Slashdot Mirror
Boeing To Make Key Change in 737 MAX Cockpit Software (wsj.com)
Boeing is making an extensive change to the flight-control system in the 737 MAX aircraft implicated in October's Lion Air crash in Indonesia, going beyond what many industry officials familiar with the discussions had anticipated. From a report: The change was in the works before a second plane of the same make crashed in Africa last weekend -- and comes as world-wide unease about the 737 MAX's safety grows. The change would mark a major shift from how Boeing originally designed a stall-prevention feature in the aircraft, which were first delivered to airlines in 2017. U.S. aviation regulators are expected to mandate the change by the end of April.
Boeing publicly released details about the planned 737 MAX software update late Monday [Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative source]. A company spokesman confirmed the update would use multiple sensors, or data feeds, in MAX's stall-prevention system -- instead of the current reliance on a single sensor. The change was prompted by preliminary results from the Indonesian crash investigation indicating that erroneous data from a single sensor, which measures the angle of the plane's nose, caused the stall-prevention system to misfire. Then, a series of events put the aircraft into a dangerous dive.
Boeing publicly released details about the planned 737 MAX software update late Monday [Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative source]. A company spokesman confirmed the update would use multiple sensors, or data feeds, in MAX's stall-prevention system -- instead of the current reliance on a single sensor. The change was prompted by preliminary results from the Indonesian crash investigation indicating that erroneous data from a single sensor, which measures the angle of the plane's nose, caused the stall-prevention system to misfire. Then, a series of events put the aircraft into a dangerous dive.
Jesus you suck at being an editor, msmash
https://boeing.mediaroom.com/n...
Yes, this is absolutely bananas. Even the accelerator pedal position sensor on cars with throttle-by-wire is a pair of pots, not just one. If one sweeps smoothly and the other doesn't, the PCM throws a code and only listens to the smooth input.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
million dollar aircraft brought down by a cheap sensor failure
Well that's better than the aircraft accident I helped to investigate... The pilot died because of a power switch position he specifically set in order to turn off the system that prevented his aircraft from departing it's "flying" envelope by applying back pressure to his control inputs. When he went to "break" during some ACM training looking over his shoulder at his opponent, he applied too much rudder input, the aircraft snap rolled as it stopped flying and started to tumble, his head was caught between the ejection seat and the canopy and he died of a broken neck before his aircraft hit the water.
That guy died because he wanted the competitive edge and specifically tried to cheat by putting the aircraft in a forbidden configuration....
I'd rather die from a sensor failure than by some stupid mistake I made to get an unfair advantge because I want to win some competition..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
There is an option to disable the system. It's a new system and there was not a lot of training about it though.
Since the alternative source link in the summary appears to link to an article about stock prices, here's some alternative alternative links that actually contain more relevant information:
- Boeing press release
- Gizmodo
- Washington Post
There is a way to disable the systems but the procedure to do so is incredibly complicated. It's also hard to do anything when an emergency happens seconds after takeoff and the plane isn't even far off the ground yet.
A description of alternate law as it applies to aviation can be found here although this focuses on Airbus.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
It raises the question, does not beg the question.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
A car can not at this point ever be described as being able to understand whats going on. And it certainly can not exceed the ability of even the average asshole
It's not better than a human overall at either, but it's better at detecting wheelslip and doing something about it, whether it's ABS, ESP, or EDL. Traction control is usually pretty crap, unless it's something modern like crawl control. Old ABS was also pretty crap, but still better than most drivers anyway.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"