No, they don't. Some small subset may, but the vast majority do not. Even if they did, "feel" and "is" are not the same thing. You are the only one who can control your feelings. The fact of the matter is that women are victimized less often than men, and how you "feel" about that is completely inconsequential. If your feelings are a problem for you, go talk to a shrink.
1) You don't know that it can do that because Boeing elected not to tell you
That's a fair criticism of Boeing, but also not all that relevant. The symptom here would be the same as any other runaway trim situation, and would be dealt with the same way.
2) The autopilot is off
It would have to be; MCAS doesn't function with the autopilot on.
3) You've just taken off, are low, and in one of the most dangerous phases of flight
You can't be that low or early; MCAS also doesn't function with the flaps down.
4) 5)
I could make some objections to these, but nothing of much consequence so I'll agree it's a shitty situation.
Pilots in emergency situations are human. They rely on memorized safety procedures to follow in situations like that. Apparently "turn off the MCAS" is now one of those procedural items. It wasn't before.
There is no "turn off the MCAS". There's a "turn off electrical trim system", which has always been there. If you look further up you'll see a video I posted of pilots doing it on an older 737 back in 2015.
It's curious that the pilots on the *previous* Indonesian flight didn't notice the trim acting up, since it sounds like they probably flew most of the flight with it doing so. Or maybe they did notice, and the disengage wasn't working properly.
Pilots on the previous flight DID have the same problem:
"Boeing has asserted the pilots on the next-to-last flight of the same Lion Air aircraft that crashed encountered a similar, if less severe, nose-down problem. They addressed it by flipping off the stabilizer cutout switches, in keeping with the emergency checklist."
Because they expected that to happen automatically when they pulled the nose up, as it had done on previous versions of the aircraft.
Except it didn't. Go check the video I posted. That's from 2015. They manually turn off the automatic trim system. The camera even zooms in on the switches.
My understanding is that on older models pulling on the yoke temporarily disable the electrical trim system. It didn't completely shut it off. The difference between older 737s and the MAX, then, would be that the MAX would be somewhat harder to control until you actually flipped those switches, but on both versions of the 737 you still have to follow the same procedures.
So they pull the nose up, go "phew, that was close!" but the Mad Crazy Ass Suicide mechanism is still active and pitches forward again...
Again, same thing would have happened on the older aircraft. But, for the sake of the argument, let's say I'm wrong about that; it still doesn't change the fact that (as demonstrated in the video) the procedures have always called for switching to manual control. Nor does it change the fact that the previous aircrew on the same aircraft did the correct thing in the exact same circumstances.
I skimmed that article again, and also read a linked article, and they actually do explain what happened in a way that makes it all make sense. Here's a summary:
The pilots on a previous flight of the same aircraft experienced the same problem, and they were able to cut off the automatic trim system and manually trim the aircraft.
The pilots on the plane which crashed DID pull the nose up numerous times, but they - for whatever reason - never turned off automatic trim. Eventually, after repeated dives and recoveries, they crashed.
All of which points directly to pilot error. Obviously a more in depth investigation will give a better idea of exactly what went wrong, but at this point the root causes seem to be:
1. Poor maintenance practices resulting in the aircraft flying multiple times with faulty AOA indication. 2. Poor training and/or pilot error on the doomed flight.
As for this latest crash, there's nowhere near enough info yet to speculate what happened.
That's a pretty shit article, but it did correct one misconception I had, so thank you for that! I had figured the 737 would accomplish trim via tabs on the elevator, but after checking it looks like the entire horizontal stab is trimmable. Cool.
Doesn't change things too much. I didn't say that pulling back on the yoke would override the trim; I said it would still bring the nose up. Trimmable stabs might be a bit more of a problem than elevator trim, but it would still be possible to maintain altitude.
Boeing's comments on the issue seems to indicate as much; they've stated that failing to override the trim would "make the aircraft difficult to control" which is certainly true, but nobody has suggested that it would be impossible to bring the nose up.
Also here is a video of 737 runaway stab trim training from 2015:
You will see that the procedure is the same as what would be required on the 737 MAX; in the video the copilot pulls back on the yoke, while the pilot manually adjusts trim. That's what aircrew should be doing with or without MCAS.
I'm not sure why you think that the year we are living in would have any effect on our ability to control statistical distributions. Randomness is clumpy; the date doesn't change that.
I suspect the AC would agree too. That said, I'd disagree with your conclusion
Yes, that's the point; neither of you would characterize my tweet in that way exactly because you disagreed with the conclusion (and/or were triggered by it).
because you and I both know that as men we're not living on the defense all of the time.
I also know that women are not living on the defense all the time. You may or may not know that; I won't presume.
Most of the time we act as if there are no serious threats of bodily harm or worse - which doesn't mean there aren't any, just that they're rare enough they don't affect our livestyles. There's a reason why women usually don't walk alone at night, for example.
And yet the statistics all show that men are FAR more often the victims of murder, assault, and even robbery than women.
As shown on that page, the 727 had 3 fatal crashes in a span of 4 months, all in 1965, at a time when only some 200 aircraft had been delivered to customers.
Since we've established that you're completely incompetent, I'll spell it out for you further: a high initial crash rate on new airframes is not particularly unusual, is definitely not unique, and is certainly not an indication that the aircraft is unsafe to operate.
System interactions are complex, there is a way to do it but it may not be obvious.
Pulling back on the stick is pretty fucking obvious. Adjusting your trim is slightly less obvious; you would first have to look at the trim indication and realize that it's out of whack. Still well within the abilities of any decent pilot though. Manual trim override is even less obvious, but is the default action once you determine that the trim system is faulty; something all pilots are trained in.
You don't know what happened and are guessing based on having zero information
Zero information other than reading up on how the Boeing MCAS functions, and having experience maintaining and operating multi-engine aircraft, yes.
What gets me is that even without any specific training, you can override the controls.
The system controls the trim tabs on the elevators. When it detects a stall it adjusts trim, the trim moves the elevator, and that causes the nose to drop. However:
1. Even with trim maxed out, pulling back on the yoke/stick will still bring the nose back up.
2. Adjusting trim via the electronic controls will temporarily alleviate the problem, but the system will then again screw with your trim. This should be an immediate sign to the aircrew that the trim system is malfunctioning, and they should be very familiar with how to deal with that.
So, OK, they didn't know that the plane wants to keep automatically trimming the plane under certain conditions, but they MUST have known how to deal with trim system problems and - even if they had been completely incompetent - they should have still been able to bring the nose up with trim trying to counteract it. And yet they crashed.
That would be the only statement they could make about literally every aircraft ever flown, except for the ones which are known to have been insanely dangerous.
Their statement says the aircraft is still airworthy. That's an accurate statement. If an issue is identified which makes the aircraft unsafe to fly, THEN it will no longer be airworthy. What you're asking them to do is take an aircraft which went through years of certification flights and is being safely operated around the world, and tell everyone that it is no longer safe to fly because two of them crashed for yet to be determined reasons. That's idiotic.
If pilots who have had all of the currently required training per Boeing are flying these jets into the ground, well it doesn't fucking matter if additional training might solve the fucking problem now does it?
Right, because fully trained pilots never ever crash any other plane.
"About 1,000 United States Air Force drone operators took part in the study, and researchers found that 4.3 percent of them experienced moderate to severe PTSD. In comparison, between 10 and 18 percent of military personnel returning from deployment typically are diagnosed with PTSD, the researchers wrote."
As an added bonus:
"The percentage of drone operators in the study who had PTSD was lower than the percentage of people in the U.S. general population who have the condition"
Never create a weapon that you wouldn't want to fall into the hands of your worst enemy.
That's stupid. I don't want my worst enemy armed with anything at all. If we followed that advice we would have never created a stick.
Ignorant cunts like you may "know" the US for indiscriminate killing at a distance, but anyone who doesn't have their head firmly up their ass is aware that the US has been at the forefront of developing and utilizing technology to reduce indiscriminate killing.
You're inserting your own assumptions into that phrase. The concept of "veto" does not imply that the default is for the action to proceed. The word "veto" essentially just means "reject". In this case, the targrtting system would select an object, target it, and present a prompt to the human requesting permission to engage. The human can either authorize or reject.
It seems you're thinking of a word more along the lines of "interrupt" but, again, that's not what veto means.
JavaScript has never had the ability to access local files when running in a browser. If it did that would be a massive security issue. You've just further demonstrated that you're full of shit.
Slashdot Mirror
Women feel on the defense all the time
No, they don't. Some small subset may, but the vast majority do not. Even if they did, "feel" and "is" are not the same thing. You are the only one who can control your feelings. The fact of the matter is that women are victimized less often than men, and how you "feel" about that is completely inconsequential. If your feelings are a problem for you, go talk to a shrink.
1) You don't know that it can do that because Boeing elected not to tell you
That's a fair criticism of Boeing, but also not all that relevant. The symptom here would be the same as any other runaway trim situation, and would be dealt with the same way.
2) The autopilot is off
It would have to be; MCAS doesn't function with the autopilot on.
3) You've just taken off, are low, and in one of the most dangerous phases of flight
You can't be that low or early; MCAS also doesn't function with the flaps down.
4)
5)
I could make some objections to these, but nothing of much consequence so I'll agree it's a shitty situation.
Pilots in emergency situations are human. They rely on memorized safety procedures to follow in situations like that. Apparently "turn off the MCAS" is now one of those procedural items. It wasn't before.
There is no "turn off the MCAS". There's a "turn off electrical trim system", which has always been there. If you look further up you'll see a video I posted of pilots doing it on an older 737 back in 2015.
It's curious that the pilots on the *previous* Indonesian flight didn't notice the trim acting up, since it sounds like they probably flew most of the flight with it doing so. Or maybe they did notice, and the disengage wasn't working properly.
Pilots on the previous flight DID have the same problem:
"Boeing has asserted the pilots on the next-to-last flight of the same Lion Air aircraft that crashed encountered a similar, if less severe, nose-down problem. They addressed it by flipping off the stabilizer cutout switches, in keeping with the emergency checklist."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0...
They correctly followed the checklist and lived. The pilots on the final flight did not.
Because they expected that to happen automatically when they pulled the nose up, as it had done on previous versions of the aircraft.
Except it didn't. Go check the video I posted. That's from 2015. They manually turn off the automatic trim system. The camera even zooms in on the switches.
My understanding is that on older models pulling on the yoke temporarily disable the electrical trim system. It didn't completely shut it off. The difference between older 737s and the MAX, then, would be that the MAX would be somewhat harder to control until you actually flipped those switches, but on both versions of the 737 you still have to follow the same procedures.
So they pull the nose up, go "phew, that was close!" but the Mad Crazy Ass Suicide mechanism is still active and pitches forward again...
Again, same thing would have happened on the older aircraft. But, for the sake of the argument, let's say I'm wrong about that; it still doesn't change the fact that (as demonstrated in the video) the procedures have always called for switching to manual control. Nor does it change the fact that the previous aircrew on the same aircraft did the correct thing in the exact same circumstances.
I skimmed that article again, and also read a linked article, and they actually do explain what happened in a way that makes it all make sense. Here's a summary:
The pilots on a previous flight of the same aircraft experienced the same problem, and they were able to cut off the automatic trim system and manually trim the aircraft.
The pilots on the plane which crashed DID pull the nose up numerous times, but they - for whatever reason - never turned off automatic trim. Eventually, after repeated dives and recoveries, they crashed.
All of which points directly to pilot error. Obviously a more in depth investigation will give a better idea of exactly what went wrong, but at this point the root causes seem to be:
1. Poor maintenance practices resulting in the aircraft flying multiple times with faulty AOA indication.
2. Poor training and/or pilot error on the doomed flight.
As for this latest crash, there's nowhere near enough info yet to speculate what happened.
That's a pretty shit article, but it did correct one misconception I had, so thank you for that! I had figured the 737 would accomplish trim via tabs on the elevator, but after checking it looks like the entire horizontal stab is trimmable. Cool.
Doesn't change things too much. I didn't say that pulling back on the yoke would override the trim; I said it would still bring the nose up. Trimmable stabs might be a bit more of a problem than elevator trim, but it would still be possible to maintain altitude.
Boeing's comments on the issue seems to indicate as much; they've stated that failing to override the trim would "make the aircraft difficult to control" which is certainly true, but nobody has suggested that it would be impossible to bring the nose up.
Also here is a video of 737 runaway stab trim training from 2015:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=...
You will see that the procedure is the same as what would be required on the 737 MAX; in the video the copilot pulls back on the yoke, while the pilot manually adjusts trim. That's what aircrew should be doing with or without MCAS.
I'm not sure why you think that the year we are living in would have any effect on our ability to control statistical distributions. Randomness is clumpy; the date doesn't change that.
I suspect the AC would agree too. That said, I'd disagree with your conclusion
Yes, that's the point; neither of you would characterize my tweet in that way exactly because you disagreed with the conclusion (and/or were triggered by it).
because you and I both know that as men we're not living on the defense all of the time.
I also know that women are not living on the defense all the time. You may or may not know that; I won't presume.
Most of the time we act as if there are no serious threats of bodily harm or worse - which doesn't mean there aren't any, just that they're rare enough they don't affect our livestyles. There's a reason why women usually don't walk alone at night, for example.
And yet the statistics all show that men are FAR more often the victims of murder, assault, and even robbery than women.
These 8max crashes have exhibited the exact same failure point
Sure they have. And you're not just a rabbid troll making up bullshit to soothe your butthurt over getting fired from your job at Burger King.
I see you're even more stupid than I thought.
As shown on that page, the 727 had 3 fatal crashes in a span of 4 months, all in 1965, at a time when only some 200 aircraft had been delivered to customers.
Since we've established that you're completely incompetent, I'll spell it out for you further: a high initial crash rate on new airframes is not particularly unusual, is definitely not unique, and is certainly not an indication that the aircraft is unsafe to operate.
System interactions are complex, there is a way to do it but it may not be obvious.
Pulling back on the stick is pretty fucking obvious. Adjusting your trim is slightly less obvious; you would first have to look at the trim indication and realize that it's out of whack. Still well within the abilities of any decent pilot though. Manual trim override is even less obvious, but is the default action once you determine that the trim system is faulty; something all pilots are trained in.
You don't know what happened and are guessing based on having zero information
Zero information other than reading up on how the Boeing MCAS functions, and having experience maintaining and operating multi-engine aircraft, yes.
Given this plane is brand new and 2 out of ~200 or so have crashed killing everyone, a pause in their adoption until it's fixed is warranted.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
What gets me is that even without any specific training, you can override the controls.
The system controls the trim tabs on the elevators. When it detects a stall it adjusts trim, the trim moves the elevator, and that causes the nose to drop. However:
1. Even with trim maxed out, pulling back on the yoke/stick will still bring the nose back up.
2. Adjusting trim via the electronic controls will temporarily alleviate the problem, but the system will then again screw with your trim. This should be an immediate sign to the aircrew that the trim system is malfunctioning, and they should be very familiar with how to deal with that.
So, OK, they didn't know that the plane wants to keep automatically trimming the plane under certain conditions, but they MUST have known how to deal with trim system problems and - even if they had been completely incompetent - they should have still been able to bring the nose up with trim trying to counteract it. And yet they crashed.
It makes no sense.
Swing and a miss. Ah well.
That would be the only statement they could make about literally every aircraft ever flown, except for the ones which are known to have been insanely dangerous.
Their statement says the aircraft is still airworthy. That's an accurate statement. If an issue is identified which makes the aircraft unsafe to fly, THEN it will no longer be airworthy. What you're asking them to do is take an aircraft which went through years of certification flights and is being safely operated around the world, and tell everyone that it is no longer safe to fly because two of them crashed for yet to be determined reasons. That's idiotic.
Well you've got the multiple nested IF statements thing handled. What you're missing is all the ELSE bits. Try again?
If pilots who have had all of the currently required training per Boeing are flying these jets into the ground, well it doesn't fucking matter if additional training might solve the fucking problem now does it?
Right, because fully trained pilots never ever crash any other plane.
What are you, 12?
This is important because PTSD is higher in drone pilots.
I don't know why this nonsense keeps getting repeated. Where the fuck did it even come from?
https://www.livescience.com/47...
"About 1,000 United States Air Force drone operators took part in the study, and researchers found that 4.3 percent of them experienced moderate to severe PTSD. In comparison, between 10 and 18 percent of military personnel returning from deployment typically are diagnosed with PTSD, the researchers wrote."
As an added bonus:
"The percentage of drone operators in the study who had PTSD was lower than the percentage of people in the U.S. general population who have the condition"
Never create a weapon that you wouldn't want to fall into the hands of your worst enemy.
That's stupid. I don't want my worst enemy armed with anything at all. If we followed that advice we would have never created a stick.
And Nazi death camps show us how it goes without a button.
Ignorant cunts like you may "know" the US for indiscriminate killing at a distance, but anyone who doesn't have their head firmly up their ass is aware that the US has been at the forefront of developing and utilizing technology to reduce indiscriminate killing.
You're inserting your own assumptions into that phrase. The concept of "veto" does not imply that the default is for the action to proceed. The word "veto" essentially just means "reject". In this case, the targrtting system would select an object, target it, and present a prompt to the human requesting permission to engage. The human can either authorize or reject.
It seems you're thinking of a word more along the lines of "interrupt" but, again, that's not what veto means.
I guess that question answered itself.
JavaScript has never had the ability to access local files when running in a browser. If it did that would be a massive security issue. You've just further demonstrated that you're full of shit.
In this case I'll gladly defer to your expertise.
Had I tweeted:
I merely smiled at a waitress, and she grabbed my ass. To live life as a man is to live on the defense.
I somehow suspect you would not be explaining to everyone that I'm just a poor victim of harrasement speaking up about it.
No, I don't remember any of that. But then again I don't go around looking for things to be outraged about like you do ...