It seems Boeing has gambled its well-established credibility for efficiency on critical information vital to the operation of its products. Irresponsible and not thought out.
Boeing’s headshed needs a MAJOR head cracking! First, they moved from Seattle, where the planes were designed and made, to Chicago, which is anti-aviation. Then, they downgraded input from their flight test people in the design of the 8737 MAX. DUMB, DUMB, DUMB!
IIRC, their IT engineering staff cannot touch the computer code (closed-shop IT), further separating design from product.
By their fruits you shall know them…Boeing used to consistently bear good fruit. That has been demonstrated by outstanding airplanes that have stood the test of time. Boeing’s calling card was not press-speak but performance in the real world.
Now the fruit is revealing unbelievable amounts of simple common sense, out sourcing what has made the company consistent and great, ignoring the admonitions of it’s own employees, and thinking well timed public press releases, carefully crafted with lawyer infused press-speak verbiage as it’s new calling card.
This $9.00 per hour fruit is just another nail in the eventual coffin should they not make some serious course corrections. Sure, this India based computer programming outsourcing did not involve MCAS…sure…and we are supposed to believe that? 357 families are not going to believe that either.
By their fruits you shall know them…Boeing used to consistently bear good fruit. That has been demonstrated by outstanding airplanes that have stood the test of time. Boeing’s calling card was not press-speak but performance in the real world.
Now the fruit is revealing unbelievable amounts of lack of simple common sense, out sourcing what has made the company consistent and great, ignoring the admonitions of it’s own employees, and thinking well timed public press releases, carefully crafted with lawyer infused press-speak verbiage as it’s new calling card.
This $9.00 per hour fruit is just another nail in the eventual coffin should they not make some serious course corrections. Sure, this India based computer programming outsourcing did not involve MCAS…sure…and we are supposed to believe that? 357 families are not going to believe that either.
In IT, you almost always get what you pay for. In the long run, you never save money by outsourcing IT services overseas; in fact, you almost always end up paying more in lost work and productivity.
In the olden days of 20 years ago, I was also a paid contractor, writing code for the DoD. My rate was rather spectacular compared to $9/hour, then the tech stock crash, and influx of Indian coding houses, crashed the pay scale. The Indians were nice people, but they didn’t understand what was actually needed, only that coding was required; quantity spoke more than quality. I exited the industry.
Then five years ago, the aerospace company to which I provide services farmed out their help desk to a low-cost Indian firm. The complaints were so loud and downright vicious (typically, that once the “helpers” were off-script, they were essentially useless) that they went the other direction, and have on-site concierge stations, where one might drop by with their engineering laptop to consult face-to-face. This aerospace company does NOT farm out the FADEC coding; I also highly doubt that Boeing farmed out the most critical parts.
I think it’s easy to put the blame on the $9/hr coders as it conveniently accomplishes two objectives: first, it emphasizes that highly trained and highly paid American programmers (I hate the term “coder”) are losing jobs to the lowest bidders overseas, which is a point well-taken, but not really relevant to the situation; second, it subtly shifts blame from Boeing systems engineering and testing to foreigners who just “don’t get it” when it comes to running development programs with that highly vaunted American Exceptionalism. I have run several software development programs and was pretty-much forced to use outsourced programmers in India. As a previous commenter wrote, they are nice people and do a reasonable job, but there are problems when it comes to getting the results from them that you really want. And this is the core issue. The real problem with software development is specifying what you want in the first place, and that is not the job of the programmers. The responsibility lies in the managers and systems engineers who will be incorporating that software and firmware into the final product. The error here is one of specification and testing, which is squarely the responsibility of Boeing - plain and simple. You get from programmers what you ask from them, whether they work in this country or halfway across the globe.
The main missing specification from the MCAS software is to above all maintain the safety of the passengers in the aircraft, not to just prevent the plane from stalling (which it did, by the way). The implicit specification of this software seemed to be cover up for the fact that the basic aerodynamic changes due to the larger engines can cause a positive feedback loop to occur at high angles of attack that can result in the plane doing a backflip. This is the same situation that Volkswagen found themselves in when it was discovered their diesel cars were programmed to cheat on their emissions tests.
Don’t blame the programmers, blame those in charge.
One other factor which will probably become relevant. When you pay $9 for “coding” what you get is an awful lot of copy and pasting.
Most of the “coders” working at that rate have limited experience and have been taught how to make flashy project web pages and the like by copying what works, pasting it, and then putting a little gloss on it.
Mistakes in the original are replicated in the copy (including security lapses, openings to Google etc).
Now, there is one civilian air liner maker which wrote a lot of the first code used: Airbus.
And sooner or later, these $9 coders are going to copy code that works from it and paste it into Boeing’s projects – it is inevitable because it is how they work for $9 an hour.
And how do you think Airbus will react when it discovers that?
Indians have been playing dirty pool in this industry for quite some time…during the early 90s a “brain talent swap” was organized where a silicon valley company was to send its brains to India, and vice Versa…well the Indians arrived and in quick fashion go themselves all settled in…the visas for the Americans were denied…and guess who kept the jobs…
Eventually, someone, somewhere is going to nail this concept. Although, the idea of aircraft zooming around as thick as today’s ground cars seems like a nightmare to me. I personally like the idea of looking at a sky not cluttered with what will resemble flocks of mechanical gnats.
2 replies
Well I’ll give them this: At least it’s a good looking machine. It LOOKS like a nice car, and the LOOKS like a reasonable airplane. Other products I’ve seen in this space always feel like they were born from insects.
Machines that are designed to do 2 things, May do both, but usually do not excel at either.
The Samson Sky Switchblade is soon to fly as well. In order to avoid the weight of all the DOT requirements they opted to register the vehicle as a motorcycle. They have would have been flying already but the powerplant has not lived up to specifications and they have had to go with their alternative.
I lived within a 1/4 mile of the only certified airplane / car. It was located in a barn on Robert Fulton’s property in Newtown, CT. Being a pilot, I got to know Mr. Fulton pretty well and he showed me his Aerocar as well as many other inventions he had developed over the years including the sky hook.
Another interesting tidbit is that the approach to his runway was directly over my house. He was lucky a fellow pilot lived there because I never complained about a low approach over the house and kept the rest of the neighborhood pacified.
The problem that every flying car startup faces and, heretofore, has failed to overcome, is that flying cars tend to be the worst of both worlds. Customers are asked to pay big bucks for what is ultimately a mediocre airplane and a weird car. And all that so you don’t have to take an Uber to rent a car. It’s tempting until you really put pencil to paper and do the cost-benefit analysis. No doubt there is a niche market for this but to date it hasn’t been big enough to allow these startups to become sustainably profitable. I’ve been watching flying car concepts come and go over 25 years of flying and I just keep wondering what investors are thinking.
1 reply
This will never become a reality for the unwashed masses, who have neither the aeronautical skills to operate anything like this, nor the resources and motivation to acquire them. If it ever does come to pass, it would, as you point out, be aeronautical pandemonium, with the aforesaid masses zooming around more focused on checking their facebook pages on their digital devices than flying the aircar. As it is now, we see how that works for them in their present automobiles - it doesn’t end well for many.
1 reply
As mechanically complex as it must be, it would be outrageously expensive to produce.
As expensive as it must be, it would be low volume production.
Such low volume production would induce an even higher sell price.
With such a high sell price it would be essentially un-insurable.
Being un-insurable . . . well, like all the other flying cars, it ain’t gonna fly.
Cantankerous old geezer goes off, hand props his ole yeller Cub, and goes fly’n.
Well, as an aside, I’ll never “take an uber” to get anywhere, but that’s just me. On the other questions, I agree these contraptions and similar ones to follow will never be “practical” - they’ll be overpriced novelties wealthy people will buy because they can. I think the “inventors” who come up with these things just do it for the challenge. Conquering the challenge is their reward.
Notice that there’s been no mention of any FAA certification yet. As a former aircraft owner and pilot, I’m painfully aware of the contribution FAA certification makes to exponentially elevate prices of ANYTHING even remotely connected to aviation.
Driving an aircraft around town, is very unlikely by any sane pilot, however, being able to fold up the wings and load your aircraft up into an enclosed trailer? Well, that’s a completely different matter. I would be very interested in an aircraft that is economical to purchase, and operate with the added benefit of not having to store it at an airport.
Aviation is expensive, but, we can chose where to put our dollars. I can and will build a heated and cooled barn to store my aircraft in, over renting a bare bones T-hanger. I think, under proper development of this aircraft, there will be buyers.
My first reaction was “That’s not a fugly aircar design.” The next was “That’s a lot of origami mechanicals to make the wings/empennage functional.” Which led to “That’s a lot of things to break” and “The annual will be a nightmare.”
Maybe it will show up in the next Bond film. It sure looks a lot better than “Little Nellie”. More likely, it’ll be in the next Bond film starring Sean Connery… :-/
Al E.: If you’re willing to keep your aircraft in an enclosed trailer, you could do what I did. My experimental helicopter lives in a enclosed trailer that cost $5,000 new. And it “don’ need no steekin’ airport” at all.
1 reply
It’s pretty, but I think the Klein Air Car will be as useful as a Klein Bottle.
LOL, if I only new how to fly a helicopter. The trailer will mostly be for transport. It’ll be going in a barn/hanger on my property. Unfortunately, too mountainous here for a runway, on my property.
This is definitely a looker and as such requires a little more scrutiny. While location was crucial for initial test flights to determine overall capability to achieve car and aircraft handling, there may be some hidden hurdles not revealed in this promotional video. Here in the USA, if I’m not mistaken, over the road vehicles require headlights, tail lights, brake lights, rear and/or side view mirrors. License plate(s) mounted and any emissions/safety inspections. I don’t see side view mirrors. New York and California have some of the toughest vehicle emissions standards while Michigan and several other states ignore them. Prospective owners interested in this air car are either ignorant of their state and FAA regulations or will scrutinize their state and FAA regs before forking over a deposit. And this is well before this air car meets federal/state vehicle safety/emissions and acquires an FAA airworthiness certificate. I can’t imagine anyone driving out of their Manhattan underground parking lot, maneuvering this expensive air car in congested traffic and managing to avoid a fender bender while attempting to drive to a local small airport like Teterboro in NJ, Republic or MacArthur airports on Long Island. Away from the big cities, the well heeled can drive almost anywhere from their car port to local airport.
1 reply
win=when tab to complete got me
Until regulations change… Drivers will have to obtain at least a private pilots license to fly. Dumb idea that evokes dreams of people stuck in traffic jams soaring their way home.
Go ahead and put 50K commute time cars in a major metropolitan area in the sky at once. Oh, lets hope it’s a great VFR day, and there’s a place to land and take-off near home & work.
When a decent LSA aircraft costs $200K, a flying car would be way beyond this price. Fender bender or scuff in parking lot? Sure, go fly home.
1 reply
Who’s the market demographic? The pilot who doesn’t want to borrow a crew car, get a rental car, or not leave an old car at their regular destination?
Inventors tried for years to make cars that float. We would up with both a poor boat and poor car design.
Never happen.
I recall talking to an engineer from Terrafugia years ago. They took great pains to call it a “roadable aircraft”. Their goal (back then) was to make a good flying airplane first. They reasoned that pilots would put up with a mediocre car, but not a dog of an aircraft. For proof, just witness all the junky crew cars we happily drive after flying our favorite bird.
“Here in the USA, if I’m not mistaken, over the road vehicles require headlights, tail lights, brake lights, rear and/or side view mirrors. License plate(s) mounted and any emissions/safety inspections.”
When the time comes, they may bank on the “Low Volume Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Act of 2015”. So long as they produce less than 325 vehicles per year, they’ll be exempt from a lot of federal motor-vehicle regulations. This law was primarily aimed at the kit- and specialty-car market but could certainly apply here.
A darn good option! It’s been a while since I’ve flown a conventional gear, sure would be fun!
IIRC, they can repair it, but it has to get signed off by an A&P. At any rate, A&P’s are generally less expensive hourly nowadays aren’t they? The overhead of machines and software per car mechanic are, I suspect, the culprit.
Too much skepticism.
Someone who commutes by air could get their money’s worth. Their are professionals with practices in multiple small towns as well as business owners with similar needs. It depends on the transition and other factors I suppose.
There’s always the rich guy toy market as well.
Presumably some state could simply legalize these vehicles so long as they pass with the FAA. I’d love to see that. DC needs a good dozen instances of states asserting their rights.
So it’s kinda like an Icon A5 then, right ???
Whoever designed this ridiculous ‘thing’ obviously never took any courses in reliability engineering.
Flying rocket-powered motorcycles in a beautifully realized Art Deco future? Seen Bradley Schenk’s work? This is the “flying car” I want: https://www.zazzle.com/if_i_only_had_wings_id_fly_24x18_poster-228399195405638091
Flying car season has come early this year. Usually the press waits until the dead of winter when we’re all bored from the combination of bad weather and short days before trotting out these types of stories. Maybe this predicts a bad winter coming, like the fuzzy caterpillar or the bushy-tail squirrel.
Does anyone else find the comments about flying at 150 kt using a 300 hp V-6 engine and using only 5 gallons/hour of fuel just a little hard to believe? Also they will have a hard time selling them to portly Americans with a paultry 500 pound useful load limit. It does not appear that there are actual doors on either side of the cabin, so good luck climbing in and out. It would also be interesting to watch someone trying to maneuver it through a high-rise parking garage in a major city. Interesting design, but not terribly practical. Maybe they could get the FAA to certify it under their “new and improved” LSA rules, due out shortly. 
There is a practical question ignored by all of these “air car” companies. Where are you going to find an airport willing to let you drive in and fly away. What are the chances that there is an airport like that where you want to go? We see fewer and fewer local airports accepting small GA aircraft as it is because they all want to attract business aircraft to pay for the airport/services. As long as these “air cars” still require a runway for takeoff or landing they will still not pass the practicality test.