Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system • Hacker News Board

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#191

Post by pram » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 8:59 PM UTC

moftz wrote: post #161

nolok wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its lack of relevance to the matter at hand not withstanding, I admit to be a bit bewildered by your question and thus feel the need to ask: what makes you think the pilot could possibly have any idea that trimmed parts from a bolt is what caused the stick resistance, or that he would spend the time thinking about that instead of recovering the aircraft in the few minutes he had at the most ...

Pilots have loads of checklists, many of them committed to memory. If there's a problem, there's a checklist for it and following the checklist should lead you to a solution or at least tell you what is wrong. The downside is that checklists can't account for every possible thing going wrong. A little piece of wire jamming a hydraulic system is going to be a hard fix. Even if you have the tools and access to the comp…

You’re actually not supposed to memorize checklists, it leads to complacency.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#192

Post by hollerith » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 9:01 PM UTC

pram wrote: post #191

moftz wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pilots have loads of checklists, many of them committed to memory. If there's a problem, there's a checklist for it and following the checklist should lead you to a solution or at least tell you what is wrong. The downside is that checklists can't account for every possible thing going wrong. A little piece of wire jamming a hydraulic system is going to be a hard fix. Even if you have the tools and access to the comp…

You’re actually not supposed to memorize checklists, it leads to complacency.

For those emergencies that demand quick action, commercial pilots do have to memorize the relevant checklists.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#193

Post by mopsi » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 9:12 PM UTC

inferiorhuman wrote: post #188

mopsi wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So you're claiming that Airbus knowingly leaves a critical defect in their planes, which may cause the loss of flight controls and which they refreain from fixing for almost 30 years? A320's computers monitor gear for uncompression of 1 second or longer. Computers are not in sync. If landing gear decompresses due to bouncing for long enough to be seen for 1 second by one computer, but short enough to get missed by…

Especially so considering that there have been multiple hull-loss accidents with fatalities (LH2904, TAM3054), where air/ground detection has been a contributing factor. Throughout the years, the aircraft has been unable to tell whether it's on the ground or in the air. With the Lufthansa flight the problem was not the aircraft design but rather that the pilot remained on only one main gear for too long. The Airbus d…

In TAM and LH cases, pilots were locked out of using full braking capabilities of the aircraft because they found themselves in a situation that didn't satisfy the conditions defined as "landing" by aircraft designers. The had wheels on the ground, but program logic evaluated to onground = FALSE.

Westjet and Turkish incidents are irrelevant. Westjet malfunctioned, pilot took control and landed safely - that's what pilots are there for. Turkish airplane also malfunctioned and gave multiple warnings over several minutes, but pilots didn't pay attention to what the aircraft was doing until stall warning activated at 460 feet, by which time it was too late. Had they paid attention, they would've also recovered and landed safely.

In contrast, Airbuses systems didn't malfunction. They worked as designed and made the already difficult situation (landing in bad weather) deadly due to not responding like a pilot would expect. The design was deeply flawed, just like MCAS.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#194

Post by inferiorhuman » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 9:16 PM UTC

mopsi wrote: post #190

inferiorhuman wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boeing, in contrast, uses simple radar altimeter. Which is problematic and has killed 134 people. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/easa-cautions-737... things like thrust reversers become available. Boeing rather famously had a problem with in-air thrust reverse deployment (not on the 73 though).

> Which is problematic Not at all. Its malfunctions are clear and obvious. If autothrottle starts moving thrust levers in unexpected ways, you turn the autothrottle off and assume manual control. Thrust levers, reversers, braking or any other systems were not blocked or deployed unexpectedly. The aircraft simply reduced thrust too much while in control of speed, which is something one should always look out for, it's…

Not at all. Its malfunctions are clear and obvious.

While the FAA seems to agree with you EASA, Transport Canada, Australia's ATSB, and Senegal's BEA seem to disagree.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#195

Post by wahern » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 9:33 PM UTC

magduf wrote: post #147

thaumasiotes wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Actually, there as an argument that it is not good for Airbus at all because it will risk the stability of duopoly between Boing and Airbus. I like thinking about this in a sort of hypothetical Sparta. Sparta had two kings from two different royal lines. Suppose you're one of two kings, and the other royal line experiences some sort of dynastic hiccup. This inevitably happens to everyone. A popular strategy through…

We'd be a lot better off with a 3rd maker of large passenger aircraft. Duopolies are never good for the market, and markets seem to do a lot better when there's 3 dominant players: with only 3, the players have very good economies of scale, but because there's 3 (and not 1 or 2), there's still a good amount of competition, while still having a lot of stability, so it balances out. Too many competitors means too littl…

The E195-E2 is much larger than a typical regional jet, and it even has the range to go coast-to-coast in the U.S. It seems to have been overshadowed by the A220, though, perhaps for good reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E-Jet_E2_family#E195-E...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A220#/media/File:CSerie...

I think what's missing in the Airbus-Boeing debate is an appreciation for the role of engine manufacturers. The A220, E195-E2, and Mitsubishi SpaceJet are all built around P&W's new geared turbofan engines.

It seems to me that at this point in the evolution of the industry everybody effectively builds their planes around the capabilities and limits of available engine technology. The immediate cause of death of the A380 was the refusal of any engine manufacturer to design and sell a more modern engine. The A380 became inefficient because its engines were at least 1.5 generations behind, not because there were 4 of them. (Of course, the reason nobody wanted to invest in a newer engine was because the market was too small to make it worth their time, especially considering their struggles with existing commitments.)

I imagine any aerospace engineering company could design a state-of-the-art and competitive body around the available engines. Aircraft manufacturers seem to self-select into market niches not because of engineering costs and difficulties, but simply because the global markets aren't large enough to support a third wide body manufacturer and only barely large enough, if at all, to support another 737/A320.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#196

Post by wahern » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 9:49 PM UTC

tormeh wrote: post #135

salex89 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The A380 might actually live the destiny of the 767 or 757. Sure, it was a handful for the manufacturer, luckily pulled it off, kinda broke even after some time. But it will be long gone when it will be really needed, when large hubs become even more congested or certain P2P lines heavily overgrow on themselves.

Good riddance. Despite being so big, its fuel efficiency is unimpressive. Something must be wrong with the design.

It's engines are old, at least 1.5 generations behind the latest engines in production. Fuel efficiency only looks low when compared to aircraft using more modern engines. Unsurprisingly, Emirates canceled their order only after Rolls-Royce rescinded their plans for an engine upgrade. That's why there was the one year of waffling; Airbus and Emirates were trying secure a commitment from Rolls-Royce as everything turned on an upgraded engine.

Even with the engine handicap the A380 was still generally competitive if fully loaded. And if not fully loaded it could still be competitive, as described by a recent story about the outsized role of the Dallas-Sydney route to Quantas' bottom line: https://simpleflying.com/dallas-sydney-qantas/ (see also https://www.dallasnews.com/business/airlines/2019/10/28/this...)

Considering that engine efficiency is perhaps the biggest contributor to financial viability, that says something very positive about the A380 approach and design. But as engines continued to advance the A380 would have lost even that edge.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#197

Post by inferiorhuman » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 9:49 PM UTC

mopsi wrote: post #193

inferiorhuman wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially so considering that there have been multiple hull-loss accidents with fatalities (LH2904, TAM3054), where air/ground detection has been a contributing factor. Throughout the years, the aircraft has been unable to tell whether it's on the ground or in the air. With the Lufthansa flight the problem was not the aircraft design but rather that the pilot remained on only one main gear for too long. The Airbus d…

In TAM and LH cases, pilots were locked out of using full braking capabilities of the aircraft because they found themselves in a situation that didn't satisfy the conditions defined as "landing" by aircraft designers. The had wheels on the ground, but program logic evaluated to onground = FALSE. Westjet and Turkish incidents are irrelevant. Westjet malfunctioned, pilot took control and landed safely - that's what pi…

The had wheels on the ground, but program logic evaluated to onground = FALSE.

Nope. The Lufthansa bird had one bogie on the ground and one off. With the TAM flight the pilots left one thrust lever at climb power and one at idle, pure pilot error.

The Westjet and Turkish incidents are irrelevant. Westjet malfunctioned, pilot took control and landed safely - that's what pilots are there for. Turkish airplane also malfunctioned and gave multiple warnings over several minutes, but pilots didn't pay attention to what the aircraft was doing until stall warning activated at 460 feet, by which time it was too late. Had they paid attention, they would've also recovered and landed safely.

Unfortunately the 737s were functioning as designed, the computers took invalid input and ran with it instead of cross checking it.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#198

Post by inferiorhuman » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 9:55 PM UTC

fleetingmoments wrote: post #172

magduf wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We'd be a lot better off with a 3rd maker of large passenger aircraft. Duopolies are never good for the market, and markets seem to do a lot better when there's 3 dominant players: with only 3, the players have very good economies of scale, but because there's 3 (and not 1 or 2), there's still a good amount of competition, while still having a lot of stability, so it balances out. Too many competitors means too littl…

Embraer is pretty large. Not Airbus or Boeing large but they make passenger aircraft for medium and shorter routes.

Embraer is pretty large. Not Airbus or Boeing large but they make passenger aircraft for medium and shorter routes.

Embraer's commercial business is owned by Boeing now — the subsidiary is called BBC.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#199

Post by mopsi » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 10:01 PM UTC

inferiorhuman wrote: post #194

mopsi wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which is problematic Not at all. Its malfunctions are clear and obvious. If autothrottle starts moving thrust levers in unexpected ways, you turn the autothrottle off and assume manual control. Thrust levers, reversers, braking or any other systems were not blocked or deployed unexpectedly. The aircraft simply reduced thrust too much while in control of speed, which is something one should always look out for, it's…

Not at all. Its malfunctions are clear and obvious. While the FAA seems to agree with you EASA, Transport Canada, Australia's ATSB, and Senegal's BEA seem to disagree.

Of course alerting could and was improved, but the Turkish accident wouldn't have happened if pilots had done the bare minimum of what's expected of them and monitored airspeed and altitude while they were flying close to ground and preparing to land any minute.

As said, autothrottle malfunction is a known unknown (with or without radio altimeter), something one can reasonably expect to happen, unlike the recent Airbus case where a bumpy landing led to loss of flight controls, something no pilot was trained for nor could reasonably expect to happen.

What's also important to stress is that loss of radio altimeter and autothrottle did not restrict Boeing pilots in any way. They had full control over the aircraft.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#200

Post by sandworm101 » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 11:15 PM UTC

rorykoehler wrote: post #136

coredog64 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wife surely wouldn’t. The upper deck lav leaked on our heads for half the flight from Sydney to LA. What’s worse than a 16 hour flight? A 16 hour flight where you have to stand in the aisles.

I generally spend most long haul flights standing in the aisle. It's much better for your back and butt.

Good luck when the turbulence comes. I've seen people suddenly up against the ceiling. It is rare, but extreme turbulence sometimes happens very suddenly.