Ethiopian plane crash
Discussion
Early on in this saga somebody posted that it wouldn't have happened in a western first world airline. I don't know whether that was you or not, and I'm not pointing fingers, but it was a bloody disgrace at the time, made all the worse when they are still grounded eighteen months later. This was not the pilot's fault, it was the culmination of a long chain of lousy decisions made by Boeing, and allowed to happen by the FAA.
M4cruiser said:
Dilemma also is when do you allow the aircraft to override the pilot's control?
Two examples (I'm sure there have been more): AF447, the aircraft knew it was going to crash, yet it allowed the pilots to crash.
German Wings: likewise.
AF447 was purely pilot error and basic CRM issues. It has been 30 years since I was pilot flying and it was alway very clear who was flying and when control was handed over. The flight crew failed to do this. Two examples (I'm sure there have been more): AF447, the aircraft knew it was going to crash, yet it allowed the pilots to crash.
German Wings: likewise.
Germany Wings was a massive outlier with pilot suicide. Fitting active terrain avoidance is not practical and such systems are not reliable enough for commercial use.
In both cases the aircraft was fully flyable and the pilot caused the crash. MCAS is different as it actively fights the pilot inputs within the flight envelope and hid what it was doing from the crew.
frisbee said:
Nissan made a drive by wire steering system, IIRC triplex computers and a backup mechanical linkage. So nice and simple!
Some of the brake by wire systems are interesting as well, self servoing so they can operate on 12 volts. I'm surprised manufacturers haven't put more effort into brake by wire, ditch all the hydraulics, the servo, the ABS valves and pumps and replace it all with a few electric actuators.
Having had an RS Turbo, anything has to be better than mechanical ABS.
The Nissan Leaf already has something similar for the braking, and if you google a bit you'll find it has been going wrong and leaving drivers with hardly any brakes. Typically in the New Zealand models for some strange reason.Some of the brake by wire systems are interesting as well, self servoing so they can operate on 12 volts. I'm surprised manufacturers haven't put more effort into brake by wire, ditch all the hydraulics, the servo, the ABS valves and pumps and replace it all with a few electric actuators.
Having had an RS Turbo, anything has to be better than mechanical ABS.
As for the rest, I think you'd still need hydraulics at the end of the line, as a motor acting directly on a brake pad probably can't give enough pressure?
A bit off topic, yes, but similar concepts in cars have less consequences. We need to learn a lot for both.
M4cruiser said:
frisbee said:
Nissan made a drive by wire steering system, IIRC triplex computers and a backup mechanical linkage. So nice and simple!
Some of the brake by wire systems are interesting as well, self servoing so they can operate on 12 volts. I'm surprised manufacturers haven't put more effort into brake by wire, ditch all the hydraulics, the servo, the ABS valves and pumps and replace it all with a few electric actuators.
Having had an RS Turbo, anything has to be better than mechanical ABS.
The Nissan Leaf already has something similar for the braking, and if you google a bit you'll find it has been going wrong and leaving drivers with hardly any brakes. Typically in the New Zealand models for some strange reason.Some of the brake by wire systems are interesting as well, self servoing so they can operate on 12 volts. I'm surprised manufacturers haven't put more effort into brake by wire, ditch all the hydraulics, the servo, the ABS valves and pumps and replace it all with a few electric actuators.
Having had an RS Turbo, anything has to be better than mechanical ABS.
As for the rest, I think you'd still need hydraulics at the end of the line, as a motor acting directly on a brake pad probably can't give enough pressure?
A bit off topic, yes, but similar concepts in cars have less consequences. We need to learn a lot for both.
https://www.wardsauto.com/news-analysis/siemensvdo...
I guess they've drifted a little behind schedule...
EASA flight testing for recertification to start next month
https://interestingengineering.com/boeings-737-max...
https://interestingengineering.com/boeings-737-max...
hutchst said:
El stovey said:
The MCAS was originally a high speed system to avoid high speed pitch up and protect from stalling, then in flight testing the issue with the engines showed the low speed pitch up characteristics so it got altered to cover that.
With MCAS the recovery was pretty straight forwards. Disengage the stab trim (to stop the aircraft electrical forwards trimming) and fly the aircraft.
Boeing max training was woeful initially, the CBT (computer based training) just said the max had a stall protection system, nothing about how it worked or what it did but certainly by the time of the second crash there was plenty of circulars about what to do if it went wrong.
Obviously there’s a debate about whether pilots should be having to recover the situation in the first place though.
I fly a pretty state of the art aircraft and the automatics are frequently doing weird things that might lead to undesirable outcomes. We’re constantly getting information from Boeing about software problems and what potential issues have resulted from them with other airlines etc. A fully automated passenger aircraft is a long way away.
Most of it doesn’t make the media as it hasn’t lead to crashes but most aircraft have been made with all kinds of issues that usually get ironed out over their long in service life.
Automation in civil aviation isn’t like in the military where it saves pilots from capture or allows higher g loads or more efficient designs and weight savings etc
Plus it’s not wanted by anyone (passengers, airlines, manufacturers) yet.
Aah, I see we're back to the old "third world pilots don't know how to fly these highly technical new aeroplanes" line of argument. It makes sense, obviously, because the manufacturers always ground the entire worldwide fleet for eighteen months because a couple of blokes in Ethiopia and Indonesia didn't read their emails.With MCAS the recovery was pretty straight forwards. Disengage the stab trim (to stop the aircraft electrical forwards trimming) and fly the aircraft.
Boeing max training was woeful initially, the CBT (computer based training) just said the max had a stall protection system, nothing about how it worked or what it did but certainly by the time of the second crash there was plenty of circulars about what to do if it went wrong.
Obviously there’s a debate about whether pilots should be having to recover the situation in the first place though.
I fly a pretty state of the art aircraft and the automatics are frequently doing weird things that might lead to undesirable outcomes. We’re constantly getting information from Boeing about software problems and what potential issues have resulted from them with other airlines etc. A fully automated passenger aircraft is a long way away.
Most of it doesn’t make the media as it hasn’t lead to crashes but most aircraft have been made with all kinds of issues that usually get ironed out over their long in service life.
Automation in civil aviation isn’t like in the military where it saves pilots from capture or allows higher g loads or more efficient designs and weight savings etc
Plus it’s not wanted by anyone (passengers, airlines, manufacturers) yet.
Alternatively, these aeroplanes were flying death traps when they were released into service.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdvWXxtHNuQ
Pretty damning audio recording of some American Airlines pilots having a right go at Boeing engineers as to why MCAS was not fully transparent to all pilots who would fly the type, Basically along the lines of "just wtf is this system and why didn't you tell us exactly how it works.
Not 737 related I know but 8 Boeing 787-10s have now been grounded due to structural problems where the tail section joins the main fuselage, it's a problem that could lead to structural failure under certain conditions, the aircraft in question are at United Airlines, Air Canada and Singapore Airlines and were "joined" together at the Charleston plant.
WyrleyD said:
Not 737 related I know but 8 Boeing 787-10s have now been grounded due to structural problems where the tail section joins the main fuselage, it's a problem that could lead to structural failure under certain conditions, the aircraft in question are at United Airlines, Air Canada and Singapore Airlines and were "joined" together at the Charleston plant.
https://simpleflying.com/boeing-787-structural-wor...
WyrleyD said:
Not 737 related I know but 8 Boeing 787-10s have now been grounded due to structural problems where the tail section joins the main fuselage, it's a problem that could lead to structural failure under certain conditions, the aircraft in question are at United Airlines, Air Canada and Singapore Airlines and were "joined" together at the Charleston plant.
8 airframes out of a global fleet of approx. 1000. Hardly comparable to a systemic failure like MCAS.It's not our fault...
The top engineers overseeing the design of Boeing Co.’s 737 Max told congressional investigators they weren’t aware of key design decisions later identified as flaws in two fatal crashes.
Keith Leverkuhn and Michael Teal, both of whom were vice presidents overseeing engineering work on the development of the 737 Max, told the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that lower-level employees had made the design decisions on the now-grounded jetliner.
“The technical leaders well below my level would have gone into that level of detail,” Teal said about the decision to design a safety feature on the plane so that it could repeatedly dive. Transcripts of the interviews, conducted in May, were obtained by Bloomberg News.
That feature, known as Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, was cited by investigators as a main reason for a crash in October 2018 off the coast of Indonesia. A preliminary report on a second crash in Ethiopia in March 2019 indicates the same system activated, leading to a steep dive and crash.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-13...
The top engineers overseeing the design of Boeing Co.’s 737 Max told congressional investigators they weren’t aware of key design decisions later identified as flaws in two fatal crashes.
Keith Leverkuhn and Michael Teal, both of whom were vice presidents overseeing engineering work on the development of the 737 Max, told the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that lower-level employees had made the design decisions on the now-grounded jetliner.
“The technical leaders well below my level would have gone into that level of detail,” Teal said about the decision to design a safety feature on the plane so that it could repeatedly dive. Transcripts of the interviews, conducted in May, were obtained by Bloomberg News.
That feature, known as Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, was cited by investigators as a main reason for a crash in October 2018 off the coast of Indonesia. A preliminary report on a second crash in Ethiopia in March 2019 indicates the same system activated, leading to a steep dive and crash.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-13...
Oh man.
Hopefully the follow up question was along the lines of "And who's responsible for creating the culture in those departments where staff felt they could or should, make those decisions."
It's not about the specific decision that was taken. It's about the culture pushed down from above, and what that makes the employees do.
Anybody in Boeing should have the power to spot a genuine single point of failure in a safety critical system (say a single AoA sensor), and stop the planes leaving the ground. Who's responsible for nobody either trying to do that, or being listened to if they did.
You don't get to side step this by going "how can I know what everybody is doing". That's not how this works.
Hopefully the follow up question was along the lines of "And who's responsible for creating the culture in those departments where staff felt they could or should, make those decisions."
It's not about the specific decision that was taken. It's about the culture pushed down from above, and what that makes the employees do.
Anybody in Boeing should have the power to spot a genuine single point of failure in a safety critical system (say a single AoA sensor), and stop the planes leaving the ground. Who's responsible for nobody either trying to do that, or being listened to if they did.
You don't get to side step this by going "how can I know what everybody is doing". That's not how this works.
M4cruiser said:
frisbee said:
Nissan made a drive by wire steering system, IIRC triplex computers and a backup mechanical linkage. So nice and simple!
Some of the brake by wire systems are interesting as well, self servoing so they can operate on 12 volts. I'm surprised manufacturers haven't put more effort into brake by wire, ditch all the hydraulics, the servo, the ABS valves and pumps and replace it all with a few electric actuators.
Having had an RS Turbo, anything has to be better than mechanical ABS.
The Nissan Leaf already has something similar for the braking, and if you google a bit you'll find it has been going wrong and leaving drivers with hardly any brakes. Typically in the New Zealand models for some strange reason.Some of the brake by wire systems are interesting as well, self servoing so they can operate on 12 volts. I'm surprised manufacturers haven't put more effort into brake by wire, ditch all the hydraulics, the servo, the ABS valves and pumps and replace it all with a few electric actuators.
Having had an RS Turbo, anything has to be better than mechanical ABS.
As for the rest, I think you'd still need hydraulics at the end of the line, as a motor acting directly on a brake pad probably can't give enough pressure?
A bit off topic, yes, but similar concepts in cars have less consequences. We need to learn a lot for both.
Munter said:
Oh man.
Hopefully the follow up question was along the lines of "And who's responsible for creating the culture in those departments where staff felt they could or should, make those decisions."
It's not about the specific decision that was taken. It's about the culture pushed down from above, and what that makes the employees do.
Anybody in Boeing should have the power to spot a genuine single point of failure in a safety critical system (say a single AoA sensor), and stop the planes leaving the ground. Who's responsible for nobody either trying to do that, or being listened to if they did.
You don't get to side step this by going "how can I know what everybody is doing". That's not how this works.
Spot on. This is what depresses me most about this whole horrific debacle. The problem is not just the system, but the entire culture that lead to such a system being seen as acceptable.Hopefully the follow up question was along the lines of "And who's responsible for creating the culture in those departments where staff felt they could or should, make those decisions."
It's not about the specific decision that was taken. It's about the culture pushed down from above, and what that makes the employees do.
Anybody in Boeing should have the power to spot a genuine single point of failure in a safety critical system (say a single AoA sensor), and stop the planes leaving the ground. Who's responsible for nobody either trying to do that, or being listened to if they did.
You don't get to side step this by going "how can I know what everybody is doing". That's not how this works.
Boeing are in a very bad place and from the sounds of it, are still there.
Munter said:
Oh man.
Hopefully the follow up question was along the lines of "And who's responsible for creating the culture in those departments where staff felt they could or should, make those decisions."
It's not about the specific decision that was taken. It's about the culture pushed down from above, and what that makes the employees do.
Boeing follow the 'Lean Six Sigma' management methodology which helps them to resolve any potential issues.....Hopefully the follow up question was along the lines of "And who's responsible for creating the culture in those departments where staff felt they could or should, make those decisions."
It's not about the specific decision that was taken. It's about the culture pushed down from above, and what that makes the employees do.
https://www.henryharvin.com/blog/boeing-case-study...
Around five years ago we had a LSS 'Guru' come to our workplace and the amount of BS spewed was outstanding, Boeing was used as the case study on how to improve a company but it looks like this LSS has been indirectly responsible for the cutting of corners.
untakenname said:
Munter said:
Oh man.
Hopefully the follow up question was along the lines of "And who's responsible for creating the culture in those departments where staff felt they could or should, make those decisions."
It's not about the specific decision that was taken. It's about the culture pushed down from above, and what that makes the employees do.
Boeing follow the 'Lean Six Sigma' management methodology which helps them to resolve any potential issues.....Hopefully the follow up question was along the lines of "And who's responsible for creating the culture in those departments where staff felt they could or should, make those decisions."
It's not about the specific decision that was taken. It's about the culture pushed down from above, and what that makes the employees do.
https://www.henryharvin.com/blog/boeing-case-study...
Around five years ago we had a LSS 'Guru' come to our workplace and the amount of BS spewed was outstanding, Boeing was used as the case study on how to improve a company but it looks like this LSS has been indirectly responsible for the cutting of corners.
Six Sigma is a perfectly fine way of looking at process improvement etc.
However, if there is one industry that shouldn't need it, it is the aviation industry. The whole point of our working practices is that continuous improvement and measuring what needs to be measured and acting upon it is what we do.
This tells me (as someone who has specialised in transformation and change within airlines and aircraft engineering for a number of years) that Boeing is not run by people with any understanding of what they need to be doing or what their culture should look like. They have cast around to look for something that they might understand.
Managers need Six Sigma. Professionals who also manage don't.
untakenname said:
Boeing follow the 'Lean Six Sigma' management methodology which helps them to resolve any potential issues.....
https://www.henryharvin.com/blog/boeing-case-study...
Around five years ago we had a LSS 'Guru' come to our workplace and the amount of BS spewed was outstanding, Boeing was used as the case study on how to improve a company but it looks like this LSS has been indirectly responsible for the cutting of corners.
I have an acquaintance from my university days - a notorious bullshttps://www.henryharvin.com/blog/boeing-case-study...
Around five years ago we had a LSS 'Guru' come to our workplace and the amount of BS spewed was outstanding, Boeing was used as the case study on how to improve a company but it looks like this LSS has been indirectly responsible for the cutting of corners.
tter. Back then he had a weekend and evening job in a bike warehouse yet we had the impression the company belonged to his family and he was the general manager of the distribution arm. He became an engineer and has claimed the ladder nicely. According to his LinkedIn profile and his email signature, he's a Six Sigma BlackbeltThat is the way six sigma training is scaled - Yellow, Green, Black. yellow belt is a 1 day introduction based on standard processes and the principles of variation. Green belts get a week doing work on data collection and statistical analysis. Black belts get in to full design if experiments.
Many courses I have seen advertised are attendance based not achievement. Six sigma became a bit of a buzzword some time back and was jumped on be the training organisations as the next money maker. Like any toolbox, you have to select the right tools or everything starts to look like a nail.
I have had my black belt for well over 10 years but it is not on my business card or email signature. I don’t use Facebook for business.
Many courses I have seen advertised are attendance based not achievement. Six sigma became a bit of a buzzword some time back and was jumped on be the training organisations as the next money maker. Like any toolbox, you have to select the right tools or everything starts to look like a nail.
I have had my black belt for well over 10 years but it is not on my business card or email signature. I don’t use Facebook for business.
Starfighter said:
That is the way six sigma training is scaled - Yellow, Green, Black. yellow belt is a 1 day introduction based on standard processes and the principles of variation. Green belts get a week doing work on data collection and statistical analysis. Black belts get in to full design if experiments.
Many courses I have seen advertised are attendance based not achievement. Six sigma became a bit of a buzzword some time back and was jumped on be the training organisations as the next money maker. Like any toolbox, you have to select the right tools or everything starts to look like a nail.
I have had my black belt for well over 10 years but it is not on my business card or email signature. I don’t use Facebook for business.
Its a poor choice of qualification grade though. It makes it sound like a bullsMany courses I have seen advertised are attendance based not achievement. Six sigma became a bit of a buzzword some time back and was jumped on be the training organisations as the next money maker. Like any toolbox, you have to select the right tools or everything starts to look like a nail.
I have had my black belt for well over 10 years but it is not on my business card or email signature. I don’t use Facebook for business.
t management fad from the off.Black belts are synonymous with martial arts, not weedy blokes in middle management
Edited by 98elise on Tuesday 22 September 07:05
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff