[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by Sutripta

Let's stick to cars for the moment.

Sure. In all cases there is also a button.

But (sorry if I sound like a broken record) what would you think of a car which did not disengage it's cruise control when a driver overrode it by using the brakes?

a

Poor design not being able to come of the throttle can be lethal
Jeroen

[Sutripta]

^^^
Once again confining discussion only to cars with cruise control.

So driver operated brakes take precedence over cruise control. Even when the cruise control has not been explicitly switched off by the driver using buttons. Why?

Should the cruise control remain disengaged once the driver gets off the brakes? Or should the cruise control reenage?
What do we see in actual implementations? Why?

Regards
Sutripta

[Motard_Blr]

As with other safety equipment or equipment that has an impact on safety, the cruise control system operation is defined by safety regulations such as ISO 26262:2018 or the equivalent UNECE regulation.

The general assumption in machinery design is that the operator's actions take precedence over automatic actions unless there are other safety considerations. In other words, the assumption is that the operator has a good reason to override automatic systems. Uncommanded reactivation of a system would be a safety hazard as the operator may not be aware of the change in system status.

In the case of the 737 Max, the resumption of the MCAS without warning seems to be a serious mistake. The pilots never understood why the plane was behaving the way that it was as they didn't understand or were not aware of the MCAS.

[Sutripta]

^^^
Thanks. A point I was trying lead upto. Focusing on it by removing all attention diverting extraneous clutter/ noise.

IMHO on the face of it some design decisions make no sense at all. Boeing can be many things, technically incompetent is not one of them. But change your perspective and things suddenly start making sense. Unfortunately, and frighteningly.

Regards
Sutripta

[Foxbat]

Boeing is crowding its employee parking lot with undelivered 737 Max jets and the company says that's part of its 'inventory management plan'

https://www.businessinsider.in/Boein...w/69935048.cms



At the bottom left an undelivered Boeing 737 Max in Jet Airways livery can be seen.

[the_skyliner]

More trouble for Boeing:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/26/p...law/index.html

[Sutripta]

^^^
CNN (the link above) says microprocessor failure can cause problems. Other reports say that the FAA has determined that the processor is not powerful enough.

Any clarity anyone?

Regards
Sutripta

[swissknife]

Came across this. It talks about how reducing costs may have had a part to play.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...hour-engineers

[Hayek]

Originally Posted by swissknife

Came across this. It talks about how reducing costs may have had a part to play.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...hour-engineers

Frankly, this article is beyond ridiculous - aimed at creating an anti outsourcing sentiment with something completely unrelated. If you read the headline, the implication would be the low cost engineers screwed up. But as the article says, the problems with the Max do not originate from any of the outsourced work but from work done by the blue blooded White engineers in Seattle. Shame that the Indian media picked up such crap and ran it without questioning the absolutely ridiculous connections it seeks to make.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by Hayek

Frankly, this article is beyond ridiculous - aimed at creating an anti outsourcing sentiment with something completely unrelated. If you read the headline, the implication would be the low cost engineers screwed up. But as the article says, the problems with the Max do not originate from any of the outsourced work but from work done by the blue blooded White engineers in Seattle. Shame that the Indian media picked up such crap and ran it without questioning the absolutely ridiculous connections it seeks to make.

The title is factually correct, of course. It does not mention India in the title. $9/hour does not necessarily bring an association with India. Still quite a few countries where that could be the going rate! What you read into it is up to the reader him/herself.

What is does seem to show is that Boeing has outsourced certain parts of its software development to, amongst other, India. More importantly it appears to be struggling to maintain good quality control.

As such, this is nothing new, many companies struggle with outsourcing. It is not so much about India (or whatever country you outsource to) as that in order to for outsourcing to work, especially on complex matters, takes a lot of time, effort, patience, dedicated staff to make it happen on bost side of the pond.

The notion that you can just take one complex job and move it abroad is beyond the ridiculous. At least that is not my experience and I have been in this business for the last fifteen years.

My problem with the article is that it is mostly hearsay, rather than factual information. It is all about what a number of people appear to be saying. Some of these people appear to be former Boeing Engineers who might have lost their job due to this outsourcing. With all due respect, not the most unbiassed type of opinions.

It would be interested to hear about the real (verified) problems they encountered. How they set up the process of knowledge transfer, how it was executed, how much initial and what kind of oversight did Boeing put in place. What quality metrics did they put in place etc.

I know for a fact Boeing has been outsourcing various parts of their production process for many years. I have met them on outsourcing seminars/workshops as early as 2005 or thereabouts.

So the article lacks substance as far as I am concerned. And therefor there is little we can learn or begin to understand on how well or how poorly Boeing does its outsourcing.

Jeroen

[Ford5]

The 737 NG-Max probe has led to the Dreamliner 787 as well. Wonder how long the 777 will stay unscathed. Really sad state of affairs at Boeing. It's high time they came out with a replacement for the 737 based on a clean sheet design, and preferably side stick. Otherwise the Airbus 319-321 will devour the single aisle market share from Boeing relatively quick.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by Ford5

The 737 NG-Max probe has led to the Dreamliner 787 as well.

The 787 did have its teething challenges especially with the Li batteries. But those have been ironed out a while ago. But anyway keeping fingers crossed. Supporting Boeing can be risky these days.

Wonder how long the 777 will stay unscathed.

The 777 has matured over 25 years since it first flew in 1994 and evolved through several versions. Very unlikely if a big gap is going to emerge now.

It's high time they came out with a replacement for the 737 based on a clean sheet design, and preferably side stick.

Why a side stick? Any advantages over a traditional wheel

[Ford5]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

The 787 did have its teething challenges especially with the Li batteries. But those have been ironed out a while ago. But anyway keeping fingers crossed. Supporting Boeing can be risky these days.
The 777 has matured over 25 years since it first flew in 1994 and evolved through several versions. Very unlikely if a big gap is going to emerge now.
Why a side stick? Any advantages over a traditional wheel

I'm not referring to early LI battery issues of the 787. Those got sorted out, but there are other issues which can be found out visiting pilot forums.

Sure 777 is old as a platform, but Boeing suppliers facing cost cutting are supplying defective stuff to Boeing. This is my concern.

Side stick in general is pilot nirvana along with the automation that Airbus cockpits offer. Am pretty sure diehard Yolk pilots who never transition to Airbus/Side stick will always be Boeing loyalists... but they are a small majority in the single/twin aisle cockpit with airlines and pilots across the world preferring stick. Majority of the Boeing pilots who transition to Airbus (seen many Ex IC, 9W and Spice Jet commanders/FO now flying on Indigo) sing peans about it. And we hear very few Airbus drivers who've transitioned to Boeing and talking great about the yolk. Air France hires expats for their Dreamliner fleet with experience on Yolk, because their french crew doesn't want to bear the burden of learning/training on something which isn't on top priority as a fleet in their airline.
The americans themselves at Delta and American airlines have started placing more orders for side stick planes (Airbus bribing allegations aside). Lot's more to add, but it will take the thread OT.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by Ford5

Side stick in general is pilot nirvana along with the automation that Airbus cockpits offer. Am pretty sure diehard Yolk pilots who never transition to Airbus/Side stick will always be Boeing loyalists... but they are a small majority in the single/twin aisle cockpit with airlines and pilots across the world preferring stick. Majority of the Boeing pilots who transition to Airbus (seen many Ex IC, 9W and Spice Jet commanders/FO now flying on Indigo) sing peans about it. And we hear very few Airbus drivers who've transitioned to Boeing and talking great about the yolk. Air France hires expats for their Dreamliner fleet with experience on Yolk, because their french crew doesn't want to bear the burden of learning/training on something which isn't on top priority as a fleet in their airline.
The americans themselves at Delta and American airlines have started placing more orders for side stick planes (Airbus bribing allegations aside). Lot's more to add, but it will take the thread OT.

As far as I am aware there has never been in meaningful poll done amongst the world pilots to their preference, side stick over yoke, Airbus over Boeing. One’s own experience and interaction with other pilots simply can not be extrapolated to something as large as the total number of pilots worldwide with meaningful experience on both.

Airline do no chooses their planes on the basis of side stick versus yoke. Pilots have no say in the matter. It comes with whatever plane your carrier choses. Planes get chosen on the grounds of very extensive financial modelling on both cost and income. Re-training of staff, certification, simulator time etc are factors that are taken into account.

The biggest difference between Airbus and Boeing when it comes to handling is not the side stick versus the yoke. It is their approach/philosophy if you like, to how the plane handles, i.e. how it responds to input from the side stick versus the yoke. Boeing has always maintained that whether a plane is mechanically or FBW it still needs to fly as a regular plane, it needs to respond to the normal flight dynamics. So if you bank it, you also need to pull up the nose a bit to maintain altitude etc. Airbus side stick is more a point and forget. No worries about trimming and the finer handling of flight controls.

That does not make one better or more importantly, a safer aircraft than the other. Both Boeing and Airbus enjoy (with the occasional blip) an outstanding safety record. Two very different approaches with the same outcome/result.

The anti-Airbus brigade will tell you Airbus pilots are only as good as a regular video gamer and could not fly a proper plane manually. The Boeing Haters will tell you Boeing is stuck in a rut and needs to move with the time.

As with any system, the side stick or joy stick has come with it’s own set of challenges and deadly disasters. AF44 springs to mind. One problem has always been that when both pilots want to manipulate the stick, to which pilots do the computers listen? No such problem with yokes. Although Yokes, due to their mechanical nature have been known to get stuck on a vast range of different items.

Nobody has been able to prove that one or the other is actually better/safer, although many (pilot) forums around the world have these discussion with always two very opposite camps.

As a pilot I have flown with Yokes (Cessna, Beechcraft, Boeing 744 Full motion Simulator), centre stick (Diamond, Fouga Magister), side stick (Cirrus).

The transition from one to the other is very easy and comes very natural to most. Most people have their own preference, but again they all go with a specific plane and handling characteristics of that particular plane.

Recently I had the pleasure to fly jump seat on an Airbus Full motion Simulator. A friend of mine is an airbus captain he managed to get me onboard of his check ride. Afterwards I was allowed to “fly” for some 15-20 minutes. Very interesting, compared to the about 60 hours I have flown Lufthansa and CargoLux 747-400 Simulators.

I can’t really comment what I like better, to little time to familiarise myself. But it does give a different handling feel to anything that I am used to.

Also, side sticks are not necessarily a given with other plane manufacturers then Boeing and Airbus. It will be interesting to see how this develops over time.

Jeroen

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by Ford5

Side stick in general is pilot nirvana along with the automation that Airbus cockpits offer. Am pretty sure diehard Yolk pilots who never transition to Airbus/Side stick will always be Boeing loyalists... but they are a small majority in the single/twin aisle cockpit with airlines and pilots across the world preferring stick. Majority of the Boeing pilots who transition to Airbus (seen many Ex IC, 9W and Spice Jet commanders/FO now flying on Indigo) sing peans about it. And we hear very few Airbus drivers who've transitioned to Boeing and talking great about the yolk. Air France hires expats for their Dreamliner fleet with experience on Yolk, because their french crew doesn't want to bear the burden of learning/training on something which isn't on top priority as a fleet in their airline.

Jeroen has explained it very lucidly. It seems to me that you are reading internet articles and taking views to be facts. Views and tastes may be preferences of some but they are not facts. The yoke has the one advantage that both pilots know at a glance what the other is doing. The side stick deprives you of the advantage {Air France AF447}. Mostly it is what you are used to. Conceptually I believe Boeings flight design philosophy is more sensible where the pilot is in command at all times i.e. the pilot and not the computer flies the plane - tragically messed up in the 737MAX. However over these 30 years since the A320 was first introduced the Airbus system of the computer flying the plane has matured to a very high degree.