And some put fake security above all else. What was he going to DO with a matgazine? TSA again burned a pile of other people's money for no gain in safety.
Waterproof is the latest in a long string of dumb excuses to make the battery non-replaceable but like the others, it's a big fat lie. There is no reason that a device that is waterproof to a depth of 6 feet for 30 minutes cannot also have a replaceable battery.
So how do you explain the Linux desktop machine I am using to reply to you. The one with the browser that's so far beyond MS's offering that they cried 'uncle' and decided to use a re-skinned version of it rather than their own product? The one with an office suite that can read MS Office documents better than MS Office?
How do you explain the total failure of Windows on cell phones and it's status as an also ran at best on tablets while a fair portion of them use a modified Linux kernel (the rest use a modified BSD kernel)?
Some of the Free software also runs on Windows. It is gaining in popularity even there. Even over software MS gives away with Windows.
Ultimately, it may be necessary to find a way to get more people to pay for Free software, but your characterization of it's current state is way off.
It's pretty much everywhere but the desktop. The problem is primarily one of people not believing the inexpensive to free option is actually the better option. That and years of FUD and dirty deals from MS that actually forbid major sellers of consumer desktop and laptop systems from pre-installing Linux making it a less familiar option.
On the other hand, offering some severance and help finding the next job is a cheap way to avoid lawsuits and cultivate the right image to retain people who might otherwise contemplate jumping ship on their own time table.
And, lo and behold, if you deal with the sensors disagree light, there will be no runaway trim since you'll have turned it off.
If instead, you'd like to argue that Boeing should program it so that the sensors disagree condition shuts down MCAS automatically, I would agree,
In the pilot's mind, the sensors disagree light will become the turn off MCAS light, problem solved. It might even lead them to turn off MCAS before it even tries to mis-adjust the trim. It might even warn them before they take off.
These are a special case of optional. The hardware is installed in all cases, proving that the manufacturer makes a satisfactory profit after paying for those parts and without the extra payment from the customer (otherwise, they wouldn't offer that configuration). A healthy market (for any sort of profuct) would forve the manufacturer to enable those features at the base price in order to compete (that is, the market would force the inefficiency out).
As for the usefulness, it would provide an unequivocal indication of the problem which should cause the pilot to take the appropriate action. MCAS has sensor trouble, turn it off and fly without it.
In the case of the Lion Air flight, they managed to keep the plane flying for 11 minutes. Had they had a clear indication of exactly what was causing the plane to fight them for control, the pilots could have managed to shut off MCAS. In fact, the day before, the same plane (different pilots) had the same problem and a 3rd off-duty pilot diagnosed the problem while the pilots kept the plane flying. As a result, they turned MCAS off and continued safely to their destination.
The lack of a clear fault indication has crashed 2 planes so far, that seems fairly fundamental to safe operation. A car without those expensive optional "brakes" goes just fine. It's the crashing that is a problem.
The reasoning is known. The MAX has larger engines that are mounted further forward to maintain ground clearance. This gives the plane a tendency to nose up under power. Boing didn't want to risk the FAA deciding that required specific pilot qualification for the MAX, so they added MCAS to correct the noseing up and allow pilots already qualified for the old 737 to fly the MAX without additional training. They didn't document MCAS, again to avoid the risk that the FAA might make an adverse decision.
Then they just couldn't resist trying to squeeze a few more pennies out by making the sensor disagreement light an optional package.
A big problem is the exclusive deal. A has an exclusive on 1, B an exclusive on 2, C on 3, etc. Any one or two would be a fair enough price to pay for a good variety of entertainment, but not the growing number you have to pay to get the shows you want.
Making a market value decision and only being willing to pay what you think it is worth is very much the market in action.
Mr. Cruise's pay is reflected in a higher movie price. In a market economy (this includes Capitalism), buyers get to decide if that is worth it to them or not.
You seem to be advocating a centrally planned (command) economy. Even the old Soviet Communists didn't force people to buy things they didn't want.
I agree that the AOA indicator isn't necessary. The disagree light definately should be standard, and MCAS should have shut down when the sensors disagree.
What's really surprising is that MCAS doesn't shut itself down AND indicate failure when the sensors disagree rather than fight the pilot for control of the trim.
It's looking more and more like Boeing was playing dirty to avoid the MAX from being considered a new typr for the purposes of pilot training.
This is a little different. Imagine a new model of an existing car. The engineers note that the new car has an odd tendency to turn to the left all on it's own. Rather than fix that or alert drivers to the oddity, they devise a system that will pull the steering wheel a bit to the right when it detects the surprise left steering. The warning light to tell you that the sensor for the steering correction system has failed is OPTIONAL. But since it's cheaper to build all of the cars with the indicator, the dealer is instructed to disable it with wire cutters unless you choose to pay for it.
Slashdot Mirror
And some put fake security above all else. What was he going to DO with a matgazine? TSA again burned a pile of other people's money for no gain in safety.
Waterproof is the latest in a long string of dumb excuses to make the battery non-replaceable but like the others, it's a big fat lie. There is no reason that a device that is waterproof to a depth of 6 feet for 30 minutes cannot also have a replaceable battery.
When you describe your car, do you describe the engine alone or do you describe the rest of the car and perhaps throw in a bit about the engine?
The fact that he has signed off on a devil that just makes it work for now through a compromise argues against your assessment.
So how do you explain the Linux desktop machine I am using to reply to you. The one with the browser that's so far beyond MS's offering that they cried 'uncle' and decided to use a re-skinned version of it rather than their own product? The one with an office suite that can read MS Office documents better than MS Office?
How do you explain the total failure of Windows on cell phones and it's status as an also ran at best on tablets while a fair portion of them use a modified Linux kernel (the rest use a modified BSD kernel)?
Some of the Free software also runs on Windows. It is gaining in popularity even there. Even over software MS gives away with Windows.
Ultimately, it may be necessary to find a way to get more people to pay for Free software, but your characterization of it's current state is way off.
What makes you think it's a niche OS?
It's pretty much everywhere but the desktop. The problem is primarily one of people not believing the inexpensive to free option is actually the better option. That and years of FUD and dirty deals from MS that actually forbid major sellers of consumer desktop and laptop systems from pre-installing Linux making it a less familiar option.
I'm pretty sure he believes in metaphor and simile. Particularly those that convey ideas succinctly.
Exactly, The first "car phones" were installed in the back seat.
On the other hand, offering some severance and help finding the next job is a cheap way to avoid lawsuits and cultivate the right image to retain people who might otherwise contemplate jumping ship on their own time table.
More succinctly, first they downsize, then they rightsize, finally they capsize.
And, lo and behold, if you deal with the sensors disagree light, there will be no runaway trim since you'll have turned it off.
If instead, you'd like to argue that Boeing should program it so that the sensors disagree condition shuts down MCAS automatically, I would agree,
In the pilot's mind, the sensors disagree light will become the turn off MCAS light, problem solved. It might even lead them to turn off MCAS before it even tries to mis-adjust the trim. It might even warn them before they take off.
No, they are physical things that are installed in all cases. They are enabled (a configuration setting) if you pay for them.
These are a special case of optional. The hardware is installed in all cases, proving that the manufacturer makes a satisfactory profit after paying for those parts and without the extra payment from the customer (otherwise, they wouldn't offer that configuration). A healthy market (for any sort of profuct) would forve the manufacturer to enable those features at the base price in order to compete (that is, the market would force the inefficiency out).
As for the usefulness, it would provide an unequivocal indication of the problem which should cause the pilot to take the appropriate action. MCAS has sensor trouble, turn it off and fly without it.
In the case of the Lion Air flight, they managed to keep the plane flying for 11 minutes. Had they had a clear indication of exactly what was causing the plane to fight them for control, the pilots could have managed to shut off MCAS. In fact, the day before, the same plane (different pilots) had the same problem and a 3rd off-duty pilot diagnosed the problem while the pilots kept the plane flying. As a result, they turned MCAS off and continued safely to their destination.
The lack of a clear fault indication has crashed 2 planes so far, that seems fairly fundamental to safe operation. A car without those expensive optional "brakes" goes just fine. It's the crashing that is a problem.
The reasoning is known. The MAX has larger engines that are mounted further forward to maintain ground clearance. This gives the plane a tendency to nose up under power. Boing didn't want to risk the FAA deciding that required specific pilot qualification for the MAX, so they added MCAS to correct the noseing up and allow pilots already qualified for the old 737 to fly the MAX without additional training. They didn't document MCAS, again to avoid the risk that the FAA might make an adverse decision.
Then they just couldn't resist trying to squeeze a few more pennies out by making the sensor disagreement light an optional package.
This would be like buying the detectors + sprinkler system, then turning them all off because my guests wouldn't pony up a dime each.
In a healthy market, the manufacturer has to turn the feature on by default in order to make the sale.
The development is a sunk cost. So is the hardware if it's always included enabled or not.
Yes, the manufacturers choose one of the two examples of a reasonable response suggested.
A big problem is the exclusive deal. A has an exclusive on 1, B an exclusive on 2, C on 3, etc. Any one or two would be a fair enough price to pay for a good variety of entertainment, but not the growing number you have to pay to get the shows you want.
Making a market value decision and only being willing to pay what you think it is worth is very much the market in action.
Mr. Cruise's pay is reflected in a higher movie price. In a market economy (this includes Capitalism), buyers get to decide if that is worth it to them or not.
You seem to be advocating a centrally planned (command) economy. Even the old Soviet Communists didn't force people to buy things they didn't want.
Other than *Y*O*U*
If the flaps are down, MCAS won't do anything no matter what the AOA sensor reads.
I agree that the AOA indicator isn't necessary. The disagree light definately should be standard, and MCAS should have shut down when the sensors disagree.
What's really surprising is that MCAS doesn't shut itself down AND indicate failure when the sensors disagree rather than fight the pilot for control of the trim.
It's looking more and more like Boeing was playing dirty to avoid the MAX from being considered a new typr for the purposes of pilot training.
This is a little different. Imagine a new model of an existing car. The engineers note that the new car has an odd tendency to turn to the left all on it's own. Rather than fix that or alert drivers to the oddity, they devise a system that will pull the steering wheel a bit to the right when it detects the surprise left steering. The warning light to tell you that the sensor for the steering correction system has failed is OPTIONAL. But since it's cheaper to build all of the cars with the indicator, the dealer is instructed to disable it with wire cutters unless you choose to pay for it.
Also notable, in a healthy competitive market, manufacturers can't pull BS like charging extra to turn a built-in feature on.