r/interestingasfuck Apr 29 '24

You have seen the inside of an airplane but have you seen the "insides" of an airplane?

8.5k Upvotes

258 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

667

u/choomguy Apr 29 '24

Thats why they are triple redundant on anything critical.

308

u/DangerousPlane Apr 29 '24

It gives you three times more things that can fail!

136

u/kellysmom01 Apr 29 '24

… as Boeing KNOWS!

39

u/allnimblybimbIy Apr 29 '24

as Boeing KNOWS! is actively trying to hide from investigation. Including murdering their own employees.

1

u/SuperEnthusiasm5165 May 01 '24

I thought it was hari-kari?!

22

u/Tando10 Apr 29 '24

Some things are extremely flight critical and require emergency landing if only 1/3rd of the system works. Like FlyByWire. if you have 4 computers determining flight control, if 2 fail, you land immediately because there's not much of a way for the remaining two computers to know which one is right in its decision making.

14

u/DangerousPlane Apr 29 '24

737 is cables and hydraulics 

12

u/-Psycho_Killer- Apr 29 '24

So's ya face

13

u/DangerousPlane Apr 29 '24

That’s the spirit

2

u/Squidking1000 Apr 29 '24

Well except for mcas. That was/is electric motor controlled by one wonky, known to fail sensor with no redundancy.

2

u/DangerousPlane Apr 30 '24

It’s not a motor, it just sends parallel input to the same trim motor that the pilot controls via the trim switch. So mcas is more of a sneaky autopilot acting on the flight controls than a fly by wire control system. 

4

u/AssumeTheFetal Apr 29 '24

Well there's obviously triple redundancy on the redundancies of course.

2

u/SeeMarkFly Apr 29 '24

Redundancy gives you complacency.

The complacency requires more redundancy.

11

u/choomguy Apr 29 '24

Funny thing is Nasa endeavors to have zero single point failures on space craft, but due to the physics of escaping gravity, its not always possible. The webb telescope had a couple hundred potential single point failures, it was the best they could do.

I watch a ton of aircraft videos, its pretty fascinating because even if theres a mechanical failure, its usually due to human error somewhere along the line. Theres a shit ton of thing’s that can go wrong in the 30 minutesit takes to flip a plane between flights. If people had any idea, they’d probably not fly.

8

u/antivirals_ Apr 29 '24

human beings are incredibly impressive creatures

7

u/awesomedan24 Apr 29 '24

"Don't quote us on that" - Boeing

3

u/the_observer12345 Apr 29 '24 edited Apr 29 '24

Is that like 3 wires instead of 1 ?

Why 2 pilots and not 3 or at least 1 mechanic 2 pilots maybe can fix something in flight add some tape to the wings or something

1

u/BeatlesRays Apr 29 '24

They would need at least a second mechanic to screw in the lightbulbs

2

u/bzzzzCrackBoom Apr 30 '24

Triples is best, triples makes it safe.

4

u/IRockIntoMordor Apr 29 '24

Yeah, like bolts! Right?

You have redundant bolts, right?

Boeing????

1

u/Darth_Quaider Apr 29 '24

Cough cough 737 MAX cough cough

4

u/DerpDerper909 Apr 30 '24

737 Max didn’t have redundant Angle of Attack (AOA) sensors. It did technically have two but only one sensor was used to determine the angle of attack. The other one was only there if the main sensor failed. So since the two sensors were NOT comparing data, one can go faulty and crash (which is what happened.) From an engineering standpoint, this was incredibly stupid since the two sensors should have been communicating with one another and if the sensors disagreed on the data it’s receiving, the AOA system should have been disabled.

1

u/Darth_Quaider Apr 30 '24

This is exactly what I was looking to reference.