

Wired Test-Drives Boeing’s New 787 Dreamliner - spathak
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/07/boeing-787-dreamliner-flight/

======
will_asouka
I guess the main concern here is the ease with which modern airliners can be
flown under normal circumstances.

As operation becomes easier, training can also become easier and, more
importantly, cheaper. This results in less rigorously trained pilots. Also,
fewer people will fail an easier training program, resulting in pilots with
less natural talent making the flight deck.

Modern aircraft are extremely reliable, but the AF447 incident
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AF447>) showed that when the automatic systems
fail, in this case due to iced-up pitot probes, the humans in the loop failed
to control the aircraft resulting in hull loss.

The Wired article points out the differences between the Airbus side stick and
Boeing yoke, additionally with Boeing the autothrottle physically moves the
thrust levers. But pilots with thousands of hours flying benign routes are
considered experienced, yet are also unable to recognise a stall, a
fundamental hazard to safe flight taught very early on in flying training.

The issue seems to be an incongruence as technology outpaces training.

On AF447- "Pilots a generation ago would have done that and understood what
was going on, but [the AF447 pilots] were so conditioned to rely on the
automation that they were unable to do this. This is a problem not just
limited to Air France or Airbus, it's a problem we're seeing around the world
because pilots are being conditioned to treat automated processed data as
truth, and not compare it with the raw information that lies underneath."
William Voss, President, Flight Safety Foundation
([http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/05/air-france-
crash...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/05/air-france-crash-ruling-
pilots))

Great aircraft, lets hope the training keeps pace.

~~~
ejdyksen
The AF447 crash was an example of exactly why the Airbus side stick model is
flawed compared to the Boeing yoke.

In AF447, one of the pilots had a nose up input held during a stall. Because
the other pilots couldn't see his stick, they weren't aware of his inputs.
Also, at certain times, the other pilot was giving contradictory (nose down)
inputs to the aircraft. This input was averaged (read: canceled) with the
other pilot's nose up input.

The side stick has two problems: 1) Lack of awareness of what inputs are being
given to the plane by other pilots in the flight deck. 2) The computer has to
make decisions about how to resolve contradictory inputs.

~~~
hef19898
But you know that nowadays even Boeing is using fly-by-wire? So the only
difference is the input device which more a question of convenience or
personal preferances. basically it all comes down to training, experience and
system knowledge. The make of your aircraft is secondary.

by the way, the A330 has a pretty good safety record. We shouldn't judge one
approach based on one single incident no matter how severe.

And even it came ultimately down to a pilot error, in order to make plane
crash it takes a whole chain of events. In AF447's case the pilots reaction
was the last straw, yoke or side stick.

~~~
joezydeco
Forget the fly-by-wire, the crucial difference here is that the input devices
on the Boeing craft _move together_. If the AF447 crew had this feedback the
accident most likely would not have happened.

~~~
hef19898
Hard to tell afterwards. A botched-up situatation is just that, botched-up.
During the AF447 accident so much things went wrong that's almost impossible
to single out one that could have prevented it.

Being in aerospace, I slowly get fed up by all this "My airplane is better
than yours and that would have happened if yours had what mine has"
discussions. I know it is kind of OT right now and that it's HN here and not a
pilots forum but I consider it just childish. It's the final report of the
authorities that counts, nothing else.

Enough said on AF447, I think the 787 is one pretty plane. What I'm cusious to
see is whos bet is right, Boeings' on more point to point flights or Airbus'
on the more traditional hub-spoke structure. Just hope Boeing is getting the
Dreamliner industrialized and built with less pain than Airbus had on the
A380. It slowly becomes a shame how much problems aerospace companies have
with that in the last decade.

~~~
joezydeco
As a controls and human-factors engineer, I think the subject is highly
relevant and very interesting.

There is a large and distinct difference in the flight control mechanism of
these two airplanes. It's been discussed over and over, and the transcript of
the voice recorder and control logs show there there was a distinct
discrepancy happening in the cockpit while the plane was going down:

 _"As the plane approaches 10,000 feet, Robert tries to take back the
controls, and pushes forward on the stick, but the plane is in "dual input"
mode, and so the system averages his inputs with those of Bonin, who continues
to pull back. The nose remains high._ " [1]

So, being in aerospace, is this subject annoying or something that is normally
not discussed?

[1]
[http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/crashes/...](http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/crashes/what-
really-happened-aboard-air-france-447-6611877-2)

~~~
hef19898
I'm not a avionics engineer. But at least under my collegues this is
discussed. Unfortunately with a clear preference of the Airbus approach with
some "conaisseurs" in between baseing their preferance of the Boeing yoke on
aviation tradition. But I guess that's normal for the EADS.

Maybe the controlls were a factor in that crash, but for me it's just two
different philosophies. Only my personal opinion and I'm no position to judge
that.

------
barrkel
_"Simulated engine failures were performed in just about every conceivable
situation, including take-off roll, before nose rotation, during rotation,
after rotation, during the climb, during the landing and during both
compensating and aggravating crosswinds. The result is an airplane that is as
boring as possible to fly, even in emergencies."_

I wonder how the system reacts when it gets false information about an engine
failure. I mean, it's great when the computer is able to react to actual
failures; but I'm also worried about how it reacts to bad sensor data. Sure,
it's good engineering practice to defend in depth and eliminate single points
of failure, but reading about the Air France crash, cascading errors don't
seem to be properly dealt with.

~~~
51Cards
I agree with the concern for cascading failures but I'm not sure I agree with
the comment re: Air France. There was no error cascade there as far as I can
see. The pitot tubes froze and the when the aircraft lost airspeed data it did
what it was designed to do, turned off auto-pilot and gave control back to the
pilot. The pilots were the ones who failed to understand and manage the
situation from there on, relying on a computer that was unable to provide
data.

Perhaps (said with a little tongue in cheek) it wouldn't be a bad thing if the
computers flashed up a big "I don't know!" on the screens so the humans would
know to look elsewhere for their information. Just a thought. Then again the
humans need to know how to get the data in other ways too.

As my auto racing instructor used to say, "It was a failure of the squishy bit
between the steering wheel and the seat".

~~~
genwin
Do you know why the plane doesn't use GPS as a backup method for airspeed
measuring?

~~~
whiskers
Because airspeed is relative to the speed of the air around you (not relative
to your position on the earth).

The pitot tubes (which caused the initial problem by icing over) are there to
determine exactly that.

~~~
genwin
Doh! Finally, it makes sense.

------
redwood
In-cabin humidity will be a huge plus... less flight dehydration (one of the
main reasons flying leaves us feeling like crap)

------
eroded
Alas the 787's expectations are too high, as the aircraft is basically an
update of the Boeing 767. As with all launches, there’s a lot of hype and
Boeing has certainly made a big deal out of it, but it’s not a radically
different experience for passengers. While aviation buffs will know better, I
think most of the flying public are expecting an improvement on the 777 and
unfortunately it’s not – at least from the passenger’s seat.

~~~
th0ma5
What about the air pressure difference? As someone that works in a high rise,
and has allergies, ear discomfort is a very daily thing, and sometimes
downright upsetting when flying.

~~~
will_asouka
Yes, the 787 will have a max cabin altitude of 6000ft. Other airliners work to
8000ft. The upshot is denser, more refreshing, air which makes for a
comfortable and less fatiguing journey.

~~~
excuse-me
The upshot is "potentially" denser more refreshing air - the airline still
gets to decide how much fuel (=$$$) it's wants to 'waste' refreshing that air.

~~~
davidmr
This is (almost entirely) a myth.

<http://www.salon.com/2009/09/25/askthepilot335/>

~~~
excuse-me
It's a myth that the pilot can "turn up" the amount of oxygen.

But the ratio of fresh air that the airline has selected depends on how much
fuel that they want to waste heating the -50C fresh air to cabin temperature,
and how much humidity they want to put on the airframes life.

------
geori
I'm disappointed in the minimal amount of innovation we've seen in airplanes
since the 70s. That's great that it is 20% more fuel efficient, but we're
flying with basically the same tech that we did 40 years ago. Can Elon Musk
please build us a hypersonic jet liner!?

~~~
mitchty
Hypersonic? Innovation in airplanes has been rather high, just not in making
them go faster.

This is similar to complaining we don't have 10ghz processors. Yes this is
true, but as it turns out thats a hard problem and we can work around it
elsewhere.

Hypersonic presents a completely different set of problems in things like
materials, design, shockwave management, etc.... That and it likely isn't
profitable. Better to design fuel efficient jets that fly closer to the speed
of sound than another concorde.

~~~
mikeash
I think it's just a point of diminishing returns, really.

Range keeps going up. Now you can fly a big airliner between pretty much any
two large airports on the planet, if you can sell the tickets for that route.
The trip takes a max of, what, 20 hours or so? Cutting that down to, say, 6
hours just doesn't win you that much. Sure, there are some people who would
really benefit, but I'd wager that the vast majority of travelers either get
almost as much benefit from the 20-hour trip as they would from the 6-hour
trip, and the vast majority of people for whom the 20-hour trip is too long to
be useful would also find the 6-hour trip to be too long to be useful.

The world is only so big, and at some point, making the stuff go faster
doesn't get you all that much. Personally, if I magically had the choice, I'd
_much_ rather fly on an airliner that traveled at current speeds but was more
comfortable and didn't have security nonsense surrounding it than on a
hypersonic airliner with the same ergonomics and security nonsense we have
right now.

~~~
kreek
I agree that comfort is the issue. The airlines squeeze so many seats now into
coach that for tall or larger passengers it's very uncomfortable for cross
country flights. I'm 6'2" the space under the seat in front of me is always
taken up by someone's carry on bag.

Two hour flights are no problem, the five hours cross-country is ok, but any
long haul in coach is pretty miserable.

~~~
lliiffee
What, really? I've _never_ had someone in front of me use the space beneath
their seat. That's my space! (I'm also 6'2" and only bring a small carry-on
because I need that space for legs.)

