https://www.ifairworthy.com/pdf/CPSReport.pdf

I found the above study which looks at best practise in commercial plane certification. It's from 2002.

Early on are conclusions and recommendations so you don't have to go too deep into it.

If any of you have time to take a look at them then IMO it doesn't take long to figure out many of the recommendations about best practise have NOT been followed with Max 737

In fact you can argue the exact opposite of the recommendations have been implemented from what we know so far.

If you look at page 88 of the report there's a summary of 4 major causes of plane crashes and what can be done to minimise the risk with plane design, teamwork between designers and authorities and communication and training etc. And in the case of Max 737 you could argue they've been totally ignored.

This was a report commissioned by FAA to make planes safer and reduce the risk of future accidents

They must have forgotten all about the report IMO

The message from Boeing that they didn't want to tell the pilots who were writing the safety manual for 737 max about MCAS system due to "inundating them with too much information" goes completely opposite to the findings on communication and all parties being fully involved in all of the processes. Totally against it.

I guess the Boeing staff who made that decision must not have been around when this report was created and haven't been told about it!

A direct paragraph from the report:

"If significant strides are to be made in lowering the accident rates, a much better understanding of the issues affecting human performance is required. Airplane designers will be challenged to develop systems that are less error prone. Procedures will also have to be more explicit and more robust with respect to the range of skills and techniques of operations and maintenance personell."

So what do they do with Max

They design a plane that NEEDS a system that adds chances for errors that the previous planes didn't need?

And then they don't even communicate the changes. Let alone train them or make them more robust.

Surely max should never have been allowed to be NEEDED for the plane design in the first place.

At which stage we wouldn't be worried about even training for it - knowing some of that training won't work however robust it is?

Interested wrote:

Other highlights

80 per cent of plane crashes involve some kind of human error or failure of pilots to make the correct interventions so planes MUST be designed n the future to minimise the need for pilot intervention if safety is to improve. They have to be designed expecting that pilots will make errors and STILL be safe no matter what level of training pilots receive

So then why have a design that has pilots at all? Because even if machines are perfectly designed parts/systems can fail.

While the two recent MAX crashes are probably due to a system that was not tolerant enough for a failure(bad design) in a sub-system (Air Speed Probe). It was still a part probably that did fail causing the MCAS to go crazy.

You need pilots in the cockpit that have enough training to be able to figure out a system (Electric Trim) wasn't doing what it was supposed to do and have the wherewithal and confidence to turn it off. That is why there is a manual back up system.

You can't design a mechanical system that is perfect and will never fail.

However we can do a lot better job on training. Train pilots what to do when systems fail or aren't doing what you expect them to do - turn them off and fly manually. Over reliance on Automated systems has made this generation of pilots way to dependant on technology and probably way too uncomfortable with taking manual control.

This is bad analogy giving that tragedy is involved but it's time to basically establish a Top Gun for commercial pilots and get back to basics (being comfortable with flying manual). Automation is just there too assist - not to to be the primary method of controlling the aircraft and drum into pilots that always assume that something will fail on an aircraft and that it will try to kill them. They need to have the skills and the confidence to take over and fly manually.

morrisond wrote:

Interested wrote:

Other highlights

80 per cent of plane crashes involve some kind of human error or failure of pilots to make the correct interventions so planes MUST be designed n the future to minimise the need for pilot intervention if safety is to improve. They have to be designed expecting that pilots will make errors and STILL be safe no matter what level of training pilots receive

So then why have a design that has pilots at all? Because even if machines are perfectly designed parts/systems can fail.

While the two recent MAX crashes are probably due to a system that was not tolerant enough for a failure(bad design) in a sub-system (Air Speed Probe). It was still a part probably that did fail causing the MCAS to go crazy.

You need pilots in the cockpit that have enough training to be able to figure out a system (Electric Trim) wasn't doing what it was supposed to do and have the wherewithal and confidence to turn it off. That is why there is a manual back up system.

You can't design a mechanical system that is perfect and will never fail.

However we can do a lot better job on training. Train pilots what to do when systems fail or aren't doing what you expect them to do - turn them off and fly manually. Over reliance on Automated systems has made this generation of pilots way to dependant on technology and probably way too uncomfortable with taking manual control.

This is bad analogy giving that tragedy is involved but it's time to basically establish a Top Gun for commercial pilots and get back to basics (being comfortable with flying manual). Automation is just there too assist - not to to be the primary method of controlling the aircraft and drum into pilots that always assume that something will fail on an aircraft and that it will try to kill them. They need to have the skills and the confidence to take over and fly manually.

I think you are missing the point

The report accepts there will ALWAYS be pilot errors or failure and hence challenges plane designers to minimise the need for intervention

Obviously we want the best skilled pilots on every plane but the first aim is to reduce the amount of intervention they have to do to keep a plane safe

This isn't about getting rid of pilots but about reducing the risk that a failure to act by them or a wrong decision can crash the plane

We certainly shouldn't need Top Gun level pilots to fly these planes safely

In fact we should be aiming for the opposite. Design planes that are harder to crash not easier to crash because more things to worry about. Based on that FAA report the latest version of 737 should have less things that can go wrong and be safer to fly than the previous one. Constantly reducing risks NOT adding to them or introducing new risks

It's a basic lack of risk management here

The “best skilled pilots” in the world won’t be when they’re doing nothing but watching the plane fly itself secure in the knowledge their skills and judgement will never be needed.

I always worry about complex software being put in airplanes. The more complex things get, the more things can break.

I remember that a lot of the F-35's early problems were down to complex software, as well.

The complex software you are worried about is far more reliable than cables and pulleys, which, being mechanical, tend to break and wear out. Same as LCD displays are far more reliable than mechanical instruments, and furthermore you can display the information on another unit if one breaks.

The F-35 is an edge case. Designed to work at the edge of the envelope. Much more complex flight controls than an airliner.

Interested wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Interested wrote:

Other highlights

80 per cent of plane crashes involve some kind of human error or failure of pilots to make the correct interventions so planes MUST be designed n the future to minimise the need for pilot intervention if safety is to improve. They have to be designed expecting that pilots will make errors and STILL be safe no matter what level of training pilots receive

So then why have a design that has pilots at all? Because even if machines are perfectly designed parts/systems can fail.

While the two recent MAX crashes are probably due to a system that was not tolerant enough for a failure(bad design) in a sub-system (Air Speed Probe). It was still a part probably that did fail causing the MCAS to go crazy.

You need pilots in the cockpit that have enough training to be able to figure out a system (Electric Trim) wasn't doing what it was supposed to do and have the wherewithal and confidence to turn it off. That is why there is a manual back up system.

You can't design a mechanical system that is perfect and will never fail.

However we can do a lot better job on training. Train pilots what to do when systems fail or aren't doing what you expect them to do - turn them off and fly manually. Over reliance on Automated systems has made this generation of pilots way to dependant on technology and probably way too uncomfortable with taking manual control.

This is bad analogy giving that tragedy is involved but it's time to basically establish a Top Gun for commercial pilots and get back to basics (being comfortable with flying manual). Automation is just there too assist - not to to be the primary method of controlling the aircraft and drum into pilots that always assume that something will fail on an aircraft and that it will try to kill them. They need to have the skills and the confidence to take over and fly manually.

I think you are missing the point

The report accepts there will ALWAYS be pilot errors or failure and hence challenges plane designers to minimise the need for intervention

Obviously we want the best skilled pilots on every plane but the first aim is to reduce the amount of intervention they have to do to keep a plane safe

This isn't about getting rid of pilots but about reducing the risk that a failure to act by them or a wrong decision can crash the plane

We certainly shouldn't need Top Gun level pilots to fly these planes safely

In fact we should be aiming for the opposite. Design planes that are harder to crash not easier to crash because more things to worry about. Based on that FAA report the latest version of 737 should have less things that can go wrong and be safer to fly than the previous one. Constantly reducing risks NOT adding to them or introducing new risks

It's a basic lack of risk management here

We don't dumb down medical procedures because doctors make errors on them (which is now the third leading cause of death in America) so why should we dumb down aircraft because of 2 flights out of millions. We should treat flying an airliner as a professional endeavor and not make shortcuts as Boeing did but also train pilots to be more than simply button pushers.

I would say that simplifying an airliner whether for costs or replacement reasons may have caused this disaster with the lack of multiple AOA probes and the lack of a way to kick out bad inputs so I do not believe that is the right way to go about it