Unfortunately, yes.
Itās art!
Either that, or obscure fetish porn.
Why not both?
Iāll take Obscure Fetish Porn for $200, Alex.
Come to think of it, never mind.
Iāll cost you a lot more than thatā¦ oh, Iāve said too much.
Facebook and Daily Mail?
Thatās a paddlingā¦
For whom/what - me or the person who created it, or the FB & DM folks?
Thread. Interesting analysis
Everything in that thread tracks with what Iāve read in discussions about the 737 crashes. And explained very well and concisely, too.
What people are saying is, āIt wasnāt the software that caused it.ā
Boeing was relying, however, on the software to be the magical fix for their change manglement. And by manglement I mean they went out of the envelope of standards for stability of the airplane, knowing it just needed a little help from theā¦ well, the autopilot is already wired into things. Letās just upgrade it and use that.
And what do ya do with a plugged up pitot? Thereās no threat of scuppers. Well, in the manual here thereās the buried instructions for turning it off. Sorry, disabling the feature. What happens if the mushy confusion of climbout-thrust&angle-of-attack thingy happens simultaneous to the system doing a bad job of panicking the half-trained furrign pilots of the airline run as a vanity project for some billionaire? What if, between the panic and the up-and-down and the desire to maintain climb to get more room (height) the aerodynamic bad thing happens?
Maybe this stick pusher feature should be part of the stick pusher system rather than, āWeāll just add it to the trim stuff in the autopilot. Itāll be fine,ā maybe that will get people to ignore the Silicon Valley Blame Deflection that comes after the always slightly mythical Silicon Valley Apology.
As a pile of deflection, yes.
Itās not part of the autopilot. In fact, it only engages when the autopilot is off. Thatās part of the problem: you can disengage the autopilot by using the manual controls; the MCAS system that adjusts the trim so that, when using manual controls, a 737 MAX 8 handles like a 737-800, can only be disengaged by flipping a switch to specifically turn trim stabilization off.
Holy jesus they really worked to get around the regs.
Yep. And then, because theyād come through so much trouble to make it handle like a 737-800, they didnāt go to any effort (training, manual updates, pilot notifications) to let people know what the differences were.
Things have gotten too complicated. This depends on that depends on the other. The whole system is at fault, a system thatās run amok to reduce costs.
They should have started from scratch with a well-thought-out design. Instead they used band-aids and sticking plasters and duct tape.
Step 1. Stop being lazy and lengthen the landing gear. Put the extra fuselage section (make one up if needed) in with the longer gear bays and cetera.
Step 2. Everyone learns an after-school lesson.
Also, redesign the engine mount. Robert is your fatherās brother.
Yeah, from what Iāve heard, at that point, it wouldnāt really be a 737 anymore. Theyād be designing a whole new plane, and would need to recertify it as such.
Which, I agree, is probably what they should have done, but it certainly wasnāt what they were trying to do.
Get nice benefit, but offload risk to passengers. Thatās just good business sense.
Iām sure there was at least one Theodore Honey somewhere at Boeing who wasnāt listened to.
Assuming none of those mods will lead to other problems, of course.