Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Discuss.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,963|3491|London, England
The more that you depend on sensors and software the more failure points that are created. Automation systems require continual maintenance and the repairs tend to be expensive. Give me a dumb hydraulic or pneumatic system anyday.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
SuperJail Warden
Member
+185|1853
There was an article somewhere that went over the development of this version of the 737 and the issues that came with it. Basically they retrofitted modern avionics and engines onto an old frame design. And now they are crashing themselves as if they know the Frankenstein monsters that they are.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,601|4239|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

The more that you depend on sensors and software the more failure points that are created. Automation systems require continual maintenance and the repairs tend to be expensive. Give me a dumb hydraulic or pneumatic system anyday.
What if I told you that pilots rely on the exact same sensors that automation systems do, and make the exact same mistakes an automation system does when the sensors give faulty readings?

Faulty and part-worn hydraulic and pneumatic systems are hard to trouble-shoot and have caused plenty of deaths.

Pilot error is still the leading cause of air crashes, I'd rather have an automation system doing most of the work controlling a dumb hydraulic system.

Its the case now that modern passenger aircraft are sufficiently fragile and high performance that their operating envelope is very small and close to the point that they're unflyable without an automation system.
Without an automation system the wrong control inputs could disintegrate a plane in midair.
If something basic like an airspeed indicator fails then neither a pilot nor an automation system has any chance of flying them, they'll either crash or disintegrate midair.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2019-03-13 02:17:17)

Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,601|4239|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:

what's the engineers' take on the boeing PR disaster with their latest jet? donald trump thinks planes are 'too complicated to fly' now, lol.
Two new planes have crashed in very similar circumstances, its prudent to ground them until the cause is determined.

Of course the FAA will sit on its hands and protect Boeing, as they've done many times before, when if it were Airbus aircraft crashing they'd be screaming from the rooftops.

I bet Trump struggles with retractable biros.
Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
uziq
Member
+150|1586
can't wait for amish hipsters to bring back the horse and buggy.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,963|3491|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

The more that you depend on sensors and software the more failure points that are created. Automation systems require continual maintenance and the repairs tend to be expensive. Give me a dumb hydraulic or pneumatic system anyday.
What if I told you that pilots rely on the exact same sensors that automation systems do, and make the exact same mistakes an automation system does when the sensors give faulty readings?

Faulty and part-worn hydraulic and pneumatic systems are hard to trouble-shoot and have caused plenty of deaths.

Pilot error is still the leading cause of air crashes, I'd rather have an automation system doing most of the work controlling a dumb hydraulic system.

Its the case now that modern passenger aircraft are sufficiently fragile and high performance that their operating envelope is very small and close to the point that they're unflyable without an automation system.
Without an automation system the wrong control inputs could disintegrate a plane in midair.
If something basic like an airspeed indicator fails then neither a pilot nor an automation system has any chance of flying them, they'll either crash or disintegrate midair.
I admittedly don't know much about airplanes. It's not my specialty. When I complain about sensors and automation my experience stems from dealing with faulty building automation systems. They're expensive to install, never maintained, and the people put in charge of running the systems never understand them enough to actually take advantage of them.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
uziq
Member
+150|1586
i mean, aeronautical engineering and fans that blow cold air into a building, they're basically the same thing.
SuperJail Warden
Member
+185|1853
I install a wall air conditioner every summer. I am pretty much a HVAC engineer. It's not hard. Bunch of overpaid nerds.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,601|4239|eXtreme to the maX
I have some experience working on defence electronic systems, and I read a lot having been interested in aviation since shortly after birth.

What I do know is that if defence electronics and systems experts routinely make really dumb decisions then you can bet commercial avionics experts also make really dumb decisions. Often its experts stepping outside their area of expertise into an area they think must be easier than theirs. Physics, aerodynamics etc should be left to experts, not software engineers who think their job is the hardest so they can wing everything else. Chernobyl was caused by an electrical engineer thinking that nuclear reactor physics was simple stuff for example.

The two new variables are automation systems making mistakes, due to unsuitable code, faulty sensor readings or hardware failure, and human operators misunderstanding what the automation system is doing.
Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,744|4905|USA

I was listening to a program on the radio the other day on this. Apparently, and don't take me for my word on it, this system was a newly upgraded automation and pilots generally didn't receive any training with it. On one of the crashed planes (I didn't catch which), the pilots had even turned the system back on after disabling it. Also heard that the FAA would have pretty much acted on the new data contrary to previous statements, without the president's intervention. So that was probably redundant.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,601|4239|eXtreme to the maX
There are multiple systems working with and against each other, multiple systems triggering warnings, pilots don't get the training and updates so when things go wrong they get overloaded.

Glider pilots, apart from the one who got depressed and smacked an airliner into a mountain, usually make the best commercial pilots.
But then companies like Air France buy into the bullshit and conclude pilots don't even need to know how to fly - just manage the various systems and let the plane fly itself.
Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2019 Jeff Minard