737 Max

I'm going to design a new kind of traction control system that when it detects a high-speed skid it flings all the car doors open and unbuckles the seatbelts, to increase drag.

Reply to
bitrex
Loading thread data ...

(about a stall-prevention control that maybe caused crashes during take-off)

The problem of a plane being 'too complex' could just mean that one or more persons doesn't understand everything about it... those planes are big, you can't understand everything on such a scale anyhow.

The REAL problem is the plane's control envelope has features that are outside the knowledge and control of the pilots, apparently. That's a minor documentation and training issue, compounded with the more important problem of an algorithm that can override pilots, and apparently cannot accomodate a sensor giving garbled data.

Reply to
whit3rd

The right words, perhaps, and some very average pilots have made it into airline cockpits - even the left seat. All the same, this aspect of aircraft operation is really really basic. Pull the stick back during your training solo flights without regard to airspeed, and if you don't die, it would only be a matter of luck.

Sylvia.

Reply to
Sylvia Else

John Robertson wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:

Donald J. Trump is a disgraceful buffoon.

And he does (some of) it deliberately. That is even more disgraceful.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

snipped-for-privacy@columbus.rr.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

I blame the pilot and there also may have been a sabotage involved. We just do not know.

We do know that there are so damned many pilots out there that many of them have to be incompetent for this level job. Just by the numbers alone.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

On Tuesday, March 12, 2019 at 12:52:42 PM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@columbus.rr.com wr ote:

plicated? Have we achieved an acceptable safety level and additional comple xity is taking away safety? His comment probably cost Boeing 20 points toda y, but Boeing will ultimately get vindication or justice.

To intelligently consider your question we would need to know the failure r ate for aircraft over the decades as they have added more and more electron ics, and finally the actual failure rate of other models with similar elect ronics to the 737 MAX.

Until we have those numbers this discussion is just talking through our hat s.

Rick C.

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

omplicated? Have we achieved an acceptable safety level and additional comp lexity is taking away safety? His comment probably cost Boeing 20 points to day, but Boeing will ultimately get vindication or justice.

ty.

Yes, the VW beetle was a piece of crap in terms of reliability, comfort and safety. Meanwhile, autos have dramatically improved in terms of reliabili ty, comfort and safety. They are harder to work on yourself, but they need repair a lot less often in my experience.

If people prefer less complex aircraft, they can fly the de Havilland Comet . It was well designed, except for not taking into account metal fatigue a round the rivets allowing the craft to explode.

No, airplane design problems aren't new. They aren't solely the result of increasing complexity. There will be many, many thoughtless comments about this in this thread. I don't know why people have to jump to conclusions based on nearly no information.

Rick C.

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

This is a perfect example of what I mean. No real thought and obviously not made with knowledge of the facts.

The person who was killed by the autonomous car was a woman, crossing the street in the dark and clearly in ignorance of the approaching car. She literally walked in front of the car.

I won't even respond to the Michael Hastings issue. There's nothing there. Even if there were, what is unusual about using a car to kill someone?

Rick C.

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

Cursitor Doom doesn't seem to be able to manage much complexity. Others can probably manage more.

They may well know better than Cursitor Doom, who knows a lot that doesn't happen to be correct.

The self-driving car would have been aware that it shouldn't hit things on the road in front of it, but wasn't aware that the particular sets of signals produced by bike-pusher represented something that if ought to avoid.

This was a failure of knowledge, not an assertion of superior knowledge.

formatting link

He had a manic episode and drove his car much too fast - so it lost contact with the road and crashed, hitting a palm tree at very high speed, with fatal effect.

A car that had been aware of the local speed limits and had limited it's speed to conform to them might have saved his life.

Cursitor Doom does seem to know rather less than he needs to.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

John Larkin wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

common

He is dumber than dogshit. Both the military AND Boeing would not go farther than our technology permits and everything is tested. Those commercial planes are based on military avionics and controls etc.

They grounded the Osprey after two crashes. Then they brought it back into service. That was years ago.

Boeing knows what the phrase "mission critical" means.

All you dopes are just grasping at straws.

I think that airport personnel and pilots need to be vetted more stringently. Especially in all these smaller countries.

AFAIAC it could have been a sobatage just before take off. A tiny bomb taking out a hydraulic valve in the back of the plane would not even be heard in the cockpit.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

More bullshit.

NO inexperienced pilots should be in those cockpits.

Yet folks keep wanting to blame the plane.

And we do not know if it had ANYTHING to do with ANY automated control loop or system.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Airbus and Boeing are two different manufacturers.

"almost all turned off"

Too ambiguous to attach any credence to such a claim.

What the f*ck is "almost all"?

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

Sylvia Else wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net:

After a six minute ascent???

I think some bad folks are working on the ground crews.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

Clearly the Boeing 737 Max8 is badly automated, which isn't the same thing at too automated.

Trump isn't right about anything complicated - he isn't willing to spend the time require to get an understanding of what's actually going on, and what he says is designed to appeal to the audience, as opposed to educating them.

He says things that appeal to people who are equally unwilling to think things through. John Larkin is definitely a member of that group.

That makes "the reason" inadequate crew training?

Automated systems that require counter-intuitive responses from air-crew in particular emergency situations are unsatisfactory, but it's like bugs in software - you have to explore a lot of possible interactions to find the bug.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

onsdag den 13. marts 2019 kl. 02.58.24 UTC+1 skrev snipped-for-privacy@decadence.org:

alternate law 2

Reply to
Lasse Langwadt Christensen

Is he saying the pilots didn't know the sequence BEFORE the accident? I thought they actually were trained to fly the aircraft, not just reading the manual in flight. Why would you have a control and not train the pilot to use it?

Juan Browne doubts the flying hours numbers were as they were reported.

As Juan Browne said, "It's simply too early to tell". I don't know how you can pass judgement when Juan can't.

Rick C.

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

No, you're overlooking throttle. A plane is flown at minimum controllable airspeed with aft-stick and full power.

The sense is learned by trial and error, stalls are deliberate in training.

Power controls climb or descent. Pitch controls airspeed. Not intuitive, is it?

Reply to
Bonk

/

Interesting how everyone seems to be saying the planes are overly complicat ed so they take control of the plane away from the pilot as if that is a ba d thing. The majority of accidents involve pilot errors. So it sounds to me like letting the plane fly the plane as much as possible is a good thing .

It is likely that like the goal in autonomous autos, they don't have to be perfect, they just have to be better than humans to have a place in our tra nsportation networks. Not a terribly high bar.

Rick C.

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

Not many individual drivers care if overall traffic fatalities go down, what they care about is that they don't end up a statistic themselves.

Being in full control as opposed to letting a computer do the work, even if the computer is far better at it, provides the illusion of total control. "All I have to do to be 100% safe on my own as opposed to 98% safe with the computer is be more careful and better at this than everyone else..."

And that kind of thinking appeals very much to American's intrinsic narcissism. Who wouldn't like to be believe they're better at something than everyone else?

Reply to
bitrex

Or likely in general just to the egoistic impulses which are natural in all humans but some populations IMO probably have a better capability at accurately assessing risk than Americans do.

Reply to
bitrex

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.