A killing flight machine

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
25,570
Italy, Lago Maggiore
#11
There are two aspects that, in my opinion, investigators will consider with attention:

*1. Is it possible, and if it is in which circumstances, that the anti-stall system confuses data? Being an IT mananger, it happens I've got occasions to observe complicated softwares working in a wrong way because of mundane reasons [may be not pondered by the creators of the product]. Did they consider all the possible conditions after take off?

*2. Software - humans interactions. The software acts and the behavior of the plane changes, did they evaluate and test the instinctive reactions of the pilots? [I mean, did they did this enough?]

These are two simble and mundane points, but usually they are the reason why a software causes a disaster.

Obviously, there is a third point:

*3. Technical failure.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,251
Spain
#12
You did not specify the MAX- you stated that the 737 is a bad design.
That's a pretty sweeping generalization..
From my first post I wrote MAX 8... literally Boeing 737 -8 MAX is a coffin... lethal and incompatible with human life .

But Boeing 737 have had great design mistakes in the past...cost many lives... Do you remember nineties? I can see you have a very very very short memory...not my case....


Boeing 737 issue... in the old nineties and the Grunge Generation: do you remember the RUDDER? I can see not.. For your memory:



Do you want the list of 737 fatal crashed because the rudder bad design?

More about the Rudder wrong design in B737 in nineites (Not about MAX).

Boeing 737 Rudder Design Defect, Airline Safety, 737 crashes, rudder PCU

B737 is a plane with a very very very dark history...


You stated that Airbus are far superior.
Yes, Airbus is far superior in Security...B737 is superior about price, comsuption etc but not in Air-Security. The reason is in the "philosophy", In the "concept"...

Boeing is made by "Liberal"...for them, the base are: Money and Security.. but Money is more important than security... and we have the long, long very long list of B737 fatal crash. Airbus is European... is "Social-Democracy" (not better or worst, only different).. For Airbus, the two base are: Security and Money but Security is more important than money.
That is the reason because the Airbus are the safest planes on Earth.. planes as the legendary AIRBUS A340... flight from 1994... on Earth planet.. never never and never lost a life (1994-2019) = 25 years without lost a life...is it an expensive plane? yes... old fashion? Yes High Consumption? yes...but the safest plane? For sure... He is a gentle, powerful and always loyal workhorse. (and I write He not it.. because 340 is something more than a machine.. simply the best plane in the history!!!)

You are wrong about AF Flight 447... the crash was not caused by the temporary obstruction in Pitot....It was caused by the maneuvers of an untrained crew that caused the aircraft to stall, without them noticing and not making the necessary maneuvers for its recovery.

.. all because a bunch of pilots can't learn to turn TWO switches off when the system acts up.
Not, all because Boeing made change and said nothing.. All because Boeing sent wrong instructions handbooks... all because Boeing didn´t implement an adequate system of information to pilots.. Airbus have a not very different anti-stall system.. and not problem at all. Boeing have to change the software.
Do you remember the problems with the Batteries in Boeing 787? Fortunately nobody was killed... but now yes!

In fact if crew would have made NOTHING.. the A330 would have continued a stabilized fly without problems. So it was not necessary to ground the excellent A330.. in fact, it was the first, last and only fatal crash in the history (No way the Boeing 737 "COFFIN MAX".) Official Report F447 AF

. you're a genius
I know about what I am talking... Airbus is the Machine.. in singular.

The only thing I agree with you: Hysteria is good for nothing.


Arkteia:

I flew Boeing 737 Max twice
:oops::oops:o_O

You are the epitome of personal courage... the own Hernan Cortes pales before your heroism... Twice in 737 COFFIN MAX 8!!!!... And you didn´t lost life!!!! Unbelievable! but next time... Do not tempt your luck again and if you want to keep life ... make sure you fly on Airbus!

Hudson´s miracle was possible because a Super Pilot and because a super Plane... Airbus A320.... it would have been a Boeing...today we would have been working about the Hudson´s air-dissaster!


The man and the


The machine... Airbus A320...not so cheap not so low consumption but very reliable... Security is the first priority for Airbus.

Regards
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,251
Spain
#13
There are two aspects that, in my opinion, investigators will consider with attention:

*1. Is it possible, and if it is in which circumstances, that the anti-stall system confuses data? Being an IT mananger, it happens I've got occasions to observe complicated softwares working in a wrong way because of mundane reasons [may be not pondered by the creators of the product]. Did they consider all the possible conditions after take off?

*2. Software - humans interactions. The software acts and the behavior of the plane changes, did they evaluate and test the instinctive reactions of the pilots? [I mean, did they did this enough?]

These are two simble and mundane points, but usually they are the reason why a software causes a disaster.

Obviously, there is a third point:

*3. Technical failure.
I agree with you. Alpin... I think a combination: confuse data, Sofware-human interaction and technical failure and.. we can´t forget... Boeing´s inadequate system of communication to Airlines!!
 

Vaeltaja

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
3,682
#14
What i find peculiar that is issue - assumed it is related to the MACS - should appear only when on manual controls. Hearsay, i know, but some reports mark that the system would only be active while on manual control mode (apparently autopilot has its own flight envelope protections). Additionally some of the still fragmentary reports hint that the aircraft could be flown normally as long as the flaps were extended. One flight crew reported turned off the automatic trim system (which includes MACS) and could then proceed and fly normally. Of course it is still too early to say anything conclusively but all that indicates to a massive problem in the control logic of the MACS.
 
Dec 2011
4,570
Iowa USA
#15
There are two aspects that, in my opinion, investigators will consider with attention:

*1. Is it possible, and if it is in which circumstances, that the anti-stall system confuses data? Being an IT mananger, it happens I've got occasions to observe complicated softwares working in a wrong way because of mundane reasons [may be not pondered by the creators of the product]. Did they consider all the possible conditions after take off?

*2. Software - humans interactions. The software acts and the behavior of the plane changes, did they evaluate and test the instinctive reactions of the pilots? [I mean, did they did this enough?]

These are two simble and mundane points, but usually they are the reason why a software causes a disaster.

Obviously, there is a third point:

*3. Technical failure.
Your typical excellent contribution on a technical topic, thank you.
 

Sindane

Ad Honorem
Aug 2013
4,678
Europe
#17
They keep stretching the original design of these aircraft to fit a few more seats in. Then they have to move the engines about, make the wings longer an so on. This changes the weight distribution. So then they have to make the computers react to all these be new balance changes. This is all making more conplications. These Max versions of the 737 are now significantly different to older ones.

Then there is the new 777 version about to be introduced. This will be the longest passenger aircraft yet I think?

This is pushing the standard designs to limit. To keep up with the trend for short haul, narrow bodied aircraft. Instead of wider ones like the 747, 767 and so on
 
Likes: sparky

arkteia

Ad Honorem
Nov 2012
4,722
Seattle
#19
Jun 2012
7,136
Malaysia
#20
I would say, having the same exact aircraft model crash in relatively quick succession, both soon after takeoff too, does justify a healthy level of concern. It is quite common & natural to err, and we might well be erring in our initial quick judgement too. But in matters of safety, the basic principle to be held is to err on the side of safety, rather than the side of risk.

The onus & burden is now on the manufacturer to prove their product safe, rather than on the public to prove their fears right.

Just my puny two pence worth.
 
Likes: martin76

Similar History Discussions