The cave regulators can promise them free wood for life but somebody still has to go and collect wood.

That's never stopped a cave regulator from making the promise nor a cave dweller from believing it.

 

There wouldn't need to be 'cave regulators' if cave bosses woulddn't be greedy. Or for that matter other cave dwellers that think of themselves as cave bosses, advocating for the real bosses to do what ever they want. If all of the cave dwellers would hold the bosses accountable and disallow the greed there would be little need for regulation.

 

There wouldn't need to be 'cave regulators' if cave bosses woulddn't be greedy. Or for that matter other cave dwellers that think of themselves as cave bosses, advocating for the real bosses to do what ever they want. If all of the cave dwellers would hold the bosses accountable and disallow the greed there would be little need for regulation.

There is always some caveman looking for a reason to be upset at the cave boss even if they are well paid and being treated fairly.

 

But there are many more cave man bosses that don't. When the boss mans wood allotment is decided on by other bosses that help each other out it's never going to be the wood gathering cave man that has a fair shake, and a good living. Unless the wood gathers band together. And when you have some of the cave men toeing the boss line and saying the boss cave man deserves the wood he gets simply because he has that position, the boss cave man will think the rest are just malcontents and not worthy of more wood. Even though in the scheme of things the cave men that suck up benefited from the ones that banded together.

 

But there are many more cave man bosses that don't. When the boss mans wood allotment is decided on by other bosses that help each other out it's never going to be the wood gathering cave man that has a fair shake, and a good living. Unless the wood gathers band together. And when you have some of the cave men toeing the boss line and saying the boss cave man deserves the wood he gets simply because he has that position, the boss cave man will think the rest are just malcontents and not worthy of more wood. Even though in the scheme of things the cave men that suck up benefited from the ones that banded together.

So we are supposed to trust the wood gathering cave-men to make the important decisions for the cave?

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/774321/archaeology-poop-coprolites-prehistoric-caveman

ARCHAEOLOGISTS were stunned to find a 1,500-year-old fossilized human poo contained an entire snake. The snake, almost certainly a type of rattlesnake, was swallowed without any kind of cooking or preparation – suggesting that it was eaten as part of a religious ritual or possibly for a bet.

You can bet that no cave boss ate that whole uncooked snake.

 

So we are supposed to trust the wood gathering cave-men to make the important decisions for the cave?

About as much as the cave boss who knows nothing(usually) of gathering the wood.

 

Boeing didn't tell Southwest or FAA that it had disabled critical safety alerts on 737 MAX.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019...t-had-disabled-critical-safety-alerts-737-max

 

Boeing didn't tell Southwest or FAA that it had disabled critical safety alerts on 737 MAX.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019...t-had-disabled-critical-safety-alerts-737-max

It's just another cause for a runaway trim condition. That is the true critical safety item the stab trim cutoff switches are installed for on every aircraft as standard equipment. The root cause of the MAX crashes is not the lack of this indicator.

 

It's just another cause for a runaway trim condition. That is the true critical safety item the stab trim cutoff switches are installed for on every aircraft as standard equipment. The root cause of the MAX crashes is not the lack of this indicator.

Root cause? Perhaps. The pilots having to fight software that was driving them into the ground did not help the situation and was not normal or anything they have encountered on a preexisting 737 plane (as advertised). Do we address root cause, the software issue, both or just ignore everything?

Now the proposed roll out to a software fix is a 1 hour ipad training. It is very patriotic to see american airlines stand behind Boeing. We are witnessing the "too big to fail" again as well as "dont put your bags in one basket".

A few other interesting things can be found about "options" that are sold at premium, such as additional fire extinguishers and oxygen masks. How much money do you think Boeing makes on those? And you thought buying a car was bad, you want it with a steering wheel?

 

Root cause? Perhaps. The pilots having to fight software that was driving them into the ground did not help the situation and was not normal or anything they have encountered on a preexisting 737 plane (as advertised). Do we address root cause, the software issue, both or just ignore everything?

Now the proposed roll out to a software fix is a 1 hour ipad training. It is very patriotic to see american airlines stand behind Boeing. We are witnessing the "too big to fail" again as well as "dont put your bags in one basket".

A few other interesting things can be found about "options" that are sold at premium, such as additional fire extinguishers and oxygen masks. How much money do you think Boeing makes on those? And you thought buying a car was bad, you want it with a steering wheel?

The root cause was the software driving the trim to unrecoverable limits with bad data. The MCAS software did not 'fail-safe'. That software engineering defect is the root cause, not the fact that software controls systems or 'options'.

 

A few other interesting things can be found about "options" that are sold at premium, such as additional fire extinguishers and oxygen masks. How much money do you think Boeing makes on those? And you thought buying a car was bad, you want it with a steering wheel?

I'm trying to figure out your point here. That manufacturers shouldn't even offer anything beyond the minimum required standard equipment.

Notice how you are equating ADDITIONAL equipment with REQUIRED equipment. A much better analogy to the car would be wanting it with additional high-mounted turn signals.

 

I'm trying to figure out your point here. That manufacturers shouldn't even offer anything beyond the minimum required standard equipment.

Notice how you are equating ADDITIONAL equipment with REQUIRED equipment. A much better analogy to the car would be wanting it with additional high-mounted turn signals.

The original point was that the equipment that clearly should have been required was made optional. I do believe there is disagreement on that point (and many others).

Due to nature of my work, I am not idealistic about software design and software capabilities. I am yet to see software that takes users into account.

 

Due to nature of my work, I am not idealistic about software design and software capabilities. I am yet to see software that takes users into account.

What about the software you're using to post a message about software?

 

What about the software you're using to post a message about software?

Well, i am not using the orange interface... This would be one of the few examples where something good (in my opinion) was kept around because some users asked for it?

“The Coming Software Apocalypse” by The Atlantic https://link.medium.com/t0vTn2aUhW

 

Well, i am not using the orange interface... This would be one of the few examples where something good (in my opinion) was kept around because some users asked for it?

“The Coming Software Apocalypse” by The Atlantic https://link.medium.com/t0vTn2aUhW

UI issues will never end as many of the people programming real-time complex systems are hardware-centric technical engineers where the UI is an afterthought after function. If you think US software interfaces are bad, try using Japanese technical equipment software.

This is the visual equivalent.

 

 

Is that guy acting as Boeing's William Barr?

 

Is that guy acting as Boeing's William Barr?

Maybe he's telling it straight as a pilot whose a$$ is on the line while flying Boeing planes instead of flying a desk like biased reporters.

 

The latest article from Design News Magazine:

https://www.designnews.com/electron...460732?ADTRK=UBM&elq_mid=8499&elq_cid=1082446

 

The latest article from Design News Magazine:

https://www.designnews.com/electron...460732?ADTRK=UBM&elq_mid=8499&elq_cid=1082446

Nice article on the whole. I agree that anything that has flight control authority like MCAS should be designed and listed on the protocol as safety critical. However, a MCAS failure is only one of many causes for runaway trim with the same problem solution on the 737 from the first commercial aircraft, manual control of the trim system after the stab cutout switches are thrown.