Full of Hot Air

This is Why We Will Always Need Pilots

Reading the article below just transported me back to year 2 "Controls" module with flashbacks of Laplace Transformations and Open/Closed Loops going on in my mind. It's an occupational hazard now that you've studied Aerospace Engineering, you tend to notice more and be more aware of things that happen during a flight. You're no longer one of the "meek sheep" the airlines cart from place to place.

What is really highlighted below is that even with the popular advent of UAVs, the possibility of having unmanned airliners plying the skies is not going to be possible anywhere in the near future. Barring technical and safety issues, there is still the psychological hurdle to overcome. Look at the rail industry - it took centuries before the automated trains of today became widely accepted and even then under very strict conditions. The recent crash landing in Heathrow is a gleaming example of why a pilot trained to rely on his senses and experience when all the flashy gizmos go blank is always going to be wanted at the helm in the cockpit. If not for his training, the outcome would have been disastrous.

Taken from Newscientist:

Crashing software poses flight danger

• 11 February 2008
• From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues
• Paul Marks

Web Links

• Software for Dependable Systems: Sufficient Evidence, National Academies of Science
• DO-178B, RTCA
• Peter Ladkin, University of Bielefeld
• Federal Aviation Administration

COCKPIT displays plunged into darkness, engines that throttle back during take-off and contradictory airspeed readings are just some of the problems caused in recent years by inexplicable failures in the software that controls aircraft.

So far there are no known cases of such failures alone causing an accident. Speculation that software problems led to the crash landing of the British Airways Boeing 777 at Heathrow airport, London, on 17 January remain unconfirmed. While software was implicated in the Korean Air jumbo jet crash in August 1997 on Guam, which killed 228 people, human error, not software design, was to blame. Software failures remain a risk, though, and with aircraft makers set to increase the proportion of aircraft functions controlled by software, experts are warning that they will become more frequent, increasing the chance that one will cause an accident.

In early aircraft, moving parts such as the rudder and wing flaps were linked to controls in the cockpit either by a system of cables and pulleys or by hydraulics. In the 1970s, aircraft makers realised they could get rid of much of this heavy equipment and replace it with lightweight wiring and systems driven by electric motors in the wings and tail. Such "fly-by-wire" (FBW) systems vastly increased fuel efficiency.

FBW had another advantage too: because it uses electrical signals, for the first time it allowed a computer to be placed between the pilot and the moving parts. The computers were programmed to modify the pilots' instructions in certain instances: for example, to stop them moving the rudder too far or too quickly and so damage the plane. They also allowed the plane's aerodynamics to be finely adjusted during flight in response to wind conditions, further improving fuel economy.

But the addition of software led to different problems. Some of these are documented in a report completed last year by the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS). It lists a number of instances in which software bugs caused frightening problems during flight. In one instance in August 2005, a computer in a Boeing 777 presented the pilot with contradictory reports of airspeed. It said the aircraft was going so fast it could be torn apart and at the same time that the plane was flying so slowly it would fail to generate enough lift to stay in the air. The pilots managed to control the aircraft nonetheless, but it was a stark illustration of what can go wrong.

In another instance in 2005, this time in an Airbus 319, the pilots' computerised flight and navigation displays as well as the autopilot, auto-throttle and radio all lost power simultaneously for 2 minutes. Another time, what the NAS calls "faulty logic in the software" meant that when the computer controlling fuel flow failed in an Airbus A340, the back-up systems were not turned on.

"The pilots' displays, autopilot, auto-throttle and radio all lost power for 2 minutes"

Now Boeing is planning to get rid of the hydraulic wheel brakes on its 787 in favour of lighter electrically actuated ones and to shift from using pneumatic engine starters and wing de-icers to electrical ones. Airbus will also be adopting a "more electric" approach in its forthcoming A350, says the plane's marketing director. "The addition of more electric systems will mean even more computer control," says Martyn Thomas, a systems engineering consultant based in Bath, UK, and a member of the NAS panel that produced the software report last year. "It will mean more wires or shared data lines and so still more possibilities for errors to arise."

But Boeing disagrees. "Flight critical software and systems are isolated from the other systems, so the addition of electric systems doesn't add complexity to the separate fly-by-wire flight control system," says a senior avionics engineer at Boeing's Everett, Washington plant.

The software used to control additional electric systems may not be in the same package as the flight control system, but they still add to the overall amount of software that needs writing and verifying as safe for flight. And that has independent experts like Thomas worried.

Why do software bugs arise and why can't they be removed? Bugs are sections of code that start doing something different to what the programmer intended, usually when the code has to deal with circumstances the programmer didn't anticipate. All software is susceptible to bugs, so it must be tested under as many different circumstances as possible. Ideally, the bugs get discovered at this time and are removed before the software is actually used. This is very difficult in complex systems like aircraft because the number of possible scenarios - such as different combinations of air densities, engine temperatures and specific aerodynamics - is huge.

To test for bugs, most aircraft manufacturers use a set of guidelines called the DO-178B standard, which was created by the US-based Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics, a collection of government, industry and academic organisations, and the European Organisation for Civil Aviation Equipment. Recognised by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the standard rates software on how seriously it would compromise safety were it to fail, and then recommends different levels of testing depending on that rating. The most rigorous "level A" test, reserved for software whose failure would cause a catastrophic event, is called "modified condition/decision coverage" (MCDC), and it places the software in as many situations as possible to see if it crashes or produces anomalous output.

But it isn't clear whether the MCDC test includes enough different conditions to provide any greater protection than the level B tests done on less safety-critical software. So in 2003, UK Ministry of Defence contractor Qinetiq ran both levels on a range of software that is deployed in military transport aircraft. The MCDC should pick out many more flaws than the level B tests, but the Qinetiq team found that there was "no significant difference" between them. "MCDC testing is not removing any significant numbers of bugs," says Thomas. "It highlights the fact that testing is a completely hopeless way of showing that software does not contain errors."

"The criteria currently used to evaluate the dependability of electronic systems for many safety-related uses are way too weak, way insufficient," says Peter Ladkin, a computer scientist specialising in safety engineering at the University of Bielefeld in Germany.

Instead of focusing on testing, Ladkin and Thomas want to see a change in the way safety-critical software is written. Neither Boeing nor Airbus responded to questions about exactly which programming languages their software systems are written in, but according to Les Dorr, spokesman for the FAA, which certifies US commercial software systems, it is a mixture of the languages C, C++, assembler and Ada, which was developed by the Pentagon. Some of those languages, such as C, allow programmers to write vague or ambiguous code, says Thomas, which is the kind of thing that often leads to bugs.

To solve this problem, he suggests using highly specialised computer languages that do not allow ambiguous software specifications to be written, and which mathematically verify software as the programmer is coding. Such languages include the B-Method, pioneered for use on computer-controlled sections of the Paris Metro, and SPARK, a version of Ada. These so-called "strongly-typed" languages and their compiler software have strict controls within them that make it very difficult for programmers to write vague or ambiguous code.

The NAS report also backs stricter controls on languages. "Safe programming languages... are likely to reduce the cost and difficulty of producing dependable software," it says.

The FAA agrees that an increase in the software control of planes "makes validation and verification of software more challenging" and is working to ensure that validation keeps pace with technical advances. But Thomas says their progress is too slow. "How long are we prepared to go on using tools we know are broken to develop software on which people's lives depend? No other engineering discipline would rely on tools that have dangerous faults."

Aviation - Learn more in our comprehensive special report.

From issue 2642 of New Scientist magazine, 11 February 2008, page 28-29

First of More To Come

As any Aerospace engineer learns, the true crux in designing any plane is in the optimisation of the design. Do you focus more on the aerodynamics for a truly flight efficient wing-body and thus sacrifice payload? Do you focus more on structural integrity and fly a plane that handles like a 18 wheel truck with no power steering? The list of compromises goes on endlessly amongst the Propulsion, Materials, Safety, Manufacturing and Payloads teams as well. Overriding all of these though, is the D.O.C : Direct Operating Costs.

That's right. No avoiding it. Even before a single bolt is turned or the first aluminium sheet pressed, there is an intense round of cost estimating and market research and analysis. In other words, "Will this aeroplane be a good sales pitch?" This is extremely important as every cent spent in this stage of the development could have repercussions of up to thousands of dollars in the later stages of the development and manufacture process.

So it should be no surprise that one of the top priorities of Boeing and Airbus would be to ensure customer's confidence in their products AND the company itself. Airbus, being a subsidiary company of EADS (European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company) with BAE (British Aerospace) as a shareholder, is routinely upheld as a sparkling example of what the old world powers can achieve through co-operation. I.E. beat the Americans.

Underneath all the handshakes, smiles and pat on the backs though, it is evident that the joint national leadership of an essentially commercial enterprise just isn't working out. Issues like national security, pride and economical policies hinder what is already a very delicate production line for the Airbus A380. Look back into the company's history and you will see a direct correlation between the internal political strife and major delays and manufacturing bottlenecks. One can just imagine the English, French, German and Spanish CEOs arguing with each other, refusing to budge on their respective country's demands on the company, forcing everything into a standstill.

I have nothing against this gathering of minds from all over Europe. In fact, I applaud it. But please, get rid of the politics involved as well and run it like a real business. The way things are now, it's more like a family business that has been passed down the generations and now the extended family is just bickering over who gets what title while nobody really pays attention to the dwindling profits and business orders.

So get down to business already. Recent changes in Airbus and EADS have been encouraging, but please don't let it be just another façade and show for the media. Just do it already.

Singapore Airlines takes delivery of first Airbus A380
By Asha Popatlal, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 15 October 2007 1641 hrs

TOULOUSE, France: After two years of delays and internal problems, Airbus finally delivered the first A380 to Singapore Airlines in a glittering ceremony in front of 500 guests.

And while it may be years before it break even, the manufacturer is hoping that the plane's debut into commercial service will persuade a fresh wave of orders.

Orders dried up around the time the airliner's troubles started.

From the start of the ceremony, it was quite clear who the star of the show was.

But beyond the glitz, a lot is riding on how this first plane performs in commercial service later this month.

Singapore Airlines, which has been facing a capacity crunch because of the delay, is planning to use the A380 as the backbone of its long haul operations.

Could that mean new orders from a carrier that prides itself on a young, modern fleet?

Chew Choon Seng, CEO, Singapore Airlines, says: "We'll take it one step at a time. We've placed orders for 19 - they will take over from remaining 19 Boeing 747-400s that we presently operate and we'll move on ahead. So a lot is riding on the introduction of this place into service."

SIA is certainly charting a new course in aviation travel with suites that take first class travel to a whole new dimension.

And this may yet open a whole new market segment for the carrier.

As for Airbus, it will now have to focus on delivering the other orders on time.

Thomas Enders, CEO, Airbus, says: "We will have recurring deliveries first for SIA and then other customers but obviously there is huge challenge still ahead of us and nobody should be surprised because delivering one aircraft, delivering thirteen aircraft next year and then steeply ramping up production is presenting a lot of challenges."

Airbus also hopes to keep new orders coming in.

It has received orders for some 189 A380s so far - 165 firm and 24 on option - but that is below the 420 it said previously it needed to break even.

But despite all the problems, this is a plane that has captured the public imagination.

From the time the idea was first introduced at the turn of the century, the vast amounts of space available has led to all sorts of ideas from bars to casinos being on board.

SIA is hoping to get its fourth plane by April next year, ahead of the competition, and will fly to Sydney London and Tokyo.

Emirates and Qantas are next on the delivery list. - CNA/ch

Let The (Price)Wars Begin

2008... the year I graduate! Looks like the aerospace industry is going to be one majorly exciting field to work in when I go job hunting. Hopefully, that also means I won't have a hard time landing a job. Also, all this competition should translate into another price war between the 2 carriers. Woohoo!

About the Boeing 787 Dreamliner

Boeing says 'on time' for Dreamliner launch in 2008
Posted: 24 May 2007 0608 hrs

NEW YORK : US aviation giant Boeing said on Wednesday it remained on track for the planned May 2008 commercial launch of its 787 "Dreamliner" aircraft.

Mike Bair, head of Boeing's 787 programme, said the first Dreamliner was set to be completed July 8 and the first test flight as early as late August.

"All of the airplanes will be in flight tests by the end of the year," he said.

Bair said there remained some extra time to fix any problems that are seen during test flights.

"I can't remember a single test programme where you don't find something," he said.

"We've allowed ourselves some time for some additional testing in case we find something."

The plane is set to be Boeing's biggest commercial success, with over 500 orders since the launch announcement in April 2004.

Boeing's order book for the Dreamliner is full, with any new orders to be delivered no sooner than 2013.

The success of the new plane has allowed Boeing to overtake Airbus as the world's biggest aircraft maker, based on last year's orders.

The Dreamliner will have a cruising speed of Mach 0.85 (1,050 kilometres per hour) and will carry 250 to 350 passengers.

With a range of up to 14,500 kilometres, the aircraft will use 20 percent less fuel than any other plane of its size through engine improvements and the use of lighter composite metals for structure, according to Boeing.

Most of the orders are from major airlines, but Boeing said it has received seven orders for Dreamliners as so-called VIP aircraft or business jets. - AFP/de

Crazy Pilot!!!!

But I would *love* to have been in the plane for the ride.





SU-27 FIGHTER - Click here for the most popular videos

It's Coming!

Finally.... delivery date is expected to be sometime this October. Now, dear SIA, which flight routes do you plan to test your new baby on? *hint hint*

Why does the problem always come down to CABLE?

Taken from today's papers, Airbus website, ChannelNewsAsia and various other sources:



TOULOUSE, France - The Airbus A380 starts a global journey Saturday which will take in the North and South Poles on the last of a series of test flights before it applies for its air safety certificate.

The plane, which is being tested under commercial conditions, is seeking to gain its airworthiness certificate by mid-December from European and United States aviation safety authorities.

It will fly from Toulouse, France, where it is assembled, over the two poles and is set to stop in Johannesburg, Sydney and Vancouver in Canada before returning to France on November 30.

It was due to leave at 9:00 pm (2000 GMT).

On Friday, the giant plane returned from 18 days of testing which took it to Asia, with stop-offs at major airports including Singapore, home of Singapore Airlines (SIA).

This airline which should take delivery of the first A380 next October -- deliveries are around two years behind schedule because of electrical cabling problems.

"During these three flights, the plane performed remarkably well.

"There were no major breakdowns, only some faults which we were already aware of.

"Each flight and each landing were on time," Fernando Alonso, vice-president of Airbus's flight testing division told AFP.

"Overall, at the moment, you could say 'move along, there's nothing to see,'" he added, indicating that, during tests, the plane was set to notch up 150 hours' flying time.

"We are a month ahead of the programme schedule," Gilles Robert, former director of testing at Airbus, added.

The plane's first flight took place in April 2005.

The Asian leg took the world's biggest plane, which can carry up to 840 passengers, to Seoul, Hong Kong and Tokyo as well as the Chinese cities of Guangzhou, Peking and Shanghai.

Those on board included pilots from the European regulatory authorities.

At all the destinations, "the welcome was enthusiastic", particularly from clients and members of the public who often "overran terminals to see the plane", Alonso said.

When asked about clients' concerns over late delivery, he simply said that "people were so happy to see the plane that they did not raise the subject with us members of the technical team".

Highlighting the plane's qualities, Claude Lelaie, an A380 test pilot, revealed that in Ireland 15 days ago, the plane took off and landed in 56 knot crosswinds.

Companies in Asia and the Pacific area represent around 30 percent of orders placed -- 44 out of a total 149.

At the end of this latest flight, the giant plane will have completed 17 days of tests in a normal operational environment.

Asked of its chances of gaining certification, Alonso replied that "until the ticket is delivered, you never know, but we are beginning to see the light very clearly".

- AFP /ls

With the grossly large amount of time that passes from the design phase to production, manufacturing and certification, how do designers ensure that the technical aspects of the design keeps up with the advancement made in other fields? Like the wiring/cabling mentioned in this case, vast improvments in optic fibres have led to the phasing out of old fashioned copper wires in view of the data transfer speeds and, more importantly, safety improvements in term of fire regulations. As they scramble now to "upgrade" this plane that isn't even operating commercially yet, the time scale and effort of coming up with a new aeroplane is just mind boggling.

Thinking Tinker

Had a pretty interesting week in school and I know it's a monday, so this post is a little back-dated, but at least I'm making an effort to update everyone on what's happening here, ain't I? :) Basically, we had to dismantle an engine, identify each individual component, the material it's made out of, method it was made (die casting, sand casting, turning, forging, etc etc.) and reasons for materials and method of production. Really enjoyed this "hands-on" session. Here's the aftermath of the dismantling. :P



Piston with carbon steel piston rings attached to the connecting rod by the grudgeon pin. ;)



After we're done, assembly followed of course. This is wat the inside of a 4 stroke engine looks like with the cover off. Good thing it still works after my tinkering!




Also made a trip to the scenic Lake District on Saturday, but I won't be posting all the pictures presently. In the process of gathering them all in from the multitudes of cameras witnessed to be snapping away on site that day ;) Here's a little teaser from my own cam :

Houston, we have lift-off!!!

This baby may not look like much, but it is the result of our toll and toil for the past of the whole week! Designing.. calculating safety factor, figuring out parachute deployment method, wind tunnel testing, drag coefficient reducing. Haha. Sounds fun doesn't it. It all came to an end on friday when each group had 2 chances to covert the "Highest Altitude" and "Longest Time Aloft" awards. We didn't win the altitude prize for sure, but was in contention for longest time aloft as our parachute was one of the few that deployed like a beauty. So proud of you baby! :)

A New Era?

mood: Interested
music: Audioslave - Like A Stone

Something monumental happened in the aviation industry today. The Airbus A380 finally took its maiden flight after much delays from Toulouse, France.

Link to the news report. CLICK IT

This new might or might not be of interest to you, but any news regarding this baby of Airbus has always caught my attention through the years: the first orders made by Singapore Airlines, technical difficulties, radically different business plan compared to Boeing - whose 747 is soon to be dethroned as King of the jumbo jets. Why? Firstly, the Airbus A380 was once called the "bumble bee" by one of my friends - it should be too big to fly! Secondly, the sheer engineering feat that this airplane embodies. Thirdly, this WILL be my field of studies in a few months to come. How can I not be interested in something earmarked to be a corner stone in the industry?

Boeing might have made a half-hearted attempt to meet this challenge from Airbus with their new model - Dreamliner I believe it's called - but it'll never be able to match the A380 for sheer size ( read capacity and thus economical returns) and travelling distance (read business reach). In the early stages of the 3rd millenium, the world's aviation industry is split between firstly the European belief of the world becoming more global and travelling aboard more and further between airport hubs.

The other camp would be the American's one of travellers flying to ever increasing, but nearer, destinations. They believe that soon air hubs like London, Los Angeles, New York, Singapore, Dubai, Hong Kong will soon be a thing of the past as travellers prefer flying direct to places with smaller airports in smaller groups at more remote locations. For now, their new plane, the Dreamliner, aims to serve low volume long-haul flights at better fuel efficiency and operating costs to compensate for the smaller seating capacity their airplane has.

The race for dominance has been heating up in recent years as Airbus has finally managed to catch up with Boeing in terms of orders, planes manufactured and delivered. Boeing, of course, contends this point by bringing attention to the fact that Airbus Industries receives government subsidies from various countries amounting to as much as 30 billion dollars. Airbus has shot right back with claims that Boeing gets indirect assistance through the form of federal money for military research, financial incentives from US states, and export tax breaks.

It'll be really interesting to see whose camp bet on the right bid down the road as there clearly isn't going to be middle ground between these 2 giants. For the common layman though, what all this competition translates into, hopefully, is ever safer and economical airplanes as Boeing and Airbus try to outgun each other with their planes' respective features.

Here's to safer skies and cheaper airfares - with the frills, thank you very much. :) Cheers.