Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jackson1way 2635 days ago
I have a question since many years that I am afraid to ask so straight. There is the AF447 and those 2 Boeing MAX that I remember where people will always talk about redundancy of the sensors, or their maintenance.

But really, I want to know why the software and hardware of the aircraft fails to understand that whatever actions it has performed automatically or inputs/actions by the pilots, or any other important event, are making the damn aircraft loose altitude really really fast. In the case of these Boeings, how can your software keep pointing the nose of the aircraft down WHILE it is CONSISTENTLY loosing altitude? How is this not a huge design flaw? I understand that for stall recovery you actually have to loose some altitude to regain speed/lift and recover from the stall. But if you STILL KEEP loosing altitude and there is no turning point, then damnit, whatever caused the loosing altitude should be stopped at least at 500m AGL, no? Switch on a huge yellow light to the pilots „you are 100% on your own now, the computer is out of luck and is shutting down“ and the pilot jumps on the gas pedal, 200% power to the engines, and starts to figure out how to gain altitude. Both Boeing flights were in daylight, no? Pilots should be able to see the ground/water and be able to pull the thing back up just by visibility without any sensors? It‘s a bit of a different case with the AF447, though.

How did the AoA sensors and MCAS won the authority here over the only important data: altitude change. Who cares if the AoA shows 30 degrees or -271 degrees, as long as the plane is climbing we are good! No need to point the nose down or do any other stall protection stuff? And that seems to be really what happened with these 2 Boeings. They were climbing but some stupid AoA sensor failed and some even more stupid MCAS decided to dive. And they kept diving until they reached the ocean and MCAS was still confident it was a good idea to dive?

In some planes my iPhone is able to get the GPS reading and some free app I got 5 years ago will actually show me ground speed and altitude. Which I always find very exciting. It usually matches with what the entertainment system is showing on the pax screens. Give or take <1%. So reliable altitude reading is solved, no? You have 300 phones on your plane (though only the window seats have a chance for it to work, but still...). Not sure if the GPS is gonna work if the plane is rolling and spinning like crazy, which I dont think happened in any of these cases.

I hope I don‘t make it sound stupid or even i-know-it-better, but I really just want to understand.

1 comments

I only know a little bit about aerospace programming, but from what I do know complicated chains-of-reasoning are avoided like the plague. With every additional step of program reasoning the probability that you got it right decays exponentially. As a result, simple controllers with clearly defined areas of responsibility are elevated above all else. It is the pilot's job to integrate the information coming to them from all areas of the plane. Yes, a computer could do it, but once you get past three or so sensors the programmer's ability to reason about what might happen shrinks to nothing in comparison to the pilot's ability to see what is happening.