The bill was designed neither to pass nor to fix the problem. It was designed to draw distinction between the President and the opposing party.
Exactly this. This was nothing more than for show, much like the "Green New Deal" vote in the Senate. But then again politics is mostly theater to start with so most of what is said and done is for show anyway.
Queue the punditry! Time to bloviate endlessly about how this "show vote" means something. IMHO, it's meaningless.
"Padding drives higher costs in fuel burn, noise and CO2 which means if airline efficiency goes up, costs go down, benefitting both the environment and fares."
Um.. How's that exactly? All the airlines are doing is making their schedules reflect reality. How long does it really take from push back to shutdown at the destination? Put that on the schedule and keep folks happy because they may get their sooner than planed, won't miss connections as much, the crews are more likely to be where planned and ATC won't be clogged up with flight plans that only have to get their departure times changed.
If you think the airline is flying around willy nily just to pad their schedules, you are an idiot. I can assure you that they spend as little time flying as they can manage because operating costs are MUCH higher when airborne than when on the ramp awaiting clearance. They are motivated by profit to use as little fuel as they safely can.
It's stuff like this that makes this whole CO2 emission argument seem lame. Stop using it where it doesn't apply please..
So, now we are outlawing specific kinds of speech? Danger is close.
Tread lightly. It's a really slippery slope when you start down this path and something I suggest we weigh carefully before reacting emotionally.
Where I'm all for avoiding things like yelling "fire in a theater" or "inflaming an actual riot" it's going to put us way out on the slippery slope to do this. I wonder if the risks are worth the sacrifice of freedom, if we can craft a narrow enough rule to fix the actual problem without sliding into full censorship... I'm not sure we can.
So, what rule are you suggesting here? Specifically what and what isn't allowed? What's the problem we are trying to fix?
You do what you practice, in advance or it's anybody's guess what you will do.. I suggest that if you don't have the presence of mind in panic situations that you go out and practice, actually, even if you don't tend to panic, practice. Have somebody randomly declare an emergency and time how long you take to respond correctly. Even mentally walking though these exercises will help prepare you for when it really happens.
Far too often we run headlong into situations without a plan for when things go wrong. You cannot foresee everything, but failing to plan and practice to make sure your emergency responses are right is just stupid. Do this for things like skidding on slippery roads, panic stops with evasive maneuvering in empty parking lots. Focus on things that increase your chances of getting on the binders faster, but maintaining control. Don't over correct and be smooth. Above all, practice. That way you can know in advance the right thing...
Think of it as training the neural net between the ears..
Well.. I'm not sure that swerving into the oncoming lane is the best option when somebody crosses over into your lane..
My druthers would be to hit the binders and head for the shoulder and hopefully get the horn sounding... That seems like a better option in general. It may not be the right call all the time, but it seems like the best option in a bad situation.
Get out of the other car's way, staying on your side of the road, get on the brakes and scrub as much energy off and increase the time before the collision, and see if you can get the other driver's attention. Maybe they will correct in time.
They even said, if there had been cars there, the Tesla likely would have noticed them and not blithely crashed head on.
And if the AoA sensor was reading wrong, the pilot likely would have taken control and not let the plane crash. Those "likely" sure are dangerous.
You do know that this issue was a bit more complex than you seem to indicate. Part of the problem with the MAX was the pilots DID intervene, they just didn't understand what was happening and let the aircraft trim itself nose down instead of countering with nose up trim. In short, they *didn't* take control, control of the right thing at least. Both aircraft where 100% flyable, the pilots just had to figure out what was happening and deal with the issue in the time they had. These guys didn't have enough time.
But it is a cautionary tail for Tesla drivers. You *never* really know when a sensor failure or external conditions will exceed the autopilot's ability to safely drive the car. This means that the driver MUST be paying attention and ready to resume driving at any time. The danger here is that the cognitive delay that naturally happens when you switch from monitoring to manual driving. That delay can translate into a pretty large distance when you are going 70 mph.
The military finally admitted to the UFOs. Do you get any news at all?
LOL.. Technically maybe, as in "We don't (at this point) know what that was." but not in the sense that aliens have landed. Could have been swamp gas, weather balloons, optical illusions or even a bad acid trip, we don't know, but nobody has any evidence that aliens landed.
Except the DC-10 had serious flaws in the mechanical designs, the 737 MAX just doesn't have this kind of thing. The DC-10 had issues with the cargo doors, all three hydraulic systems routed too close to to an engine without the means of isolating them and ill advised maintenance short cuts breaking things.
Even then, it was fixable... But the economics of it's operation and the loss of reputation did the aircraft in.
Weaponization of space has been a reality since Sputnik.
Weapons were the whole POINT of the exercise by both sides though the 70's, regardless of the propaganda saying otherwise.
The treaties that keep weapons from being based in space is very clearly only limiting WMD type weapons (nuclear bombs, chemical weapons etc) but they do not address conventional weapons, anti-satellite weapons or much else for that matter.
So India's actions are not evidence of anything new, just the continued realization that national defense *requires* a significant focus on controlling space in some way. Denying your adversaries the high ground, as we used to call it.
The MAX is not unstable by design. In fact, it's quite stable, BY DESIGN. All passenger planes are.
What happened is the MAX stalls differently than the 737's that came before it. The MCAS system was designed to help pilots who knew how to fly the 737 fly the MAX without too much extra training. It augmented the flight controls to make the MAX feel and handle like the 737's of old, even though the aircraft was actually different. The MAX doesn't have some dangerous innate aerodynamic flaw, it's just different from the 737 of old, so Boeing tried to adjust that.
The problem was the MCAS system wasn't being trained properly and apparently Boeing short circuited the certification process on this aspect of their design. This isn't a design flaw, persay, but more of a documentation and training flaw. The MCAS system malfunction was NOT a fatal problem, it had been successfully dealt with at least once, but pilots where not being told about this system or trained on how to recognize and deal with failures.
The fatal flaw was the process that let this lack of documentation and training of pilots reach the flying public. Not the aircraft's design.
The MAX 8 will be one of the safest planes in the sky after this design review is done and the software gets updated.
A plane where the engines have to much power and push the nose so far up that the plane can stall: does not sound safe to me.
Every low engine aircraft exhibits this very same behavior, to varying degrees. It's a known feature, just like the tendency to turn left on departure is on a single engine prop aircraft or the slow spool up times of turbines in jet aircraft. These are simply the dynamics of flying the aircraft that pilots must know and compensate for. All sorts of things cause pitch trim changes. Raising the landing gear, adjusting the flaps all affect the horizontal trim of the aircraft too, not just the adding of thrust. The MAX has no more dangerous tendency to pitch under power up than it's predecessors did and pilots are trained on how to deal safely with the flying characteristics of their aircraft.
Also, the engines are not really that much more thrust that was the trim change issue, it was the moving of the engine forward (and the associated change in weight and balance). the center of mass moving higher and the effect the larger engine fans and cowling had on the airflow at high angles of attack. This makes the aircraft stall a bit sooner as the airflow is disrupted over the wing root sooner in this configuration. The engine thrust wasn't the major contributor to the problem, as the point here wasn't improving thrust, but fuel consumption, with the new engine configuration.
The MCAS system was really only there to make the stall "feel" like the 737 pilots where used to feeling. The old 737 still could stall at similar angles of attack and in similar situations, but you NEVER want to stall a jetliner full of people, ever. So they invented this flight control augmentation system that makes the MAX "feel" similar to the old 737 and help keep old 737 pilots from stalling it inadvertently when they flew the new aircraft.
It's not that the aircraft is dangerous or has unsafe aerodynamics, quote the opposite, it's likely safer and more efficient, it's just that Boeing recognized that old pilots needed a bit of "help" to fly the thing. Instead of making it a training issue, and putting the pilots though stall training in the simulator on the new airframe, they did this MCAS thing and then didn't train pilots. THAT was the mistake, that was or is the fatal flaw in this process. A flaw that will be repaired by training pilots, providing more information to pilots though software changes to get the MAX back in the air, but more importantly we will fix the PROCESS problem that let such an obvious problem make it into the air, with passengers.
The amount of pitch up with the newer more powerful engines got to a point where when the plane is already at a high angle of attack, the elevator don't have enough authority to counter act it. The entire rear stabilizer needs to be moved using the stabilizer trim.
Other planes have larger elevators or less pitch-up under full thrust.
The moving of the entire stabilizer is how this is done in most commercial aircraft and is not unique to the MAX. There is a "jack screw" that adjusts the angle of the horizontal stabilizer in many aircraft that is driven by the trim system. This arrangement has been standard fare for aircraft design for a very long time and I've seen it used on aircraft from the 60's and I'm sure it was in use long before then. Again, this is not a unique arrangement to the 737 MAX, but very common due to it's aerodynamic efficiency at high speed and range of control authority it offers at low speeds.
There is plenty of control authority in the horizontal stabilizer to safely fly the 737 MAX as designed. The MCAS system was supposed to only adjust how the aircraft "feels" to the pilots. As such, it's not a safety system per-say, or wasn't supposed to be when it was initially envisioned. The idea was to increase the control forces to keep pilots away from the edges of the aerodynamic flight envelope where they where accustomed to higher forces than the 737 MAX naturally provided.
Again, there is nothing aerodynamically wrong with the 737 MAX it can be safely flown. There is an issue with a failure mode of the MCAS confusing pilots, by messing with the trim, but The aircraft remains 100% flyable. The pilots are being cognitively challenged because the aircraft is changing the pitch trim for reasons they don't understand and Pilots of any aircraft where the trim is getting messed with would have difficulty. The only part of this which is unique to the MAX is that MCAS system and the one unfortunate failure mode.
1. Have human staff on duty when the gas station is operational.
2. Have human staff look at the "van" and the amount of fuel and the price of that fuel.
3. Make people walk from the gas pumps to a cashier with a computer display showing pump used, price and amount of fuel.
4. Pay for the fuel.
5. Human staff on duty will see huge numbers never seen before from any average "van" on the computer display? Thats not normal.
Have the computer alert to totally unexpected numbers.
6. Lots of quality CCTV for face, passengers face and gait.
7. Remove anything automated that can allow your gas station to pump fuel for free at any time.
Or change the default pin used in the equipment and force customers to "prepay" for a reasonable amount of fuel by clearing the credit card in advance or requiring prepayment in cash.
There is NOTHING unique to this aircraft configuration that makes it inherently unstable. Other aircraft share the same tendency to pitch up on throttle up. This isn't some aerodynamic oddity unique to the MAX 8. ANY aircraft with engines under the wings will do exactly the same thing and we've flow aircraft in this configuration for decades, long before even the 737 was first built.
The trick here is knowing how to deal with how thrust changes pitch when you are flying the aircraft, and the only problem was Boeing's system to "help" the aircraft handle the same way as the older 737's. The aircraft is flyable and quite airworthy without this system, it's just different that a 737 pilot is used to. It's not unsafe to fly, it just flies differently and pilots need to be trained on this, not fooled into thinking it's a 737 by software...
Nothing is wrong with the aircraft beyond the MCAS system's design and human factors aspect of how it works in a specific failure mode. There is no need to send these aircraft to the scrap yard, yet...
Arguably the pilots flying the two ill fated flights where not up to par and better training could have saved them, what I see happened is the lack of training ran headlong into a human factors issue of the MCAS design. The failed system confuses pilots, the human factors part of the design sucked badly enough to cause them to crash their aircraft, even though it was fully flyable had they known what to do and popped out a single breaker. Where this is BAD, it's also very fixable, both though pilot training and modifications of the software.
To me, apart from the senseless deaths, what scares me the most is how such a situation can exist where the processes should be in place to avoid stuff like this. Where else has this process failed? When will we find the next dangerous problem? THAT is what would keep me up at night. The MAX 8 will be one of the safest planes in the sky after this design review is done and the software gets updated. I'm worried about what else is waiting to bite us, because flying is dangerous business, even when you do it all right, people are going to die sometimes.
MCAS wasn't *supposed* to be life critical. Quite the opposite, the Pilots where supposed to be able to override it by grabbing the controls. The problem was that it *became* life critical over time and nobody properly noted the design change's impact and then they failed to see (or just flat ignored) this fact.
We are going to need the comic relief this election cycle. It's going to be one huge shrill circus complete with side shows and cheesy freak show of candidates. You thought the Republican primary was fun last time, you ain't seen nothing yet. There will be so many candidates in the democrat primary that they won't fit on three stages, much less two. And every one of them will be vying for some unique niche commination of political ideology, gender, race, and ethnicity.
Once a candidate rises to the top, the general will be a race vrs Trump, the king of crazy talk and master of the verbal jab. It's going to be a circus of epic proportion and hyper partisan to the bitter end. Get your large screen TV and popcorn supply in now, or if this kind of thing bothers you, your stock pile of Xanax and ear plugs.
"Obamacare" = the ACA, passed by Republicans, edited by Republicans, invented and successfully implemented by Mitt Romney = ROMNEYCARE = REPUBLICANCARE, for all anyone cares about the name.
Go check.. Not even ONE republican voted for the ACA, not in the house, not in the senate, not even ONE vote. Your often repeated trope is a lie, a really big one.
Also, your "Romney Care" name is pretty funny. The ACA wasn't even close to the mistake made in MA, which Romney vetoed the majority of by the way. It may have been patterned after this ill advised law made in a liberal state, but this was roundly opposed by the republicans in the state, just like it was at the federal level. And just because Romney ran for president as a Republican, doesn't make this a mainline republican idea.
In short, the ACA was anything BUT bi-partisan. It was the democrats ram rodding though a mistake both for the country and for the democrat party's grasp on power, it was hyper partisan. All your claims to the contrary are just a bald faced lie and until your side admits to it's mistake, I don't expect to see much improvement in your caucus' ability to push any of your agenda. You guys ticked off the voters in this country with this ACA thing, sold on a pack of lies starting from Obama on down. The voters have punished you for this, and will keep punishing you if you keep pushing this tripe.
These the same pollers that showed Hillary winning 2016?
Yea, the same ones who where actually within the margin of error for the most part, just skewed about 3% across the board.
It was the punditry who where saying Hillary would win, who ignored the MOE's and over stated the level of certainty the polls had.
However, I will say that any polls at this point are not worth the paper they are printed on for anything. We are still 19 months out. A whole lot of stuff is going to happen between now and then that will drive the polls. Warren won't survive the third state's primary, so how she polls vrs Trump is about as useless information as you can get. MAYBE it's useful to select the VP pick but I just don't see Warren on anybody's short list for that.
Why would Warren care about red states? She knows they're chock full of morons happily marching into retarded and obvious dystopian bondage, at a traitor's command... It's like caring about Lemmings. Nah.
Warren cares about people who can think for themselves, not red state idiots marching to a fraud's lies, preying upon their overlarge amygdalas and fears of brown skin tones and other languages.
Because, the Iowa straw polls and the money they can bring... Come on, this is about the primary fight, at least at this point, and has nothing to do with the general. Don't forget, democrats in the Red States have quite a bit of say in who wins the nomination, so winning primaries in red states is a good thing even if you are a democrat.
Because she doesn't give a shit and is only trying to win points in red states. If she comes out with any idea Apple doesn't like they'll cut her down well before she has a chance to be completely destroyed in the primaries.
You ain't wrong.... Although I don't believe Apple has that much power alone... They could easily put together a coalition to torpedo her campaign though.
Slashdot Mirror
That depends on the length of the rope.
It's more where the rope is attached.... But I get your meaning..
The bill was designed neither to pass nor to fix the problem. It was designed to draw distinction between the President and the opposing party.
Exactly this. This was nothing more than for show, much like the "Green New Deal" vote in the Senate. But then again politics is mostly theater to start with so most of what is said and done is for show anyway.
Queue the punditry! Time to bloviate endlessly about how this "show vote" means something. IMHO, it's meaningless.
"Padding drives higher costs in fuel burn, noise and CO2 which means if airline efficiency goes up, costs go down, benefitting both the environment and fares."
Um.. How's that exactly? All the airlines are doing is making their schedules reflect reality. How long does it really take from push back to shutdown at the destination? Put that on the schedule and keep folks happy because they may get their sooner than planed, won't miss connections as much, the crews are more likely to be where planned and ATC won't be clogged up with flight plans that only have to get their departure times changed.
If you think the airline is flying around willy nily just to pad their schedules, you are an idiot. I can assure you that they spend as little time flying as they can manage because operating costs are MUCH higher when airborne than when on the ramp awaiting clearance. They are motivated by profit to use as little fuel as they safely can.
It's stuff like this that makes this whole CO2 emission argument seem lame. Stop using it where it doesn't apply please..
So, now we are outlawing specific kinds of speech? Danger is close.
Tread lightly. It's a really slippery slope when you start down this path and something I suggest we weigh carefully before reacting emotionally.
Where I'm all for avoiding things like yelling "fire in a theater" or "inflaming an actual riot" it's going to put us way out on the slippery slope to do this. I wonder if the risks are worth the sacrifice of freedom, if we can craft a narrow enough rule to fix the actual problem without sliding into full censorship... I'm not sure we can.
So, what rule are you suggesting here? Specifically what and what isn't allowed? What's the problem we are trying to fix?
You do what you practice, in advance or it's anybody's guess what you will do.. I suggest that if you don't have the presence of mind in panic situations that you go out and practice, actually, even if you don't tend to panic, practice. Have somebody randomly declare an emergency and time how long you take to respond correctly. Even mentally walking though these exercises will help prepare you for when it really happens.
Far too often we run headlong into situations without a plan for when things go wrong. You cannot foresee everything, but failing to plan and practice to make sure your emergency responses are right is just stupid. Do this for things like skidding on slippery roads, panic stops with evasive maneuvering in empty parking lots. Focus on things that increase your chances of getting on the binders faster, but maintaining control. Don't over correct and be smooth. Above all, practice. That way you can know in advance the right thing...
Think of it as training the neural net between the ears..
Well.. I'm not sure that swerving into the oncoming lane is the best option when somebody crosses over into your lane..
My druthers would be to hit the binders and head for the shoulder and hopefully get the horn sounding... That seems like a better option in general. It may not be the right call all the time, but it seems like the best option in a bad situation.
Get out of the other car's way, staying on your side of the road, get on the brakes and scrub as much energy off and increase the time before the collision, and see if you can get the other driver's attention. Maybe they will correct in time.
They even said, if there had been cars there, the Tesla likely would have noticed them and not blithely crashed head on.
And if the AoA sensor was reading wrong, the pilot likely would have taken control and not let the plane crash. Those "likely" sure are dangerous.
You do know that this issue was a bit more complex than you seem to indicate. Part of the problem with the MAX was the pilots DID intervene, they just didn't understand what was happening and let the aircraft trim itself nose down instead of countering with nose up trim. In short, they *didn't* take control, control of the right thing at least. Both aircraft where 100% flyable, the pilots just had to figure out what was happening and deal with the issue in the time they had. These guys didn't have enough time.
But it is a cautionary tail for Tesla drivers. You *never* really know when a sensor failure or external conditions will exceed the autopilot's ability to safely drive the car. This means that the driver MUST be paying attention and ready to resume driving at any time. The danger here is that the cognitive delay that naturally happens when you switch from monitoring to manual driving. That delay can translate into a pretty large distance when you are going 70 mph.
The military finally admitted to the UFOs. Do you get any news at all?
LOL.. Technically maybe, as in "We don't (at this point) know what that was." but not in the sense that aliens have landed. Could have been swamp gas, weather balloons, optical illusions or even a bad acid trip, we don't know, but nobody has any evidence that aliens landed.
Except the DC-10 had serious flaws in the mechanical designs, the 737 MAX just doesn't have this kind of thing. The DC-10 had issues with the cargo doors, all three hydraulic systems routed too close to to an engine without the means of isolating them and ill advised maintenance short cuts breaking things.
Even then, it was fixable... But the economics of it's operation and the loss of reputation did the aircraft in.
Weaponization of space has been a reality since Sputnik.
Weapons were the whole POINT of the exercise by both sides though the 70's, regardless of the propaganda saying otherwise.
The treaties that keep weapons from being based in space is very clearly only limiting WMD type weapons (nuclear bombs, chemical weapons etc) but they do not address conventional weapons, anti-satellite weapons or much else for that matter.
So India's actions are not evidence of anything new, just the continued realization that national defense *requires* a significant focus on controlling space in some way. Denying your adversaries the high ground, as we used to call it.
The MAX is not unstable by design. In fact, it's quite stable, BY DESIGN. All passenger planes are.
What happened is the MAX stalls differently than the 737's that came before it. The MCAS system was designed to help pilots who knew how to fly the 737 fly the MAX without too much extra training. It augmented the flight controls to make the MAX feel and handle like the 737's of old, even though the aircraft was actually different. The MAX doesn't have some dangerous innate aerodynamic flaw, it's just different from the 737 of old, so Boeing tried to adjust that.
The problem was the MCAS system wasn't being trained properly and apparently Boeing short circuited the certification process on this aspect of their design. This isn't a design flaw, persay, but more of a documentation and training flaw. The MCAS system malfunction was NOT a fatal problem, it had been successfully dealt with at least once, but pilots where not being told about this system or trained on how to recognize and deal with failures.
The fatal flaw was the process that let this lack of documentation and training of pilots reach the flying public. Not the aircraft's design.
The MAX 8 will be one of the safest planes in the sky after this design review is done and the software gets updated. A plane where the engines have to much power and push the nose so far up that the plane can stall: does not sound safe to me.
Every low engine aircraft exhibits this very same behavior, to varying degrees. It's a known feature, just like the tendency to turn left on departure is on a single engine prop aircraft or the slow spool up times of turbines in jet aircraft. These are simply the dynamics of flying the aircraft that pilots must know and compensate for. All sorts of things cause pitch trim changes. Raising the landing gear, adjusting the flaps all affect the horizontal trim of the aircraft too, not just the adding of thrust. The MAX has no more dangerous tendency to pitch under power up than it's predecessors did and pilots are trained on how to deal safely with the flying characteristics of their aircraft.
Also, the engines are not really that much more thrust that was the trim change issue, it was the moving of the engine forward (and the associated change in weight and balance). the center of mass moving higher and the effect the larger engine fans and cowling had on the airflow at high angles of attack. This makes the aircraft stall a bit sooner as the airflow is disrupted over the wing root sooner in this configuration. The engine thrust wasn't the major contributor to the problem, as the point here wasn't improving thrust, but fuel consumption, with the new engine configuration.
The MCAS system was really only there to make the stall "feel" like the 737 pilots where used to feeling. The old 737 still could stall at similar angles of attack and in similar situations, but you NEVER want to stall a jetliner full of people, ever. So they invented this flight control augmentation system that makes the MAX "feel" similar to the old 737 and help keep old 737 pilots from stalling it inadvertently when they flew the new aircraft.
It's not that the aircraft is dangerous or has unsafe aerodynamics, quote the opposite, it's likely safer and more efficient, it's just that Boeing recognized that old pilots needed a bit of "help" to fly the thing. Instead of making it a training issue, and putting the pilots though stall training in the simulator on the new airframe, they did this MCAS thing and then didn't train pilots. THAT was the mistake, that was or is the fatal flaw in this process. A flaw that will be repaired by training pilots, providing more information to pilots though software changes to get the MAX back in the air, but more importantly we will fix the PROCESS problem that let such an obvious problem make it into the air, with passengers.
The amount of pitch up with the newer more powerful engines got to a point where when the plane is already at a high angle of attack, the elevator don't have enough authority to counter act it. The entire rear stabilizer needs to be moved using the stabilizer trim.
Other planes have larger elevators or less pitch-up under full thrust.
The moving of the entire stabilizer is how this is done in most commercial aircraft and is not unique to the MAX. There is a "jack screw" that adjusts the angle of the horizontal stabilizer in many aircraft that is driven by the trim system. This arrangement has been standard fare for aircraft design for a very long time and I've seen it used on aircraft from the 60's and I'm sure it was in use long before then. Again, this is not a unique arrangement to the 737 MAX, but very common due to it's aerodynamic efficiency at high speed and range of control authority it offers at low speeds.
There is plenty of control authority in the horizontal stabilizer to safely fly the 737 MAX as designed. The MCAS system was supposed to only adjust how the aircraft "feels" to the pilots. As such, it's not a safety system per-say, or wasn't supposed to be when it was initially envisioned. The idea was to increase the control forces to keep pilots away from the edges of the aerodynamic flight envelope where they where accustomed to higher forces than the 737 MAX naturally provided.
Again, there is nothing aerodynamically wrong with the 737 MAX it can be safely flown. There is an issue with a failure mode of the MCAS confusing pilots, by messing with the trim, but The aircraft remains 100% flyable. The pilots are being cognitively challenged because the aircraft is changing the pitch trim for reasons they don't understand and Pilots of any aircraft where the trim is getting messed with would have difficulty. The only part of this which is unique to the MAX is that MCAS system and the one unfortunate failure mode.
Quick, change my pin to "1234"!
1. Have human staff on duty when the gas station is operational. 2. Have human staff look at the "van" and the amount of fuel and the price of that fuel. 3. Make people walk from the gas pumps to a cashier with a computer display showing pump used, price and amount of fuel. 4. Pay for the fuel. 5. Human staff on duty will see huge numbers never seen before from any average "van" on the computer display? Thats not normal. Have the computer alert to totally unexpected numbers. 6. Lots of quality CCTV for face, passengers face and gait. 7. Remove anything automated that can allow your gas station to pump fuel for free at any time.
Or change the default pin used in the equipment and force customers to "prepay" for a reasonable amount of fuel by clearing the credit card in advance or requiring prepayment in cash.
Oh for Pete's sake, this AGAIN?
There is NOTHING unique to this aircraft configuration that makes it inherently unstable. Other aircraft share the same tendency to pitch up on throttle up. This isn't some aerodynamic oddity unique to the MAX 8. ANY aircraft with engines under the wings will do exactly the same thing and we've flow aircraft in this configuration for decades, long before even the 737 was first built.
The trick here is knowing how to deal with how thrust changes pitch when you are flying the aircraft, and the only problem was Boeing's system to "help" the aircraft handle the same way as the older 737's. The aircraft is flyable and quite airworthy without this system, it's just different that a 737 pilot is used to. It's not unsafe to fly, it just flies differently and pilots need to be trained on this, not fooled into thinking it's a 737 by software...
Nothing is wrong with the aircraft beyond the MCAS system's design and human factors aspect of how it works in a specific failure mode. There is no need to send these aircraft to the scrap yard, yet...
Arguably the pilots flying the two ill fated flights where not up to par and better training could have saved them, what I see happened is the lack of training ran headlong into a human factors issue of the MCAS design. The failed system confuses pilots, the human factors part of the design sucked badly enough to cause them to crash their aircraft, even though it was fully flyable had they known what to do and popped out a single breaker. Where this is BAD, it's also very fixable, both though pilot training and modifications of the software.
To me, apart from the senseless deaths, what scares me the most is how such a situation can exist where the processes should be in place to avoid stuff like this. Where else has this process failed? When will we find the next dangerous problem? THAT is what would keep me up at night. The MAX 8 will be one of the safest planes in the sky after this design review is done and the software gets updated. I'm worried about what else is waiting to bite us, because flying is dangerous business, even when you do it all right, people are going to die sometimes.
MCAS wasn't *supposed* to be life critical. Quite the opposite, the Pilots where supposed to be able to override it by grabbing the controls. The problem was that it *became* life critical over time and nobody properly noted the design change's impact and then they failed to see (or just flat ignored) this fact.
You mean they can be hacked by folks with physical access to the hardware or logical access to the software?
Well, I'm SHOCKED! SHOCKED I say they'd sell something with KNOWN Vulnerabilities here..
I'm curious, what kind of system that does something useful in the real world isn't vulnerable to some kind of exploit? There is always something...
Someone please shoot her already.
OH no! Keep her around.... PLEASE!
We are going to need the comic relief this election cycle. It's going to be one huge shrill circus complete with side shows and cheesy freak show of candidates. You thought the Republican primary was fun last time, you ain't seen nothing yet. There will be so many candidates in the democrat primary that they won't fit on three stages, much less two. And every one of them will be vying for some unique niche commination of political ideology, gender, race, and ethnicity.
Once a candidate rises to the top, the general will be a race vrs Trump, the king of crazy talk and master of the verbal jab. It's going to be a circus of epic proportion and hyper partisan to the bitter end. Get your large screen TV and popcorn supply in now, or if this kind of thing bothers you, your stock pile of Xanax and ear plugs.
I prefer my politicians disposable with build in obsolescence.
It's called "Term Limits" and we need them for congress...
"Obamacare" = the ACA, passed by Republicans, edited by Republicans, invented and successfully implemented by Mitt Romney = ROMNEYCARE = REPUBLICANCARE, for all anyone cares about the name.
Go check.. Not even ONE republican voted for the ACA, not in the house, not in the senate, not even ONE vote. Your often repeated trope is a lie, a really big one.
Also, your "Romney Care" name is pretty funny. The ACA wasn't even close to the mistake made in MA, which Romney vetoed the majority of by the way. It may have been patterned after this ill advised law made in a liberal state, but this was roundly opposed by the republicans in the state, just like it was at the federal level. And just because Romney ran for president as a Republican, doesn't make this a mainline republican idea.
In short, the ACA was anything BUT bi-partisan. It was the democrats ram rodding though a mistake both for the country and for the democrat party's grasp on power, it was hyper partisan. All your claims to the contrary are just a bald faced lie and until your side admits to it's mistake, I don't expect to see much improvement in your caucus' ability to push any of your agenda. You guys ticked off the voters in this country with this ACA thing, sold on a pack of lies starting from Obama on down. The voters have punished you for this, and will keep punishing you if you keep pushing this tripe.
These the same pollers that showed Hillary winning 2016?
Yea, the same ones who where actually within the margin of error for the most part, just skewed about 3% across the board.
It was the punditry who where saying Hillary would win, who ignored the MOE's and over stated the level of certainty the polls had.
However, I will say that any polls at this point are not worth the paper they are printed on for anything. We are still 19 months out. A whole lot of stuff is going to happen between now and then that will drive the polls. Warren won't survive the third state's primary, so how she polls vrs Trump is about as useless information as you can get. MAYBE it's useful to select the VP pick but I just don't see Warren on anybody's short list for that.
Why would Warren care about red states? She knows they're chock full of morons happily marching into retarded and obvious dystopian bondage, at a traitor's command... It's like caring about Lemmings. Nah.
Warren cares about people who can think for themselves, not red state idiots marching to a fraud's lies, preying upon their overlarge amygdalas and fears of brown skin tones and other languages.
Because, the Iowa straw polls and the money they can bring... Come on, this is about the primary fight, at least at this point, and has nothing to do with the general. Don't forget, democrats in the Red States have quite a bit of say in who wins the nomination, so winning primaries in red states is a good thing even if you are a democrat.
Because she doesn't give a shit and is only trying to win points in red states. If she comes out with any idea Apple doesn't like they'll cut her down well before she has a chance to be completely destroyed in the primaries.
You ain't wrong.... Although I don't believe Apple has that much power alone... They could easily put together a coalition to torpedo her campaign though.