Wired Test-Drives Boeing’s New 787 Dreamliner | Hacker News Reader

Wired Test-Drives Boeing’s New 787 Dreamliner

wired.com

56 pointsspathak46 comments

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...)

Great aircraft, lets hope the training keeps pace.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/...

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.

Yes. The side-sticks not moving in sympathy is a hindrance to monitoring the handling pilot.

The AF447 inputs were averaged.

I stand corrected.

Sidestick priority logic — When only one pilot operates the sidestick his demand is sent to the computers. — When the other pilot operates his sidestick in the same or opposite direction both pilots inputs are algebraically added. The addition is limited to single stick maximum deflection. Note : In the event of simultaneous input on both sidesticks (2° deflection off the neutral position in any direction) the two green SIDE STICK PRIORITY lights on the glareshield come on. In addition on A330E, the "DUAL INPUT" voice message activates). A pilot can deactivate the other stick and take full control by pressing and keeping pressed his takeover pushbutton. For latching the priority condition, it is recommended to press the takeover pushbutton for more than 40 seconds. The takeover pushbutton can then be released without losing priority. However, at any time, a deactivated stick can be reactivated by momentarily pressing either takeover pushbutton. If both pilots press their takeover push buttons, the last pilot to press will get the priority. Note : If an autopilot is engaged, the first action on a take over pushbutton will disengage it.

Technology may be the only thing keeping plans in the air in 20 years. A pilot's career is as risky as any and only those who are independently weathy or have no concern for living a normal life would choose that career now.

Before quoting top end salaries, understand that they have come down dramatically since 2001 and there is nothing stopping that trend from continuing.

Many, if not most private jet aircraft crews, commuter jet crews etc. make less than $35k a year for a captains salary.

Normally, high supply (pilots) vs low demand (pilots slots) would result in a low wage and high quality person (which is what we have now). But overtime, those that have the highest competency know they can perform any number of other jobs and are left to choose "better" careers.

The longterm outlook for pilot talent is scary. My only hope is that robotics can bridge the gap.

With no air-speed indicator at night there is no way to tell your speed or wether you stall or not. What also happened to AF447 was that when the pilots pulled up the stall indicator silenced. that the COMPUTER does that beyond a certain speed stresshold wasn't remebered apparently since that wasn't trained properly.

And being in coffin corner where to much speed is going to kill you to, well as apiot you have to decide.

What is true on the other hand is that the bush pilot to aorliner pilot career became kind of scarce. But here AF is one of the better airlines since they still train their pilots themselves instead of relying on third-party training institutes. Something that's apparently happaning a lot in the UK for example.

But given the fact the planes are basically flying computers today, well being a pilot didn't become easier imho.

That first bit isn't quite true. At a given altitude, a specific attitude and thrust setting will maintain constant altitude and velocity.

Obviously it's much more complicated than that, but this is taught to pilots (although not included in their re-certification tests, as noted by the BEA). With properly trained and tested pilots, loss of airspeed indication is a completely survivable incident, and in fact many planes have suffered such incidents at altitude without accident.

Yeah, hence the pilot error since they trusted the computer. AFAIK some of the issues have already been adressed (training and the like).

Edit for my above post: It is diffcult and NOT impossible to tell if you stall. Diffcult is the better word.

"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.

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".

There is a big "I don't know" warning. It's called alternate law. And there is another mode called direct law for when the computer really doesn't know.

There were also inconsistent stall warnings. If the pitot tubes freeze over, I expect windspeed will be underreported, which will make it look like a stall. IIRC, the pitot tubes were only out of commission for a minute or two, but the co-pilots ignored the (now correct) stall warning all the way into the ocean (until the pilot woke up and came back, but then it was too late).

I guess the real problem here is having only a single modality for detecting windspeed. It doesn't matter how many pitot tubes you have if they all have the same failure mode; quantitative redundancy isn't as good as qualitative.

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

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.

Doh! Finally, it makes sense.

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

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.

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.

I suspect the higher cabin humidity and higher cabin pressure will make the airliner significantly more comfortable. These, combined with the larger windows could actually make a difference in terms of how air travel feels. It's hard to say whether they'll be too subtle to notice, though.

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.

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.

This is (almost entirely) a myth.

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

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.

It's actually a huge improvement from the passenger's seat as well. The new Sky interior gives the compartment a much nicer and cleaner feel, while opening things up and making the plane feel much larger. Normally I can't stand up straight in a plane; I'm too tall. I can stand in a sky interior plane. The overhead bins are much bigger, as well. They work on a different mechanism which will keep overstuffed bins from spilling their contents on poor souls beneath. The ride is also much quieter inside than previous models. Then, on top of that, you have the dimming windows, which are just plain cool. It's a huge improvement.

The plane is made primarily of composite materials, allowing it to be an efficient enough proposition for the airline for me here in Boston to go direct to Tokyo. No layover. I can feel that from the passenger seat. Ok so it isn't the successor to the Concorde, but 20% efficiency is not insignificant.

Another important difference is that the 787's lower weight means it doesn't require runways to be as long, and so can land at smaller airports, opening up more flight plans and destinations.

Source: guide talked about it when I went on the factory tour.

It's not just composites either. One interesting innovation about lower weight comes from the way the wings are designed. Someone on Reddit explained: But the 787 wings are less stiff, proportionately to their size, than those of most other airliners. This is because there's a system that, during heavy loads, puts most of the load on the area of the wing that is closer to the fuselage, so the wing bending moment is alleviated, i.e. the wingtip never experiences loads as high as on other airplanes. So you can get away with less wing structure. http://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/wb764/these_compos...

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!?

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.

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.

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.

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.)

> Cutting that down to, say, 6 hours just doesn't win you that much.

Very important point. Airtravel after 9/11 took a huge step back for the sake of security theater. Used to be, I could get to airport 30m before flight time, and the terminal 10m before takeoff on a relatively light day and have no problem making the flight (I had done this repeatedly). Add ~30m to get to the airport and you're looking at 1hr each way for +2 hrs door-to-door (on average, YMMV).

Now, those times are doubled to tripled, with the added treacherous possibility of missing the flight completely if you happen to get randomly flagged or say or do the wrong thing during security (all with the bonus of either being groped or irradiated).

So that 20hrs becomes 26+ and 6 becomes 12+. Now you've lost a day, either way.

Not me. Being in a ten-plus-hour flight sucks. I'd take six hours packed like a sardine with over-recycled airline food farts over 20 hours with better air pressure/humidity and bigger windows any day, cost being equal.

Look at the Concorde — new crazy fast airplane technology is great, but it's not affordable or attractive enough to make it worth an airline's time. Make it affordable and we'll all fly on your hypersonic jet liner tomorrow.

Virgin Galactic is probably on the closest trajectory right now for a hypersonic jet liner.

The problem is not technology, but the willingness to pay for it. The average flight is only a few hours long, but costs at least a hundred dollars. Most people are willing to put up with a lot of discomfort to save a few bucks. A supersonic jet would effectively be an all-business-class service, which has been tried many times before and has always failed due to a lack of demand. The 787 optimizes for what customers want: namely, lower ticket prices.

Market forces pushed airliners in the opposite direction:

low ticket prices == cram as many cattle that be legally packed into the fuselage, close the door, and go

So all the cool features Boeing cares to demonstrate on this plane will not be ordered by any major airline aside from Emirates, all the major US carriers will be choosing the standard plastic window shade instead.

I suspect there is a disconnect between what you want and what the general flying public / airlines want. I come to that suspicion by the route that there has been a huge amount of innovation in airlines (even with regulatory drag) which apparently you are not acknowledging.

The whole fly-by-wire / auto land thing which would make a remake of "Airport" much less of a thriller. Its taken a long time to get these systems certified but they have changed the way these planes are managed.

There has been a lot of change in entertainment and communication options, from a single four channel radio phone of the 90's we've now got multichannel live satellite feeds and internet access. Per seat entertainment choices vs one VHS tape for everyone.

Speed and range gains have also made it possible for smaller airports to support non-stop flights to distant destinations. While people near SFO or NYC may not see a change, the fact that you could fly from Reno to Tokyo non-stop is a big change.

Finally you have to realize that a plane is a 20 year investment by an airline so you'll see changes on the order of 10 years not every year.

The 787 is a pretty amazing piece of gear, full up replacement planes are a slow process.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com