Comments by "Tony Wilson" (@tonywilson4713) on "4 of the Worst Aircraft of All Time" video.

@leifvejby8023 That is the one I can't figure out either. I did a degree in aerospace and work in industrial control systems. Across the engineering fields we have thins like HAZOPs (Hazard & Operability), FMEA (Failure Mode Effects Analysis) and RCA (Root Cause Analysis) studies. Almost any engineer from almost any field would easily conclude that the MCAS system was inevitably going to drive a plane into the ground. Because it relied on 1 sensor and could override the pilots if that sensor failed and told MCAS the plane was at too high of an angle of attack it would drive the nose down and KEEP driving it down as long as that sensor reported the nose was too high. Even a basic analysis should have said this system will kill plane loads. I have a college buddy who has been an airline pilot for a major air line. He's now a senior instructor on 737s and was assigned by his airline to look at the Max-8. He told me Boeing had "broken their system." That's NOT referring to the hardware but the design and test and check and quality systems they use to make planes. What he told me was Boeing basically took their entire playbook(s) for making great aircraft and threw it away to satisfy the sales team. Engineers and business students need to study it for how NOT to do something and understand unacceptable risk.
12
I tend to agree with you on that as well as most of Dave McGs and others (above on the list). Kelly Johnson was no mug at designing aircraft. BUT his designs pushed the performance envelopes and as such needed to be used as they were intended. The F104s basic task was to get up as high possible as fast as possible and deliver bomber smashing missiles against the potential fleet of Russian bombers. It was first and foremost an interceptor not a dog fighter, BUT THEN many other planes of that era were also of that mindset. Don't forget many fighters of that era ONLY had missiles and they were designed to go fast, line up, fire a missile and GET TF OUT as fast as possible. Go look at the rocket fighter videos the British were proposing at the time or the Canadian Avro Arrow which was a far more rounded aircraft. Simon did a video on the Arrow and if you look through the comments on it or any of the Arrow videos the Canadians are still sore about how Lockheed out muscled (& bribed) them with the business BS that ended up with a set of Laws called the "Lockheed Laws" to this day.
6
Good comment and I agree across the board. My understanding was the doors were designed that way FROM THE START to allow for more cargo including cargo pallets. One of the Aircraft Investigations does a really good job (including a 3d CAD model) of why the lock mechanism could fail. The worst part of the original mechanism was that the mechanical indicator that indicated it was locked for ground crew to know it was locked could give false positives. I'm an engineer and its one of those mechanisms that ALL engineering students need to study and understand.
5
@DrKlausTrophobie I tend to agree with you on that as well as most of Dave McGs. comment. Kelly Johnson was no mug at designing aircraft. BUT his designs pushed the performance envelopes and as such needed to be used as they were intended. The F104s basic task was to get up as high possible as fast as possible and deliver bomber smashing missiles against the potential fleet of Russian bombers. It was first and foremost an interceptor not a dog fighter, BUT THEN many other planes of that era were also of that mindset. Don't forget many fighters of that era ONLY had missiles and they were designed to go fast, line up, fire a missile and GET TF OUT as fast as possible. Go look at the rocket fighter videos the British were proposing at the time or the Canadian Avro Arrow which was a far more rounded aircraft. Simon did a video on the Arrow and if you look through the comments on it or any of the Arrow videos the Canadians are still sore about how Lockheed out muscled (& bribed) them with the business BS that ended up with a set of Laws called the "Lockheed Laws" to this day.
5
@earlyriser8998 Not certain who you're talking to but I have never heard anyone call it Factor of Safety. I have only every heard it called Safety Factor of Safety Factors. And that's by professors and 1000s of engineers across different fields. What bothers me about Boeing's design of MCAS was that it was obvious that the system had a failure mode that would only do one thing and that's fly a plane straight into the ground. For anyone who's had similar training to mine it really is that obvious. Boeing didn't simply ignore stuff. They took their own rulebook, standards and procedures and burned the lot.
1