression, but they are of the type where you need to deal with the situation first because if you don't the rest won't matter.) |
rob smith ![]() ![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 7 Mar 03 Posts: 20789 Credit: 416,307,556 RAC: 380 ![]() ![]() |
When it fails it will do so with whatever pitch, roll and yaw inputs it last had This is not totally true. One failure mode of an autopilot is that it "freezes" as described. Others include pushing one control set (ailerons, elevator, rudder, throttles each being a control set) just out of the desired line. This is scary because the flight crew may not notice for some time. Or it might push one set to a limit. Some are more immediately noticeable than others, and how noticeable may depend on external factors. Or several may be pushed to limits. Or one or may may be "oscillated" in an un-damped manner. Or flaps/landing gear may be incorrectly deployed/retracted. Or, or, or........ As far as I'm aware all of these have happened over the years, and across many types of aircraft. Which and how many can/have happen is influenced by the system design of both the aircraft and the autopilot systems in place. Bob Smith Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society) Somewhere in the (un)known Universe? |
![]() Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 15993 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 ![]() ![]() |
Which is suspiciously what looks to have happened to the latest all-fatal Boeing 737 (Classic or NG?) death-dive crash. The throttle for one engine 'crept' backwards to give asymmetric thrust between the two engines. The autopilot flying the control surfaces held on against an ever increasing yaw until finally giving up and dumping an extreme attitude non-flying aircraft onto the startled pilots. Really...? There are no prior warnings that the autopilot is having to work far too hard and is outside of safe (recoverable) margins?... Fly safe folks! Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 29175 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 ![]() ![]() |
Really...? There are no prior warnings that the autopilot is having to work far too hard and is outside of safe (recoverable) margins?... Warning was there all the time. All they had to do was look at the throttle lever. The problem is when the automation works so damn good all the time humans stop monitoring it. See Dan Gryder. |
W-K 666 ![]() Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 17480 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 ![]() ![]() |
Boeing slows 787 production to address forward pressure bulkhead manufacturing issue Boeing is slowing 787 production in order to address a new manufacturing issue that the company says involves an issue with the jet’s forward pressure bulkhead. |
W-K 666 ![]() Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 17480 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 ![]() ![]() |
Another problem for the 737. FAA orders checks on 9,300 Boeing 737 planes for possible switch failures WASHINGTON, July 15 (Reuters) - The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on Thursday issued a directive to operators of all Boeing Co (BA.N) 737 series airplanes to conduct inspections to address possible failures of cabin altitude pressure switches. Boeing initially reviewed the issue, including the expected failure rate of the switches, and found it did not pose a safety issue. Subsequent investigation and analysis led the FAA and Boeing to determine in May that "the failure rate of both switches is much higher than initially estimated, and therefore does pose a safety issue." |
![]() Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 15993 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 ![]() ![]() |
Thanks for that one! ...It was prompted after an operator reported in September that both pressure switches failed the on-wing functional test on three different 737 models. So... Where have we seen this potentially deadly scenario before? As I personally see the scenario: Boeing fluffs the design-and-test-and-QA-checks; Operator reports faults/concerns; Boeing denies any problem; FAA chases up long after the event to too late declare a real problem; Work-around minimum cost 'fix' agreed; Pilots and passengers fly on their prayers...
See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 29175 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 ![]() ![]() |
Another problem for the 737. My question, who builds the switches? Are they in other airplanes? Spacecraft? |
W-K 666 ![]() Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 17480 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 ![]() ![]() |
My question, who builds the switches? Are they in other airplanes? Spacecraft? No idea, but have they been 'grandfathered in' and therefore could be late 50's or early 60's design and that there are better more reliable alternatives available. |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 29175 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 ![]() ![]() |
My question, who builds the switches? Are they in other airplanes? Spacecraft? In the world of certified aircraft, once a design is blessed, er certified, no one dares make a big improvement because obtaining a new certification will bankrupt the investors. There have been a number of biz jets that have obviously depressurized and flown until they run out of fuel over the years. A shared bad part or part design? |
W-K 666 ![]() Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 17480 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 ![]() ![]() |
My question, who builds the switches? Are they in other airplanes? Spacecraft? But no doubt they would have no problem with introducing newer designs if it came with a significant weight and size reduction in the item. |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 29175 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 ![]() ![]() |
My question, who builds the switches? Are they in other airplanes? Spacecraft? Significant? Guessing, but even leaving it off entirely isn't going to be significant. A 50's design would be what, the sealed cans of a barometer and a micro-switch? https://www.starpath.com/fischer/pics/new_pics/Fischer_Aneroid_Barometer_Movement_Dial_Large.jpg |
![]() Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 15993 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 ![]() ![]() |
Boeing's latest attempt: Boeing delays rerun of Starliner space capsule test wrote: ... The CST-100 Starliner will launch from Florida at some point to showcase how it can ferry crews to and from the International Space Station (ISS). Here's hoping that Boeing honestly truly have cleaned up their leopard spots... Fly safe folks! Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
![]() Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 15993 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 ![]() ![]() |
A few days on and not looking good... Hilarious... If it wasn't all very real. See for yourself: (Try playing this at x1.5 speed unless you wish to savor the experience!) Boeing Blows it AGAIN!! Is this thing safe? What we should have done differently! wrote: ... we need an alternative to Starliner... no matter the cost. Boeing Starliner launch delayed again, and insane SpaceX Starship progress! wrote: 2 The Future I would imagine that the thrusters valves, ALL of 'em, are ALL 'Safety Critical'... Or why have them?... How does Boeing get away with such dangerous sloppy expensive silliness? Oh... And this is supposed to be 'Astronaut Rated'?! Fly safe folks!! Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
![]() Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 15993 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 ![]() ![]() |
A few days on and not looking good... This is looking to be worryingly 'curious'... Boeing's Starliner sees August launch slipping away after more valve trouble wrote: ... Ooooer! That last sentence sounds like a "Bit of a telling off"! So... How has that come to pass and be so 'unexpected' so late before launch?... Fly safe folks!! Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
![]() Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 15993 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 ![]() ![]() |
Moving back to a lower altitude for an update of recent Boeing safety news: Boeing 787 Dreamliner: A Timeline of Recent Production Problems wrote: ... A new defect on Boeing’s Dreamliner aircraft surfaced in July, the latest in a series of issues that arose late last summer. Deliveries of the popular plane are now halted, pressuring Boeing’s profits. WSJ’s Andrew Tangel explains how Boeing got here... FAA mandates inspections of Boeing 737 switches that could pose safety risk wrote: Oxygen levels could become "dangerously low" if switches fail over 10,000 feet... Boeing 737 MAX planes face cargo rules over fire-related concerns wrote: ... The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said all Boeing MAX planes and some other 737 models were affected by the precautionary measure... The pressure switch problem in particular is worrying for that having been something that isn't normally checked each flight and there is no other warning of failure and it took an actual airline themselves to discover the safety critical problem!... Fly safe?! Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
©2022 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.