Shooting it during the boost phase makes it go boom and all the bad stuff stays over there.
Shooting it after it's done boosting and is coasting through space probably won't make it go boom since there's no fuel left, and even if it does go boom some of the warheads may still remain active and fall on your territory.
.. Then they are surprised by the Osama Bin Ladens, and the Che Guevara and other nuts that emerge
Nobody is surprised by fanatics and power-mad tyrants trying to take power via force. On the contrary, stopping those kinds of mad-men are exactly why we do much of what we do. You seem horribly confused.
That's assuming the plane is flying itself. Add a pilot - even a fairly incompetent one - into the mix, and the rate goes down a lot more. Add competent aircrew into the mix, and the rate becomes indistinguishable from zero.
With two sensors you assume that neither is reliable and you fall back to a default mode.
In the original design the failure mode would have been to trim up anyway, and that would have been fine. It was only supposed to allow 0.6 degrees nose down trim, which would have been annoying to the pilots but would not have posed any risk.
Once they changed the maximum limit from 0.6 to 2.4 degrees, that assumption should have been reevaluated. Maybe it was, and they came to the conclusion that it was still the safest option... or maybe they didn't even think about it. I don't know. But from the reports I've seen, there's an even bigger issue, which is that the system was never given a hard limit at all. Instead of having the original 0.6 degree limit, MCAS seems capable of incrementally commanding trim right up until it hits the maximum physical extent of the jackscrews, which is actually 5 degrees.
That's a massive difference, and yes, if you're going to design the system so that it can drive trim that far, you absolutely should either be using more than 2 sensors, or you should default to having the system disable itself when it detects a sensor disagreement. Otherwise you are absolutely creating a situation with the potential to kill people. The pilots should still have known how to deal with the problem, but that doesn't change the fact that the system is poorly designed.
The problem is they're asking the wrong way. If you think thay the system is trying to kill you, the correct way to ask it to stop is by turning it off. That's why industrial machinery has those big red "shut this shit off now" buttons.
Asking it to stop trying to kill you by using the buttons which are part of the system... that's about as effective as if they had sat there saying "Alexa, please stop trying to kill us".
The feel isn't all that irrelevant; runaway trim is the result of a failure of the electric assist for the trim system. Why exactly that electric assist is failing, or how exactly that failure manifests, is irrelevant. As soon as you realize that your trim system is malfunctioning, you're supposed to diable that side of it and switch to the backup system. On the 737 the backup system is cable driven, and neither MCAS nor the autopilot has any control of it. On some other aircraft it is a separate electrical system. With either design the solution is the same; disable the primary system, switch to the backup.
I can understand that the pilots might have been understandably confused about why their trim system was behaving the way it was, but their primary responsibility was to fix the trim problem, not to sit there and wonder about what exactly was causing it. If my car starts to accelerate for no reason I'm not going to sit there and wonder why; I'm going to shift into neutral, apply the brakes, and look for a safe place to pull off the road.
This is true of the pilots on the Lion Air crash, yes. However Ethiopean Airlines has been adamant that their pilots were fully informed about and trained on the function of the MCAS. So it's going to be interesting to see what that investigation turns up.
At least this article finally gives some info on the software fixes being developed by Boeing, instead of the nonsensical speculation we've been getting thusfar. Changing MCAS to take into consideration the angle of both AOA vanes, and limiting the amount of trim that it can command to a more reasonable level. Unfortunately for Boeing, at least one of these is a fairly obvious safety features which should have been implemented in the first place; it's not going to look good for them in any upcoming lawsuits.
They just need to add "for entertainment purposes only" in really small text on the front page of their holy book of choice, and then it stops being a fraud.
I'm not a fan of government overreach at any level, let alone this kind of blatant pandering to special interests. Just pointing out that he's misunderstanding the term.
You don't understand what the term "big government" means in the context of the USA. It isn't specifically referring to size, and it typically only refers to the federal government. People have less of an issue with government overreach at the state and municipal levels since you can always move cities or states; moving to another country is a lot harder.
PTSD is a real thing, but the number of people claiming to have it is far lower than those who actually do. When a clerk who spent her entire deployment drinking coffee and watching movies can get diagnosed with PTSD, you know that the system is ridiculously open to abuse.
That's pretty funny, actually, since every one of the "high probability" events you named is wrong.
Given your inability to predict absolutely anything else, I'm going to say that the probability of you being wrong about AGW is pretty damn high. And the likelihood of you being an ignorant buffoon is 100%.
That's hilarious. I vaguely remember some gloom and doom predictions from the 90s, but haven't bothered trying to go back and find any of those articles. Amazing to actually read that... really does make them all look like a bunch of sandwich-board wearing nutters screaming on a street corner.
There is an even longer history of psychosomatic illnesses being correctly diagnosed as psychosomatic. And also a history of psychosomatic illnesses being incorrectly diagnosed as physiological.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget maintenance failing to fix the problem over 4 successive flights.
It's the old "Swiss cheese model"; relatively small fuckups at multiple levels all lining up just right to cause a major disaster.
I'm glad I could raise your awareness.
That's not consufed, that's ignorant. The other dude was confused.
Shooting it during the boost phase makes it go boom and all the bad stuff stays over there.
Shooting it after it's done boosting and is coasting through space probably won't make it go boom since there's no fuel left, and even if it does go boom some of the warheads may still remain active and fall on your territory.
How stupid do you have to be in order to link to a wikipedia article which says the exact opposite of the claim you're making?
.. Then they are surprised by the Osama Bin Ladens, and the Che Guevara and other nuts that emerge
Nobody is surprised by fanatics and power-mad tyrants trying to take power via force. On the contrary, stopping those kinds of mad-men are exactly why we do much of what we do. You seem horribly confused.
He's right; you're an idiot.
That's assuming the plane is flying itself. Add a pilot - even a fairly incompetent one - into the mix, and the rate goes down a lot more. Add competent aircrew into the mix, and the rate becomes indistinguishable from zero.
With two sensors you assume that neither is reliable and you fall back to a default mode.
In the original design the failure mode would have been to trim up anyway, and that would have been fine. It was only supposed to allow 0.6 degrees nose down trim, which would have been annoying to the pilots but would not have posed any risk.
Once they changed the maximum limit from 0.6 to 2.4 degrees, that assumption should have been reevaluated. Maybe it was, and they came to the conclusion that it was still the safest option ... or maybe they didn't even think about it. I don't know. But from the reports I've seen, there's an even bigger issue, which is that the system was never given a hard limit at all. Instead of having the original 0.6 degree limit, MCAS seems capable of incrementally commanding trim right up until it hits the maximum physical extent of the jackscrews, which is actually 5 degrees.
That's a massive difference, and yes, if you're going to design the system so that it can drive trim that far, you absolutely should either be using more than 2 sensors, or you should default to having the system disable itself when it detects a sensor disagreement. Otherwise you are absolutely creating a situation with the potential to kill people. The pilots should still have known how to deal with the problem, but that doesn't change the fact that the system is poorly designed.
The problem is they're asking the wrong way. If you think thay the system is trying to kill you, the correct way to ask it to stop is by turning it off. That's why industrial machinery has those big red "shut this shit off now" buttons.
Asking it to stop trying to kill you by using the buttons which are part of the system ... that's about as effective as if they had sat there saying "Alexa, please stop trying to kill us".
The feel isn't all that irrelevant; runaway trim is the result of a failure of the electric assist for the trim system. Why exactly that electric assist is failing, or how exactly that failure manifests, is irrelevant. As soon as you realize that your trim system is malfunctioning, you're supposed to diable that side of it and switch to the backup system. On the 737 the backup system is cable driven, and neither MCAS nor the autopilot has any control of it. On some other aircraft it is a separate electrical system. With either design the solution is the same; disable the primary system, switch to the backup.
I can understand that the pilots might have been understandably confused about why their trim system was behaving the way it was, but their primary responsibility was to fix the trim problem, not to sit there and wonder about what exactly was causing it. If my car starts to accelerate for no reason I'm not going to sit there and wonder why; I'm going to shift into neutral, apply the brakes, and look for a safe place to pull off the road.
Anyone who considers flipping a switch to be "relatively complex" has no business being near a cockpit.
This is true of the pilots on the Lion Air crash, yes. However Ethiopean Airlines has been adamant that their pilots were fully informed about and trained on the function of the MCAS. So it's going to be interesting to see what that investigation turns up.
At least this article finally gives some info on the software fixes being developed by Boeing, instead of the nonsensical speculation we've been getting thusfar. Changing MCAS to take into consideration the angle of both AOA vanes, and limiting the amount of trim that it can command to a more reasonable level. Unfortunately for Boeing, at least one of these is a fairly obvious safety features which should have been implemented in the first place; it's not going to look good for them in any upcoming lawsuits.
They just need to add "for entertainment purposes only" in really small text on the front page of their holy book of choice, and then it stops being a fraud.
I'm not a fan of government overreach at any level, let alone this kind of blatant pandering to special interests. Just pointing out that he's misunderstanding the term.
Was he trolling? It's hard to tell. Pretty weak either way.
You don't understand what the term "big government" means in the context of the USA. It isn't specifically referring to size, and it typically only refers to the federal government. People have less of an issue with government overreach at the state and municipal levels since you can always move cities or states; moving to another country is a lot harder.
Ugh. *far higher
PTSD is a real thing, but the number of people claiming to have it is far lower than those who actually do. When a clerk who spent her entire deployment drinking coffee and watching movies can get diagnosed with PTSD, you know that the system is ridiculously open to abuse.
That's pretty funny, actually, since every one of the "high probability" events you named is wrong.
Given your inability to predict absolutely anything else, I'm going to say that the probability of you being wrong about AGW is pretty damn high. And the likelihood of you being an ignorant buffoon is 100%.
That's hilarious. I vaguely remember some gloom and doom predictions from the 90s, but haven't bothered trying to go back and find any of those articles. Amazing to actually read that ... really does make them all look like a bunch of sandwich-board wearing nutters screaming on a street corner.
And now you see how retarded your argument was.
Yeah man. It's the same thing with homeopathy. The only reason it has such a low success rate is because of the social stigma.
There is an even longer history of psychosomatic illnesses being correctly diagnosed as psychosomatic. And also a history of psychosomatic illnesses being incorrectly diagnosed as physiological.