It's true; everyone can own their own little place in the bread line. Except for the politicians, their toadies, and the criminals (but I'm repeating myself) who won't "own" anything yet will still drive around in fancy cars and eat caviar.
That's basically a slightly modified version of Pascal's Wager. "If god does exist then not believing would be really really bad, and you have nothing to lose by believing, therefore you should believe". Your version is dumb for all the same reasons why Pascal's Wager is dumb.
I can make up a doomsday scenario right now which is absolutely horrible, and tell you that the only way to prevent is by sending me 50 million dollars. And then you would tell me you have no reason to believe my prediction, and I would yell back "BUT I ONLY HAVE TO BE RIGHT ONCE!!!".
I don't plan on causing any extinction level events. The thing is, people like you have been making all sorts of gloom and doom predictions for centuries, and yet we've always avoided them. Not through any extensive global effort but rather via new technology and pure self-interest.
And whenever I point this out people invariably fall back on "but this time will be different", which has been the refrain of every doomsayer throughout history.
So, would you say the same of my generation, when we were teens... who were out in the streets protesting 'Nam and the draft?
Why would anyone say that those of you protesting 'Nam need to hang on to your iphones longer? That's stupid.
No, what we would have said is that - if it were practical - you should go spend a year living in the USSR so you can see the joys of communism firsthand. Failing that, you could have gone and talked to some ex-soviet citizens who escaped that shithole. You know, learn a little bit about the thing which your military was opposing before deciding to get high and spit on them.
You should respect the fact that the MARKET has decided nuclear power sold at market rates IS NO LONGER ECONOMICALLY VIABLE without government monies put in, essentially socializing it.
Imagine that; an industry massively overburdened by government regulation needs government money to make it cost competitive. I'm shocked.
You're a moron who has never worked in a nuclear reactor. I actually have.
Even Homer Simpson wasn't stupid enough to work in a reactor... it's nice of you to spend your last few minutes of life telling us about your experience, though.
People don't really choose where their power comes from; they just connect to a grid, and the grid is powered by whatever mix of power sources is available. It's not like I can say "OK, I only want solar electricity sent to my house!".
If your goal is to eliminate coal power, then skip the stupid tax and just pass a law banning coal power. It's a lot more honest, and wastes a lot less money than adding more bureaucracy to collect more taxes.
In cases of things like gasoline, where people do have a choice in the type of vehicle they buy, a tax might make more sense.... if there were enough vehicles and infrastructure for people to actually be able to make the switch in huge numbers. Right now there isn't. Even if some minimum-wage single mother wanted to go out and buy a new Tesla Model S, she would have to wait in line to get it. You add a tax into the mix, and suddenly you have millions of people waiting in a much longer line. Meanwhile all of them are being penalized by being forced to pay higher prices to fuel their existing vehicles.
Great, then why is there even a debate about this, let alone protests and grandstanding politicians? If the technological solution is just around the corner then everyone can just STFU and let it happen.
I'm amazed that someone so full of shit can write such a long comment. Others have already addressed some of your nonsense, so I'll focus on this bit:
Failing that build a MCAS which is fault tolerant with multiple sensors or can be countermanded by the pilot by pulling back on the yoke (This is what they are doing now with the software fix).
That's just a lie which demonstrates that you don't even understand the systems being discussed. If pulling back on the yoke resulted in disengaging MCAS, then they system would literally never operate. That wouldn't be a software update so much as a permanent off switch.
I'm not a stock holder yet; I'm actually waiting for it to drop some more before I buy. Want to maximize my profits. All the gloom-and-doom idiots are doing me a favour in that respect, but they're still fucking annoying.
Of course given the FAA is pushing towards more industry self-regulation, I'm sure Boeing would be jumping at the opportunity to ground their airplanes and bring into question the safety of their products, and the inevitable drop in stock value...
Funny you should say that....
"Boeing continues to have full confidence in the safety of the 737 MAX. However, after consultation with the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and aviation authorities and its customers around the world, Boeing has determined -- out of an abundance of caution and in order to reassure the flying public of the aircraftâ(TM)s safety -- to recommend to the FAA the temporary suspension of operations of the entire global fleet of 371 737 MAX aircraft."
No, the MCAS is there to prevent a stall, not to help recover from one.
The primary issue which necessitates it is that the aircraft will stall in some situations in which the original 737s would not. This isn't a bad thing inherently; every aircraft is different, which is why pilots require type-specific training. However Boeing wanted to be able to sell the MAX as the same aircraft, meaning no extra training would be required for pilots who had 737 experience. In order to do that, they had to make it perform essentially the same as previous 737s, so they added the MCAS to make that happen.
With that in mind; it should be obvious why they decided it would be better to have MCAS commanding a gradual pitch-down in non-stall conditions rather than failing to prevent an actual stall. They're giving the plane to pilots who don't fully understand the handling characteristics of the aircraft, and could easily stall it during takeoff if they treats it the same as their previous aircraft. And stalls at low altitude are bad. Like, really really bad.
You are stating things like they are facts tho, when you yourself stated it's all speculation.
Which things?
Admit you don't know shit like the rest of us. Yesterday you were a staunch supporter of "these planes are airworthy". Well the FAA is saying, no right now they are not.
The FAA isn't saying any such thing; if you really insist on paraphrasing their actual statement it is more along the lines of "given new data we are temporarily grounding these aircraft until more information can be gathered". That's it.
I will gladly admit that I don't know any more about the Ethiopian Airlines crash than anyone else here.
Given all the nonsense that has been posted here, I clearly know far more about the Lion Air crash, the 737 MAX, and aviation in general than the vast majority of you.
I'm happy to admit that I know less about the avionics systems than one other guy who commented earlier, and I'm happy to defer to him on those topics. The rest of the incompetents repeating shit they heard from a buddy... you can go fly a kite.
The first crash, they at least had the complicating factor of not knowing anything about MCAS. I don't really understand how they could not realize that their trim system was malfunctioning, given that they kept countering it with the trim switches, but ok, lacking knowledge of MCAS, maybe they got confused and thought it was something else.
That should never be the case with any other aircrew again. Everyone knows about it now. So it'll be interesting to see what happened in the second crash.
The MAX has significantly worse handling characteristics than the NG due to the repositioned engines. It's far easier for it to enter an unrecoverable stall. Because of this, they wouldn't have been able to get type certification without the MCAS. It's definitely a safety system.
Hoslrseshit. People keep saying this, and then every time I ask for a citation they magically disappear.
the required action is different for the 737 NG and 737 MAX.
No, it isn't. As the other guy already pointed out, those switches have been there forever. You can find videos online of pilots performing the procedure on the previous models of the 737, or just ask a fucking 737 pilot about their run-away trim procedures.
If you're an engineer, we are in big trouble. I never suggested that "your idea" was bad because it was shit sensor design; I pointed out it was stupid because it doesn't fix the problem you were trying to address. If you believe that 2 of those sensors would be fully redundant you must be mystified by why Airbus uses 3 of them, and you definitely shouldn't be allowed to engineer anything.
And the aircraft as a whole are airworthy. The Lion Air aircraft was not airworthy because it had not been repaired. That's a maintenance failure, which led to a crash when combined with pilot error. There's nothing in that crash to indicate that the MAX as a fleet are not airworthy. There may be something about this second crash which eventually leads to that conclusion, but at this point it's all just speculation.
I stand corrected; after checking some pubs it seems the AP is actually two separate redundant boxes. I was aware that it wasn't just two copies of software running on the same box, but was under the impression that it was software running on the FMS or equivalent. Didn't realize it had it's own dedicated processors.
No info on how MCAS is implemented though. Sure, it could be separate boxes, or it could be software running on the AP or FMS hardware. Would be interesting to get a MAX maintenance manual and find out for sure.
Doesn't change anything about the original discussion either way. The AOA system is what it is regardless of whether the data is going to the AP or the MCAS.
That's just playing games with words. In the sense that there are multiple autopilots, there are also multiple MCAS, since the MCAS is just software running on the same computers as the autopilot.
His objection was that it's criminal to feed the MCAS with data from just two AOA vanes because it is "safety critical". But the autopilot also gets data from the same vanes. Same with pressure sensors, airspeed indicators, etc. Apparently he thinks it's criminal to design aircraft the way we have been for the last several decades or longer.
Slashdot Mirror
It's true; everyone can own their own little place in the bread line. Except for the politicians, their toadies, and the criminals (but I'm repeating myself) who won't "own" anything yet will still drive around in fancy cars and eat caviar.
That's basically a slightly modified version of Pascal's Wager. "If god does exist then not believing would be really really bad, and you have nothing to lose by believing, therefore you should believe". Your version is dumb for all the same reasons why Pascal's Wager is dumb.
I can make up a doomsday scenario right now which is absolutely horrible, and tell you that the only way to prevent is by sending me 50 million dollars. And then you would tell me you have no reason to believe my prediction, and I would yell back "BUT I ONLY HAVE TO BE RIGHT ONCE!!!".
So, yeah. Send me 50 million dollars.
I don't plan on causing any extinction level events. The thing is, people like you have been making all sorts of gloom and doom predictions for centuries, and yet we've always avoided them. Not through any extensive global effort but rather via new technology and pure self-interest.
And whenever I point this out people invariably fall back on "but this time will be different", which has been the refrain of every doomsayer throughout history.
If you think being wrong once in the past makes a person wrong now, then you are an easy person to manipulate. You should learn to be more skeptical!
Quite.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
So, would you say the same of my generation, when we were teens... who were out in the streets protesting 'Nam and the draft?
Why would anyone say that those of you protesting 'Nam need to hang on to your iphones longer? That's stupid.
No, what we would have said is that - if it were practical - you should go spend a year living in the USSR so you can see the joys of communism firsthand. Failing that, you could have gone and talked to some ex-soviet citizens who escaped that shithole. You know, learn a little bit about the thing which your military was opposing before deciding to get high and spit on them.
You should respect the fact that the MARKET has decided nuclear power sold at market rates IS NO LONGER ECONOMICALLY VIABLE without government monies put in, essentially socializing it.
Imagine that; an industry massively overburdened by government regulation needs government money to make it cost competitive. I'm shocked.
You're a moron who has never worked in a nuclear reactor. I actually have.
Even Homer Simpson wasn't stupid enough to work in a reactor ... it's nice of you to spend your last few minutes of life telling us about your experience, though.
People don't really choose where their power comes from; they just connect to a grid, and the grid is powered by whatever mix of power sources is available. It's not like I can say "OK, I only want solar electricity sent to my house!".
If your goal is to eliminate coal power, then skip the stupid tax and just pass a law banning coal power. It's a lot more honest, and wastes a lot less money than adding more bureaucracy to collect more taxes.
In cases of things like gasoline, where people do have a choice in the type of vehicle they buy, a tax might make more sense .... if there were enough vehicles and infrastructure for people to actually be able to make the switch in huge numbers. Right now there isn't. Even if some minimum-wage single mother wanted to go out and buy a new Tesla Model S, she would have to wait in line to get it. You add a tax into the mix, and suddenly you have millions of people waiting in a much longer line. Meanwhile all of them are being penalized by being forced to pay higher prices to fuel their existing vehicles.
It should be a trade off. You emit X tons of CO2. You pay $Y.
I've heard that the left loves their taxes, but a tax on breathing seems a bit much ....
In no scenario of a Model T failure would it devastate the environment.
What is going on in Japan and subsequently in the Pacific Ocean is a travesty.
If what's going on in Japan is "devastation" and "a tavesty", then those words have lost all meaning.
Great, then why is there even a debate about this, let alone protests and grandstanding politicians? If the technological solution is just around the corner then everyone can just STFU and let it happen.
That's been our attitude for the last 100,000 years at least. Why change now?
I'm amazed that someone so full of shit can write such a long comment. Others have already addressed some of your nonsense, so I'll focus on this bit:
Failing that build a MCAS which is fault tolerant with multiple sensors or can be countermanded by the pilot by pulling back on the yoke (This is what they are doing now with the software fix).
That's just a lie which demonstrates that you don't even understand the systems being discussed. If pulling back on the yoke resulted in disengaging MCAS, then they system would literally never operate. That wouldn't be a software update so much as a permanent off switch.
I'm not a stock holder yet; I'm actually waiting for it to drop some more before I buy. Want to maximize my profits. All the gloom-and-doom idiots are doing me a favour in that respect, but they're still fucking annoying.
Yes, that's better :) I wasn't trying to be pedantic, just honestly wasn't sure if you understood the difference.
Of course given the FAA is pushing towards more industry self-regulation, I'm sure Boeing would be jumping at the opportunity to ground their airplanes and bring into question the safety of their products, and the inevitable drop in stock value...
Funny you should say that ....
"Boeing continues to have full confidence in the safety of the 737 MAX. However, after consultation with the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and aviation authorities and its customers around the world, Boeing has determined -- out of an abundance of caution and in order to reassure the flying public of the aircraftâ(TM)s safety -- to recommend to the FAA the temporary suspension of operations of the entire global fleet of 371 737 MAX aircraft."
https://boeing.mediaroom.com/n...
No, the MCAS is there to prevent a stall, not to help recover from one.
The primary issue which necessitates it is that the aircraft will stall in some situations in which the original 737s would not. This isn't a bad thing inherently; every aircraft is different, which is why pilots require type-specific training. However Boeing wanted to be able to sell the MAX as the same aircraft, meaning no extra training would be required for pilots who had 737 experience. In order to do that, they had to make it perform essentially the same as previous 737s, so they added the MCAS to make that happen.
With that in mind; it should be obvious why they decided it would be better to have MCAS commanding a gradual pitch-down in non-stall conditions rather than failing to prevent an actual stall. They're giving the plane to pilots who don't fully understand the handling characteristics of the aircraft, and could easily stall it during takeoff if they treats it the same as their previous aircraft. And stalls at low altitude are bad. Like, really really bad.
You are stating things like they are facts tho, when you yourself stated it's all speculation.
Which things?
Admit you don't know shit like the rest of us. Yesterday you were a staunch supporter of "these planes are airworthy". Well the FAA is saying, no right now they are not.
The FAA isn't saying any such thing; if you really insist on paraphrasing their actual statement it is more along the lines of "given new data we are temporarily grounding these aircraft until more information can be gathered". That's it.
I will gladly admit that I don't know any more about the Ethiopian Airlines crash than anyone else here.
Given all the nonsense that has been posted here, I clearly know far more about the Lion Air crash, the 737 MAX, and aviation in general than the vast majority of you.
I'm happy to admit that I know less about the avionics systems than one other guy who commented earlier, and I'm happy to defer to him on those topics. The rest of the incompetents repeating shit they heard from a buddy ... you can go fly a kite.
The first crash, they at least had the complicating factor of not knowing anything about MCAS. I don't really understand how they could not realize that their trim system was malfunctioning, given that they kept countering it with the trim switches, but ok, lacking knowledge of MCAS, maybe they got confused and thought it was something else.
That should never be the case with any other aircrew again. Everyone knows about it now. So it'll be interesting to see what happened in the second crash.
The MAX has significantly worse handling characteristics than the NG due to the repositioned engines. It's far easier for it to enter an unrecoverable stall. Because of this, they wouldn't have been able to get type certification without the MCAS. It's definitely a safety system.
Hoslrseshit. People keep saying this, and then every time I ask for a citation they magically disappear.
the required action is different for the 737 NG and 737 MAX.
No, it isn't. As the other guy already pointed out, those switches have been there forever. You can find videos online of pilots performing the procedure on the previous models of the 737, or just ask a fucking 737 pilot about their run-away trim procedures.
If you're an engineer, we are in big trouble. I never suggested that "your idea" was bad because it was shit sensor design; I pointed out it was stupid because it doesn't fix the problem you were trying to address. If you believe that 2 of those sensors would be fully redundant you must be mystified by why Airbus uses 3 of them, and you definitely shouldn't be allowed to engineer anything.
You are being downmodded for good reason. You are spreading lies.
Good one :) that's why the guy talking about an "MCAS disable switch" is being up-modded; because he, like, totally didn't make that up ...
You should correct your approach to things. Arrogance and incompetence is a bad combination. ...
For the MCAS, Boeing sabotaged that redundancy.
Irony.
At least you are willing to listen to arguments
I wish I could say the same about you.
And the aircraft as a whole are airworthy. The Lion Air aircraft was not airworthy because it had not been repaired. That's a maintenance failure, which led to a crash when combined with pilot error. There's nothing in that crash to indicate that the MAX as a fleet are not airworthy. There may be something about this second crash which eventually leads to that conclusion, but at this point it's all just speculation.
I stand corrected; after checking some pubs it seems the AP is actually two separate redundant boxes. I was aware that it wasn't just two copies of software running on the same box, but was under the impression that it was software running on the FMS or equivalent. Didn't realize it had it's own dedicated processors.
No info on how MCAS is implemented though. Sure, it could be separate boxes, or it could be software running on the AP or FMS hardware. Would be interesting to get a MAX maintenance manual and find out for sure.
Doesn't change anything about the original discussion either way. The AOA system is what it is regardless of whether the data is going to the AP or the MCAS.
That's just playing games with words. In the sense that there are multiple autopilots, there are also multiple MCAS, since the MCAS is just software running on the same computers as the autopilot.
His objection was that it's criminal to feed the MCAS with data from just two AOA vanes because it is "safety critical". But the autopilot also gets data from the same vanes. Same with pressure sensors, airspeed indicators, etc. Apparently he thinks it's criminal to design aircraft the way we have been for the last several decades or longer.