Thank you for an uncommonly interesting, informative, and useful answer. I'm in NO WAY attacking you or your answer, even though I know people will interpret it that way, and insist I'm attacking. Sigh. Anyway, I understand what you're saying, but I've been observing for years that people seem to think their philosophical imaginations are more real than actual reality. How often I've heard someone say "that shouldn't happen". Turns out reality is different than what many people theorize it should be.
The correct statement should be: reality is different than what I imagined it to be. And then learn, hopefully.
Again, on a certain RED site, you can comment AND mod the same story, and it's working very well, so I think the mutual exclusivity here doesn't make sense. And for the very reason that if I have interest in a topic, I do want to discuss and contribute, as well as mod. If I have no interest in a story, I feel I have no business modding, and I do take this seriously. Some people here are brilliant, and contribute greatly. I'd like to engage in a discussion and weed out the trolls, and mod up the really good stuff.
Sigh, I think I need to start my own site! Been thinking about it for a few years... I have the server space...
Yes, I've been reading about this for 2 weeks and I fully get it. I've flown a bit so I understand maybe a bit more than the average person who has never piloted an airplane.
From what I've been reading here and other sources, from actual commercial pilots, is that every plane has its own specific handling characteristics. Under-wing engines always create rotation force, and the MAX has even more. The point being, yes, we want pilots that are trained on and used to a particular aircraft, but any pilot should be able to handle the concepts and adapt.
My point is, if I'm piloting a 737 MAX and I increase thrust, I'm going to know the plane is pitching up, and I'm going to compensate. Even the simplest small plane has an altimeter, artificial horizon, and likely many more (airspeed, stall warning, vertical speed, etc.) so I'll know I'm climbing. If a plane is pitching up, as a pilot I know to push on the yoke to level myself out. Most basic flying lesson first few minutes- keep it level, unless you mean to climb or descend.
Let's please not argue here. I don't participate in these online discussions much (recently more than most of my life) because people will argue up a storm, based on their imaginations. I'll do some research and get real commercial pilots to weigh in.
No matter the outcome, my hope and preference would be that pilots are able to sense and adapt and control the plane. In fact there have been many reported and unreported cases of MAX planes trying to kill humans, and the pilots disabling ALL trim electrics, which forces the pilots to adapt to the plane, and they did so successfully. The Lion Air 737 had a major MCAS problem the day before but an off-duty pilot knew to switch it off and they handled the plane manually. Mind boggling that something major wasn't done then. Infinitely more mind boggling that something wasn't done after that crash.
One company I worked for about 20 years ago was fairly well known, almost household name. I was brand new, working in test engineering. One product, the bread_and_butter, was 24/7 very high volume production electronic circuit. The automated testers were failing left and right, stopping production. I was trying to improve them but I was being constantly interrupted. I couldn't even get the previous guy's code to compile, supposedly doing exactly what he had done. I tried to suggest how we could build much more reliable AND repairable testers, but the idiots (managers) decided to build a bunch more of the same kluges. The GM was feared and loathed, but I got along well with him. He was grumpy and curt, but efficient and to-the-point. I told him about the problem, my idea to fix, and he replied "gotta eat" - meaning, of course, we need short-term quick fixes. The company was out of business in less than 2 years.
OhMyGosh. Well, you can study and take tests and get all the way to a PhD. but have no common sense, or just never have good broad knowledge. And some never really learn- they figure out how to get by and not really absorb stuff. Good on you to explain Earth's orbit, tilt, etc. You might look into teaching someday. I always thought I would, but it hasn't happened yet (plus the education system is so broken...) Don't bottle up all that knowledge. You're gifted with a motivation to spread truth and information, and that's a very good thing.
I have a good friend who has an art degree. He's super-smart and has grown up around engineering and tech and has really good common sense. He's basically the R&D engineer at a high-tech company. He's constantly dealing with idiocy- from the PhDs. It's wearing him down.
It's pretty well known and studied that movies, TV, etc., have disrupted people's ability to think rationally. It's amazing what people think can happen- because they saw it on TV / movies.
In person I enjoy occasionally messing with people, especially kids. I like watching their faces when I tell them something like the heat rising thing- they start out wide-eyed, then you see that facial change and a big "NUH-UH" comes out and laughter ensues. I always let them know truth if they didn't get it right away.
Actually, Boeing needs to design a better airframe that isn't to prone to stall...
I know about the MAX without MCAS handling differently enough to require retraining, but are you sure about the "prone to stall"?? I've seen that written in comments here and elsewhere, but not from strong sources. Any plane can be prone to stall. I've heard from solid sources that all jets can nose-up a bit on thrust increase, and the 737 MAX does it more, but any pilot (certainly autopilot) should know this and would see it and compensate. Vertical speed and artificial horizon would alert a pilot. Altimeter and GPS would too, and maybe ground RADAR if you're close enough.
... and go through the type certification like they should have done in the first place. Hundreds of people died simply because Boeing played games to avoid type certification.
Ugh. Okay, you've stumped me. Well, there are several smaller plane manufacturers, and military big plane manufacturers, so maybe they'd step up. Lockheed-Martin, Canadian Bombardier, certainly could.
I mean no disrespect nor disparagement, just to be clear. Being quite intelligent, I've already thought through all of what you wrote and I 1/2 agree. Basically it's a complex philosophical argument. At the end of the day, if I was a high-level judge / decision-maker, my decision would be to allow humans to override the machines. Machines can break. A broken machine should never kill a human. I know humans are fallible and I believe in machines cross-checking, and planes already have stall warning systems, ground distance, verticle speed, VNE, V1, V2 indicators / warnings, etc. Part of my frustration is that MCAS did its own thing disregarding all of the other systems.
More news came out today (4/5) about the pilots trying to overpower MCAS, and having followed proper procedures, but MCAS being determined and able to kill humans.
Not sure why you're so gung-ho about machines making final decisions. I'm an EE and equally good with mechanicals. Okay, in 737 case, I'd be okay with an MCAS system that has 5 computers and 10 sensors. But you know what? All 10 sensors can get iced and stuck. Please think about this a bit. I've given these things a lot of thought for a very many years. Corporations don't seem to be able to think through all of the failure scenarios. And even when they do, greed compromises the fixes.
BTW, I have an idea (invention) for a better AoA sensor.
Put another way (playing Captain Obvious)- the machine (737 MAX) had sensors and algorithms and killed humans. Human pilots were right, machines were wrong.
Bottom line: humans have interest in self-preservation. Machines _might_ someday, but for the near future, since machines can break, humans need to have final override authority.
Awesome post. Absolutely agree on all points. Wish I could mod you up. Maybe it's time to start yet another similar site, unless you know of a good one somewhere. And I mean good science and tech with occasional political / other really pertinent news.
"lameness filter"? I wasn't aware there was one. I'll have to learn about it.
If I were to start a site, how would you feel about _limited_ advertising? No moving things ever. No overlays, popups, nothing intrusive ever. Just nice simple static ads in side columns.
You do know that's not how heat rises? Standing on the South Pole the heat won't go straight into the earth because North is up. It will go "up" into outer space, just like it would anywhere on the earth.
No no no. Earth is FLAT, but standing up like a pancake in a flapjack stand. For heat to go into the Earth it would have to travel laterally. Some is conducted, for sure, but otherwise it rises, up, to the north. That's why Antarctica is so cold- the heat moves up away from the South Pole.
Okay, seriously, for whatever reason your post has me laughing uncontrollably with eyes watering. I just love how you explained it so simplistically and I'm sorry I made you do that but I keep laughing every time I look at it. Thank you! Seriously. I know you weren't sure about my post, so it's good to quell stupidity. I'm usually pretty careful here (and on the red site) with language, clarity, not using sarcasm unless I make it very obvious. I was in a bit of a silly mood. Technically April Fools' was over but I wasn't done with it. Yes, I'm fairly intelligent and scientific, but if you look at my initial post at the beginning of this thread, you'll see how I started the craziness, and I'm very honored that at least 5 people found it funny. In real life I'm fairly humorous but still learning how to be funny in writing. In spite of my fairly low UID #, I'm only recently beginning to post.
NOW COME THE LOSSES and guess who is destined to go belly up, well at least play capitalism bankruptcy, to shift the losses from their executives and investors to the general public, socialise them losses, in order to maximise profits. Lie, cheat and steal, it's the American deal. Probably cheaper for Boeing to buy Southwest Airlines, rather that cover the losses of 150 missing flights for 90 days or more.
Uh-oh, are we (US) headed for another "too big to fail" huge bailout scenario?
Even if Boeing did fail and the rats scattered, other manufacturers would have to ramp-up, and would of course hire all the Boeing rats.
More seriously, I hope there is a big investigation, criminal charges, and none of the criminals ever allowed to work in aviation or anything else critical.
I think it's just the Disagree indicator (and Angle of Attack indicator) that are the add-ons, the second second comes standard, but only one is used for a time, and the pilot is expected to understand when MCAS was acting inappropriately. Turns out that determination (and resolution by turning it off) was not as clear as Boeing thought it was.
I'd love to know if they gave it any thought. I think they were just gung-ho with their kewl brilliant stealth MCAS system.
Though I'd also question why the airlines decided to save a few bucks by not buying it -- I bought the $3000 automated emergency braking upgrade for my car (which probably shoud have cost less than $500 if it wasn't bundled with other stuff I didn't need or want), so why didn't airlines pay the $80K for the extra indicators on a $100M airplane?
I don't know the price, but someone somewhere in the news said it was $5K.
Somewhere else I read (hopefully good info) that there are 2 MCAS systems- one for pilot, one for co-pilot, and each one only uses the AoA sensor on that side of the aircraft. That normally the 2 don't "talk" to each other, so the optional upgrade involved probably some simple code in some system that could compare the 2.
Sounds like you're a pilot, which is awesome, and I absolutely agree with your post.
I have a big problem with the word "trim". To me, and many standard definitions, "trim" means fine tuning, minor adjustment. I suppose in aviation, "trim" becomes the thing that normalizes flight surfaces to achieve level flight with no yoke pressure, in all conditions. So continuing in that context, trim could become a big thing if big compensation is necessary. (needs more thought...)
Stated a better way, one of my many problems with the Boeing system is from what I know of the MAX's dynamics and what MCAS is supposed to do, it should never be able to cause that much elevator motion. A different anti-stall system should do that job, using all sensor inputs.
And as I just posted further up, and agreeing with you 100%, ANY automatic system should disable itself, with a big warning, if the pilot obviously tries to override it, especially after 2 or 3 times.
Hey, you make a lot of great points and I agree. Just please everyone stop blaming engineers. I take it you're not one? We engineers do not make the decisions- managers do. Please study the Challenger disaster. Engineers said "do not launch" but the managers overrode them and launched. After 7 astronauts died, the managers pandered to public and govt. scrutiny and listened to engineers somewhat for a while. But the cycle repeats, and then we had Colombia.
We engineers are usually told what to do- we figure out how to implement someone else's ideas, under manager's rule. Often we come up with better ideas, or how and why something won't work or is dangerous, and we're told to shut up, don't make trouble, just do our jobs. That's why so many new companies are started by engineers who want to be in charge but the corporate authority structure disallows it.
The real problem, as most people point out, or at least ultimately understand, is greed.
BTW, my personal biggest gripe with most of technology today is excessive automation. Like Windows 10 auto updating, wizards, on and on, things you can't control. The machine is built by humans to serve humans. We should always be in control. We should always be able to override the machine instantly.
I'm not a pilot (a couple of hours of FAA flight log lessons) but from what I've read by actual pilots here and other blogs and forums, the flight dynamics that the MCAS compensates for are pretty minimal. Like if you increase engine thrust, the plane starts to climb. ANY pilot will see the vertical speed increase, artificial horizon move, and compensate manually (push on yoke, adjust elevator trim).
Part of the problem, IMHO, is that MCAS is more than a "trim" / compensation. It was trying to prevent stall, and generating HUGE elevator inputs, AND, that the pilots were not able to override. MCAS should only make fine trims, and only in response to pilot's input. Other systems should handle anti-stall. And all of them need to be very clearly controllable (big OFF switch label).
Finally, and most importantly, IMHO NO system should EVER override the pilot, especially not repeatedly. And AFAIK, autopilots will disengage when the pilot takes control. Of course that caused some crashes where the pilot did not notice the autopilot had disengaged, so I could advocate a system that prevents a plane from descending when there's no pilot input. IE., if there's been no pilot input, we're sinking and could be getting dangerously close to the ground, the system would take over and prevent the crash. There are altitude and stall warning systems, but maybe something happened to cause the humans to become unconscious, so with no human input, an automatic system would kick in. But no system should continually override the human.
Poles? Poland is in Eastern Europe. No where near North America. Check Apple maps. Unless you're talking about Poles who have emigrated to North Americza; they'll get some of the warming.
I agree with you, but remember, Boeing is a for-profit corporation. Maximizing profit will always be the goal- people can't be trusted to do the right thing- greed will always be the stronger force. Well, with some people- not me, probably not you, and probably not most tech-oriented people. Trouble is, we tech-types are not in control.
Anyway, that's why we can't have true unbridled capitalism- we need govt. oversight and regulation. NTSB is investigating why FAA and Boeing came up with the whole AoA + MCAS + pilots being unaware of its existence.
I blame a dumbing-down culture of over-automation. We all come to accept things having a mind of their own. I hate it- over-automation is one of my soapbox rant topics.
How many aircraft have an AOA sensor with no redundancy, and software that will automatically force the nose down if the sensor incorrectly reads a stall condition? If it's most of them, then maybe this was just bad luck. But I suspect it isn't.
That's a really good question. I believe AoA and MCAS are new for the 737 MAX only. I haven't heard of any other aircraft that does.
I strongly hope that if ANY other aircraft have similar systems, that those aircraft are grounded until this is all sorted out.
From everything I'm reading about this, you're exactly correct.
One of my biggest rant topics is UI. I don't think machines should EVER fight the humans, esp. intelligent trained pilots. As soon as the pilots had to fight the plane, the MCAS or ANY other system should disable itself with a big warning.
IIRC, some other airplane crashes and deaths have occurred because the autopilot shut off when pilots manually operated the yoke or some other control (flaps? I forget) and some smallish indicator lit, but it didn't catch their attention, and eventually the plane lost altitude. I think that was an A380. And big alarms should go off when you get below a certain altitude, but I'm not aware of such a thing in jets. (I'm not a pilot, but I've flown a little, and been in small planes a bit.)
Yeah, I don't remember the Windows XP update warning messages being all that effective, either. I just disabled them, and then hacked my Windows XP box into thinking that it was a POSReady 2009 system to get another 5 years worth of updates.
Not sure about 2014, but XP _still_ gets lots of updates. If they keep this up, someday it might be a complete mature product!
Yeah, but it's likely to take a year before they issue final analysis / report. Not sure I want them flying around until we know for sure. Might be good for FAA, Boeing, etc., to fast-track this analysis.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for an uncommonly interesting, informative, and useful answer. I'm in NO WAY attacking you or your answer, even though I know people will interpret it that way, and insist I'm attacking. Sigh. Anyway, I understand what you're saying, but I've been observing for years that people seem to think their philosophical imaginations are more real than actual reality. How often I've heard someone say "that shouldn't happen". Turns out reality is different than what many people theorize it should be.
The correct statement should be: reality is different than what I imagined it to be. And then learn, hopefully.
Again, on a certain RED site, you can comment AND mod the same story, and it's working very well, so I think the mutual exclusivity here doesn't make sense. And for the very reason that if I have interest in a topic, I do want to discuss and contribute, as well as mod. If I have no interest in a story, I feel I have no business modding, and I do take this seriously. Some people here are brilliant, and contribute greatly. I'd like to engage in a discussion and weed out the trolls, and mod up the really good stuff.
Sigh, I think I need to start my own site! Been thinking about it for a few years... I have the server space...
Yes, I've been reading about this for 2 weeks and I fully get it. I've flown a bit so I understand maybe a bit more than the average person who has never piloted an airplane.
From what I've been reading here and other sources, from actual commercial pilots, is that every plane has its own specific handling characteristics. Under-wing engines always create rotation force, and the MAX has even more. The point being, yes, we want pilots that are trained on and used to a particular aircraft, but any pilot should be able to handle the concepts and adapt.
My point is, if I'm piloting a 737 MAX and I increase thrust, I'm going to know the plane is pitching up, and I'm going to
compensate. Even the simplest small plane has an altimeter, artificial horizon, and likely many more (airspeed, stall warning, vertical speed, etc.) so I'll know I'm climbing. If a plane is pitching up, as a pilot I know to push on the yoke to level myself out. Most basic flying lesson first few minutes- keep it level, unless you mean to climb or descend.
Let's please not argue here. I don't participate in these online discussions much (recently more than most of my life) because people will argue up a storm, based on their imaginations. I'll do some research and get real commercial pilots to weigh in.
No matter the outcome, my hope and preference would be that pilots are able to sense and adapt and control the plane. In fact there have been many reported and unreported cases of MAX planes trying to kill humans, and the pilots disabling ALL trim electrics, which forces the pilots to adapt to the plane, and they did so successfully. The Lion Air 737 had a major MCAS problem the day before but an off-duty pilot knew to switch it off and they handled the plane manually. Mind boggling that something major wasn't done then. Infinitely more mind boggling that something wasn't done after that crash.
One company I worked for about 20 years ago was fairly well known, almost household name. I was brand new, working in test engineering. One product, the bread_and_butter, was 24/7 very high volume production electronic circuit. The automated testers were failing left and right, stopping production. I was trying to improve them but I was being constantly interrupted. I couldn't even get the previous guy's code to compile, supposedly doing exactly what he had done. I tried to suggest how we could build much more reliable AND repairable testers, but the idiots (managers) decided to build a bunch more of the same kluges. The GM was feared and loathed, but I got along well with him. He was grumpy and curt, but efficient and to-the-point. I told him about the problem, my idea to fix, and he replied "gotta eat" - meaning, of course, we need short-term quick fixes. The company was out of business in less than 2 years.
OhMyGosh. Well, you can study and take tests and get all the way to a PhD. but have no common sense, or just never have good broad knowledge. And some never really learn- they figure out how to get by and not really absorb stuff. Good on you to explain Earth's orbit, tilt, etc. You might look into teaching someday. I always thought I would, but it hasn't happened yet (plus the education system is so broken...) Don't bottle up all that knowledge. You're gifted with a motivation to spread truth and information, and that's a very good thing.
I have a good friend who has an art degree. He's super-smart and has grown up around engineering and tech and has really good common sense. He's basically the R&D engineer at a high-tech company. He's constantly dealing with idiocy- from the PhDs. It's wearing him down.
It's pretty well known and studied that movies, TV, etc., have disrupted people's ability to think rationally. It's amazing what people think can happen- because they saw it on TV / movies.
In person I enjoy occasionally messing with people, especially kids. I like watching their faces when I tell them something like the heat rising thing- they start out wide-eyed, then you see that facial change and a big "NUH-UH" comes out and laughter ensues. I always let them know truth if they didn't get it right away.
Combine both fun and learning. :)
Cheers!
Actually, Boeing needs to design a better airframe that isn't to prone to stall...
I know about the MAX without MCAS handling differently enough to require retraining, but are you sure about the "prone to stall"?? I've seen that written in comments here and elsewhere, but not from strong sources. Any plane can be prone to stall. I've heard from solid sources that all jets can nose-up a bit on thrust increase, and the 737 MAX does it more, but any pilot (certainly autopilot) should know this and would see it and compensate. Vertical speed and artificial horizon would alert a pilot. Altimeter and GPS would too, and maybe ground RADAR if you're close enough.
Yep, gotta keep those stockholders happy! Oops...
Ugh. Okay, you've stumped me. Well, there are several smaller plane manufacturers, and military big plane manufacturers, so maybe they'd step up. Lockheed-Martin, Canadian Bombardier, certainly could.
Any of these could ramp up (ramp-up being the key phrase). https://www.internationalbusinessguide.org/10-coolest-small-business-jets-in-the-world/
I mean no disrespect nor disparagement, just to be clear. Being quite intelligent, I've already thought through all of what you wrote and I 1/2 agree. Basically it's a complex philosophical argument. At the end of the day, if I was a high-level judge / decision-maker, my decision would be to allow humans to override the machines. Machines can break. A broken machine should never kill a human. I know humans are fallible and I believe in machines cross-checking, and planes already have stall warning systems, ground distance, verticle speed, VNE, V1, V2 indicators / warnings, etc. Part of my frustration is that MCAS did its own thing disregarding all of the other systems.
More news came out today (4/5) about the pilots trying to overpower MCAS, and having followed proper procedures, but MCAS being determined and able to kill humans.
Not sure why you're so gung-ho about machines making final decisions. I'm an EE and equally good with mechanicals. Okay, in 737 case, I'd be okay with an MCAS system that has 5 computers and 10 sensors. But you know what? All 10 sensors can get iced and stuck. Please think about this a bit. I've given these things a lot of thought for a very many years. Corporations don't seem to be able to think through all of the failure scenarios. And even when they do, greed compromises the fixes.
BTW, I have an idea (invention) for a better AoA sensor.
Put another way (playing Captain Obvious)- the machine (737 MAX) had sensors and algorithms and killed humans. Human pilots were right, machines were wrong.
Bottom line: humans have interest in self-preservation. Machines _might_ someday, but for the near future, since machines can break, humans need to have final override authority.
Awesome post. Absolutely agree on all points. Wish I could mod you up. Maybe it's time to start yet another similar site, unless you know of a good one somewhere. And I mean good science and tech with occasional political / other really pertinent news.
"lameness filter"? I wasn't aware there was one. I'll have to learn about it.
If I were to start a site, how would you feel about _limited_ advertising? No moving things ever. No overlays, popups, nothing intrusive ever. Just nice simple static ads in side columns.
I don't quite understand why I can't mod if I post.
That is quite why enough.
That makes no sense. Care to explain?
On a certain red site I can post and mod same story.
Yup, very sad. I also blame things like the mod system. I don't quite understand why I can't mod if I post.
They should give some of us (who want to be positive and contribute) a great deal of mod power / points to quickly clean up the site.
Keep track of who mods who and what and block abusers; but otherwise clean up this site.
You do know that's not how heat rises? Standing on the South Pole the heat won't go straight into the earth because North is up. It will go "up" into outer space, just like it would anywhere on the earth.
No no no. Earth is FLAT, but standing up like a pancake in a flapjack stand. For heat to go into the Earth it would have to travel laterally. Some is conducted, for sure, but otherwise it rises, up, to the north. That's why Antarctica is so cold- the heat moves up away from the South Pole.
Okay, seriously, for whatever reason your post has me laughing uncontrollably with eyes watering. I just love how you explained it so simplistically and I'm sorry I made you do that but I keep laughing every time I look at it. Thank you! Seriously. I know you weren't sure about my post, so it's good to quell stupidity. I'm usually pretty careful here (and on the red site) with language, clarity, not using sarcasm unless I make it very obvious. I was in a bit of a silly mood. Technically April Fools' was over but I wasn't done with it. Yes, I'm fairly intelligent and scientific, but if you look at my initial post at the beginning of this thread, you'll see how I started the craziness, and I'm very honored that at least 5 people found it funny. In real life I'm fairly humorous but still learning how to be funny in writing. In spite of my fairly low UID #, I'm only recently beginning to post.
Cheers!
NOW COME THE LOSSES and guess who is destined to go belly up, well at least play capitalism bankruptcy, to shift the losses from their executives and investors to the general public, socialise them losses, in order to maximise profits. Lie, cheat and steal, it's the American deal. Probably cheaper for Boeing to buy Southwest Airlines, rather that cover the losses of 150 missing flights for 90 days or more.
Uh-oh, are we (US) headed for another "too big to fail" huge bailout scenario?
Even if Boeing did fail and the rats scattered, other manufacturers would have to ramp-up, and would of course hire all the Boeing rats.
More seriously, I hope there is a big investigation, criminal charges, and none of the criminals ever allowed to work in aviation or anything else critical.
I think it's just the Disagree indicator (and Angle of Attack indicator) that are the add-ons, the second second comes standard, but only one is used for a time, and the pilot is expected to understand when MCAS was acting inappropriately. Turns out that determination (and resolution by turning it off) was not as clear as Boeing thought it was.
I'd love to know if they gave it any thought. I think they were just gung-ho with their kewl brilliant stealth MCAS system.
Though I'd also question why the airlines decided to save a few bucks by not buying it -- I bought the $3000 automated emergency braking upgrade for my car (which probably shoud have cost less than $500 if it wasn't bundled with other stuff I didn't need or want), so why didn't airlines pay the $80K for the extra indicators on a $100M airplane?
I don't know the price, but someone somewhere in the news said it was $5K.
Somewhere else I read (hopefully good info) that there are 2 MCAS systems- one for pilot, one for co-pilot, and each one only uses the AoA sensor on that side of the aircraft. That normally the 2 don't "talk" to each other, so the optional upgrade involved probably some simple code in some system that could compare the 2.
Sounds like you're a pilot, which is awesome, and I absolutely agree with your post.
I have a big problem with the word "trim". To me, and many standard definitions, "trim" means fine tuning, minor adjustment. I suppose in aviation, "trim" becomes the thing that normalizes flight surfaces to achieve level flight with no yoke pressure, in all conditions. So continuing in that context, trim could become a big thing if big compensation is necessary. (needs more thought...)
Stated a better way, one of my many problems with the Boeing system is from what I know of the MAX's dynamics and what MCAS is supposed to do, it should never be able to cause that much elevator motion. A different anti-stall system should do that job, using all sensor inputs.
And as I just posted further up, and agreeing with you 100%, ANY automatic system should disable itself, with a big warning, if the pilot obviously tries to override it, especially after 2 or 3 times.
Hey, you make a lot of great points and I agree. Just please everyone stop blaming engineers. I take it you're not one? We engineers do not make the decisions- managers do. Please study the Challenger disaster. Engineers said "do not launch" but the managers overrode them and launched. After 7 astronauts died, the managers pandered to public and govt. scrutiny and listened to engineers somewhat for a while. But the cycle repeats, and then we had Colombia.
We engineers are usually told what to do- we figure out how to implement someone else's ideas, under manager's rule. Often we come up with better ideas, or how and why something won't work or is dangerous, and we're told to shut up, don't make trouble, just do our jobs. That's why so many new companies are started by engineers who want to be in charge but the corporate authority structure disallows it.
The real problem, as most people point out, or at least ultimately understand, is greed.
BTW, my personal biggest gripe with most of technology today is excessive automation. Like Windows 10 auto updating, wizards, on and on, things you can't control. The machine is built by humans to serve humans. We should always be in control. We should always be able to override the machine instantly.
I'm not a pilot (a couple of hours of FAA flight log lessons) but from what I've read by actual pilots here and other blogs and forums, the flight dynamics that the MCAS compensates for are pretty minimal. Like if you increase engine thrust, the plane starts to climb. ANY pilot will see the vertical speed increase, artificial horizon move, and compensate manually (push on yoke, adjust elevator trim).
Part of the problem, IMHO, is that MCAS is more than a "trim" / compensation. It was trying to prevent stall, and generating HUGE elevator inputs, AND, that the pilots were not able to override. MCAS should only make fine trims, and only in response to pilot's input. Other systems should handle anti-stall. And all of them need to be very clearly controllable (big OFF switch label).
Finally, and most importantly, IMHO NO system should EVER override the pilot, especially not repeatedly. And AFAIK, autopilots will disengage when the pilot takes control. Of course that caused some crashes where the pilot did not notice the autopilot had disengaged, so I could advocate a system that prevents a plane from descending when there's no pilot input. IE., if there's been no pilot input, we're sinking and could be getting dangerously close to the ground, the system would take over and prevent the crash. There are altitude and stall warning systems, but maybe something happened to cause the humans to become unconscious, so with no human input, an automatic system would kick in. But no system should continually override the human.
Poles? Poland is in Eastern Europe. No where near North America. Check Apple maps. Unless you're talking about Poles who have emigrated to North Americza; they'll get some of the warming.
Alaska is above what? Pacific Ocean, right? Not so much heat there, other than Fukushima excrement. But as the oceans warm, so will Alaska.
USA is generating all that heat, and heat rises, and Canada is above USA, so...
I agree with you, but remember, Boeing is a for-profit corporation. Maximizing profit will always be the goal- people can't be trusted to do the right thing- greed will always be the stronger force. Well, with some people- not me, probably not you, and probably not most tech-oriented people. Trouble is, we tech-types are not in control.
Anyway, that's why we can't have true unbridled capitalism- we need govt. oversight and regulation. NTSB is investigating why FAA and Boeing came up with the whole AoA + MCAS + pilots being unaware of its existence.
I blame a dumbing-down culture of over-automation. We all come to accept things having a mind of their own. I hate it- over-automation is one of my soapbox rant topics.
How many aircraft have an AOA sensor with no redundancy, and software that will automatically force the nose down if the sensor incorrectly reads a stall condition? If it's most of them, then maybe this was just bad luck. But I suspect it isn't.
That's a really good question. I believe AoA and MCAS are new for the 737 MAX only. I haven't heard of any other aircraft that does.
I strongly hope that if ANY other aircraft have similar systems, that those aircraft are grounded until this is all sorted out.
From everything I'm reading about this, you're exactly correct.
One of my biggest rant topics is UI. I don't think machines should EVER fight the humans, esp. intelligent trained pilots. As soon as the pilots had to fight the plane, the MCAS or ANY other system should disable itself with a big warning.
IIRC, some other airplane crashes and deaths have occurred because the autopilot shut off when pilots manually operated the yoke or some other control (flaps? I forget) and some smallish indicator lit, but it didn't catch their attention, and eventually the plane lost altitude. I think that was an A380. And big alarms should go off when you get below a certain altitude, but I'm not aware of such a thing in jets. (I'm not a pilot, but I've flown a little, and been in small planes a bit.)
You're half way there. 21 * 2 = 42. That's the appropriate number of times to have to override.
So, the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything.
Yeah, I don't remember the Windows XP update warning messages being all that effective, either. I just disabled them, and then hacked my Windows XP box into thinking that it was a POSReady 2009 system to get another 5 years worth of updates.
Not sure about 2014, but XP _still_ gets lots of updates. If they keep this up, someday it might be a complete mature product!
Yeah, but it's likely to take a year before they issue final analysis / report. Not sure I want them flying around until we know for sure. Might be good for FAA, Boeing, etc., to fast-track this analysis.
The basic unit the second, will now be known as the queef.
So like this: Hey Ol, I need a hand with something here- do you have a queef?
Did I get it right?