Posted on 03/12/2019 12:52:10 PM PDT by Simon Foxx
*****Waiting until the cause of the crash is known before speaking would be a good idea.*****
While I do agree with that comment, in general I agree even more with your sentiment. I trust the president way more than I do a room full of programmers. And he’s right. Over complicating things has made aircraft unsafe in several cases. Pilots fighting computer is a recipe for disaster...
I turned win7 updates off completely because of Microsoft and their forced update to windows 10. Still working perfect...but being a computer tech, I know how to avoid most of the online problems that seem to be the number one cause of computer troubles these days.
With planes, they should leave things alone. The main problem is the computer is not able to reason, which the human pilot can do. The computer can’t hear an engine that sounds weird, or interpret unusual turbulence...
I’ve watched some of the “why planes Crash” shows on Weather Channel. Several were the result of pilots having to fight a computer routine designed to deal with one problem, while the pilots were actually fighting something else and a temp sensor or something caused the computer to take over. So the plane crashed, when the pilots should have been able to regain control, if left to their training. In one case, the pilot needed to throttle back and did, while the computer kept throttling up to full throttle, causing overheating and catastrophic fires in both engines, both failed, suddenly a DC 10 was trying to act as a glider. It’s not a very good glider...
If the pilots had been able to regain control, it was a long shot, but they may have been able to turn around and land.
Making things too complicated is always a bad idea...and what happens when the pilot starts to depend too heavily on the computer to fly? I know in machine shops I ran manual machines, in one shop I spent more time doing “rework” jobs that were botched by lazy CNC operators than I did running new parts. It is not fun trying to single tool threads some idiot botched because he failed to check his threading insert and ran 25 bad parts...they were supposed to check 1 in 5, they might check 1 in 30.
So what happens if pilots get that lazy? Or just don’t care, which is the main problem in machine shops. So what, I still get paid, somebody else has to rerun the parts I scrap...and they made more money than I did! What if pilots develop that attitude? Who cares, I can go to sleep, the computer can handle it...
Simple is always better...
There is nothing half-cocked about Donald Trumps statement. His statement is true with or without a plane crash. It shows wisdom that comes from using deep thought instead of senseless Group think. It is not even about Boeing per say. The same thing applies to self driving cars and a host of other things as well. Computers are a great tool when it comes to advisement or controlling mundane functions. But in many cases they should not have primary control.
In the case of the first plane crash the computer was able to control and dive the plane because a sensor said it was in a stall. Now here is what would have happened in the past.
The pilot would have received a visual and audible warning that the plane was in a stall. The pilot would have checked his instruments and grumbled the words “Bull *hit”. The pilot would not have put the plane into a dive. And no one would have been killed.
Yup. Complexity for its own benefit.
LOL. Those Far Side cartoons are classics.
Just found this, thought it might be good to drop a link in this thread. Pilots have already been complaining about problems.
And until we know, those planes should not be in the air.
Sorry but there is only a preliminary report out from the NTSC on the Lion Air crash, and it does not give a cause.
There is currently no official cause of that crash.
Sent you a PM...
Far Side is GREAT :)
It may only be a preliminary conclusion. But based on available information it is obvious that it is the right one. Might the pilots have been able to save the plane. Maybe. But they should not have been put in that position to begin with. What really matters is that Boeing is firstly responsible. In any real design environment the first thing you would do is to simulate the the failure of a sensor and design to safeguard the system in that event. And now they are indirectly admitting it.
The cost of the water and sewer services. It’s free to you to wash your hands or flush the toilet, but it cost a business or government agency money to provide that “free service”.
Which has the better flight record, the overengineered commercial jets or the smaller general aviation planes that depend more on the pilot’s skills?
Boeing hasn’t admitted anything, actually. The fact that the MCAS system can be improved does not make it the cause of the crash.
For one thing, maintenance was done on the AoA system on the Lion Air flight just prior to the crash, and other pilots successfully handled the AoA problems on previous flights.
For another thing, we have pilot reports of 737Max nose down problems when the MCAS system was inactive. These happened when the auto-pilot was engaged, and went away when the auto-pilot was disengaged. They pretty much could not have been caused by the MCAS system.
So, fixing MCAS may not stop the crashes at all.
“The Ethiopian Airlines plane that crashed killing 157 people was making a strange rattling noise and trailed smoke and debris as it swerved above a field of panicked cows before hitting earth, according to witnesses.”
Of course, we all know how unreliable a witness can be, but this is apparently several witnesses.
Still, take it with a salt mine...
Most of them?? I used to design chemical instrumentation. Throughout the design process, in addition to assuring that the instrument would provide the desired analytical result, the secondary thought was "if I had to repair this, which configuration would make that easiest" of several possible choices. I had more than one knockdown argument with other engineers on the task whose sole criterion seemed to be "squeeze it into the smallest possible package, and ease of repair be damned".
I read a report somewhere that said that the Data Recorder showed that the Air speed reading dropped to Zero before the plane crashed. Now that would be quite a coincidence.
That’s an easy answer to the (obvious) question that you DIDN’T ask:
The original Boeing 737 does. It may be most reliable commerical jetliner ever made.
No doubt that is why the new plane was dubbed the “737-MAX”.
It is becoming obvious that the new model has some serious unintended “bugs”. Just look at the anonymous pilot reports that were discussed in today’s Dallas News story. The FAA needs to ground them until these have been thoroughly investigated and any problems corrected.
So around $300 parts and labor?
I live in California
“I read a report somewhere that said that the Data Recorder showed that the Air speed reading dropped to Zero before the plane crashed. Now that would be quite a coincidence.”
That sounds like a failure to recognize that ground level at Bole airport is actually ~7,600 feet above mean sea level.
“Important note: altitude data reported by ADS-B is the pressure altitude at standard pressure and not the altitude above ground level. This is why some values may be below the ground altitude at Addis Ababa airport. Standard pressure is 1013 hPa, pressure reported at HAAB | ADD at the time of accident was 1029 hPa. Airport elevation is 7625 feet MSL. All altitude data when the aircraft is ‘on ground’ is reported as 0. Airborne altitude values are report as stated above.”
Pilot: “Alexa, stop the sudden downward descent.”
Computer: “I’m sorry Dave, I’m not programmed for that action.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.