Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lack of redundancies on Boeing 737 MAX baffles some involved in developing it

seattletimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 163 posts

Re: Lack of redundancies on Boeing 737 MAX baffles some involved in developing it

#51

Post by cm2187 »

netsharc wrote: post #49
ishan1121 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The airline manufacturers have to push for automatic systems as they are the one of the features that sells. One of a close friend of mine who works at Airbus said that the company believes the next gen aircrafts would only require a single person in the cockpit, and everything will be handled through automations. Airbus aircrafts are more automated than Boeing. If Boeing does not work on the automation part, it coul…

> the next gen aircrafts would only require a single person in the cockpit, and everything will be handled through automations. Hasn't that myth been around for years, along with "Planes can take off and land by themselves?" https://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/automation-myths...

He may be right for the state of what has actually been wired up in today’s cockpits, but conceptually I don’t see why you couldn’t fully automate a plane. Even in emergency situations, pilots are required to follow established procedures and check lists, not become creative. The pilot mentions the example of an aborted take off, I can’t think of any reason an auto pilot wouldn’t be able to perform one. And of course you will need even more redundancy than there is today as you won’t have pilots who can look out at the window and come up with their own opinion of what is going on, and challenge improbable readings. Plus you can always have the option to have remote manual control if you really need to.

Of course there are parts of today’s aviation that are incompatible with automation. ATC over radio is one of them. Visual landing only at many airports is another one. There would be large costs to upgrading the infrastructures to be computer friendly, so I am not saying the switch is trivial, but it is bound to happen nevertheless.

Re: Lack of redundancies on Boeing 737 MAX baffles some involved in developing it

#52

Post by rkagerer »

js2 wrote: post #2

Despite the headline, the article ends with: That triple-sensor system isn’t foolproof, however. In 2008, on a customer-acceptance flight of an Airbus A320, two of the angle-of-attack sensors froze and those two sensors then outvoted the third. When the pilots went to demonstrate the stall-prevention system, they were not aware of the malfunctioning sensors. The plane crashed, killing the seven people on board. The s…

I'm admittedly ignorant of aircraft design but years ago when I first found out what those little AoA fins do, I was like, why the heck aren't there more of them plastered all over the place? Like, more than 3.

Re: Lack of redundancies on Boeing 737 MAX baffles some involved in developing it

#53

Post by CaptainZapp »

ptidhomme wrote: post #45
nutjob2 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem isn't too much reliance on automatic systems, it's that the systems are a half baked combination of the two. The MCAS system is an example of that. As you say that overriding design is typical in Boeing planes, but MCAS purposefully overrides it, that is, pushing the controls hard, which overrides other automatic functions, has no effect on MCAS.

I'd say this is why they are half-baked : human integration was not thouroughly thought of in the design. When I speak of overriding, I mean human overriding. This is something I think Boeing had got right with its manual overrides : when you design critical systems, you need human backup schemes, but you can go further and make these backup tightly integrated with the rest of the (highly automated) system.

I'd say this is why they are half-baked : human integration was not thouroughly thought of in the design. When I speak of overriding, I mean human overriding.

That's pretty obvious, given by the fact that the system was initially not even documented nor was the scenario allegedly available for training in the brand spanking new 787-MAX simulator.

Re: Lack of redundancies on Boeing 737 MAX baffles some involved in developing it

#54

Post by josteink »

j16sdiz wrote: post #50
ptidhomme wrote: post #40

What I fail to understand is why do they not design an overriding scheme to MCAS, such as an "above-threshold" pull on the stick by the pilot. I can recall that this was a classic design by Boeing. Whatever the number of AoA sensors, the system should be easy and straightforward to disable. Those logics of "let's guess automatically if that sensor is failing" are just pushing the problem further. The real problem is…

New overriding scheme means more training. The selling point of 737MAX is any 737 pilot can fly on it without new training.

That was the selling point, yes, but it doesn’t seem to be quite true in real life.

So if they can’t hold that promise anyway, why not provide a better interface?

Re: Lack of redundancies on Boeing 737 MAX baffles some involved in developing it

#55

Post by CaptainZapp »

cm2187 wrote: post #51
netsharc wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the next gen aircrafts would only require a single person in the cockpit, and everything will be handled through automations. Hasn't that myth been around for years, along with "Planes can take off and land by themselves?" https://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/automation-myths...

He may be right for the state of what has actually been wired up in today’s cockpits, but conceptually I don’t see why you couldn’t fully automate a plane. Even in emergency situations, pilots are required to follow established procedures and check lists, not become creative. The pilot mentions the example of an aborted take off, I can’t think of any reason an auto pilot wouldn’t be able to perform one. And of course…

He may be right for the state of what has actually been wired up in today’s cockpits, but conceptually I don’t see why you couldn’t fully automate a plane.

Good luck finding paying customers to board such a plane.

Re: Lack of redundancies on Boeing 737 MAX baffles some involved in developing it

#56

Post by ptidhomme »

j16sdiz wrote: post #50
ptidhomme wrote: post #40

What I fail to understand is why do they not design an overriding scheme to MCAS, such as an "above-threshold" pull on the stick by the pilot. I can recall that this was a classic design by Boeing. Whatever the number of AoA sensors, the system should be easy and straightforward to disable. Those logics of "let's guess automatically if that sensor is failing" are just pushing the problem further. The real problem is…

New overriding scheme means more training. The selling point of 737MAX is any 737 pilot can fly on it without new training.

Well, it was the selling point. I'm thinking now of the upgrades.

Anyway, for the sake of selling, they went into the biggest failure of modern aerospace engineering. This should just not have happened.

Re: Lack of redundancies on Boeing 737 MAX baffles some involved in developing it

#57

Post by bb101 »

It's worth watching Al Jazeera's series on the production of the 787 Dreamliner, and related cultural issues at Boeing after their merger with McDonnell Douglas [1].

Personally, I think it's worth taking with a grain of salt as it appears quite one-sided, but the interviews with Boeing ex-employees and head engineers are enlightening, and could go some way to explaining the lack of redundant systems (i.e. cost and time).

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvkEpstd9os

Re: Lack of redundancies on Boeing 737 MAX baffles some involved in developing it

#58

Post by cm2187 »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #55
cm2187 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He may be right for the state of what has actually been wired up in today’s cockpits, but conceptually I don’t see why you couldn’t fully automate a plane. Even in emergency situations, pilots are required to follow established procedures and check lists, not become creative. The pilot mentions the example of an aborted take off, I can’t think of any reason an auto pilot wouldn’t be able to perform one. And of course…

He may be right for the state of what has actually been wired up in today’s cockpits, but conceptually I don’t see why you couldn’t fully automate a plane. Good luck finding paying customers to board such a plane.

They will probably have lower operating costs. That will be a reason. And when they demonstrated their reliability over time people will stop thinking about it. Pilot error is still the number 1 cause of plane crashes.

Re: Lack of redundancies on Boeing 737 MAX baffles some involved in developing it

#59

Post by ddalex »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #55
cm2187 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He may be right for the state of what has actually been wired up in today’s cockpits, but conceptually I don’t see why you couldn’t fully automate a plane. Even in emergency situations, pilots are required to follow established procedures and check lists, not become creative. The pilot mentions the example of an aborted take off, I can’t think of any reason an auto pilot wouldn’t be able to perform one. And of course…

He may be right for the state of what has actually been wired up in today’s cockpits, but conceptually I don’t see why you couldn’t fully automate a plane. Good luck finding paying customers to board such a plane.

I dunno, I'd trust automation from Airbus more than a low-payed over-worked low trained pilot from a low cost no-non European carrier.

Re: Lack of redundancies on Boeing 737 MAX baffles some involved in developing it

#60

Post by netsharc »

cm2187 wrote: post #51
netsharc wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the next gen aircrafts would only require a single person in the cockpit, and everything will be handled through automations. Hasn't that myth been around for years, along with "Planes can take off and land by themselves?" https://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/automation-myths...

He may be right for the state of what has actually been wired up in today’s cockpits, but conceptually I don’t see why you couldn’t fully automate a plane. Even in emergency situations, pilots are required to follow established procedures and check lists, not become creative. The pilot mentions the example of an aborted take off, I can’t think of any reason an auto pilot wouldn’t be able to perform one. And of course…

IMO pilots are there in case shit really hits the fan, or birds hit the turbofans: I doubt computers would be creative enough like Sullenberger and decide to land on a river.

And 2 pilots means 2 brains that can divide the workload...

Post reply on HN