Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: E. Pluribus Unum

almost.

The extra redundant sensor was an option that the airlines in this case declined.

Any single point of failure that can take down an aircraft is not engineering, it is beyond stupid Bean Counting, but that was the profit driven culture at the time.

When I was building large Datacenters, I spent lots of time looking for these potential single points of failure.

one of my friends used to have nightmares about a bad actor inserting something into “windows update” another was the single security guy for .Net his hair turned grey prematurely.


12 posted on 10/24/2024 12:49:56 PM PDT by algore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: algore
The extra redundant sensor was an option that the airlines in this case declined.

Would that be because they failed to inform them about the MCAS system and how the pilots would have ten seconds to turn it off before the plane was in an unrecoverable dive?

13 posted on 10/24/2024 12:52:48 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (The worst thing about censorship is █████ ██ ████ ████ ████ █ ███████ ████. FJB.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: algore
The extra redundant sensor was an option that the airlines in this case declined.

That does not jive with what I recall of the problem. My recollection is that Boeing simply did not build it into the system. You couldn't get one with a redundant sensor in it. They were all built with one sensor.

16 posted on 10/24/2024 1:11:05 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson