Slashdot Mirror

If I recall, the previous crash has been linked to a bad angle of attack sensor. This sensor is only used by a new stall protection feature in the 737 Max. When it fails, the stall protection algorithm thinks the plane is stuck in a nose up orientation, and tries to force the nose down... into the ground.

There are several things that should happen:

1. Interim corrective action. Disable stall protection on all 737 Max aircraft.

My first thought as well, but apparently the engine nacelles have been moved further along the wing and higher so that the risk of stalls have increased. That's why the MCAS (anti-stall) system was introduced in the 737 MAX. If this can't be corrected to the satisfaction of the CAA and others, the type may have to be withdrawn, at least until it's re-engineered.

If I recall, the previous crash has been linked to a bad angle of attack sensor. This sensor is only used by a new stall protection feature in the 737 Max. When it fails, the stall protection algorithm thinks the plane is stuck in a nose up orientation, and tries to force the nose down... into the ground.

There are several things that should happen:

1. Interim corrective action. Disable stall protection on all 737 Max aircraft.
2. Quality control investigation into the angle of attack sensor reliability.
3. Implement diagnostic algorithms into the control strategy to detect failed angle of attack sensors automatically. A failed sensor should disable the stall protection feature automatically, and alert the pilot.

It looks like small short-range electric and hybrid fixed-wing aircraft will be the vanguard of the coming revolution in autonomous electric aircraft. Teslarati has a good rundown of the players in that space. (IMHO the all-electric Eviation prototype is beautiful.)

The energy density of lithium cells is terrible compared to liquid hydrocarbon fuels, but the simplicity, reliability and lower operating cost of an electric motor and batteries over a combustion engine is the driver. They might never compete with turbojets for long-distance flights, but they can still capture a large proportion of the market by dominating shorter range commutes.

...It's documented. Here's another one - http://www.flyingmag.com/techn... . See, actual damage.

Birds attack manned aircraft deliberately the same way as they attack UAVs. Just make search of images in Google on "birds collision with aircraft". You will see exactly the same damage and even worse.

In the article it is clearly written: "the FAA's incident report refers to a collision between the Piper Apache and an "unidentified object". So it was an UAV allegedly, but since collisions with birds happen often by Occam's Razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... principle it was a bird collision.

The point was made. There have been collisions and I think everyone knows it. It's documented. Here's another one - http://www.flyingmag.com/techn... . See, actual damage.

The fact that the FAA and DOT is trying to mandate and or implement this by mid-December, which would be about the fastest they've ever moved on any regulation ever, by far.

Well, they have been working on this for three years

and they've already blown past their deadline.

The majority of people I know, the old-core RC pilots build up their contraptions from components and paper or PDF plans.

You're not the reason this is happening, and you're not the people they're targeting. The majority of your old-school RC pilots are the ones who pay attention to the Academy of Model Aeronautics guidelines and whatnot, and generally know how not to be an idiot when flying. What the FAA is worried about is daddy dropping $60 for a Syma X5C to buy for junior's sixteenth birthday, and then junior flying it over the bleachers at the homecoming game and someone getting smacked in the head when he loses a blade by flying too close to a lamppost.

It's kind of like how in the early days of automobiles you could just build or drive one without any care at all, as long as you didn't do any damage, but then cars became more widely available and cheaper, and that brought more dangers. I mean, let's say the average is 5% of people doing something stupid, right? If only 100,000 people are flying that's only 5,000 people being stupid, but if 1,000,000 people are flying now it's 50,000, and it becomes more of a public safety issue.

Well, actually, they do: http://www.flyingmag.com/news/...

However when a plane falls out of the sky in a fiery ball of death, it doesn't destroy the rest of the airspace in the system so badly that all of the atmosphere has to be rebuilt before air travel can be started again.

Actually, that claim is not so undisputed as you might think. Still in the USA though.

But given the "Eurotrash" comment I'm probably just feeding a troll.

Is current GA activity intrinsically low, or is it low compared to the Good Old Days of the 1950s and 1960s general aviation boom?

Our GA airports are somewhat less than inviting to visitors. There was an editorial/blog in Flying magazine on this subject recently.

Airplanes really are expensive to buy and to operate.

Does anybody learn to fly for fun or for private transportation anymore? Everybody nowadays gets their PPL because it's the prerequisite for everything else. After the novelty wore off I too came to the realization that a PPL was sterile, a dead end, and am now working on my commercial license.

...laura

I'm thinking this is somewhat better than a $200 car.

Aeronca 7AC Champion

The next step is the colour of law for http://www.flyingmag.com/news/feds-say-pilots-have-no-rights
If you stay in the USA but fly in a "High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area" you may get to enjoy a full "ramp check".

In North America, there is ONE refinery still producing it. And they pretty much only run a batch once a year - an entire day's production is sufficient for an entire year. Something like all the avgas used in a year is equal to all the regular gas used by cars in a day.

Don't suppose you have a reference for that assertion do you? There are several refineries in USA that make avgas, and production is much larger than a day.

In 2009 there were 10 refineries making avgas, this article indicates there "seven or eight" in 2011.

Check out this table , courtesy of the Energy Information Administration, for a summary of regions where avgas is produced.

"I was watching some stuff on the U-2 a few days ago"

here are some recent articles on the U2. Journalist gets a flight and writes a series of them...good reading.

Future of U2:
http://www.flyingmag.com/turbine/1377/dragon-hawks-the-u-2s-future.html

Training/Prep For U2 Flight:
http://www.flyingmag.com/piloting/1378/so-you-want-to-fly-a-u-2.html

U2 Flight Report:
http://www.flyingmag.com/turbine/1379/dragon-hearts.html

How to score a U2 Flight:
http://www.flyingmag.com/flyinglessons/1376/from-dream-to-reality-a-girl-a-plane-and-a-space-suit.html

"I was watching some stuff on the U-2 a few days ago"

here are some recent articles on the U2. Journalist gets a flight and writes a series of them...good reading.

Future of U2:
http://www.flyingmag.com/turbine/1377/dragon-hawks-the-u-2s-future.html

Training/Prep For U2 Flight:
http://www.flyingmag.com/piloting/1378/so-you-want-to-fly-a-u-2.html

U2 Flight Report:
http://www.flyingmag.com/turbine/1379/dragon-hearts.html

How to score a U2 Flight:
http://www.flyingmag.com/flyinglessons/1376/from-dream-to-reality-a-girl-a-plane-and-a-space-suit.html

"I was watching some stuff on the U-2 a few days ago"

here are some recent articles on the U2. Journalist gets a flight and writes a series of them...good reading.

Future of U2:
http://www.flyingmag.com/turbine/1377/dragon-hawks-the-u-2s-future.html

Training/Prep For U2 Flight:
http://www.flyingmag.com/piloting/1378/so-you-want-to-fly-a-u-2.html

U2 Flight Report:
http://www.flyingmag.com/turbine/1379/dragon-hearts.html

How to score a U2 Flight:
http://www.flyingmag.com/flyinglessons/1376/from-dream-to-reality-a-girl-a-plane-and-a-space-suit.html

"I was watching some stuff on the U-2 a few days ago"

here are some recent articles on the U2. Journalist gets a flight and writes a series of them...good reading.

Future of U2:
http://www.flyingmag.com/turbine/1377/dragon-hawks-the-u-2s-future.html

Training/Prep For U2 Flight:
http://www.flyingmag.com/piloting/1378/so-you-want-to-fly-a-u-2.html

U2 Flight Report:
http://www.flyingmag.com/turbine/1379/dragon-hearts.html

How to score a U2 Flight:
http://www.flyingmag.com/flyinglessons/1376/from-dream-to-reality-a-girl-a-plane-and-a-space-suit.html

If you ignore the over-hyped (and still pretty damned cool) iPhone as 1st place, this list is pretty amazing. The water-injected engine at first glance sounds alot like the water-injection that was hyped back in the 1970s, but it's not. A little bit of digging (thanks, Google!) reveals that it's actually a 6-stroke engine that uses the heat that would normally be radiated away. If done right, there's no need for a radiator or other cooling system!

My first thought is about what this could mean for General Aviation - having the fuel burn rate cut by 40% WITHOUT needing any cooling gear (think: reduced weight) could be a real boon... already there are diesel aviation engines already that are significantly more efficient ( but need radiators, and already have a high compression ratio) this could help out even more - imagine a diesel engine that reduces fuel consumption by 60%, maybe even 70%?!?!?

Pipe dream? Yes. But I sure do hope. And it would likely happen in cars before airplanes, thanks to the glacial pace of technology advancement in aviation. Everybody's so terrified of risk that innovation is radically reduced. The reality is simply that (Private Airplanes) == (Money) == (Lawyer Bait) == (an industry that is forever on the edge of shutdown).

If you want to see the crippling effect that excessive lawyering can cause to industry, you need look no further than private aviation.

-Ben

It seems somewhat counterintuitive that airlines would ignore such an obvious way to save fuel if there weren't tradeoffs involved, considering its one of their single greatest expenditures.


The aviation industry is simply counterintuitive.

While most people think that the aerospace industry is high-tech, the truth is that it's rather backward. Airframe designs routinely remain in active use for 30+ years, sometimes 50 or more! An entire industry that's focused on reliability first and foremost beyond new innovations and improvements. Strictly speaking, it's an industry that's been largely paralyzed by liability attorneys.

As a pilot, I'm frequently amazed by how much is left to the pilot. Statistically, 70% of aviation deaths occur because of "pilot error". Yet while aviation systems are kept starkly simple to "improve reliability", very little is done to reduce pilot workload. It's as though there's this culture of finger-pointing, simply because it's easier than innovating the cockpit into something that reduces pilot workload.

Why would I have to adjust the fuel mixture MANUALLY on an airplane to get peak performance, when my cheap-o Saturn SL2 does the job nicely, even adapting itself to my specific driving habits? Why would I need to adjust the manifold pressure of a fixed-speed prop to get optimum performance when the transmission in my cheap-o Saturn SL2 does the job nicely at 1/10 the price?

There is a new Diesel/Jet-A engine made by Thielert that eliminates the need to do either. I push the lever in and get more power. I pull it out to slow down.

Technology like this, that reduces pilot workload, will serve to reduce pilot workload and improve aviation safety.

Yes, the commercial airline industry has done a decent job of implementing many of these features - but I often feel as though the FAA is as much about suppressing the aviation industry as it is about promoting it.

Currently subscribe and read cover-to-cover:

• The Economist
• Harper's
• Flying
• Aviation Safety Letters
• SIGOPS Pubs

Read frequently:

• PHOTO (European Release (FRA)))
• Photo Techniques
• PDN (Photo District News)
• B&W
• View Camera
• AOPA Pilot