Sometimes the primal urge to make everything more optimized can be a waste of time given the slight performance benefits. Especially when you've spent excessive amounts of time trying to squeeze out that last 1% of performance. Sometimes squeezing the last bit out of it isn't worth the time.
Sadly there are too few programmers who get that concept.
Exactly this. I've argued with a peer many times over making some odd error handling routine that is only called on a catastrophic failure more efficient. Well it takes too long or uses too much memory if you do it this way.... Over, Yea, but if it's ever called, this program is going to die a quick and complete death so why does it matter? Why are we wasting development time discussing this?
It's the same mentality that gets up in arms about how many spaces are used for indentation or if you use a line feed before your curly braces or not. Don't get me started on the "You have TABS in your file, instead of spaces! Or there are too many line feeds here" complaint. Why are we wasting time fixing this stuff after the code is working? Sure, bring it up so we can all agree to do all this the same way, but it's not worth wasting hours of the developers' time to "fix" stuff that isn't really broken.
but there is a quick and effective way to test if they can 'feel" it or not.
It's called a double blind study, where you put them in a shielded box, and turn the WiFi on and off randomly and ask them if they can feel it at random intervals and see if they can tell you more often than chance if the WiFi is on or off. It might take a couple of days, but I'm betting you will fairly quickly find out that they really don't "feel" it.
Bayer continues "to believe firmly that science confirms that glyphosate-based herbicides do not cause cancer".
It always sets of my BS detector that it leaves a loop hole for one of the solvents or even the glyphosate when combined with one of the solvents to cause cancer.
That seems pretty iron clad and not weasel worded to me. Roundup is a glyphosate based herbicide. The scientific evidence says it doesn't cause cancer. Or more accurately, doesn't cause in increase in cancer risk, even at moderate exposure levels well above what most people experience.
THIS is true.. Only the lawyer's win, I had one tell me so when I got sued two decades ago.
My daughter was injured in a car accident that was the other driver's fault and all sorts of personal injury attorneys offered to "sue" for only 35% of the recovery.. The kid driving the other car only had $100K worth of insurance and we where out $50K in medical bills with an arguable 4x multiple for ongoing medical costs (which she will have for the rest of her life). IF we went with the lawyer, we'd collect $75K, if we just take the insurance max we get $100K...
That lawyer thing is a scam.. At least personal injury law is a scam...
Like the people that asks for a proof that vaccines do not cause autism, etc.
There's plenty of proof to give them for this.. The problem is they won't accept it. The standing argument used to dismiss CDC or actual medical studies basically boils down to some vast conspiracy theory involving thousands of people, from doctors to researchers and many government officials from multiple countries.
Why do you think that offering proof that Roundup is causing people to die from cancer would be acceptable? The argument is always the same, it's a conspiracy to hide the truth in the name of profits! I swear!
... and "electoral colleges" to decide election results.
How should the states vote for the president of their union? Should the federal senators and house representatives vote between the candidates? Should the governors of the states vote? Don't tell me the citizens should vote, because then there's not much reason for having individual states in a federated union.
IF you ditch the electoral college, then you are right, the states really don't matter. Sadly that's NOT how this system was supposed to work, the states are a unique part of the division of power, or they used to be.
IMHO we are rapidly departing from our founding principles to our peril because folks somehow think states don't mater or the division of power between the states and the people isn't being respected. Someday, we will look back and realize the genius of our founders, but most folks don't understand how the system was designed because we've not taught basic civics for more than a generation now.
No no no, Boeing is 100% guilty of having manufactured an inherently aerodynamically unstable airplane.
Then EVERY low wing aircraft with engines UNDER the wings suffer from the same design flaw to varying degrees. Something tells me that there is nothing really wrong with this configuration given the huge numbers of successful models that share the same configuration and the same tendency to pitch up when adding thrust. In fact, just about every commercial aircraft flying today, with very few exceptions, share this same basic design and suffer from the same thing.
Are you saying that this configuration is at fault? Because the 737 MAX isn't any more unstable than a whole host of other aircraft that use the same basic design and like it or not I think you are really arguing for grounding just about every low wing jet liner with under wing engine mounts which would shut down about 90 - 95% of commercial flying done today.
NOBODY want's to be experiencing an engine out emergency between V1 and V2 and have the pilots fumbling around for the check lists.
There is no checklist for an engine out after V1. You are already committed to takeoff. That's the whole reason that V speed is defined.
Now, once you are climbing out and cleaning up, the PM (or PNF) will start to go through the checklist because not going through the checklist kills more often that not when the situation is survivable.
Um...On the 737 NG checklist for engine out, The FIRST thing on the check list v1 is: establish positive rate of climb, advance throttle to full TO (if desired) and gear up. Once you reach 400' feet you start working the issue...
So, Yes, there IS a check list/procedure for engine out on take off after V1 and you better know what to do by heart.
It's not a "stall recovery" system, it's a "stall avoidance" system. One of the top rules of flying is "don't stall it" to which I add that you NEVER want to stall a jet airliner. Where they are tested to have reasonable behavior when stalled, there is no guarantee that you can recover from a stall within the altitude and aircraft performance you have available.
Apparently, "memorize" means something different there.
Check lists ARE memorized and pilots are tested on if they know them often. Pilots know them, it's part of their job to follow them from memory and safely flying *requires* you know them by heart. It's drudgery and boring work to memorize them, but your life depends on it.
NOBODY want's to be experiencing an engine out emergency between V1 and V2 and have the pilots fumbling around for the check lists. No, you need to be marching though the check lists by wrote because there is very little margin for doing the wrong thing and sometimes your instincts are 100% wrong. Check lists keep you on the right track, helps you make sure you don't forget critical things and keeps the crew focused on the critical task of flying.
However, Boeing does have to answer for the lack of documentation, to regulators, to pilots, to maintenance people about this system, it's failure modes and how to disable it. Had Boeing been up front with documentation, everybody would have known (or should have known) what to do and a bunch of folks would be alive today.
Boeing is guilty for using a single sensor for a critical flight function.
Um.. Not really.. Boeing is guilty of being a bit short sighted about the failure modes of the MCAS and not effectively communicating critical information to anybody, the pilots, their trainers, and likely the certification inspectors.
This story shows that the aircraft is fully airworthy without the MCAS system functioning. You don't need it to control the aircraft, it's just there to "help" and you can turn it off if you correctly diagnose the issue and pull the right breaker.
The problem Boeing caused here is not fielding a faulty aircraft, but not communicating the necessary safety information to flight crews, maintenance personnel, and authorities. They didn't tell pilots about this system, what it does, what happens if it fails and how to disable it. It simply wasn't in the pilot's manual, didn't make it into the training process. They didn't tell the maintenance folks so they could diagnose the faulty AOA sensor correctly and return the system to full functionality.. AND Most damaging, Boeing didn't tell the certification authorities about this new feature so they could be sure all the interested parties, pilots, trainers, and maintenance where apprised of the system, knew how to use it, bypass it and repair it. THAT is what's on Boeing here.
For Pete's sake... What transport aircraft DOESN'T have unsightly stall characteristics? Every aircraft I've stalled (real and simulated) caused me to have less control. Anytime you stall an aircraft, it's going to do some weird things and pilots will have little control over what happens until the aircraft isn't stalled anymore, everybody becomes a passenger for a time. But the *problem* is not what happens when you stall it, the real issue is AVOIDING the stall in the first place.
They put more power, lower under the aircraft, increasing the tendency to pitch up based on simple physics, this is not new or unusual for this aircraft configuration. The question of controllability here is "can you control the pitch on throttle changes?" and the answer is a resounding "YES". All of these low engine aircraft exhibit the same effects of thrust to pitch, it's not unusual and if pilots are properly trained, they can easily deal with this.
All this was born out of AVOIDING the stall at high thrust settings. They where trying to take cognitive load off the pilots by doing some of the flying stuff for them and avoiding putting the aircraft into a stall inadvertently when the margins for error are the smallest (during departure, with high thrust settings while you are "cleaning up" the aircraft, gear up, flaps up and the pitch trim is rapidly changing). The implementation of this system to help pilots is great when it's working, but when it doesn't work, you are in a situation where the safety margins of controllability are limited, you are low, you are not going very fast and the margin for any pilot error are very slim. But this isn't a intrinsic problem with the aircraft's design that's unique to the 737 MAX, it's more about a failure mode of the Stability Augmentation System that will be quickly addressed by software, possibly additional hardware AND a lot of pilot training.
You see, this aircraft is indeed as flyable as any other of this configuration. Pilots may be prone to stall it if they have bad skills, but these kinds of issues are what you cover in pilot training as part of the type rating. Pilots have to know how to deal with their aircraft's flying characteristics. The 737 MAX is no different.
Backers hope the new machines will let researchers create significantly more accurate simulations of phenomena such as drug responses, climate changes, the inner workings of combustion engines and solar panels.
Climate change? Solar panels? This project is as good as cancelled.
I don't know.. Super Computers are key in current state of the art nuclear testing, when you cannot just dig a hole and set your latest weapons off underground due to the nuclear test ban treaty. I got a feeling Trump will let this climate change study slide to get better weapons. I call it a win win myself.
Always wondered: which dumpster does all of this go in when they upgrade, and how cheaply can I steal it for?
You cannot afford to run a Cray C-90 even if you found one in a scrap heap. Just buying the coolant would break you and don't get me started on that electric bill.
I know, I know, the C-90's are 20+ years old now..
I just expect that a "Super Computer" of today, will be as useless as a Cray C-90 was when they hit the scrap heap.
Err there kind of is something wrong with the design. That is why they needed MCAS - because the engines are too big and needed to be set further forward on the wing, in turn increasing the risk of stall. MCAS is a hack to prevent stall which is a direct result of the design.
I disagree. I think the aircraft is quite flyable and can safely be flown if the pilots are properly trained and skilled. All aircraft in this configuration have this pitch up tendency when power is applied, just based on physics. The Engines are below the center of mass, so you get a pitch up when adding thrust. This tendency is common to aircraft with engines under the wings and we've been operating such configurations safely for decades.
I think the "design flaw" here was the desire to avoid training pilots on a new "type" so they pushed and got the 737 MAX 8 and 9's under the same 737 type certificate. It means that if you are "type" rated in the previous 737 version, your upgrade to the "MAX" was quick and easy. You didn't have to recertify in a brand new type, the FAA accepted your current rating as most of the 737 MAX requirements. It was about pilot training costs and cross type functionality for airlines, who could add this aircraft to their fleet and not incur a huge training cost, if you could fly the "MAX" you could fly the older aircraft too. It made scheduling equipment and pilots more flexible. It was this MCAS system that helped do this, making the aircraft handle like the "old" 737 type, even though this was nearly a whole new design.
Problem was/is that the initial training required to transition to a MAX didn't include enough of "what to do if" the MCAS system failed and what you need to do when it does. Of course the other problem is that the MCAS was messing with flight controls, and pilots where not trained to recognize when it was running amok and how to fly the aircraft with what should be a non-life threatening fault.
So.. We will get a MCAS design change that includes redundant AOA sensing and cross checks. Some additional software to run everything and a whole lot of thinking about human factors to make the MCAS system failure less confusing. Then we will get a bunch of pilot training on all this and the 737 MAX will be back in the air making money.
Everything will be in the paper trail. That, and dead bodies, is a conviction.
If not in the USA, then in any other country willing to prosecute on behalf of their dead citizen.
Sure, but if said person is not IN said country and extradition treaties are not in existence, what does it matter? Not a whole lot.
I can go to Sealand and get a judgment, but who's going to enforce it? Who's going to honor the judgment in the USA? It's not like you can contact the local Sherriff and get him to enforce a judgment from outside the country.
Also, don't forget there is a vast difference between civil judgments (i.e. money awards) and criminal charges.
Yea, just so you know.. My father was an avionics and radio mechanic for a major US airline for 38 years, including a decade stent keeping flight simulators running at their pilot training center (to which I got to regularly go and "fly" the big sims), so I grew up around airplanes all my life. I also worked as an avionics engineer on a Navy fighter aircraft and I've done some private flying on my own. I'm not a expert on Boeing's avionics or modern flight control systems, but I do have a few clues about how they work.
Except in the 737 MAX it kind of does. The mode of the adjustments used by the autopilot and the stall avoidance system is by adjusting the aircraft trim by turning the rear horizontal stabilizer trim jack screw. Also, I'm told that the same sensors used by the autopilot, or at least some of them, are used by the stall avoidance system.
However, turning off the autopilot doesn't disengage the stall avoidance system. It keeps doing it's thing regardless.
The problem here is that the aircraft is pretty much flyable even with the system malfunctioning, IF you understand what's happening and how to counter it. IF you don't understand what's happening though, the aircraft becomes unstable and your natural tendency is likely to do the wrong thing.
There are a number of non-intuitive things about flying that pilots must be trained to do. Stall/spin recovery is one of these things. When the nose of the aircraft fall though the horizon when you are tying to pull it up, the tendency is to pull harder, but when you are stalled, the right thing to do is push the nose down, stay coordinated and add power if you can. If you go with your natural tendency, and keep pulling, you are going to spin it eventually, which is MUCH worse. So, pilots practice this... A LOT... Fly into a stall, or nearly a stall, recognize how the aircraft feels as the AOA approaches the limit and then when it actually stalls, immediately do the right recovery... How do I know? It was one part of my check ride that I nearly failed when I went for my license. The Examiner said I spun on departure stalls (i.e. didn't stay in coordinated flight on stall so it broke one side first) but let me pass when he tried it twice and spun himself because the C150 was so badly rigged. Made me do 5 hours of departure stall and spin recovery training as a condition of granting my license.
Well, you may be right that this smells... And you may be right in your assumption that Boeing rushed through the certification process and the FAA failed in its oversight capacity and Boeing will be left liable for a pile of money... However, the implication that there was some kind of behind the scenes collusion deal between the FAA and Boeing though is a pretty heavy lift as you have crossed over from civil liability into criminal activity where the burden of proof moves from preponderance of evidence to beyond a shadow of a doubt.
But, the Civil liability problem here will be borne by Boeing's insurance companies and punitive damages will rack up some pretty big numbers for the victims as a result which will come out of Boeing's profits after being tied up in court for about a decade on appeal.
The end result will be that the aircraft will be rendered fit for service pretty quick and sales of the 737 MAX will resume unabated perhaps with a new name, with some PR efforts by Boeing and the airlines that fly these aircraft for a reason (they are cheaper to operate). There is nothing systemically wrong with the aircraft mechanically or aerodynamically and this flight control issue will be resolved, albeit by adding multiple sensors, cross checking of existing and redundant sensor data along with some software fixes and pilot training.
I'm no Boeing fan boy, but let's be reasonable here. Yes, this will hurt Boeing in the short term and the awards will initially be sizeable, with the punitive part getting appealed and appealed for at least a decade before they get paid. This will largely be paid by their insurance carrier and their premiums will be assured to rise. However, these awards pale in comparison to the cost of an aircraft development program and Boeing won't struggle to pay them when they come due. The aircraft system will be reevaluated and redesigned as necessary to account for lessons learned. Any folks who should have known better in the decision tree for fielding and certifying the 737 MAX will be rooted out, processes to make sure this kind of thing doesn't slip by again will be introduced and we will return to normal.
Where this mistake is bad, let's put it in prospective for the nations air safety. We've come a LONG way from the 60's when the accident rates where huge compared to now or even the 90's on air safety, when DC-10's where crashing right and left from Cargo doors blowing open and uncontained turbine failures. It's been a LONG time since the last major management mistake in air safety. A very long time. Humans make mistakes and flying is a risky business that quickly turns mistakes into tragedy, we won't avoid human error in the future, all we can do is try and catch it before it kills anybody.
Does the POTUS need to get security clearance the way any other government employee would or do they get it for free by being elected? I'm pretty sure by admitting you were involved in computer hacking would jeopardize that.
As all classified information is only classified under the authority of the POTUS (i.e. under an executive order), if you get elected to the presidency, you ARE THE authority and can grant yourself any and all accesses to classified information. So, your election is your clearance, effectively.
This also means that the POTUS can declassify any information they wish any time they chooses. It's all classified under his/her authority anyway.
Between this, skateboarding as an adult, and his thoughtful and nuanced policy positions I think this Beto guy is pretty good.
Being a Texas voter who was paying attention to his policy positions as he lost to Cruz, I can tell you his positions may be nuanced, but they are NOT thoughtful. What they are is focus group tested, trite policy statements which when you press them are really just a mishmash of liberal talking points. Once he gets off his stump speech scripts, he totally breaks down on content, so if you press him on details, he doesn't have them to give... Or more to the point, won't actually be pinned down on the details, because the devil is in the details and there is no way it works when you start talking detail.
However, Beto.. AkA Robert... Does have a stage presence that is hard to match. He comes across as a natural on stage, plays to the audience well, looks good and knows how to give a speech. Reminds me of Dan Quale. He will appeal to the young crowd with his hobbies and stuff, but where the trappings are good, the substance is kind of bland.
However, the issue here is will he win the primary. I think the answer is no, not this time around. I see him finishing up at best #3, behind Sanders and Biden, but I'll not be surprised he's out long before the likes of Warren and Harris. So Beto is in this for 2024, everybody knows he's not got a prayer in 2020.
but you do not have pilot's license and have never, ever flown anything.
I have a private pilot's license and am Airplane Single Engine Land rated. I had about 100 hours of flight time before the kids came along and spent all my flying money. I have flown mostly Cessna 150's, have about 20 hours in a Cessna 172 and a little over an hour in an Aeronca Model 7 Champion with a CFI in the backseat. I was working on my IFR rating and my Commercial ticket when I stopped flying due to lack of funds.
As a pilot, I'm not very good and don't claim to be. I've scared myself spit less a number of times and until the kids are out of the house I figure there is no need killing myself over a hobby. I may fly again someday, but I will have to do a lot of work to feel safe and proficient enough to carry passengers.
My simulator time is in the 737 simulators at Southwest's training center here in North Texas. The Scout troop my son was in got to visit and fly the simulators as part of the Aviation merit badge training. It's lots of fun to fly around, but I found the landing part the most interesting. Set up an ILS approach and get on the localizer and glideslope with auto throttles dialed up to the right speed and it's simple. Flaps down, wheels down, arm the spoilers and all you have to do is fly the flare, retard the throttles and get on the breaks after it lands. It's not hard with the automation. I'd be hopeless trying to manually fly that approach, but with the auto pilot, it's not bad.
"Stick and Rudder skills are like playing a musical instrument. " - We can already tell you do neither, in reality. Stop blathering fake advice, moron.
Well, you don't have to believe me of course, but I am a licensed pilot and I also play the piano. I know how to do both, but I am also out of practice, having not flown or played for almost two decades. Knowing how, does not make me skilled. Which is why, if I wanted to fly again, I'd have to get my medical renewed, contact a flight instructor for a refresher and get him/her to sign of that I have enough skills to fly. THEN I'd have to "get current" flying a specified number of landings before I could toss passengers in the plane and go someplace.
The FAA's currency rules recognize that a specific amount of recent experience is required for basic flying skills to be maintained. I personally recognize that the FAA's minimums are unlikely to be enough to keep me safe... So if I wanted to go fly again, I'd be out bushing up my skills with a CFI and by myself before I'd agree to risk a passenger .
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes the primal urge to make everything more optimized can be a waste of time given the slight performance benefits. Especially when you've spent excessive amounts of time trying to squeeze out that last 1% of performance. Sometimes squeezing the last bit out of it isn't worth the time.
Sadly there are too few programmers who get that concept.
Exactly this. I've argued with a peer many times over making some odd error handling routine that is only called on a catastrophic failure more efficient. Well it takes too long or uses too much memory if you do it this way.... Over, Yea, but if it's ever called, this program is going to die a quick and complete death so why does it matter? Why are we wasting development time discussing this?
It's the same mentality that gets up in arms about how many spaces are used for indentation or if you use a line feed before your curly braces or not. Don't get me started on the "You have TABS in your file, instead of spaces! Or there are too many line feeds here" complaint. Why are we wasting time fixing this stuff after the code is working? Sure, bring it up so we can all agree to do all this the same way, but it's not worth wasting hours of the developers' time to "fix" stuff that isn't really broken.
but there is a quick and effective way to test if they can 'feel" it or not.
It's called a double blind study, where you put them in a shielded box, and turn the WiFi on and off randomly and ask them if they can feel it at random intervals and see if they can tell you more often than chance if the WiFi is on or off. It might take a couple of days, but I'm betting you will fairly quickly find out that they really don't "feel" it.
Bayer continues "to believe firmly that science confirms that glyphosate-based herbicides do not cause cancer".
It always sets of my BS detector that it leaves a loop hole for one of the solvents or even the glyphosate when combined with one of the solvents to cause cancer.
That seems pretty iron clad and not weasel worded to me. Roundup is a glyphosate based herbicide. The scientific evidence says it doesn't cause cancer. Or more accurately, doesn't cause in increase in cancer risk, even at moderate exposure levels well above what most people experience.
THIS is true.. Only the lawyer's win, I had one tell me so when I got sued two decades ago.
My daughter was injured in a car accident that was the other driver's fault and all sorts of personal injury attorneys offered to "sue" for only 35% of the recovery.. The kid driving the other car only had $100K worth of insurance and we where out $50K in medical bills with an arguable 4x multiple for ongoing medical costs (which she will have for the rest of her life). IF we went with the lawyer, we'd collect $75K, if we just take the insurance max we get $100K...
That lawyer thing is a scam.. At least personal injury law is a scam...
That stuff keeps decimating bees worldwide, this is literally a crime against humanity!
But a few humans die, now it's serious?
Roundup is a herbicide, it kills specific kinds of plants, how's it killing bees?
Like the people that asks for a proof that vaccines do not cause autism, etc.
There's plenty of proof to give them for this.. The problem is they won't accept it. The standing argument used to dismiss CDC or actual medical studies basically boils down to some vast conspiracy theory involving thousands of people, from doctors to researchers and many government officials from multiple countries.
Why do you think that offering proof that Roundup is causing people to die from cancer would be acceptable? The argument is always the same, it's a conspiracy to hide the truth in the name of profits! I swear!
... and "electoral colleges" to decide election results.
How should the states vote for the president of their union? Should the federal senators and house representatives vote between the candidates? Should the governors of the states vote? Don't tell me the citizens should vote, because then there's not much reason for having individual states in a federated union.
IF you ditch the electoral college, then you are right, the states really don't matter. Sadly that's NOT how this system was supposed to work, the states are a unique part of the division of power, or they used to be.
IMHO we are rapidly departing from our founding principles to our peril because folks somehow think states don't mater or the division of power between the states and the people isn't being respected. Someday, we will look back and realize the genius of our founders, but most folks don't understand how the system was designed because we've not taught basic civics for more than a generation now.
No no no, Boeing is 100% guilty of having manufactured an inherently aerodynamically unstable airplane.
Then EVERY low wing aircraft with engines UNDER the wings suffer from the same design flaw to varying degrees. Something tells me that there is nothing really wrong with this configuration given the huge numbers of successful models that share the same configuration and the same tendency to pitch up when adding thrust. In fact, just about every commercial aircraft flying today, with very few exceptions, share this same basic design and suffer from the same thing.
Are you saying that this configuration is at fault? Because the 737 MAX isn't any more unstable than a whole host of other aircraft that use the same basic design and like it or not I think you are really arguing for grounding just about every low wing jet liner with under wing engine mounts which would shut down about 90 - 95% of commercial flying done today.
NOBODY want's to be experiencing an engine out emergency between V1 and V2 and have the pilots fumbling around for the check lists.
There is no checklist for an engine out after V1. You are already committed to takeoff. That's the whole reason that V speed is defined.
Now, once you are climbing out and cleaning up, the PM (or PNF) will start to go through the checklist because not going through the checklist kills more often that not when the situation is survivable.
Um...On the 737 NG checklist for engine out, The FIRST thing on the check list v1 is: establish positive rate of climb, advance throttle to full TO (if desired) and gear up. Once you reach 400' feet you start working the issue...
So, Yes, there IS a check list/procedure for engine out on take off after V1 and you better know what to do by heart.
In case you don't believe me.. Here it is on Page 4 and following: http://www.b737mrg.net/downloa...
It's not a "stall recovery" system, it's a "stall avoidance" system. One of the top rules of flying is "don't stall it" to which I add that you NEVER want to stall a jet airliner. Where they are tested to have reasonable behavior when stalled, there is no guarantee that you can recover from a stall within the altitude and aircraft performance you have available.
Apparently, "memorize" means something different there.
Check lists ARE memorized and pilots are tested on if they know them often. Pilots know them, it's part of their job to follow them from memory and safely flying *requires* you know them by heart. It's drudgery and boring work to memorize them, but your life depends on it.
NOBODY want's to be experiencing an engine out emergency between V1 and V2 and have the pilots fumbling around for the check lists. No, you need to be marching though the check lists by wrote because there is very little margin for doing the wrong thing and sometimes your instincts are 100% wrong. Check lists keep you on the right track, helps you make sure you don't forget critical things and keeps the crew focused on the critical task of flying.
I agree with you, this is solved by training..
However, Boeing does have to answer for the lack of documentation, to regulators, to pilots, to maintenance people about this system, it's failure modes and how to disable it. Had Boeing been up front with documentation, everybody would have known (or should have known) what to do and a bunch of folks would be alive today.
Yes.
Boeing is guilty for using a single sensor for a critical flight function.
Um.. Not really.. Boeing is guilty of being a bit short sighted about the failure modes of the MCAS and not effectively communicating critical information to anybody, the pilots, their trainers, and likely the certification inspectors.
This story shows that the aircraft is fully airworthy without the MCAS system functioning. You don't need it to control the aircraft, it's just there to "help" and you can turn it off if you correctly diagnose the issue and pull the right breaker.
The problem Boeing caused here is not fielding a faulty aircraft, but not communicating the necessary safety information to flight crews, maintenance personnel, and authorities. They didn't tell pilots about this system, what it does, what happens if it fails and how to disable it. It simply wasn't in the pilot's manual, didn't make it into the training process. They didn't tell the maintenance folks so they could diagnose the faulty AOA sensor correctly and return the system to full functionality.. AND Most damaging, Boeing didn't tell the certification authorities about this new feature so they could be sure all the interested parties, pilots, trainers, and maintenance where apprised of the system, knew how to use it, bypass it and repair it. THAT is what's on Boeing here.
For Pete's sake... What transport aircraft DOESN'T have unsightly stall characteristics? Every aircraft I've stalled (real and simulated) caused me to have less control. Anytime you stall an aircraft, it's going to do some weird things and pilots will have little control over what happens until the aircraft isn't stalled anymore, everybody becomes a passenger for a time. But the *problem* is not what happens when you stall it, the real issue is AVOIDING the stall in the first place.
They put more power, lower under the aircraft, increasing the tendency to pitch up based on simple physics, this is not new or unusual for this aircraft configuration. The question of controllability here is "can you control the pitch on throttle changes?" and the answer is a resounding "YES". All of these low engine aircraft exhibit the same effects of thrust to pitch, it's not unusual and if pilots are properly trained, they can easily deal with this.
All this was born out of AVOIDING the stall at high thrust settings. They where trying to take cognitive load off the pilots by doing some of the flying stuff for them and avoiding putting the aircraft into a stall inadvertently when the margins for error are the smallest (during departure, with high thrust settings while you are "cleaning up" the aircraft, gear up, flaps up and the pitch trim is rapidly changing). The implementation of this system to help pilots is great when it's working, but when it doesn't work, you are in a situation where the safety margins of controllability are limited, you are low, you are not going very fast and the margin for any pilot error are very slim. But this isn't a intrinsic problem with the aircraft's design that's unique to the 737 MAX, it's more about a failure mode of the Stability Augmentation System that will be quickly addressed by software, possibly additional hardware AND a lot of pilot training.
You see, this aircraft is indeed as flyable as any other of this configuration. Pilots may be prone to stall it if they have bad skills, but these kinds of issues are what you cover in pilot training as part of the type rating. Pilots have to know how to deal with their aircraft's flying characteristics. The 737 MAX is no different.
Climate change? Solar panels? This project is as good as cancelled.
I don't know.. Super Computers are key in current state of the art nuclear testing, when you cannot just dig a hole and set your latest weapons off underground due to the nuclear test ban treaty. I got a feeling Trump will let this climate change study slide to get better weapons. I call it a win win myself.
Always wondered: which dumpster does all of this go in when they upgrade, and how cheaply can I steal it for?
You cannot afford to run a Cray C-90 even if you found one in a scrap heap. Just buying the coolant would break you and don't get me started on that electric bill.
I know, I know, the C-90's are 20+ years old now..
I just expect that a "Super Computer" of today, will be as useless as a Cray C-90 was when they hit the scrap heap.
Err there kind of is something wrong with the design. That is why they needed MCAS - because the engines are too big and needed to be set further forward on the wing, in turn increasing the risk of stall. MCAS is a hack to prevent stall which is a direct result of the design.
I disagree. I think the aircraft is quite flyable and can safely be flown if the pilots are properly trained and skilled. All aircraft in this configuration have this pitch up tendency when power is applied, just based on physics. The Engines are below the center of mass, so you get a pitch up when adding thrust. This tendency is common to aircraft with engines under the wings and we've been operating such configurations safely for decades.
I think the "design flaw" here was the desire to avoid training pilots on a new "type" so they pushed and got the 737 MAX 8 and 9's under the same 737 type certificate. It means that if you are "type" rated in the previous 737 version, your upgrade to the "MAX" was quick and easy. You didn't have to recertify in a brand new type, the FAA accepted your current rating as most of the 737 MAX requirements. It was about pilot training costs and cross type functionality for airlines, who could add this aircraft to their fleet and not incur a huge training cost, if you could fly the "MAX" you could fly the older aircraft too. It made scheduling equipment and pilots more flexible. It was this MCAS system that helped do this, making the aircraft handle like the "old" 737 type, even though this was nearly a whole new design.
Problem was/is that the initial training required to transition to a MAX didn't include enough of "what to do if" the MCAS system failed and what you need to do when it does. Of course the other problem is that the MCAS was messing with flight controls, and pilots where not trained to recognize when it was running amok and how to fly the aircraft with what should be a non-life threatening fault.
So.. We will get a MCAS design change that includes redundant AOA sensing and cross checks. Some additional software to run everything and a whole lot of thinking about human factors to make the MCAS system failure less confusing. Then we will get a bunch of pilot training on all this and the 737 MAX will be back in the air making money.
Everything will be in the paper trail. That, and dead bodies, is a conviction.
If not in the USA, then in any other country willing to prosecute on behalf of their dead citizen.
Sure, but if said person is not IN said country and extradition treaties are not in existence, what does it matter? Not a whole lot.
I can go to Sealand and get a judgment, but who's going to enforce it? Who's going to honor the judgment in the USA? It's not like you can contact the local Sherriff and get him to enforce a judgment from outside the country.
Also, don't forget there is a vast difference between civil judgments (i.e. money awards) and criminal charges.
Yea, just so you know.. My father was an avionics and radio mechanic for a major US airline for 38 years, including a decade stent keeping flight simulators running at their pilot training center (to which I got to regularly go and "fly" the big sims), so I grew up around airplanes all my life. I also worked as an avionics engineer on a Navy fighter aircraft and I've done some private flying on my own. I'm not a expert on Boeing's avionics or modern flight control systems, but I do have a few clues about how they work.
Auto pilot has nothing to do with this.
Except in the 737 MAX it kind of does. The mode of the adjustments used by the autopilot and the stall avoidance system is by adjusting the aircraft trim by turning the rear horizontal stabilizer trim jack screw. Also, I'm told that the same sensors used by the autopilot, or at least some of them, are used by the stall avoidance system.
However, turning off the autopilot doesn't disengage the stall avoidance system. It keeps doing it's thing regardless.
The problem here is that the aircraft is pretty much flyable even with the system malfunctioning, IF you understand what's happening and how to counter it. IF you don't understand what's happening though, the aircraft becomes unstable and your natural tendency is likely to do the wrong thing.
There are a number of non-intuitive things about flying that pilots must be trained to do. Stall/spin recovery is one of these things. When the nose of the aircraft fall though the horizon when you are tying to pull it up, the tendency is to pull harder, but when you are stalled, the right thing to do is push the nose down, stay coordinated and add power if you can. If you go with your natural tendency, and keep pulling, you are going to spin it eventually, which is MUCH worse. So, pilots practice this... A LOT... Fly into a stall, or nearly a stall, recognize how the aircraft feels as the AOA approaches the limit and then when it actually stalls, immediately do the right recovery... How do I know? It was one part of my check ride that I nearly failed when I went for my license. The Examiner said I spun on departure stalls (i.e. didn't stay in coordinated flight on stall so it broke one side first) but let me pass when he tried it twice and spun himself because the C150 was so badly rigged. Made me do 5 hours of departure stall and spin recovery training as a condition of granting my license.
Well, you may be right that this smells... And you may be right in your assumption that Boeing rushed through the certification process and the FAA failed in its oversight capacity and Boeing will be left liable for a pile of money... However, the implication that there was some kind of behind the scenes collusion deal between the FAA and Boeing though is a pretty heavy lift as you have crossed over from civil liability into criminal activity where the burden of proof moves from preponderance of evidence to beyond a shadow of a doubt.
But, the Civil liability problem here will be borne by Boeing's insurance companies and punitive damages will rack up some pretty big numbers for the victims as a result which will come out of Boeing's profits after being tied up in court for about a decade on appeal.
The end result will be that the aircraft will be rendered fit for service pretty quick and sales of the 737 MAX will resume unabated perhaps with a new name, with some PR efforts by Boeing and the airlines that fly these aircraft for a reason (they are cheaper to operate). There is nothing systemically wrong with the aircraft mechanically or aerodynamically and this flight control issue will be resolved, albeit by adding multiple sensors, cross checking of existing and redundant sensor data along with some software fixes and pilot training.
I'm no Boeing fan boy, but let's be reasonable here. Yes, this will hurt Boeing in the short term and the awards will initially be sizeable, with the punitive part getting appealed and appealed for at least a decade before they get paid. This will largely be paid by their insurance carrier and their premiums will be assured to rise. However, these awards pale in comparison to the cost of an aircraft development program and Boeing won't struggle to pay them when they come due. The aircraft system will be reevaluated and redesigned as necessary to account for lessons learned. Any folks who should have known better in the decision tree for fielding and certifying the 737 MAX will be rooted out, processes to make sure this kind of thing doesn't slip by again will be introduced and we will return to normal.
Where this mistake is bad, let's put it in prospective for the nations air safety. We've come a LONG way from the 60's when the accident rates where huge compared to now or even the 90's on air safety, when DC-10's where crashing right and left from Cargo doors blowing open and uncontained turbine failures. It's been a LONG time since the last major management mistake in air safety. A very long time. Humans make mistakes and flying is a risky business that quickly turns mistakes into tragedy, we won't avoid human error in the future, all we can do is try and catch it before it kills anybody.
Does the POTUS need to get security clearance the way any other government employee would or do they get it for free by being elected? I'm pretty sure by admitting you were involved in computer hacking would jeopardize that.
As all classified information is only classified under the authority of the POTUS (i.e. under an executive order), if you get elected to the presidency, you ARE THE authority and can grant yourself any and all accesses to classified information. So, your election is your clearance, effectively.
This also means that the POTUS can declassify any information they wish any time they chooses. It's all classified under his/her authority anyway.
Between this, skateboarding as an adult, and his thoughtful and nuanced policy positions I think this Beto guy is pretty good.
Being a Texas voter who was paying attention to his policy positions as he lost to Cruz, I can tell you his positions may be nuanced, but they are NOT thoughtful. What they are is focus group tested, trite policy statements which when you press them are really just a mishmash of liberal talking points. Once he gets off his stump speech scripts, he totally breaks down on content, so if you press him on details, he doesn't have them to give... Or more to the point, won't actually be pinned down on the details, because the devil is in the details and there is no way it works when you start talking detail.
However, Beto.. AkA Robert... Does have a stage presence that is hard to match. He comes across as a natural on stage, plays to the audience well, looks good and knows how to give a speech. Reminds me of Dan Quale. He will appeal to the young crowd with his hobbies and stuff, but where the trappings are good, the substance is kind of bland.
However, the issue here is will he win the primary. I think the answer is no, not this time around. I see him finishing up at best #3, behind Sanders and Biden, but I'll not be surprised he's out long before the likes of Warren and Harris. So Beto is in this for 2024, everybody knows he's not got a prayer in 2020.
but you do not have pilot's license and have never, ever flown anything.
I have a private pilot's license and am Airplane Single Engine Land rated. I had about 100 hours of flight time before the kids came along and spent all my flying money. I have flown mostly Cessna 150's, have about 20 hours in a Cessna 172 and a little over an hour in an Aeronca Model 7 Champion with a CFI in the backseat. I was working on my IFR rating and my Commercial ticket when I stopped flying due to lack of funds.
As a pilot, I'm not very good and don't claim to be. I've scared myself spit less a number of times and until the kids are out of the house I figure there is no need killing myself over a hobby. I may fly again someday, but I will have to do a lot of work to feel safe and proficient enough to carry passengers.
My simulator time is in the 737 simulators at Southwest's training center here in North Texas. The Scout troop my son was in got to visit and fly the simulators as part of the Aviation merit badge training. It's lots of fun to fly around, but I found the landing part the most interesting. Set up an ILS approach and get on the localizer and glideslope with auto throttles dialed up to the right speed and it's simple. Flaps down, wheels down, arm the spoilers and all you have to do is fly the flare, retard the throttles and get on the breaks after it lands. It's not hard with the automation. I'd be hopeless trying to manually fly that approach, but with the auto pilot, it's not bad.
"Stick and Rudder skills are like playing a musical instrument. " - We can already tell you do neither, in reality. Stop blathering fake advice, moron.
Well, you don't have to believe me of course, but I am a licensed pilot and I also play the piano. I know how to do both, but I am also out of practice, having not flown or played for almost two decades. Knowing how, does not make me skilled. Which is why, if I wanted to fly again, I'd have to get my medical renewed, contact a flight instructor for a refresher and get him/her to sign of that I have enough skills to fly. THEN I'd have to "get current" flying a specified number of landings before I could toss passengers in the plane and go someplace.
The FAA's currency rules recognize that a specific amount of recent experience is required for basic flying skills to be maintained. I personally recognize that the FAA's minimums are unlikely to be enough to keep me safe... So if I wanted to go fly again, I'd be out bushing up my skills with a CFI and by myself before I'd agree to risk a passenger .