Why are airplanes so sensitive to equipment malfunctions?

In most airplanes crashes, it seems like the causes of the accidents are malfunctioning little equipments. As far as I know, it seems like power and hydraulics are the only two aspects of modern planes with backup units.

All components of an airplane are just somehow too dependent on each other. Are there any ways

In most airplanes crashes, it seems like the causes of the accidents are malfunctioning little equipments. As far as I know, it seems like power and hydraulics are the only two aspects of modern planes with backup units.

All components of an airplane are just somehow too dependent on each other. Are there any ways to make the components more independent from each other or at least each system having a backup? Like, a broken valve could paralyze a ton of flaps or a malfunctioning speedometer could send an airplane into a stall These are little objects

It seems ridiculous that a vehicle that costs millions of dollars could get wrecked by just ONE of its components not working Hell then even a kid could wreak havoc by just unplugging one of the cables

Other answer:

Elbert:
It is not like that…..
JetDoc:
You said… "It seems ridiculous that a vehicle that costs millions of dollars could get wrecked by just ONE of its components not working… Hell then even a kid could wreak havoc by just unplugging one of the cables… "

And just HOW MANY "cables" do you think an airplane has that a KID could get ahold of? Have you ever even been ON an actual commercial aircraft?

STOP trying to think. It's obvious that you are not well equipped for it.

Who:
you ever seen how much testing goes into the design and manufacture of aircraft parts?
mawduce65:
Pilots themselves cause most plane crashes not equipment. In the few that do crash because of systems failure it's usually more than a single system or event that results in a crash. Aircraft have many redundant systems to avoid catastrophic failures but they do happen, if rarely.
Aviation:
Planes are machines, and machines sometimes malfunction. … Sometimes too, plane crashes happen when pilots become incapacitated …
lowlevel:
They aren't.

Modern transport category aircraft are designed with multiple redundant systems and 'fail safe' structure with dual load paths… so that there is always something to do the job should one or more components fail.

Most planes crash because of pilot error.

Eric West:
Aircraft have many, many, backup systems, indeed a B747-400 has 5 different systems controlling the primary flight controls and these are routed through different parts of the airplane so structural damage can't take all of them out.

Everything essential to flight has at least two and often three independent systems. You can't crash an airliner simply by unplugging something. Not least, a ''kid'' has no access to the plugs!

Even if systems fail, there is the matter of how well the pilots handle failures. In fact, in an ideal world, a pilot needs very little to fly an aircraft safely. The main issue for him is being able to recognise what is going on. If he can do that, there are few system failures which can bring an aircraft down, fire being the obvious one.

AF447 is perhaps the classic example, where instruments started to show conflicting readings and the pilot handling, who was relatively inexperienced, got behind the 8 Ball. The golden rule is always to fly the airplane, by attitude and power setting, get those right and the airplane will fly.

If any two attitude instruments agree, they are telling the truth and you ignore any that disagree with them, particularly the pressure instruments.

Failure to do this, as in AF447 and the crash of the Air New Zealand A320 of Toulouse is a Pilot Error failure, not a system failure, even though the failed system may have precipitated things.

Vincent G:
Actually, you are dead wrong about this claim that only power and hydraulics being the only systems with backup. Any systems that is required for flight safety is AT LEAST duplicated. There are typically 3 electrical systems in an aircraft; 2 radios, at least two pitot tubes, and so on.

Between 1959 and 2005, only 17% of aircraft accidents were attribuable to mechanical failures. And, when I attended a conference on aircraft flight safety, the keynote speaker stated that on average, there were half a dozen events leading to a crash, and if only one did not occur, there would not have been an accident in the first pace (his point was that accidents are so rare that we have to start to learn from events that could have caused an accident but didn't because they were caught in time).

Skipper747:
Some 70% of airplane accidents are due to human error –
Most airliner systems are fail safe and are duplicated or triplicated –
The most critical component of an airplane is a well trained pilot –

Analysis of most accidents show poor interpretation of malfunction symptoms by pilots –
Most recurrent training sessions for pilots are discussions of pilot errors –
Airplanes can operate perfectly with multiple failures if flown by competent pilots –
That "science" is called "basic pilot airmanship" which seems to be often ignored nowadays –

John R:
You are starting from a couple of false premises. Most accidents are caused by human error, not equipment malfunctions.
Airliners already have redundant systems for virtually everything – flight management systems have at least 3 computers with multiple sources of navigation data and air data. Airliners are not allowed to have a single point of failure for critical systems.

Leave a Reply