News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The James Webb Space Telescope – making 300 points of fai... by WalterBright on Sunday January 09, 2022 @02:20PM (#29866450)
The article talked about redundancy in the form of making duplicates. Another way (the way airliners are built) is onboard redundancy. Modern airliners have zero single points of failure.
Re:The James Webb Space Telescope – making 300 points of fai... by oldgradstudent on Sunday January 09, 2022 @04:14PM (#29867392)
> Modern airliners have zero single points of failure.

The have zero points of failures that are classified as single-point-of-failure.

Once in a while, the classification turns out to be incorrect, as seen in the 737 MAX crashes, especially the first one.

Re:The James Webb Space Telescope – making 300 points of fai... by WalterBright on Sunday January 09, 2022 @05:30PM (#29867979)
The redundancy in the MAX crashes was the pilots following the runaway trim procedure. Of the 3 MAX incidents, the one you never hear about is the one where the pilots followed that procedure and continued the flight normally.

Boeing still should never have had the MAX system rely on only one AOA sensor.

Re:The James Webb Space Telescope – making 300 points of fai... by sumedh on Sunday January 09, 2022 @05:40PM (#29868092)
> pilots followed that procedure

Were these pilots trained with the new procedure and the other pilots who died not trained?

Re:The James Webb Space Telescope – making 300 points of fai... by mlyle on Sunday January 09, 2022 @11:54PM (#29870825)
Just to add, it was the normal "runaway trim" procedure-- nothing new.

The thing is, this revealed a vulnerability: real pilots in runaway trim scenarios do not do nearly as well as they do in training. And 737MAX ended up testing crews with runaway trim scenarios at a much higher rate than they had been at the past. Some crews failed.

Re:The James Webb Space Telescope – making 300 points of fai... by WalterBright on Sunday January 09, 2022 @06:06PM (#29868356)
No. It was the LA flight immediately prior to the LA flight that crashed.

They trimmed it back to normal a couple times, then just turned it off.

Sounds too simple to be true, but it is true. There's a toggle switch on the console that cuts off power to the trim system. It's there in case of runaway trim.

Re:The James Webb Space Telescope – making 300 points of fai... by mlyle on Sunday January 09, 2022 @11:59PM (#29870854)
> Modern airliners have zero single points of failure.

Safer to say that they're designed and certified attempting to have no single points of failure.

E.g. the MD-83 stab trim jackscrew system. Two nuts were used on the acme screw, on different portions of the screw, driven by redundant gearboxes and motors: no single point of failure! But there were common-mode failures stripping the screw and nuts.

Re:The James Webb Space Telescope – making 300 points of fai... by flatiron on Sunday January 09, 2022 @02:24PM (#29866476)
If you pop a window you lose pressure right?

You blow a fuel pump and can’t fuel the engines.

Wings fall off.

I dunno. I can think of a bunch of failure points on a modern airliner.

Re:The James Webb Space Telescope – making 300 points of fai... by steadyready on Sunday January 09, 2022 @02:43PM (#29866655)
Fuel pumps have backup pumps. Matter a fact, the whole fuel system is a lot more complex than this.

And as for “the wings fall off” part, makes me remember a quote of an engineer I once read that goes something like this: “The wings are the strongest part of the airplane. If you worry about them ripping apart or falling off, you have way bigger problems than that, like the rest of the plane missing”.

Re:The James Webb Space Telescope – making 300 points of fai... by antognini on Sunday January 09, 2022 @03:53PM (#29867216)
The flex test that the wings go through is pretty incredible:

https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/autopia/2010/03/index.jpg

Re:The James Webb Space Telescope – making 300 points of fai... by steadyready on Sunday January 09, 2022 @05:05PM (#29867788)
Yes, I know! I don’t remember what video I saw but the wings were bent beyond imagination. Made me realise that what I saw while flying wasn’t even 30% of what they can withstand. Incredible engineering.
Re:The James Webb Space Telescope – making 300 points of fai... by WalterBright on Sunday January 09, 2022 @05:38PM (#29868078)
The Lockheed Elektra was infamous for its wings mysteriously coming off. Much research finally revealed that dynamic instability (flutter) was the cause. A great deal has been learned about how to prevent this, and a lot of effort goes into designing a wing that isn't susceptible to flutter.

I did the calculations for the 757 elevators to show it wouldn't flutter. And yes, it was also verified on the test stand.

Re:The James Webb Space Telescope – making 300 points of fai... by AzN1337c0d3r on Sunday January 09, 2022 @06:09PM (#29868386)
There was an F-15 that had a mid-air collision, the entire wing ripped off, and it managed to safely land.

https://taskandpurpose.com/history/1983-negev-mid-air-collis...

Re:The James Webb Space Telescope – making 300 points of fai... by alexpotato on Sunday January 09, 2022 @07:15PM (#29868957)
Re:The James Webb Space Telescope – making 300 points of fai... by deelowe on Sunday January 09, 2022 @02:39PM (#29866619)
The fuel systems at least are fully redundant. Each wing has its own system and then there’s redundant systems that allow fuel to be transferred or delivered from either wing.

I discovered this when trying to understand what the barking noise is on airbus planes.

Re:The James Webb Space Telescope – making 300 points of fai... by AzN1337c0d3r on Sunday January 09, 2022 @03:43PM (#29867136)
The barking noise on airbus systems is the Power Transfer Unit which is about delivering hydraulic pressure across 2 independent systems, not fuel.
Re:The James Webb Space Telescope – making 300 points of fai... by WalterBright on Sunday January 09, 2022 @05:43PM (#29868136)
I thought the barking noise came from the Canine Transfer Unit in the hold. Thanks for clearing that up!
Re:The James Webb Space Telescope – making 300 points of fai... by WalterBright on Sunday January 09, 2022 @05:21PM (#29867912)
> If you pop a window you lose pressure right?

Right. But the plane drops oxygen masks and goes down to a lower altitude.

> You blow a fuel pump and can’t fuel the engines.

Multiple fuel pumps and multiple gas tanks.

> Wings fall off.

Wings have dual internal structure.

> I can think of a bunch of failure points on a modern airliner.

No single point of failure is an FAA requirement.

Re:The James Webb Space Telescope – making 300 points of fai... by josephcsible on Sunday January 09, 2022 @03:33PM (#29867051)
If you pop a window, everyone puts on their oxygen masks and the plane makes an emergency descent. The point isn't that nothing at all can go wrong, but rather that the plane will get its occupants onto the ground safely even if something does.
Re:The James Webb Space Telescope – making 300 points of fai... by rkk3 on Sunday January 09, 2022 @02:29PM (#29866530)
> I dunno. I can think of a bunch of failure points on a modern airliner.

not catastrophic failure, like you get with a rocket or a helicopter.

Re:The James Webb Space Telescope – making 300 points of fai... by remus on Sunday January 09, 2022 @02:37PM (#29866600)
I'm not an expert but "wings falling off" seems like a pretty catastrophic failure for a typical aeroplane.
Re:The James Webb Space Telescope – making 300 points of fai... by voldacar on Sunday January 09, 2022 @02:47PM (#29866700)
The wing root is the strongest part of any airframe. Wings falling off is way down there on the list of aviation risks, maybe next to getting struck by a meteor
Re:The James Webb Space Telescope – making 300 points of fai... by WJW on Sunday January 09, 2022 @03:02PM (#29866808)
Low probability or not, if an airplane can't stay in the air with one of the wings missing that definitely counts as a "single point of failure". Whether that SPOF needs to be mitigated is a tradeoff based on other constraints like the expected risk, economics, and safety regulations (and in the case of the space telescope, maximum launch mass of the rocket).
Re:The James Webb Space Telescope – making 300 points of fai... by jonas21 on Sunday January 09, 2022 @03:55PM (#29867235)
Wings don't just go missing. It would require multiple failures for a wing to "fall off" an airliner.
Re:The James Webb Space Telescope – making 300 points of fai... by CamperBob2 on Sunday January 09, 2022 @03:48PM (#29867172)
That's kind of ridiculous. A terrorist bomb in the cargo hold is a "single point of failure" that will crash the plane, as is quantum uncertainty causing one wing to break off spontaneously. This says nothing about the actual SPoF engineering requirement, which is a very real, very relevant thing.
Re:The James Webb Space Telescope – making 300 points of fai... by turrican on Sunday January 09, 2022 @04:17PM (#29867407)
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2018/may/16/nts...

Not as small of a risk as you’d expect (though not anything to seriously worry about). This metal fatigue grounded a large chunk of the US training fleet and similar cracks were frequently found in other Piper Arrows (including ours).

Re:The James Webb Space Telescope – making 300 points of fai... by voldacar on Sunday January 09, 2022 @04:45PM (#29867618)
That is actually kind of scary.

How many cycles does the airframe have to go through in order for this to become a problem? I tend to think that if the FAA gave a shit about general aviation maybe we wouldn't be flying planes from the 1960s

Re:The James Webb Space Telescope – making 300 points of fai... by WalterBright on Sunday January 09, 2022 @05:25PM (#29867938)
For airliners, the airplanes are retired after a certain number of cycles. The 757 was designed for 62,000 flying hours, if I recall correctly. It's scrap after that.

My dad's B-17 in WW2 was scrapped after 30 missions, it was considered worn out.

Re:The James Webb Space Telescope – making 300 points of fai... by abletonlive on Sunday January 09, 2022 @02:58PM (#29866774)
that's not redundancy. can a plane fly w/ only 1 wing and for how long?
Re:The James Webb Space Telescope – making 300 points of fai... by mmcconnell1618 on Sunday January 09, 2022 @03:45PM (#29867157)
Israeli F15 landed missing one wing but this was a fighter jet with super high thrust capability to help offset missing lift from the wings:

https://theaviationist.com/2014/09/15/f-15-lands-with-one-wi...

Re:The James Webb Space Telescope – making 300 points of fai... by voldacar on Sunday January 09, 2022 @03:39PM (#29867105)
a plane without a wing is no longer a plane, realistically
Re:The James Webb Space Telescope – making 300 points of fai... by WalterBright on Sunday January 09, 2022 @05:15PM (#29867864)
The wings have dual spars.
Re:The James Webb Space Telescope – making 300 points of fai... by fallingknife on Sunday January 09, 2022 @04:07PM (#29867341)
One. Pilot error.
Re:The James Webb Space Telescope – making 300 points of fai... by oldgradstudent on Sunday January 09, 2022 @04:09PM (#29867356)
There are at least two of them.
Re:The James Webb Space Telescope – making 300 points of fai... by fallingknife on Sunday January 09, 2022 @04:24PM (#29867467)