Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

7 Pages « < 4 5 6 7 >Bottom

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

 737 Max Safety Features sold as optional extras

views
     
joe_star
post Mar 23 2019, 05:24 PM

Serving the Servants
******
Senior Member
1,807 posts

Joined: Mar 2007
QUOTE(KLthinker91 @ Mar 23 2019, 05:06 PM)
Yes and I myself did point this out earlier citing falling airline fatality statistics

Sad to say it might just be a case of one that slipped through the cracks

No process is utterly foolproof. If you are in risk management line you should know, this is the very basis of your industry tongue.gif
That remains to be seen IMO

Mind you I'm not saying you're wrong. It's just that we can't judge at this stage until somebody authoritative can come out and prove that it was negligence.
*
That's why an investigation is going on, but whatever the outcome is its a blow to Boeing's reputation for sure.

Personally being involved in an industry where safety is a high consideration, I tend to know what drives these decisions, and it's rarely something slipping thru the cracks, 99.9% of all events have precedence & alerts before just those in charge wilfully ignoring them due to financial factors
empire23
post Mar 23 2019, 05:25 PM

Team Island Hopper
Group Icon
Staff
9,417 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Bladin Point, Northern Territory
QUOTE(KLthinker91 @ Mar 23 2019, 01:41 PM)
How do you know it's a critical life saving feature?

Answer: you didn't know. Not until this incident occurred.

How do you know what else could be a "critical life saving feature" in future?

Answer: you don't know.

So don't talk cock about how every plane must have maximum 100% features etc. Because you don't know what is considered critical life saving feature and what is considered allowable to be optional. Not until the next incident. Unless you have crystal ball.

That's my point. Faham?

Inb4 missile flare and avoidance gear is critical life saving feature because of Mh17. HURR DURR I WILL NEVER FLY AGAIN UNLESS IN AIRCRAFT WITH ANTI-MISSILE SYSTEM!

Please
*
Answering as what /k/ has closest to an aeronautical engineer I’ll answer the question and state safety systems are generally not the realm of aeronautical engineers but trained control engineers with an FSEng or FSE certification (which I am), control engineers will sit down with their aeronautical brothers in HAZID, HAZOPS to determine the risk that a safety system has to mitigate and develop mitigation means.

For an aircraft E/PS system this is down to the use of RCTA DO178B in the US, although most aerospace partners generally gravitate towards IEC61508 as a basis for safety systems. Using tools like LOPA, FMEA and FMDEA an engineer generally aims for an ALARP goal.

Now if we only had one crash, I’d say it’s possible that Boeing lost the game of probability but to have 2 crashes generally means that someone didn’t do the probability numbers right for their LOPA (layer or protections analysis) and I would believe their HAZID and FMEA process has some holes in it, as usually any safety system that can perform autonomously is extremely scrutinised for risk. My question is whether the risk was downgraded due to economic concerns. We do it very often mind you.

Long story short. Yes, we can tell what safety features are needed to mitigate catastrophic risk through a judicious use of maths. Now the question should be if the mathematics were sound and if they weren’t, what was the justification behind a manual approval anyways. Because given the age of the plane and hours flown, that’s definitely outside the acceptable tolerances most standards require.


KLthinker91
post Mar 23 2019, 05:32 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
224 posts

Joined: Feb 2019
From: Cherasboy
QUOTE(empire23 @ Mar 23 2019, 05:25 PM)
Answering as what /k/ has closest to an aeronautical engineer I’ll answer the question and state safety systems are generally not the realm of aeronautical engineers but trained control engineers with an FSEng or FSE certification (which I am), control engineers will sit down with their aeronautical brothers in HAZID, HAZOPS to determine the risk that a safety system has to mitigate and develop mitigation means.

For an aircraft E/PS system this is down to the use of RCTA DO178B in the US, although most aerospace partners generally gravitate towards IEC61508 as a basis for safety systems. Using tools like LOPA, FMEA and FMDEA an engineer generally aims for an ALARP goal.

Now if we only had one crash, I’d say it’s possible that Boeing lost the game of probability but to have 2 crashes generally means that someone didn’t do the probability numbers right for their LOPA (layer or protections analysis) and I would believe their HAZID and FMEA process has some holes in it, as usually any safety system that can perform autonomously is extremely scrutinised for risk. My question is whether the risk was downgraded due to economic concerns. We do it very often mind you.

Long story short. Yes, we can tell what safety features are needed to mitigate catastrophic risk through a judicious use of maths. Now the question should be if the mathematics were sound and if they weren’t, what was the justification behind a manual approval anyways. Because given the age of the plane and hours flown, that’s definitely outside the acceptable tolerances most standards require.
*
TQ

See now that's a more informed opinion than the general public
sheldonyong
post Mar 23 2019, 05:41 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
435 posts

Joined: Dec 2008


Real life dlc content
mambangafro
post Mar 23 2019, 05:51 PM

ME IS KUDA PING :3
****
Senior Member
637 posts

Joined: Aug 2010


QUOTE(joe_star @ Mar 23 2019, 05:04 PM)
Actual plane maintenance kuli mohon pencerahan pls
*
if me,i wont fly with this plane for certain period until its airworthiness proven......
pattleongkam
post Mar 23 2019, 05:51 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
109 posts

Joined: Apr 2014
all talkkoksingsong....end of days still cash is king!!!

literally is like Boeing telling all airliners to pay extra protection money, if no, then go to hell it is!!!

¿Comprende? suckers...!!!

user posted image
joe_star
post Mar 23 2019, 06:19 PM

Serving the Servants
******
Senior Member
1,807 posts

Joined: Mar 2007
QUOTE(pattleongkam @ Mar 23 2019, 05:51 PM)
all talkkoksingsong....end of days still cash is king!!!

literally is like Boeing telling all airliners to pay extra protection money, if no, then go to hell it is!!!

¿Comprende? suckers...!!!

user posted image
*
Well, behind all the jargon you know I know (layman term)

Dunno why still got ppl mati2 protek Boeing when it's universally known that's the corporate culture every where whistling.gif
TSRaddus
post Mar 23 2019, 06:23 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
205 posts

Joined: Mar 2018
how much is boieng paying some of you??

since when u work for boieng

u all malaysian so why bother defend a usa company
ohman
post Mar 23 2019, 06:24 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,178 posts

Joined: Aug 2014
QUOTE(joe_star @ Mar 23 2019, 06:19 PM)
Well, behind all the jargon you know I know (layman term)

Dunno why still got ppl mati2 protek Boeing when it's universally known that's the corporate culture every where whistling.gif
*
Wanna be trying to impress people without using c'mon sense brows.gif

Like arguing why need helmet when usually people only die 1 time laugh.gif
pattleongkam
post Mar 23 2019, 07:19 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
109 posts

Joined: Apr 2014
QUOTE(joe_star @ Mar 23 2019, 06:19 PM)
Well, behind all the jargon you know I know (layman term)

Dunno why still got ppl mati2 protek Boeing when it's universally known that's the corporate culture every where whistling.gif
*
QUOTE(ohman @ Mar 23 2019, 06:24 PM)
Wanna be trying to impress people without using c'mon sense brows.gif

Like arguing why need helmet when usually people only die 1 time laugh.gif
*
haha, ohman had the same answer as mine...and that is - trying to stand out of every average joe!!! if not, you are only a kicikmeow
user posted image
rooney723
post Mar 23 2019, 07:40 PM

On my way
****
Junior Member
577 posts

Joined: Dec 2010
those smart asses got boeing shares kot, deswai die die plotek boeing sked they lose money ahahha
feekle
post Mar 23 2019, 07:43 PM

Bibo ergo sum!
******
Senior Member
1,922 posts

Joined: Apr 2009
From: Constellation Cygnus
QUOTE(maxpudding @ Mar 23 2019, 01:51 AM)
Dafuk, a safety feature comes as a DLC? bugima
*
Guess they learn from EA
Stigonboard
post Mar 23 2019, 08:07 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
230 posts

Joined: Aug 2014
QUOTE(KLthinker91 @ Mar 23 2019, 02:08 AM)
If every airline out there uses high spec only plane

It's like every car out there also is Volvo with all extra safety features

You are willing to pay that price? With no cheaper option?
*
Lol comparing car with aviation safety
SUSAllnGap
post Mar 23 2019, 08:43 PM

[ Modding with Passion(tm) ]
*******
Senior Member
4,561 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Penangites



QUOTE(rooney723 @ Mar 23 2019, 07:40 PM)
those smart asses got boeing shares kot, deswai die die plotek boeing sked they lose money ahahha
*
this article is a damage control by Boeing by indirectly put blame on airline company for not getting their top feature

truth is that Boeing hurried to get this plane out into market to rival Airbus
- safety redundancy is not properly tested and designed. (FAA not doing their job)
- no emphasis on training which is a standard for other planes with similar features ( also to "fast-track" the process so that the plane can sell well, pilots dont need to do training, if do simulation training takes a longer time, airline will just buy airbus instead )
- sell new airplane that works like previous model but this extra feature when error can automatically make plane nosedive and crash
- problem already known but give memo only. (buat bodo taktau since Lion Air)

This post has been edited by AllnGap: Mar 23 2019, 08:44 PM
rooney723
post Mar 23 2019, 09:08 PM

On my way
****
Junior Member
577 posts

Joined: Dec 2010
QUOTE(AllnGap @ Mar 23 2019, 08:43 PM)
this article is a damage control by Boeing by indirectly put blame on airline company for not getting their top feature

truth is that Boeing hurried to get this plane out into market to rival Airbus
- safety redundancy is not properly tested and designed. (FAA not doing their job)
- no emphasis on training which is a standard for other planes with similar features  ( also to "fast-track" the process so that the plane can sell well, pilots dont need to do training, if do simulation training takes a longer time, airline will just buy airbus instead )
- sell new airplane that works like previous model but this extra feature when error can automatically make plane nosedive and crash
- problem already known but give memo only. (buat bodo taktau since Lion Air)
*
yeah they ledi know its their problem ledi but nw wan push all the blames to airlines n pilots, i just dont und how can they make the life saving feature as optional DLC, its like they found 10 mitigations for the deadly engine design flaw and only put in 5 mitigations as standard into their planes n the rest as dlc, they care more bout profits than human lives, fucking disgusting company n their business ethics, playing wif human lives cb
SUSAllnGap
post Mar 23 2019, 09:16 PM

[ Modding with Passion(tm) ]
*******
Senior Member
4,561 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Penangites



QUOTE(rooney723 @ Mar 23 2019, 09:08 PM)
yeah they ledi know its their problem ledi but nw wan push all the blames to airlines n pilots, i just dont und how can they make the life saving feature as optional DLC, its like they found 10 mitigations for the deadly engine design flaw and only put in 5 mitigations as standard into their planes n the rest as dlc, they care more bout profits than human lives, fucking disgusting company n their business ethics, playing wif human lives cb
*
Read this, very detail explanation of the problems.
The problem can't solve itself by that DLC, that MCAS system has many flaws. Basically to rectify this problem might need to ground all planes for many months while they revise hardware and software and do re-do the flight worthiness certification again.

Btw FBI is investigating the FAA certification part as part of it was passed to Boeing ppl to do. LOL

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boein...lion-air-crash/


akagidemon
post Mar 23 2019, 09:19 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
453 posts

Joined: Nov 2007
From: Between Reality and Fantasy


is the ceo of boeing is also the ceo of EA?

buy a plane then dlc the shit out of it
rooney723
post Mar 23 2019, 09:58 PM

On my way
****
Junior Member
577 posts

Joined: Dec 2010
QUOTE(AllnGap @ Mar 23 2019, 09:16 PM)
Read this, very detail explanation of the problems.
The problem can't solve itself by that DLC, that MCAS system has many flaws. Basically to rectify this problem might need to ground all planes for many months while they revise hardware and software and do re-do the flight worthiness certification again.

Btw FBI is investigating the FAA certification part as part of it was passed to Boeing ppl to do. LOL

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boein...lion-air-crash/
*
yeah agree that the mcas is indeed faulty n the dlc wont solve the problem

but if boeing done enuf testing on the plane they should be able to come across the same scenario as the 2 doomed airplanes and realise that the DLC is essential in saving the plane when the mcas system fails n gives wrong results

the problem now is they rushed the plane n didnt do enuf testing on it, and assumes the DLC sensors etc is not compulsory and dont need to install as standard, they assume the mcas system is fully functional and wont give wrong readings and thrs no need for extra sensors etc


KLthinker91
post Mar 23 2019, 10:48 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
224 posts

Joined: Feb 2019
From: Cherasboy
QUOTE(Stigonboard @ Mar 23 2019, 08:07 PM)
Lol comparing car with aviation safety
*
People don't understand so have to give example
Stigonboard
post Mar 23 2019, 10:55 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
230 posts

Joined: Aug 2014
QUOTE(KLthinker91 @ Mar 23 2019, 10:48 PM)
People don't understand so have to give example
*
The problem is wrong comparison

Car safety feature while important is not globally regulated and strict compared to aviation where one single mistakes means hundred of lives lost..

The non-standard package in the 737 max should be added as standard due to the flaw of the design - they have bigger and heavier engine so the safety system have to calibrate the aircraft nose to prevent stalling

Omitting the extra safety feature means problem navigating around the system as it is complex and the lost of seconds means hundred of ppl dies when the system faulty like in the Lion Air and Ethiopia incidents

7 Pages « < 4 5 6 7 >Top
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0175sec    0.56    5 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 02:34 PM