system

The level of skill - training - and expertise of USA trained pilots means that if this - (mainly) - software issue occurred during flight - (and probably has) - but was no big deal to our pilots - they may have been shocked when they learned that there was a bigger issue with the MCAS - but again - their skills and calm attitude made it almost a non-issue - - - hat’s off to the quality of the USA Pilots to handle almost any flight problem.

Tammie Jo Shults had a harder time controlling direction - altitude - and attitude when her Southwest 737 port engine exploded - it was far more difficult than an MCAS malfunctioning.

Tammie’s skill - training - and her personal calm attitude meant that the 737 and it’s passengers - (save one) - were going to survive - and if Tammie were flying a 737 Max - rest assured she would have already known how to override or turn off the MCAS before she ever sat down in the captains seat.

It’s a difference similar to a Stradivarius violin in the hands of a novice - it’s going to sound horrible in the wrong hands - so even a high time pilot with bad training and/or bad skills and habits is nothing more than a bad high time pilot.

As for myself - I will not hesitate to board and fly in a 737 Max with a trained USA pilot at the controls - and that would be without any fix to the MCAS.

In case someone wants to question the difference in skill and training of a foreign pilot - all I can say is - who would want to fly in any aircraft of a foreign airline when the minimum requirement of the FO is 250 hours?

Boeing is an excellent manufacturer - and they will - and have - already fixed this issue - and the Max will soon be in the air again and in the hands of USA trained pilots will be among the safest.

I liken this to when the first B17 crashed on take off killing everyone on board because someone forgot to remove the control locks - (quality - skill - and training).

Thanks Pat

2 replies

system

Dear Pat:
I would like to add a bit of depth of perspective to your comments. I do not disparage or deny any of your points but…

As a fairly experienced pilot in command (C-141, B-747, ATR-42, CV-240, DC-6… 20K+hrs) I have to generally agree with your viewpoint about most Asian and third world F/Os. They do not have a wealth of training or experience when the first saddle up a jet. Thus, most Asian and third world airlines are very, very insistent that crews use automation to the make and never stray out of their “lane”. Culture, specifically the Asian concept of “face”, inhibits a lot of the training of the inexperienced. I have many acquaintances that flew for various Asian companies and they will tell tales that will make you most uncomfortable.
Now, the concept of “face” hardly enters into the Western concept of training. What does enter in is the growing level of lack of flight experience in the actual Instructors doing the training. Even the pretty much ab initio programs out there that are ginning up are using more and more barely trained instructors to fill the seats in their programs. Do they have the minimum hours required: yes. Are they FAA certified: yes. Do they have the minimum amount of knowledge: yes. Do they have any real experience: no. These instructors are teaching only what they were taught and what the “book” says. Why you ask? Because that is all they can possibly know. I ran into the same issue during my USAF pilot training. The “plow back” Lts went to a 6 month school to be IPs and were the product of a pretty darn effective system. But, that was all they knew. They did not have the experience that other IPs had by flying other aircraft. We students often had to go to the experienced IPs for a different viewpoint to be able to pick up on some concepts.
Now, combine the limited sort of training I described with max effort computer based training and the lack of potential quality in brand new or low time F/Os here in the “west” increases. Combine that with no effort at “line training” by companies and minimum visits to the sim, well, sooner or later…
During sim training, one thing I noticed in my time on the line was a total lack of multiple emergencies being tossed at the crew. The concept was only one problem at a time, period. Well, in real life, up there somewhere inside the boundaries of the air, when one thing goes wrong, other little gremlins are always trying to jump on the bandwagon. The current trend of absolute minimum levels of training, lots of CBT and as little classroom time as possible, all to minimize cost, is going to bite the industry some day.

Just my “grumpy old Captain” thoughts on a Monday morning.

system

SHAME ON BOEING AND THE FAA.
Even a “humble” turboprop like the ATR constantly averages BOTH AoA values and self disables if mayor disagreement.
From the final report:

"……the design of MCAS relying on input from a single AOA sensor, made this Flight Control System susceptible to a single failure of AOA malfunction.
During the accident flight, the scenario was initiated by a single failure, a high bias in AOA sensor. This high bias resulted in several aircraft level effects including stick shaker, erroneous airspeed and altitude displays and MCAS….

The MCAS software uses input from a single AOA sensor only. Certain failure or anomalies of the AOA sensor corresponding to the master FCC controlling STS can generate an unintended activation of MCAS

The MCAS software uses input from a single AOA sensor only. Certain failure or anomalies of the AOA sensor corresponding to the master FCC controlling STS can generate an unintended activation of MCAS. Anticipated flight crew response including aircraft nose up (ANU) electric trim commands (which reset MCAS) may cause the flight crew difficultly in controlling the aircraft.

To incorporate MCAS, the basic column cutout function had to be inhibited during the MCAS activation. Pulling back on the column normally interrupts any electric stabilizer aircraft nose-down command, but for the MAX with MCAS operating, that control column cutout function is disabled.

The aircraft design should not have allowed this situation. The flight crew should have been provided with information and alerts to help them understand the system and know how to resolve potential issues. Flight crew procedures and training should be appropriate. The aircraft should have included the intended AOA
DISAGREE alert message functionally, which was installed on 737 NG aircraft.
Boeing and the FAA should ensure that new and changed aircraft design are properly described, analyzed, and certified.

The MCAS function was not a fail-safe design and did not include redundancy. A single failure to the AOA sensor corresponding with the FCC commanding STS resulted in erroneous activation of MCAS.

the design of MCAS relying on input from a single AOA sensor, made this Flight Control System susceptible to a single failure of AOA malfunction.

Since the FCC controlling the MCAS is dependent on a single AOA source, the MCAS contribution to cumulative AOA effects should have been assessed.

The MCAS software uses input from a single AOA sensor only. Certain failures or anomalies of the AOA sensor corresponding to the master FCC controlling STS can generate an unintended activation of MCAS.

The MCAS architecture with redundant AOA inputs for MCAS could have been considered but was not required…

If the uncommanded MCAS failure condition had been assessed as more severe than Major, the decision to rely on single AOA sensor should have been avoided.

MCAS was designed to rely on a single AOA sensor, making it vulnerable to erroneous input from that sensor.

UPDATES TO THE MCAS (TOO LATE FOR THE VICTIMS. SHAME ON BOEING AND THE FAA).
• THE FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEM WILL NOW COMPARE INPUTS FROM BOTH AOA SENSORS. IF THE SENSORS DISAGREE BY 5.5 DEGREES OR MORE, MCAS WILL NOT ACTIVATE."

system

Hi Pat,

Agreed that everyone should be trained to highest standards possible. Since the reality is that a large portion of the world’s pilots are not so trained, and that that situation isn’t likely to change soon, it seems like you’re saying that Boeing should only sell to US carriers, since apparently Boeing was relying on that level of competence to ensure a safe flight. Not sure that Boeing or its shareholders will agree with that business strategy, but Airbus is probably OK with it.

Also, the analogy of the B-17 gust locks only holds if Boeing had painted them with camouflage to hide them from pilots and if the B-17 POH or other standard training manuals of the day did not mention removal of gust locks during preflight inspection.

system

Some of the comments posted about Boeing “fixing” the issue and “USA” pilots being superior or having better training does show a bit of bias and lack of perspective. How is it so easy to Monday morning quarterback a crash and how overly simplistic to assume we’re better or could have prevented a crash, don’t let your ego substitute the horse pulling the wagon. PatrickP, your comments alone to me shows lack of experience. Boeing for many years has gotten away with too much of its own policing and has finally got caught. How would you have liked to be told a system that goes bad on your aircraft doesn’t have a backup and or because you didn’t find the solution to fixing something that was a design flaw quick enough was your fault? It’s easy to blame others from foreign lands because we all have those stories don’t we. We all worked or known people that worked with pilots in quick train schools just getting hours both from a training perspective and instructing prospective. The reality is experience comes from experiencing, both what happens to us and around us. These days all the airlines are hiring like crazy and the overall quality of the people driving the bus is lower then it’s been for some time. Combine that with a design flaw and it wouldn’t take a rocket scientist to know it could happen here in the good old US-of-A. As for the crash findings, it’s the typical “Swiss Cheese” model at it’s finest. What I see is a few holes that show lack of following the rules and integrity…both from a personal level of previous write ups from MX to the previous pilots pushing the problem downstream to Boeing self policing and the FAA not double checking to the airlines wanting cheaper training. Perspective.

system

This hero (or heroine) pilot stuff is ridiculous. Like it or not commercial aviation is a system, consisting of many institutional players (the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), various foreign certification agencies, manufacturers, airlines, pilot unions) and individual players (engineers, pilots, instructors, executives, bureaucrats, etc.), all of whose actions (and interactions) played a role in the final, fatally flawed outcome. This was a SYSTEM failure, and there is plenty of evidence Boeing and the FAA dropped the ball, multiple times. The best synopsis of what happened is the guy who said “From what we know, there are nine things that contributed to this accident, if one of the nine hadn’t occurred, maybe the accident wouldn’t have occurred.” Total validation of the “Swiss Cheese” model. Looking at this as the individual failures of four pilots only ignores the systemic issues and sets the stage for more deadly accidents down the road.

system

I was somewhat troubled by the complacent and basically racist comments of Pat. I find it terribly troubling that Boeing made the MULTIPLE errors they have made to save money and facilitate sales and which it seems unquestionably lead to the death of over three hundred trusting customers

1 reply

system

Where was race ever mentioned?
Why is it Boeing’s fault if a customer launches a plane with a known problem?

jbrewster7453

The usual commenters must be too busy enjoying Halloween to make the standard avweb criticisms tonight on this one.

1 reply

maule

Better than the oversized drones we’ve been seeing but still silly. 21 miles. Wow.

1 reply

500ks

Thank you, that’s the number that is notable by it’s absence in the article.

1 reply

Shane_WILEY

I presume pumpkin man was at the controls

NewUserName

I doubted I’d have to look the distance up myself. ??

Project appears from the limited info to be a hobby/PR endeavor, but it’s cleverly meeting the stated goal as most every hospital doing organ transplants is bound to be within 21 miles of an airport, and they have helipads.

Not sure what the carbon ROI will be since they are bound to be putting a lot of work in for a somewhat small application. Still, if they can get 30 to 45 minutes of powered operation, there’s a real market for that.

1 reply

adrian04

Whilst I applaud this demonstration, we all know that the ‘elephant in the room’ is lack of battery capacity. We have long since managed to develop electric motors that are sufficiently powerful and efficient for sustained powered fixed wing and rotary flight, but unless and until we develop much higher capacity batteries then this will simply be a ‘technology demonstrator’. 20 minutes of flight time is simply not enough.

jwills8606

Until there is discovered a technology that can even reasonably compete with the energy density of gasoline or Jet A, this is all so much intellectual onanism, and the engineers know it. It’s equivalent to Woke-ism - posturing to show one’s commitment to solving a problem that does not exist; bending the knee to politicians who wouldn’t know the difference between an engine’s crank and their own.

This ain’t rocket surgery. A gasoline engine at 15:1 air/fuel ratio (by weight) only needs to carry 1/16 of the weight of the reactants that make power, the rest comes from ambient air, with the exhaust products dumped right back out. Batteries, which have to carry everything required when they take off - and never get any lighter in flight - aren’t within a rifle shot of that kind of energy density and will never be. Until a new technology comes along for energy storage, stop wasting your time.

1 reply

Marc_Clemente

I see a difference between this project and other evtol/urban mobility projects. This project is taking a proven airframe and electrifying it. There probably already is a market to for helicopters to carry organs. Maybe these helicopters mostly sit around, so a long recharge time is not a problem. They are probably not based at airports, and filling up with gas is inconvenient. Maybe an electric engine will pay for itself in the long run with decreased cost of maintenance. And maybe the short range is not a problem for the places where these helicopters operate.

Other evtol projects try to do too many things at once: 1. electric 2. multirotor. 3. pilotless. 4. urban mobility. The urban mobility problem is the biggest problem for me. If there was a market for urban mobility, how come it’s not already being filled by R44s or other helicopters? Actually, maybe it is. Some people in New York and Los Angeles fly around in helicopters to go places. But that’s the extent of the market today. Would more people fly in chartered helicopters if it was less expensive? Probably. Not much more though. Too many other barriers to overcome. And where are they going to land to pick me up and drop me off?

If rich pilot hobbyists have not been able to create a viable electric multirotor to fly around in, then I doubt venture capitalists will be able to. And hobbyists don’t even have to make a profit.

1 reply

gmbfly98

Everyone KNEW building a heavier-than-air self-powered vehicle was impossible. Then, everyone KNEW you could never fly across the Atlantic non-stop. And it would be impossible to fly around the world non-stop. Ok, sure, those were overcome, but we all know it’s impossible to fly humans to the moon and back. Or how about how we knew it would be impossible for a helicopter to fly faster than 250kts?

Everything is physically impossible until someone proves it’s not. Then it’s obvious it was possible all along.

This is a tech demonstrator doing exactly what tech demonstratora do: prove something is technically possible. They aren’t supposed to be viable commercial products on their own. They spur refinements to the concept until a viable product is possible. It’s a bit of a chicken vs egg: until it’s shown to be technically possible, the technology for a viable product is never developed.

5 replies

Brian_Smith

Thank you, Gary B, for saying what seems so incredibly obvious to so many of us (should be all of us, since it was pretty much what the quote that was in the article said!), and still seems to elude all of those who can’t see past the end of the fuel truck hose.

1 reply

rpstrong

Thumbs up to both you and Brian.

cujet

Electrochemical energy storage has very well known and finite physical limits. Lithium, one of the most active metals on the periodic chart is king when it comes to moving ions. There won’t be anything better anytime soon. There is a reason the hundreds of billions of dollars put into battery research yields no results. We understand the physics behind modern rechargeable batteries exceptionally well. Remember, common hydrocarbon fuels contain the same energy they always did. We were never able to make a gasoline that contained twice the energy, despite claims in the 1930’s that we were able to do so. What we did instead was to vastly improve engine efficiency. We don’t have that option with 93-95% efficient electric motors.

1 reply

chip

I await the day that these very same nay-sayers harrumph and hyper-parse their arguments to admit that they lacked the imagination to see that if electric rotorcraft can fill a market niche, they will be developed. After filling that niche, they will be further developed to compete in existing aircraft markets on price, convenience, noise, cleanliness, meeting the inevitable eco-restrictions, or whatever the future may bring.

I applaud Tier 1 Engineering for their accomplishment, but I saw a single-place electric helicopter at the Composite-FX factory in Florida last Spring and at their booth at Airventure. If that low-budget/high-talent outfit can make a kit-built electric Mosquito experimental helicopter kit out of essentially off-the-shelf components, it won’t be long before commercially viable electric rotorcraft are commonplace.

In my computer career, an apparently difficult problem was denoted a SMOP: Simple Matter of Programming. This is a SMOE.

1 reply

maule

Thank you Chris C.

I double majored in physiology and physics at Rutgers.

The periodic table is a cruel mistress. There are only so many choices that could be made for electrochemical potential difference. The is no miracle technology yet to be discovered, only fine tuning of what already exists.

The graph of battery ability vs. research expenditure has reached an asymptote.

1 reply

jbholtz

It’s encouraging to see so many comments from the aviation community that are sober minded and balanced. So many are rushing headlong into the battery world and make rash comments about EV’s. Since the energy density of rechargeable Li-Ion batteries is 2.1 MJ/L vs. 36 MJ/L for gas it is clear at this time, battery powered vehicles cannot match the overall capability of ICE’s. Our Arrow can travel about 500 miles in any direction carrying about 500 lbs. of fuel. Batteries approximating that ability would weight far more than the aircraft itself. No one can argue that. Gas packs an energy wallop that overcomes less efficient IC motors. Even while powering efficient electric motors, batteries cannot match that and also have a host of other limitations that are well known, susceptible to temp extremes, parasitic drain et. al. The research is encouraging, but I see too many attempting to force electric vehicles before they are ready for prime time. Even for instruction … what is the time an electric 172 can remain in the air with reserves? One student and back to a charger for a few hours? Opinions are flying all over about causes of climate change. Animal husbandry? ICE’s? Even battery operations beginning with the mining of Lithium from the ABC countries encur a carbon penalty. A respected think tank concluded that given the overall factors in BEV production a 1200 kWH BEV and a compact ICE have about the same carbon footprint. So how much overall advantage would an electric training aircraft have over an ICE? I think none at the moment because they cannot match the endurance of an ICE. Someday, I think EV’s will be the primary players when energy sources match electric motors. But not yet.

Arthur_Foyt

The problem becomes not technology, but COSTS increases exponentially the closer you try to approach the asymptote. Just because battery power density can be improved does not mean they will be cheap/available enough for realistic general use.

EltonInAtlanta

Never is a long time.

EltonInAtlanta

Good points, but hobbyists don’t have the capital that VC’s do, and it’s a capital-intensive undertaking.

1 reply

EltonInAtlanta

You never know what people will think up.
https://ndb.technology/

jimhanson

Another classic “Solution in search of a problem…”

EVs were going to be Jetson-like “intercity commuters”–but lacked the range, payload, and places to land. Then the prediction was for swarms of drones–either carrying passengers, or “something important.” Hasn’t happened…and has been pointed out a number of times–perhaps best by Chris C, William, and Jeremy H.

It has also been pointed out that the vehicle (the R-22) has existed for years–yet nobody has seen the need of the service.

If anyone REALLY BELIEVES this will be a “thing”–they should mortgage the farm and invest in the future–if you are right and the physicists are wrong, you can make a killing! That’s the benefit of the Capitalist system.

Skypark

These reactions generated by the latest EV announcement always remind me of the old joke about new prisoner Dutch’s first day in the exercise yard. As the prisoners mill around, periodically one will yell out a seemingly random number, followed by laughter from others. On inquiry, it is explained to newbie Dutch that everyone has been “in” so long, all have memorized everyone else’s jokes, so to shorten things up, they have assigned each joke a number.

If we’re really serious about reducing our carbon footprint through bit transmission reduction, perhaps this could be applied to the limited and well-worn number of reactions to EV’s? “They laughed at Orville & Wilber” could be #4, “Physics preclude batteries ever matching petroleum’s energy density” #7, etc.

Oh, if by some strange quirk of fate you never heard the prisoner joke, Dutch memorizes some jokes and decides to join in, shouting “Thirteen”, one of the jokes he feels is funniest. No one laughs. Later, his cellmate explains “Well, Dutch, some people just can’t tell a joke.”

1 reply

jimhanson

If we are going to talk jokes and fairy tales, perhaps “Chicken Little” would be appropriate for those who actually believe in miracles. Recall that Chicken Little ran about, making unfounded claims that “The sky is falling”–causing others to take action to prevent the falling sky from harming them. In reality, there was no evidence of the “falling sky”–life pretty much continued without worry–the predicted catastrophe never happened.

To continue the fairy tale analogy, perhaps “The boy that cried wolf” would also be appropriate–the boy reported wolf sightings so often that nobody believed him–until a real wolf actually did appear.

In more modern times, (dating back to about 1600), there have been countless claims that a “perpetual motion machine” was ALSO “just around the corner”–yet the concept has never worked (though some people actually believe in it.

The internal combustion engine has only been around for about 100 years–before that, there was steam power–or electric power. Electric power has never worked well for portable power (without connection to a generating source) due to the limitations of batteries–and there has been no “magic battery” produced to provide the mobility of internal combustion. But that doesn’t prevent the ever-hopeful from saying “it COULD happen”–though it hasn’t happened in over 100 years.

The constant hype of “just around the corner” reminds me of the old “carnival barker”–“step right up, Rube…I’ve got this magic elixer that cures what ails you…” Professor Harold Higgens (from “The Music Man”) also exploited those who WANTED TO BELIEVE in what he was sellling…

Sven_Freitag

Two thumbs up for your comment. The first electric cars could barely make 40 miles, now GMC just released an electric truck with a 400 mile range. That said, while electric versions of traditional helicopters will no doubt enter the markets in the future, I think the more modern drone-based designs with high prop redundancy will be the EVTOLs of the future.

2 replies

maule

Not a relevant comparison.

For a commuter car like a Tesla immense weight is largely irrelevant.

Significant gains in battery energy density are impossible so a commuter car can largely ignore its weight as it adds more and more heavy batteries to get more range.

An aircraft is not afforded this luxury.

Also check on the forums. Teslas don’t often get the mileage advertised. Hot, cold, hills, heater use, AC use, dormant time, terrain, winds, etc. all adversely affect the range. A ‘400 mile’ Tesla is realistically a 300 mile commuter, with reserve.

rpstrong

The next day, he called out “97” and the other prisoners roared with laughter - they hadn’t heard that one yet.

rpstrong

You could have saved a lot of time by simply typing:

#17-f (fairy tail variant)

[And it was Professor Harold Hill who didn’t know the territory. Henry HiggIns tried to cure the cockney.]

2 replies

Len_Cornwell

>>designed to “deliver manufactured organs for transplant”<<
That helicopter is going to be landing on the hospital helipad to make the delivery. Then it is going to be sitting on that pad, blocking it from use by other emergencies, until either the battery pack is recharged or a replacement battery is obtained. Organ transplants don't happen every day, even in transplant hospitals, so the likelihood that spare batteries will be staged at every possible hospital helipad is rather slim. The logistics just don't seem to be all that practical.

Matt_D

The truth is you can’t schedule technical innovation. Your desire for some imagined technology doesn’t mean there’s some amount of finance that can bring it about. For chemical batteries to succeed in aircraft the energy/weight must increase by a factor of roughly 10. All the currency in the world spent on this and I’d bet it fails.

maule

As if there is a booming untapped market for battery powered organ delivery.

As if a police car, ambulance, or conventional aircraft can no longer due this obscure task.

ag4n6

Why do you say there is a real market? This is total redundancy with all the other less complicated? EVTOLs that are being developed that do not have the mechanical complications of a traditional helicopter but can land on the same helipad etc. None of this makes any sense!

ag4n6

Forty-five years ago Bryan Allen flew a human powered airplane across the English Channel. So where are all the human powered airplanes these days. Demonstrating something is really nothing compared with perfecting it and they are at least a long way from that!

1 reply

ag4n6

Hold your breath!

ag4n6

There is a saying in the AC industry, never buy the A model of anything, including a full sized Ford or GM electric pickup. I want to go hunting or fishing up in the Sierras and pull my small trailer. It is a 5 hour drive from the coast and up 9000 feet in elevation. Even if I could get there, where are the charging stations in places like Florence lake or Jackass meadows. If you believe the range hype being promoted by Ford and GM, call me about some beach front property in Nevada.

ag4n6

Since this whole subject is really a cruel joke, the most appropriate metaphor is about the optimistic child who got a pile of manure for Christmas and ran out with a shovel screaming there has to be a pony in here somewhere. Substitute money and the mythical high density low weight battery.

maule

As a pilot and endurance cyclist I would love to give one a try but have yet to find a pedal plane at the local GA Rent-A-Center.

jimhanson1

OF COURSE you are correct—I conflated my “HH’s”—(Henry Higgins and Harold Hill)—it was “Professor” Harold Hill that tried to scam the local populace into something that was not true—yet another example of someone trying to convince people that WANT something to be true.

bob8

The problem with this whole evtol/urban mobility push is it is being driven by political and social considerations rather than economic and technical considerations.