In other news, another Antonov An-24 bites the dust.

https://www.rt.com/news/462775-russia-nizhneangarsk-crash-landing/

 

Huh. Looked like a decent enough approach considering it was single-engine. Touched down a bit fast and long (based on the distance markers on the runway 500' apart) but then drifted off to the right.. Gear collapsed. Huh.

 

Are the markers the white lines and are they only at the ends of runway?

 

In other news, another Antonov An-24 bites the dust.

https://www.rt.com/news/462775-russia-nizhneangarsk-crash-landing/

This plane was made in 1977. How is this relevant to current issues faced by Boeing and FAA?

 

This plane was made in 1977. How is this relevant to current issues faced by Boeing and FAA?

In other news.

Spoiler

The 737 design dates from 1965. Just another demonstration that safety is relative to expectations.

 

Are the markers the white lines and are they only at the ends of runway?

Yep. The big blocks you can see in the video start at the threshold and are 500 feet apart. The threshold and two other markings went by before he touched down. Markings vary. These are for runways with an instrument approach.
https://www.google.com/search?q=run...i#imgdii=eGT9i7nC-p_HsM:&imgrc=Up-D4QRXmo5OpM:

 

In other news.

Spoiler

The 737 design dates from 1965. Just another demonstration that safety is relative to expectations.

This plane was built in 1977, no talking about design. It is an old plane. There appears to have been an engine failure. Once again, what is your point? Deflection? You are looking at a plane that was made for 20 years and has not been in production since 1979.

p.s. as a russian, i can tell you that we take our disregard for safety quite seriously

 

This plane was built in 1977, no talking about design. It is an old plane. There appears to have been an engine failure. Once again, what is your point? Deflection? You are looking at a plane that was made for 20 years and has not been in production since 1979.

p.s. as a russian, i can tell you that we take our disregard for safety quite seriously

The story was in the aviation news.
It was mainly in honor of the pilot who died in the effort to save the passengers while flying the old bucket of bolts. I don't see Russian pilots complaining about “Psychological impact”.

 

The story was in the aviation news.
It was mainly in honor of the pilot who died in the effort to save the passengers while flying the old bucket of bolts. I don't see Russian pilots complaining about “Psychological impact”.

Fair enough. I also thought it was interesting that the lawsuit was initiated by (from what I read) a canadian pilot of all people. Canadian pilots get very good training and are quite well protected by their union.

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeings-737-max-software-outsourced-204657048.html

(Bloomberg) -- It remains the mystery at the heart of Boeing Co.’s 737 Max crisis: how a company renowned for meticulous design made seemingly basic software mistakes leading to a pair of deadly crashes. Longtime Boeing engineers say the effort was complicated by a push to outsource work to lower-paid contractors.

The Max software -- plagued by issues that could keep the planes grounded months longer after U.S. regulators this week revealed a new flaw -- was developed at a time Boeing was laying off experienced engineers and pressing suppliers to cut costs.

It might have been a issue if the problem originated from a software bug but everything I read is that the software actually worked exactly to specifications. The engineering specifications of the required software results were filled with bugs not the actual programming of the MCAS system deployed. I'm not saying it was a good practice but it seems to have not made any difference here.

The coders from HCL were typically designing to specifications set by Boeing. Still, “it was controversial because it was far less efficient than Boeing engineers just writing the code,” Rabin said. Frequently, he recalled, “it took many rounds going back and forth because the code was not done correctly.”

 

https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news...on-737-safety-procedures-85.html#post10534286

The thoroughness of the ongoing review of the MAX flight controls in light of the two crashes is apparent in how a new potential fault with a microprocessor in the flight-control computer was discovered during the June testing. Details of that fault not previously reported were confirmed both by an FAA official and by a person at Boeing familiar with the tests.

And in response to finding that new glitch, Boeing has developed a plan to fundamentally change the software architecture of the MAX flight-control system so that it will take input from both flight-control computers at once instead of using only one on a flight.

“This is a huge deal,” said Peter Lemme, a former flight-controls engineer at Boeing and avionics expert.

The 737 has two flight-control computers, but in the architecture that has been in place for decades, only one computer is used at a time on a flight, with systems switching to use the other computer on the next flight.

Lemme said the proposed software architecture switch to a “fail-safe,” two-channel system, with each of the computers operating from an independent set of sensors, will not only address the new microprocessor issue but will also make the flawed Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) that went haywire on the two crash flights more reliable and safe.

“I’m overjoyed to hear Boeing is doing this,” Lemme said. “It’s absolutely the right thing to do.”

 

https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news...on-737-safety-procedures-85.html#post10534286

Nice ... a duplicate redundant system ... I wonder how they will handle the control logic if ever one of them contradicts the other.

 

Nice ... a duplicate redundant system ... I wonder how they will handle the control logic if ever one of them contradicts the other.

I would think they would switch to manual flight controls like the single cpu system does today with maybe an option for pilot switch-over to non-redundant operation of system once the pilot is confident at least one system is functioning correctly.

 

Nice ... a duplicate redundant system ... I wonder how they will handle the control logic if ever one of them contradicts the other.

Checked redundant control systems for ground based processes (automatic train controls, elevators, nuclear power plants, or refineries just default to a restrictive mode or just STOP or HALT.

That won't work for aircraft in flight so there must be provision for human intervention. That's another reason why I see self driving cars as a can of worms waiting to be opened.

 

 

I don't like the fact that the engines sit too low, almost touching the ground. That will not only make emergency landings without landing gear unfeasible, IMHO. That will also make landings with cross winds more challenging. I understand that the engines sit lower because they have to be bigger. But wouldn't be a quad engine solution more safe, after all? The design is too flawed.

Kind regards, Samuel Lourenço

 

I don't like the fact that the engines sit too low, almost touching the ground. That will not only make emergency landings without landing gear unfeasible, IMHO. That will also make landings with cross winds more challenging. I understand that the engines sit lower because they have to be bigger. But wouldn't be a quad engine solution more safe, after all? The design is too flawed.

Kind regards, Samuel Lourenço

OK, Which engine is too low?

Spoiler

A320 vs 737

 

OK, Which engine is too low?
View attachment 185615

Spoiler

A320 vs 737

Found your source on stackexchange. But as a member there says, you can't judge distances by photos. And also who known if Airbus is making the same mistake. If you notice, the engines sit higher on the older quad engine planes.

These new planes don't make me feel safe one bit. You will always lose safety when making economically driven decisions.

Kind regards, Samuel Lourenço

 

Found your source on stackexchange. But as a member there says, you can't judge distances by photos. And also who known if Airbus is making the same mistake. If you notice, the engines sit higher on the older quad engine planes.

These new planes don't make me feel safe one bit. You will always lose safety when making economically driven decisions.

Kind regards, Samuel Lourenço

You can easily judge the relative engine height (not true distance.) There are likely millions of pages of air-frame regulations from around the world and I'm pretty sure all commercial passenger airplanes meet those requirements for engine height above ground so it's not a mistake. The engines size and placement are secondary problems in this series of crashes.

I do agree with this in the 737 MAX case.
You will always lose safety when making economically driven decisions