Cyprus-Forum.com

[Londonrake]

How can Boeing regain trust? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47824683

.

[Robin Hood]

Lordo:

....... the design itself is faulty and caused the problem not the conditions. The whole point of allowing pilots to switch it off is in case the sensor goes wrong is a good spec .......

How do you know when the sensor is faulty or it is not faulty? You seem to be in favour of the pilot making the decision and having the ability to switch of a safety device? So, the next crash will be ...... when the pilot accidentally switches off a safety device! Smart thinking .... all you have done is kick the can down the road!

.......... however to ignore the faulty sensor and allow it to switch the system on despite the fact that it is faulty, is not just a fault, it is beyond stupidity on the part of the designers ....

IMO: Either a system is automatic or it is manual. There should have been an incompatibility alarm when two identical sensors, one for indication and the other a safety trip, had different readings and any automatic corrective response frozen or turned off . But even then which sensor is correct?

In a critical control function, better three sensors, a two-out-of-three voting system and assume only one will go wrong at a time and that the other two are correct ....... then let software, not the pilot take the appropriate actions.

If this project of building the plane originally and testing it was carried out correctly we would never have been in this situation. but really telling airlines that this plane flys itself and the pilots can receive minimal training was criminal and it goes right to the top.

It was originally tested and approved but even so there have been some problems but they were identified and corrected. The trouble was, as far as I understand it, was that they upgraded the spec and fitted new engines which altered the balance of the aircraft giving it a natural tendency for a nose-up attitude. They recognised that problem during design, construction and testing and corrected the problem with an additional sensor and some software mods. But they missed a ‘what-if’ situation ..... it happens ...... exactly how we have yet to find out. I refute your suggestion it was simply a question of deliberate malpractice for profit by the manufacturer working some sort of collusion with the approving authority.

[Lordo]

Lordo:

....... the design itself is faulty and caused the problem not the conditions. The whole point of allowing pilots to switch it off is in case the sensor goes wrong is a good spec .......

How do you know when the sensor is faulty or it is not faulty? You seem to be in favour of the pilot making the decision and having the ability to switch of a safety device? So, the next crash will be ...... when the pilot accidentally switches off a safety device! Smart thinking .... all you have done is kick the can down the road!

.......... however to ignore the faulty sensor and allow it to switch the system on despite the fact that it is faulty, is not just a fault, it is beyond stupidity on the part of the designers ....

IMO: Either a system is automatic or it is manual. There should have been an incompatibility alarm when two identical sensors, one for indication and the other a safety trip, had different readings and any automatic corrective response frozen or turned off . But even then which sensor is correct?

In a critical control function, better three sensors, a two-out-of-three voting system and assume only one will go wrong at a time and that the other two are correct ....... then let software, not the pilot take the appropriate actions.

If this project of building the plane originally and testing it was carried out correctly we would never have been in this situation. but really telling airlines that this plane flys itself and the pilots can receive minimal training was criminal and it goes right to the top.

It was originally tested and approved but even so there have been some problems but they were identified and corrected. The trouble was, as far as I understand it, was that they upgraded the spec and fitted new engines which altered the balance of the aircraft giving it a natural tendency for a nose-up attitude. They recognised that problem during design, construction and testing and corrected the problem with an additional sensor and some software mods. But they missed a ‘what-if’ situation ..... it happens ...... exactly how we have yet to find out. I refute your suggestion it was simply a question of deliberate malpractice for profit by the manufacturer working some sort of collusion with the approving authority.

you may well disagree but facts speak for themselves. just who advises faa in approvals makes a very interesting list. talk wolves acting as a sheep dog.

The 10 new members are:

Steve Alterman, president, Cargo Airline Association

Bill Ayer, former chairman, Alaska Air Group

Montie Brewer, former president and CEO, Air Canada

Ray Conner, vice chairman, The Boeing Co., and president and CEO, Boeing Commercial Airplanes

Craig Fuller, president, the Fuller Co. and former president, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA)

Jane Garvey, Meridiam Infrastructure/MITRE board member and former FAA administrator

Mayor Michael Hancock, City of Denver, Colo.

Lee Moak, president, Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA)

John “Jack” Potter, president and CEO, Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA)

Gwynne Shotwell, president and COO, Space X.

i was always under the impression that you would need experieced designers who would know how to test the aircraft properly. what do these people know even if they were aircraft engineers 30 years ago now that they have reached ceo levels.

[Robin Hood]

Lordo:

i was always under the impression that you would need experienced designers who would know how to test the aircraft properly. what do these people know even if they were aircraft engineers 30 years ago now that they have reached CEO level.

They are the professional meeting attendees, not the experts!

They know all the jargon and more importantly in this situation .... they are also savvy on the Corporate legal aspects. They have a comprehension of the technical stuff but the reports they will quote from will be put together by professional engineers and other technical experts. They are a bit like a panel of judges, they will hear the evidence, go back to the office and discuss the findings with their own experts, each to come to their decision for more meetings ..... until they come to a consensus. Then they will issue a statement of their findings.

You can’t take a technician that knows AoA sensors inside out and put him into a high level meeting. It does not work. He may be called in to explain something but, after answering a few questions he will be shown the door ..... but his CEO will watch and listen and will jump in directly he strays off the script.

[Lordo]

you have too much faith in the ceo s. they normally could not arrange a pissup in a brewery. which is why when they ruin one company for some unknown reason another company is only too pleased to recruit them. not even so much as "what have you earnt from the last company you ruined?"

i have seen it in first hand one ceo bankrupted 3 different organisations and still working as a ceo in a fourth.

[Londonrake]

you have too much faith in the ceo s. they normally could not arrange a pissup in a brewery. which is why when they ruin one company for some unknown reason another company is only too pleased to recruit them. not even so much as "what have you earnt from the last company you ruined?"

i have seen it in first hand one ceo bankrupted 3 different organisations and still working as a ceo in a fourth.

They should be well qualified for a government cabinet post then - ehh?

[Lordo]

you have too much faith in the ceo s. they normally could not arrange a pissup in a brewery. which is why when they ruin one company for some unknown reason another company is only too pleased to recruit them. not even so much as "what have you earnt from the last company you ruined?"

i have seen it in first hand one ceo bankrupted 3 different organisations and still working as a ceo in a fourth.

They should be well qualified for a government cabinet post then - ehh?

what do you mean they should be, they are already here and the usa. gawd help those who believe in the swine. its gona be a hard battle.

[Robin Hood]

Looks like Lockheed also have some problems?

Crashed Japanese F-35 wreckage found in Pacific, pilot still missing. - Tim Kelly, TOKYO (Reuters)

Search and rescue teams found wreckage from a crashed Japanese F-35 stealth fighter in the Pacific Ocean close to northern Japan, and are scouring the waters for the missing pilot, authorities said on Wednesday.

The aircraft, less than a year old, was the first F-35 assembled in Japan and was aloft for only 28 minutes on Tuesday before contact was lost, a defense official said. The plane had logged a total of 280 hours in the air, he added.

It was only the second F-35 to crash since the aircraft’s first flight in 2006 and could reignite concern about the F-35 having only one engine.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-defence-f35/crashed-japanese-f-35-wreckage-found-in-pacific-pilot-still-missing-idUSKCN1RM011

Even the MoD is maybe having second thoughts?

MoD monitoring situation after Japanese F-35 stealth jet crashes in Pacific

A MoD spokesperson said they were liaising with US officials following the crash.

"We are in close contact with the US Joint Programme Office who will provide updates as soon as information becomes available," said the spokesperson.

"Safety is of the utmost importance and very closely managed on the F-35 program. We will continue to review the situation as further information becomes available."

https://news.sky.com/story/pilot-missing-after-japanese-f-35-stealth-jet-crashes-over-pacific-ocean-11689439

[Kikapu]

Military jets/planes/helicopters crash far more often than civilian use types, therefore, it is like comparing oranges and apples!

[Robin Hood]

Military jets/planes/helicopters crash far more often than civilian use types, therefore, it is like comparing oranges and apples!

They are ALL aeroplanes designed by the same people and built by the same corporations as civilian aircraft. Military/civil are all fly by wire, without the electronics both fall out of the sky! A fighter jet is much more unstable than a commercial airliner and could not be flown by man alone. That is why they crash more often ..... but the pilot most often survives as he has the option to eject. A civil airliner can be flown manually, to a point!

Will this result in the grounding of all F-35's until they locate the problem? Personally, I doubt it ..... they can afford to take the risk! Military aircraft you can bail out of and fast jets have a crew of only 1-2 people. Providing ejector seats fro 250+ passengers and crew in civil aircraft has its problems?

In this case the 'oranges' and the 'apples' have more features in common than the fruits you describe. More like comparing 'oranges' and 'lemons' ?