Boeing 737Max

FLYBOYJ said:

I'm wondering, during the certification process how much of the conformity and certification was accomplished by designees. Some of the issues brought up by pilots makes me believe the fox was watching the hen house.

Click to expand...

From my short stint in the civilian aerospace sector, most of the certification process relies on the honesty and compliance of the airframe and engine manufacturers.

mikewint said:

Joe and Chris, I would very much like to hear from both of you about the degree of computer control/automation in aircraft like the 737. I realize that it is a complicated question with no simple answer but IMHO we seem to be headed down the A.I. knows best path. Is that because planes like the Airbus/737/etc. are so complicated that only a very few highly skilled pilots could actually fly them without help and as a result more and more A.I. systems are in place so that the lesser skilled and even minimally skilled can fly them?

Click to expand...

The last "complicated" aircraft I worked around was the 737-800. The company I was working for was installing a HUD that provided a visual ILS system that basically burnt trough "the soup." (Marconi later BAE Synthetic Vision). Designers have put systems in place that would simplify processes during specific flight regimes (ex. ILS CAT IIIB, autoland) but in doing so unleashed a whole new environment where pilots are spending more time learning how to operate equipment rather than genuinely flying the aircraft. Just look at the GA world where aside from getting a checkout in a new Cessna or Cirrus, you have to get Garmin G1000 training before you can be considered fully checked out and proficient on the aircraft. I don't believe that you have to be highly skilled to learn how to fly modern aircraft, but have to be "highly patient" to learn this highly complex layers of computers that IMO are overly complex and clumsy for the tasks they are designed to perform. Like anything else, the equipment could be learned but IMO it's evident when dealing with some of these new electronic wonders, one could see they were designed by computer engineers, let only your traditional aircraft engineer who preferably had some flight experience under his or her belt.

swampyankee said:

From my short stint in the civilian aerospace sector, most of the certification process relies on the honesty and compliance of the airframe and engine manufacturers.

Click to expand...

That's always the goal but when you had incidents like the DC-10 cargo door tragedy as pointed out earlier, it show the certification process has always had imperfections. In this day and age with the use of more and more certification designees, especially those employed my the manufacturer, well IMO it raises doubt!

FLYBOYJ said:

That's always the goal but when you had incidents like the DC-10 cargo door tragedy as pointed out earlier, it show the certification process has always had imperfections. In this day and age with the use of more and more certification designees, especially those employed my the manufacturer, well IMO it raises doubt!

Click to expand...

GE was found to have never done any bird ingestion tests on the CF6, the engine on the DC-10, instead using the results from the engine on the C-5, which used a completely different fan (two stages vs one on the CF6). This was discovered when a DC-10 taking off at Laguardia lost all three engines on takeoff, with at least one bursting into flame.

swampyankee said:

certification process relies on the honesty and compliance of the airframe and engine manufacturers.

Click to expand...

Corporate honesty goes as far as the bottom-line and no further. Cutting corners to maximize profit is a corporate mantra. Bean-counters know that they are going to face lawsuits and have a pretty good idea of what they will have to pay out as a result of those suits so it is a simple matter to weigh the two costs and see which one gives the greatest profit margin.
Pilots like any other professional come in various grades of competence. Some got A+ in pilot school and some got C-. Tales abound about drunken and hung-over pilots and those diddling stewardess in the cockpit. On the other hand we have computer controlled systems that either fail or have software bugs that cause them to do weird things. Anyone using a Microsoft OS can attest to that fact. Add to that the fact that we expect more and more from an aircraft which adds exponentially to complexity. Again a simple truth: The more complex a system is the more likely it is to fail at some point. So where does the line lie?

FLYBOYJ said:

I don't believe that you have to be highly skilled to learn how to fly modern aircraft,

Click to expand...

Joe thank you for your response. The intent of my question was that: Is it possible to fly one of these big beasts manually without all the A.I. gizmos. Could the average pilot do so flight after flight or are there so many things going on that no human could do it successfully the vast majority of the time.
For example, going back to automobiles, Dad had a Model-T. Only a very few strong men could even start it with the manual crank and more than one of these received a broken arm when the engine started backwards. The 1:1 steering required constant muscle lest a bump tear the wheel out of your hand. A sharp rock could and did blowout the 90psi bicycle tires like a stick of dynamite. You could not relax for an instant going down the road. Consequently there was a very limited market for the T. If you want to increase your sales you have to add complexity so that more people could drive it. So we add electric start, power steering, power brakes, heat and air-conditioning, idiot-lights for those who can't read a simple gauge. In today's world front, rear, side, and even eye sensors for those who can't continually visually check those areas for problems. The most marginal, no-skilled, cretins can hop in today's cars and drive off.
Ok back to aircraft. Are modern aircraft being automated for the same reasons? Are we headed toward a cockpit with two big buttons, one labeled Take Off and the other Land.

My friends know for years I have said , " I'm glad Microsoft doesn't build airplanes". I see people often drive up to my neighbor's driveway and find out they relied on their GPS unit and never looked at street signs or house numbers. The great masses will need us old guys to read maps for them when the grid is shot down.

mikewint said:

Joe thank you for your response. The intent of my question was that: Is it possible to fly one of these big beasts manually without all the A.I. gizmos. Could the average pilot do so flight after flight or are there so many things going on that no human could do it successfully the vast majority of the time.

Click to expand...

At the end of the day - YES. They have to be certified so if all the gizmos fail, they can still be flown by hand with a couple of "steam gauges."

I read somewhere there was an experiment on simulators putting a private pilot license holder on the flight deck of a modern airliner. This to find out if the "movie scenario" of a person being talked down by ground control could actually be done. All of them crashed the simulator, it is just a different type of flying.

Don't forget the mechanic who stole the twin turbo prop.

pbehn said:

I read somewhere there was an experiment on simulators putting a private pilot license holder on the flight deck of a modern airliner. This to find out if the "movie scenario" of a person being talked down by ground control could actually be done. All of them crashed the simulator, it is just a different type of flying.

Click to expand...

In 1998 my father in law sent me a 737-500 flight manual. Studied it and then was invited to United's Training center in Denver to fly a full motion simulator. After a briefing and about an hour of ground instruction I was able to start it, taxi, take off, fly, shoot an approach and land it. At that time I had about 300 hours and was just starting my instrument rating training.

FLYBOYJ said:

In 1998 my father in law sent me a 737-500 flight manual. Studied it and then was invited to United's Training center in Denver to fly a full motion simulator. After a briefing and about an hour of ground instruction I was able to start it, taxi, take off, fly, shoot an approach and land it. At that time I had about 300 hours and was just starting my instrument rating training.

Click to expand...

A different era, just relating what I read. I am talking about a movie scenario of tha crew being incapacitated and a "pilot" from the passengers being asked to take over and be "talked down" by the control tower.

pbehn said:

A different era, just relating what I read. I am talking about a movie scenario of tha crew being incapacitated and a "pilot" from the passengers being asked to take over and be "talked down" by the control tower.

Click to expand...

If a GA pilot had some good multi-engine time, I wouldn't rule it out as being impossible

FLYBOYJ said:

I don't believe that you have to be highly skilled to learn how to fly modern aircraft, but have to be "highly patient" to learn this highly complex layers of computers that IMO are overly complex and clumsy for the tasks they are designed to perform.

Click to expand...

That's for sure, even doing a one day ATR famil course makes me tired!

This link explains some of the issues surrounding the MCAS, which is high on the list of causes of the two crashes.

737 MAX - MCAS

The Max is quite a different beast to earlier 737s; the placing of the new LEAP nacelles forward of the CG is the cause behind the implementation of MCAS; the nacelles produce lift, which causes a nose up attitude owing to being forward of the aircraft's cg, bringing the aircraft close to a stall condition. The MCAS was designed as a stick pusher to lower the nose.

pbehn said:

I read somewhere there was an experiment on simulators putting a private pilot license holder on the flight deck of a modern airliner. This to find out if the "movie scenario" of a person being talked down by ground control could actually be done. All of them crashed the simulator, it is just a different type of flying.

Click to expand...

I flew a 737 800 simulator last year, and flew it just fine manually.

Joe and Chris, thank you both for your information. I know that aircraft are highly variable in their flyability even to the point of being unflyable without computer assistance like the B-2 which uses a complex quadruplex computer-controlled fly-by-wire flight control system, that automatically manipulates flight surfaces and settings without direct pilot inputs to maintain aircraft stability. Again like all such A.I. systems the complexity means that the failure of some small part dooms the entire system. The 23 Feb 2008 B-2 crash in Guam was later determined to be moisture in the aircraft's Port Transducer Units during air data calibration, which distorted the information being sent to the bomber's air data system. As a result, the flight control computers calculated an inaccurate airspeed, and a negative angle of attack, causing the aircraft to pitch upward 30 degrees during takeoff. The pilots escaped but the airframe loss was $1.4 billion.
A.I. failures vs. Pilot failures a tough call

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

I flew a 737 800 simulator last year, and flew it just fine manually.

Click to expand...

The concern is how flyable is the aircraft when something goes wrong. A friend — with about 75 hours in Cessnas — did okay flying an F-106 simulator until he stalled it, had it go into a spin, and recovered 50,000 feet later (the instructor said he did pretty well; 35,000 ft was about about normal for a trained USAF fighter pilot).

While an early supersonic fighter is not a late-generation airliner, the point is that experience and training can help prevent problems and makes recovering from them more likely to succeed quickly.

swampyankee said:

The concern is how flyable is the aircraft when something goes wrong. A friend — with about 75 hours in Cessnas — did okay flying an F-106 simulator until he stalled it, had it go into a spin, and recovered 50,000 feet later (the instructor said he did pretty well; 35,000 ft was about about normal for a trained USAF fighter pilot).

While an early supersonic fighter is not a late-generation airliner, the point is that experience and training can help prevent problems and makes recovering from them more likely to succeed quickly.

Click to expand...

Agree - at the same time you have a matter of experience and proficiency in certain aircraft that may work in the reciprocal. (Biff chime on on this one any time) Case in point - Many military pilots get their primary training in a GA aircraft (back in the day it was a T-41 or T-34). They transitioned on to a T-37 and or T-38 and then on to their assignment. At that point many would leave the thought of any "bug smasher" behind while they bored holes at mach 2+. Several years down the line, our fighter pilot example may have the opportunity or desire to get back flying a GA aircraft. Believe it or not many former military pilots have gotten themselves in serious trouble overestimating their skills while underestimating the lack of performance a GA aircraft has compared to what they've been flying.

Case in point, sadly:

Air Force pilot ignored icing warnings in fatal crash

I've also found many airline pilots who "come back" into flying GA aircraft have a tendency to flare high.

In discussing this situation with my father in law (who as also my flight instructor) he put it this way (I had about 300 hours at the time) - "If I took an F-16 jock who never flew a 172 and put him in that airplane and then put you in an F-16, well you both are gonna die, I'd take even odds on who dies first!"

FLYBOYJ said:

If a GA pilot had some good multi-engine time, I wouldn't rule it out as being impossible

Click to expand...

It would come down to the training philosophy of whoever did his training. For example, the last few type ratings I've done, my instructor has asked me how I think the aircraft will handle, based on what I see (configuration, control surface size, balance, etc). This has changed the way I approach flying a new type - I've come to generally anticipate how an aircraft will handle.

This is all based on small GA aircraft, but someone who doesn't give this thought, will have a harder time jumping into an aircraft 'cold'.

Not saying that I'd be able to jump into one of these things and successfully land it, but as much as experience counts, attitude counts just as much.

gumbyk said:

It would come down to the training philosophy of whoever did his training. For example, the last few type ratings I've done, my instructor has asked me how I think the aircraft will handle, based on what I see (configuration, control surface size, balance, etc). This has changed the way I approach flying a new type - I've come to generally anticipate how an aircraft will handle.

This is all based on small GA aircraft, but someone who doesn't give this thought, will have a harder time jumping into an aircraft 'cold'.

Not saying that I'd be able to jump into one of these things and successfully land it, but as much as experience counts, attitude counts just as much.

Click to expand...

Then also consider - "Failure is not an option"! LOL!