Costly Airbus paint flaw goes wider than the Gulf • Hacker News Board

Re: Costly Airbus paint flaw goes wider than the Gulf

#101

Post by kayfox » Tue, Nov 30, 2021, 12:41 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #88

WalterBright wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problems were: 1. poor MCAS design 2. poor maintenance 3. pilots not following runaway trim emergency procedures The media pretty much never mentions (3). Note that 3 flights experienced the MCAS malfunction. 1 applied runaway trim emergency procedures, continued with the flight, and landed safely. https://theaircurrent.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/B737-MA... 2018 - 035 - PK-LQP Final Report http://knkt.dephub.…

For those who don't like what I wrote, I encourage you to read the cites, which are official documents, rather than what journalists who literally know nothing about flying, piloting, or aircraft design, imagine is true.

I think the biggest lie I have seen the news on the MAX make "true" has been that MCAS exists to make the MAX fly like previous 737s and that it could have been omitted if the aircraft were a new type...

Of course: 1. The MAX can't be a new type, it would have to be clean-sheet at that point just from all the grandfathered items. 2. That view grossly oversimplifies how type ratings work for pilots. 3. MCAS exists to conform to the FARs (control force curves), not some "make it fly like a 737NG" thing.

Re: Costly Airbus paint flaw goes wider than the Gulf

#102

Post by kayfox » Tue, Nov 30, 2021, 12:48 AM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #100

WalterBright wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first Lion Air flight crew correctly followed the runaway trim procedure and landed safely. The next crew on the same airplane crashed. Boeing then issued an Emergency Airworthiness Directive to ALL 737MAX PILOTS: "Initially, higher control forces may be needed to overcome any stabilizer nose down trim already applied. Electric stabilizer trim can be used to neutralize control column pitch forces before moving th…

ET302 (the second crash) is worse in some ways. That crew correctly diagnosed the stab trim runaway, (eventually) executed the stab trim cutout procedure, got the aircraft somewhat under control (albeit still at full thrust), flew for a time, then (somewhat correctly) judged that unless they were going to pull power, they needed to use the electric stab trim (the manual trim was difficult to move because of the high…

Hopefully the final report on that crash will come out soon. It will probably be like the final report on the Lion Air crash where the training factors are downplayed in contrast to fixing blame on Boeing and noone else.

I worry that this obsession with fixing only the hardware is the industry trying to sweep the training factors under the rug in hope that the current trend towards accidents being a result of serious training deficiencies will remain widely unnoticed.

Re: Costly Airbus paint flaw goes wider than the Gulf

#103

Post by WalterBright » Tue, Nov 30, 2021, 1:15 AM UTC

kayfox wrote: post #102

sokoloff wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ET302 (the second crash) is worse in some ways. That crew correctly diagnosed the stab trim runaway, (eventually) executed the stab trim cutout procedure, got the aircraft somewhat under control (albeit still at full thrust), flew for a time, then (somewhat correctly) judged that unless they were going to pull power, they needed to use the electric stab trim (the manual trim was difficult to move because of the high…

Hopefully the final report on that crash will come out soon. It will probably be like the final report on the Lion Air crash where the training factors are downplayed in contrast to fixing blame on Boeing and noone else. I worry that this obsession with fixing only the hardware is the industry trying to sweep the training factors under the rug in hope that the current trend towards accidents being a result of serious…

> the industry trying to

Perhaps, but the Frontline episode didn't play like an industry point of view. It was pretty anti-industry.

Aviation Week is more of a pro-industry publication, and their coverage of the MAX seemed pretty even-handed to me.

Cars are designed for people who don't read the manual. Airplanes cannot be that way, but I get the feeling that non-aviation people expect this to be possible. An airplane cannot just pull over and call AAA.

Re: Costly Airbus paint flaw goes wider than the Gulf

#104

Post by Rexxar » Tue, Nov 30, 2021, 3:50 AM UTC

1cvmask wrote: post #5

It seems that victim blaming is not something specific to just Boeing. Airbus blamed Qatar airways and the hot weather till similar issues emerged with planes of Finn Air and Air France in colder climates. Whatever happened to the customer is always right? Guess it is easier to victim blame when you operate in essence a duopoly. Competition is critical to solve these issues in the long run.

Blaming climate is not blaming victim. When they blame climate they know they will have to fix this themselves and take this problem into account for new planes. They won't ask Qatar Airways to change climate of Qatar.

Blaming climate was more a way to tell other customers "we thing you will not have this problem"

Re: Costly Airbus paint flaw goes wider than the Gulf

#105

Post by thfuran » Tue, Nov 30, 2021, 3:50 AM UTC

hulitu wrote: post #51

bityard wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe they should have had more testing or more should have gone into reliable inspection and repair. Hindsight is so very easy to deploy from the comfort of the HN comments section. If everyone was this pessimistic, nobody would ever get things out of the R&D lab and into the real world.

There are other industries beside "code fast, break things often and let the user test it". In some industries a test not done on time or skipped can cost later a lot of money.

Aviation is already one of the most conservative industries there is.

Re: Costly Airbus paint flaw goes wider than the Gulf

#106

Post by ethbr0 » Tue, Nov 30, 2021, 4:34 AM UTC

S_A_P wrote: post #99

ethbr0 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess GP's point could be summarized as "Does the amount of complexity required to improve planes now exceed our ability to manage?" Curious in responses from that perspective. Are airframes that much more complicated? Or just better due to advances in aerodynamic understanding, but not much more complicated? And same question for engines. Are modern high-bypass turbofans more complex?

This. It seems that to some degree our knowledge rests on prior experience and passed down knowledge. As we build abstraction layers on top of technology the bare metal understanding is lost. I’m going to contradict my original question to some degree by stating that I know that air travel is safer than ever. My question is more just wondering out loud if there is a point where we rely on “solved” problems so much th…

I think complexity + necessarily large organizations are a huge contributing factor.

MCAS would have not been an issue is any one of the layers above engineering had questioned the decision to avoid training requirements (e.g. Boeing management, FAA management).

Unfortunately, systems are so complex now that it was possible to summarize the details in a way that hid the necessary information. And when it went up further, even more summarization.

It feels like this wouldn't have been as easy with simpler, older systems. I mean, presumably a manager could look at a biplane and say "Hey, that doesn't have enough thrust to weight."

Re: Costly Airbus paint flaw goes wider than the Gulf

#107

Post by danielEM » Tue, Nov 30, 2021, 5:48 AM UTC

When I read article saying and showing how Airbus is failing badly on its paint and Boeing is only slightly mentioned in it it does look to me like an article to build up certain emotions against Airbus.

I'm quite scared of modern journalism and how facts can be used to manipulate and mislead people.

Re: Costly Airbus paint flaw goes wider than the Gulf

#108

Post by cjrp » Tue, Nov 30, 2021, 10:13 AM UTC

cowgoesmoo wrote: post #53

cjrp wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly looks more than cosmetic in the photos, surely has an effect on the aerodynamics if you're flying around with mesh on show.

It might increase parasitic drag by a tiny amount, which will reduce fuel efficiency, but these planes have so much thrust that the increase in drag is negligible to the actual operations of the aircraft.

Oh absolutely, it says a lot about modern aircraft design that when I say it has an effect I just mean a 1% increase in fuel consumption!

Re: Costly Airbus paint flaw goes wider than the Gulf

#109

Post by OldHand2018 » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 1:22 AM UTC

nickff wrote: post #72

OldHand2018 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really liked the old American Airlines scheme where they just didn't paint the airplane. It was beautiful. But in the modern age, if you need a metal mesh around a carbon fiber fuselage then not painting the airplane is probably not an option. Sad.

> " I really liked the old American Airlines scheme where they just didn't paint the airplane." It wasn't quite that simple. I believe the 'bare metal' finish actually had a layer of protective varnish painted on, to protect the metal from oxidation (anyone who has handled bare aluminum can tell you that it develops a layer of oxide very quickly). In addition to that, the panels had to be specially chosen and very ca…

I found this page, you may like it :)

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_05/texto...

> The decision to paint or polish the metal surfaces of airplanes is based on marketing, economic, and environmental considerations. Although the net operating cost of polished airplanes is slightly more than that of painted airplanes, no compelling reason generally exists to choose one type of livery over the other.