Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

All Boeing 737 MAX Aircraft Grounded

139 posts in this topic

There was a very interesting documentary on Channel 5 last week about known problems with Boeing 747s, mainly with their engines.  Unfortunately, there was another documentary on another channel about the missing MH 370 plane and I ended up watching that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boeing stock has been going in the crapper since the latest crash.

 

It seems that the MAX 8 is so advanced that the pilots can't override certain functions or haven't all been trained up to do so.

 

A lot of speculation out there. I know I won't fly on one of those models.

 

One expert said that when the first plane goes down, it is pilot error. When the second one goes, it's the plane. Kind of a rule of thumb.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tap said:

There was a very interesting documentary on Channel 5 last week about known problems with Boeing 747s, mainly with their engines.

 

That the documentary they regularly repeat about the very early days of the B747 when the engines used to explode?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're in an ever faster rush to include software in just about everything whether it is actually of use or not. So, they say it could be down to a software glitch and Boeing are working on a patch but was it really neccessary in the first place and why is there no pilot overide? Or was it developed by former Microsoft programmers?

 

The amount of times accidents have been attributed to software failures in all forms of transport makes you wonder why they are not more rigourously controlled.

 

e.g

Boeing chinook crash Mull of Kintyre - FADAC engine software failure (supposedly)

Airbus A300 decided to land when doing a low level flypass at an airshow.

Airbus A400M in Spain folowing dodgy downloading of engine software

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, French bean said:

We're in an ever faster rush to include software in just about everything whether it is actually of use or not. So, they say it could be down to a software glitch and Boeing are working on a patch but was it really neccessary in the first place and why is there no pilot overide? Or was it developed by former Microsoft programmers?

 

The amount of times accidents have been attributed to software failures in all forms of transport makes you wonder why they are not more rigourously controlled.

 

e.g

Boeing chinook crash Mull of Kintyre - FADAC engine software failure (supposedly)

Airbus A300 decided to land when doing a low level flypass at an airshow.

Airbus A400M in Spain folowing dodgy downloading of engine software

 

 

It's not a simple answer and none of us are qualified to say (except maybe HEM I guess). You have to compare the number of accidents caused by software glitches to the number of accidents that would happen if the software was not there. Maybe a piece of software caused 5 accidents in 10 years. But it's possible that without this software there would have been 20 accidents in that time.

 

It's the same problem with driverless cars. There were 3180 road deaths in Germany last year. If there were to be 3000 road deaths when we all have driverless cars then, in theory, that would be a success. But it wouldn't be perceived that way. Driverless technology is more or less being asked to achieve zero accidents.

 

The collective conscience almost seems to accept that it's better to have 10 deaths due to human error than it is to have one death due to software.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair point but previous aircraft that did not have this type of stall software and did not seem to have this type of accident. The pilot was entrusted to make the final decision. IIRC the Lion Air crash pilots were thought to have struggled against the aircraft to keep it in the air. Surely there would be  a disable switch to allow the pilot to take full control.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, theGman said:

It's not a simple answer and none of us are qualified to say (except maybe HEM I guess).

 

I am not qualified either.  The accident investigation folks will get to the bottom of this - not Bild Zeitung.

It will take time - as did with AF447, to which they worked out what had taken place (once they got the flight & cockpit voice recorders).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, French bean said:

Fair point but previous aircraft that did not have this type of stall software and did not seem to have this type of accident.

 

My bold. The point is that with this software they had, let's say, 5 accidents of this type. It's possible that without this software then there would have been, over the same period of time, 20 accidents of another type.

 

Quote

The pilot was entrusted to make the final decision. IIRC the Lion Air crash pilots were thought to have struggled against the aircraft to keep it in the air. Surely there would be  a disable switch to allow the pilot to take full control.

 

One could think, yes. But then again...maybe pilots taking control prematurely was resulting in more accidents so they took that feature away. Maybe taking away a disable switch has resulted in one crash, but having it there has caused 5 crashes. Like I said before, you would have to look at the data. You need to be an expert. It's simply not that black and white.

 

I'm just playing devils advocate here. I have no idea. But that's my point. You don't either. Believe me, I always do this. I believe in data and statistics only. It's a real conversation killer. My wife hates it.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, HEM said:

The accident investigation folks will get to the bottom of this - not Bild Zeitung.

 

Exactly. And just like the Bild, our opinion on here also counts for shit.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the points you have raised, Gman. Such things had never occurred to me before i.e. how many times so and so would have happened without the software?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, fraufruit said:

I like the points you have raised, Gman. Such things had never occurred to me before i.e. how many times so and so would have happened without the software?

 

I have to think like that for my job. Assume nothing, test everything, trust only the data. The problem is that over the years it seeps into the way I think and treat everything. Either rightly or wrongly, it does tend to kill conversations. I think I have gotten worse in more recent years thanks to Brexit, Trump, fake news and the general growing hostility towards data, science and statistics.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

USA has not grounded the fleet yet.  

 

" While Ethiopian has a strong reputation for safety, the airline has been expanding rapidly at a time of rising demand for pilots worldwide, and experts have questioned the experience of those commanding Flight 302. Ethiopian Airlines said the copilot, Ahmed Nur Mohammod Nur, only had 200 hours of flight time, a sharp contrast with the U.S., where 1,500 hours is required to take the second seat on a commercial plane.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, catjones said:

USA has not grounded the fleet yet.  

 

" While Ethiopian has a strong reputation for safety, the airline has been expanding rapidly at a time of rising demand for pilots worldwide, and experts have questioned the experience of those commanding Flight 302. Ethiopian Airlines said the copilot, Ahmed Nur Mohammod Nur, only had 200 hours of flight time, a sharp contrast with the U.S., where 1,500 hours is required to take the second seat on a commercial plane.

But the captain had 8000 hours. You'll also find that he probably spent a lot of time in a simulator honing his skills.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, French bean said:

But the captain had 8000 hours. You'll also find that he probably spent a lot of time in a simulator honing his skills.

" Whether the experience he had was sufficient to handle the 737 MAX depends on what planes he flew previously and for how long—more automated Airbus models or the older 737. Details of Getachew’s experience have yet to be made public. "

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My contention is why risk human lives trying to enhance the aircraft by adding all kinds of new unused software prototypes that seasoned veteran airline pilots are clearly unfamiliar and inexperienced with, and it's done already knowing how software bugs have caused catastrophes such as space shuttle explosions? Why not manufacture a plane with the basic ability to get the damn passengers from point A to point B? You wanna play with software and new age equipment, that's fine...so long as it's YOUR asses in the aircraft spending the minimum 5000 hours testing the prototypes rigorously through enough to confidently say that all bugs have been worked out.

 

That way, when there is an "oopsie" like there has already been twice, they can simply consider all the involved engineers and software developers on board automatically fired by default (hahaha :D I crack myself up) and they can find someone more qualified to design and build a more reliable aircraft.

 

They really need to quit experimenting with technology, and just stick to building an aircraft that gets you where you need to be. Period.

 

</antisocial>

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, razorsandroses said:

 

They really need to quit experimenting with technology, and just stick to building an aircraft that gets you where you need to be. Period.

 

</antisocial>

 

Like this maybe? :rolleyes:

160727135306-iconic-aircraft-bleriot-xi-57341758-super-169.jpg

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0