Reminds me of the time when I did user acceptance on large IT projects. I introduced three classes of problems with correction efforts depending on severity:
Catastrophic: stop everything, fix it it immediately;
Major: don't stop testing but must be fixed by this time tomorrow;
Minor: must be fixed within three days.
The secret to successful testing is in a clear and enforced plan. If I or my team declared a Catastrophic, most companies started to jump through hoops voluntarily ;-)
Sorry, back to OnT ..
Jan
There is another problem that might be a smoke screen. Fake parts. A friend thought he found fake nuts on a F111. They were oval. That is how the are. Very bright and light suggesting titanium..The F111 were inspected and declaired a disgrace until the chief of maintenance pointed out it was a 24/7 operational outfit unlike at home. He then said despite looks the best performing and best maintenance of all F111. The guy brought the nut to me before seeing his boss. Not what he should have done. He was demoted to the tyre shop. I use to help him with his cars, best really he did tyres. The nuts are a form of super light lock nut. My friend I seem to remember though the light weight further proof of being fake if memory right. At least he questioned it.
I am battling at work over testing procedures. Luckily I have a friend who is an expert in the field. He has just come out of retirement at 80 to teach the Army. My boss says he appreciates my stance. That means I am ...... stubborn. Turns out we can adapt 1920s reasoning to fully described a complex impedance. The problem is testing is seen as a game for a group of people in a company who usually sit on a small table and nobody really knows who they are. Sometimes they keep the boss and the employees out of bankruptcy. I would say to anyone blaming is a bigger risk than accepting blame.
Exclusive: Boeing seeking to reduce scope, duration of some physical tests for new aircraft - sources - Reuters
Boeing is looking to increase certification by simulation. A good idea in some areas but really really bad timing!
Boeing is looking to increase certification by simulation. A good idea in some areas but really really bad timing!
U.S. regulator cites new flaw on grounded Boeing 737 MAX - Reuters
I believe there is a fundamental flaw in how Boeing allows the software to interfere with the pilot.
I believe there is a fundamental flaw in how Boeing allows the software to interfere with the pilot.
At work one of us doesn't want to use a system dreamt up by our accountant. Like a car company the part going forward is only is known by it's original part number. This person says this is madness as I once said. I was asked to modify the parts list whenever a part changes. I said this BOM as it is called is a legal document. I hope that puts an end to it. Making an aircraft needs so many cross references. Nightmare. What we agreed is the BOM has the part number and latest part number collom. Bet it has ten revisions. Basically it's asking me to do his job. As I pointed out if going to court I can pull part numbers from the air there is a fair chance I take safety seriously.
Absolutely correct. That's why the fleet is currently grounded, and they are coming up with a different solution.
In this morning's New York Times: The Federal Aviation Administration said Wednesday that it had recently discovered a new problem with the 737 Max jet that Boeing must correct before the plane is returned to service.
In a flight simulator last week, F.A.A. pilots tested erroneous activations of anti-stall software that pushes down the nose of the Max, two people with knowledge of the matter said. The software, known as MCAS, was involved in two crashes that killed 346 people.
In at least one instance, an F.A.A. pilot was unable to quickly and easily follow Boeing’s emergency procedures to regain control of the plane. The pilot rated that failure as catastrophic, meaning it could lead to the loss of an aircraft midflight, the people said. The situation that was tested is highly unlikely to occur during a typical passenger flight, but the regulator is still requiring Boeing to make a fix, one of the people said.
In a flight simulator last week, F.A.A. pilots tested erroneous activations of anti-stall software that pushes down the nose of the Max, two people with knowledge of the matter said. The software, known as MCAS, was involved in two crashes that killed 346 people.
In at least one instance, an F.A.A. pilot was unable to quickly and easily follow Boeing’s emergency procedures to regain control of the plane. The pilot rated that failure as catastrophic, meaning it could lead to the loss of an aircraft midflight, the people said. The situation that was tested is highly unlikely to occur during a typical passenger flight, but the regulator is still requiring Boeing to make a fix, one of the people said.
One point worth mentioning again - MCAS is not an “anti-stall” system, it was placed there for flight control feel in certain configurations. Seeing the term “anti-stall” in an article is a very good indacator that the article is written by people who generally have no (or very little) clue.
This is a conditional modifier to what is a linear characteristic.
I don't use DSP to correct for some room reflections and baffle diffractions because the two systems are incompatible (not to mention why it is being done). The assertion brings up more questions than it answers. It doesn't exactly fill me with hope.
Linear? Not at all. In fact, the flight regime is incredibly dynamic and has many modifiers, to name just a few;
Air density
Air saturation
Air temperature
Aircraft weight
Aircraft CG
Aircraft speed in airspeed
Aircraft speed in mach
Wing configuration
Wing angle of attack
Wing loading static
Wing loading dynamic
Gust loading
Engine thrust
The list goes on but hopefully you get the point.
Maybe a law of the sky could be imposed as to how unstable an aircraft would be without computer correction. That would be for experts to advise and might be reviewed from time to time. Whilst it's not ideal it might halt excessive use of over correction or whatever. One would like to think a modern aircraft could glide. I have my doubts without some kind of powering. I know the last point is well into the past or guess it is. Proff stress is requested and yield points on materials.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.