5 ms·

What I fail to understand is why do they not design an overriding scheme to MCAS, such as an "above-threshold" pull on the stick by the pilot. I can recall that

What I fail to understand is why do they not design an overriding scheme to MCAS, such as an "above-threshold" pull on the stick by the pilot. I can recall that this was a classic design by Boeing. Whatever the number of AoA sensors, the system should be easy and straightforward to disable. Those logics of "let's guess automatically if that sensor is failing" are just pushing the problem further. The real problem is too much reliance on automatic systems and top little human integration in the overall system (the human-machine system, that is to say).

nutjob2 8y ago
The problem isn't too much reliance on automatic systems, it's that the systems are a half baked combination of the two. The MCAS system is an example of that. As you say that overriding design is typical in Boeing planes, but MCAS purposefully overrides it, that is, pushing the controls hard, which overrides other automatic functions, has no effect on MCAS.
- ptidhomme 8y ago
  I'd say this is why they are half-baked : human integration was not thouroughly thought of in the design. When I speak of overriding, I mean human overriding. This is something I think Boeing had got right with its manual overrides : when you design critical systems, you need human backup schemes, but you can go further and make these backup tightly integrated with the rest of the (highly automated) system.
  - CaptainZapp 8y ago
    I'd say this is why they are half-baked : human integration was not thouroughly thought of in the design. When I speak of overriding, I mean human overriding. That's pretty obvious, given by the fact that the system was initially not even documented nor was the scenario allegedly available for training in the brand spanking new 787-MAX simulator.
ishan1121 8y ago
The airline manufacturers have to push for automatic systems as they are the one of the features that sells. One of a close friend of mine who works at Airbus said that the company believes the next gen aircrafts would only require a single person in the cockpit, and everything will be handled through automations. Airbus aircrafts are more automated than Boeing. If Boeing does not work on the automation part, it could loose to Airbus. Airbus faced AoA problem back in 2009, when Quantas flight suddenly dropped from the air. But they were able to patch it up within a month and no reported case has come up since then. So I believe Boeing working on Automation is a good thing, and they should be able to fix it up.
- netsharc 8y ago
  > the next gen aircrafts would only require a single person in the cockpit, and everything will be handled through automations. Hasn't that myth been around for years, along with "Planes can take off and land by themselves?" https://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/automation-myths/ https://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/automation-myths...
  - cm2187 8y ago
    He may be right for the state of what has actually been wired up in today’s cockpits, but conceptually I don’t see why you couldn’t fully automate a plane. Even in emergency situations, pilots are required to follow established procedures and check lists, not become creative. The pilot mentions the example of an aborted take off, I can’t think of any reason an auto pilot wouldn’t be able to perform one. And of course you will need even more redundancy than there is today as you won’t have pilots who can look out at the window and come up with their own opinion of what is going on, and challenge improbable readings. Plus you can always have the option to have remote manual control if you really need to. Of course there are parts of today’s aviation that are incompatible with automation. ATC over radio is one of them. Visual landing only at many airports is another one. There would be large costs to upgrading the infrastructures to be computer friendly, so I am not saying the switch is trivial, but it is bound to happen nevertheless.
    - 8y ago
j16sdiz 8y ago
New overriding scheme means more training. The selling point of 737MAX is any 737 pilot can fly on it without new training.
- josteink 8y ago
  That was the selling point, yes, but it doesn’t seem to be quite true in real life. So if they can’t hold that promise anyway, why not provide a better interface?
  - chaosprophet 8y ago
    Because if they didn't pretend that it was the same to fly a 737 and a 737 max, then they would be required to have pilots get a separate type certification for the max, which is costly for airlines and makes the airlines very reluctant to order the max.
- ptidhomme 8y ago
  Well, it was the selling point. I'm thinking now of the upgrades. Anyway, for the sake of selling, they went into the biggest failure of modern aerospace engineering. This should just not have happened.
- tomnm 8y ago
  I can't stop thinking whether similar "compromises" had been made when redesigning the airframe. It's engineering after all. The engineers could be pressed by the management to make certain changes for the sake of profit.
  - golergka 8y ago
    But managers rely on engineers to let them know when some compromise can be made and when it is absolutely vital not to do it.
    - iSnow 8y ago
      But management also relies on customers to tell them which compromise is vital to selling a product. And in a market with such huge price-pressure as aeronautics, I can easily see how this is going to override engineer's concerns.

nutjob2 8y ago

The problem isn't too much reliance on automatic systems, it's that the systems are a half baked combination of the two. The MCAS system is an example of that. As you say that overriding design is typical in Boeing planes, but MCAS purposefully overrides it, that is, pushing the controls hard, which overrides other automatic functions, has no effect on MCAS.

ptidhomme 8y ago
I'd say this is why they are half-baked : human integration was not thouroughly thought of in the design. When I speak of overriding, I mean human overriding. This is something I think Boeing had got right with its manual overrides : when you design critical systems, you need human backup schemes, but you can go further and make these backup tightly integrated with the rest of the (highly automated) system.
- CaptainZapp 8y ago
  I'd say this is why they are half-baked : human integration was not thouroughly thought of in the design. When I speak of overriding, I mean human overriding. That's pretty obvious, given by the fact that the system was initially not even documented nor was the scenario allegedly available for training in the brand spanking new 787-MAX simulator.

ishan1121 8y ago

The airline manufacturers have to push for automatic systems as they are the one of the features that sells. One of a close friend of mine who works at Airbus said that the company believes the next gen aircrafts would only require a single person in the cockpit, and everything will be handled through automations. Airbus aircrafts are more automated than Boeing. If Boeing does not work on the automation part, it could loose to Airbus. Airbus faced AoA problem back in 2009, when Quantas flight suddenly dropped from the air. But they were able to patch it up within a month and no reported case has come up since then. So I believe Boeing working on Automation is a good thing, and they should be able to fix it up.

netsharc 8y ago
> the next gen aircrafts would only require a single person in the cockpit, and everything will be handled through automations. Hasn't that myth been around for years, along with "Planes can take off and land by themselves?" https://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/automation-myths/ https://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/automation-myths...
- cm2187 8y ago
  He may be right for the state of what has actually been wired up in today’s cockpits, but conceptually I don’t see why you couldn’t fully automate a plane. Even in emergency situations, pilots are required to follow established procedures and check lists, not become creative. The pilot mentions the example of an aborted take off, I can’t think of any reason an auto pilot wouldn’t be able to perform one. And of course you will need even more redundancy than there is today as you won’t have pilots who can look out at the window and come up with their own opinion of what is going on, and challenge improbable readings. Plus you can always have the option to have remote manual control if you really need to. Of course there are parts of today’s aviation that are incompatible with automation. ATC over radio is one of them. Visual landing only at many airports is another one. There would be large costs to upgrading the infrastructures to be computer friendly, so I am not saying the switch is trivial, but it is bound to happen nevertheless.
  - 8y ago

j16sdiz 8y ago

New overriding scheme means more training. The selling point of 737MAX is any 737 pilot can fly on it without new training.

josteink 8y ago
That was the selling point, yes, but it doesn’t seem to be quite true in real life. So if they can’t hold that promise anyway, why not provide a better interface?
- chaosprophet 8y ago
  Because if they didn't pretend that it was the same to fly a 737 and a 737 max, then they would be required to have pilots get a separate type certification for the max, which is costly for airlines and makes the airlines very reluctant to order the max.
ptidhomme 8y ago
Well, it was the selling point. I'm thinking now of the upgrades. Anyway, for the sake of selling, they went into the biggest failure of modern aerospace engineering. This should just not have happened.
tomnm 8y ago
I can't stop thinking whether similar "compromises" had been made when redesigning the airframe. It's engineering after all. The engineers could be pressed by the management to make certain changes for the sake of profit.
- golergka 8y ago
  But managers rely on engineers to let them know when some compromise can be made and when it is absolutely vital not to do it.
  - iSnow 8y ago
    But management also relies on customers to tell them which compromise is vital to selling a product. And in a market with such huge price-pressure as aeronautics, I can easily see how this is going to override engineer's concerns.