Could always maintain a mechanical linkage between the controls and the control surfaces. And *always* allow the pilot to override any automation simply by mechanically flying the airplane. After all, that is what a pilot is trained to do right? If not, we have a bigger problem
The control surfaces are so large that mechanical linkage would be impossible due to the forces acting upon them. AT BEST a pilot MIGHT be able to execute a slow roll or yaw. Nose up or down would be even harder because of the balance of a plane is dependent upon stationary loads. People move around during a flight. A heavy person in first class going to the back of the plane to alleviate themselves could cause a nose up condition. The drinks cart is heavy, and moving that around would have huge affects on flight dynamics too.It is actually impossible to fly that aircraft and many others using mechanical linkages and has been for many years now.
Perhaps they should just dispense with the pilot all together. I believe there are some commuter rail systems that operate without an Engineer. Would save a lot of money.Boeing is trying to take the "Mistake-ability" of a PIC out of the equation.
Nope. The software didn't malfunction. The MCAS software specification and implementation wasn't the problem. The flight control specifications for X hardware given to the software engineers to implement was defective/unsafe.The problems are due to Boeing outsourcing their software development to $9/hr shops where no experience is necessary, fresh interns can write avionics code even though there are no aircraft manufacturers in the country. Does that seem suspicious? There are other corporations "saving money" this way, the fake claims of having qualified programmers are not kept in check. MCAS is a prime example of where you need top notch in-house software developers, instead of firing them all and outsourcing.
View attachment 199367
There's no argument here. Boeing's management of the MAX was abysmal but blaming software developers and engineers is like blaming them for the VW diesel cheating scam because they didn't all quit when given the specifications. Proper pilot training about exactly how the system worked and what do do quickly would have most likely saved lives here. The capability existed to eliminate the effects of MCAS auto-trim but it had to be done quickly and was done quickly by some pilots by flipping the manual trim power cutout switches early and permanently for the rest of the flight.Any S/W developer with proper avionics experience would refuse to write substandard code- instead of making a buck. Relying on a single sensor input in a safety-critical system is a software developer fail. The hardware for two sensors and two processors exists on the Max. Even the AoA Disagree annunciator doesn't work despite it being an extra cost feature purchased by some airlines. How does a non-functioning blinky light make it through S/W dev and test?
Engineers follow a Code of Ethics which software engineering does not yet have.
Really, we can argue but Boeing's management team is corrupt and ultimately the aircraft has dozens of errors in specifications, hardware, software.
You mean the industrial espionage of the DC 10??? #2 engine configured different. Also different is the front ram air scoops for the air conditioning. DC 10 has two on the left and one on the right whereas the L1011 (also a rip off of the CD 10 name) has two on the right and one on the left. Or I might have that reversed, but the 1011 is opposite of the 10 with the air conditioners. Same exact wing span. Slightly different length but similar configurations as well. Other differences (I'm not aware of) may be electrical wiring, but even the ADG (Air Driven Generator) is mounted in the same location on both planes.Remember Lockheed and the L1011.
AFAIK GPS cannot give terrain information but only X, Y, Z, and T for the receiver's location within the satellite constellation. Clearly, further information can be derived from those (e.g. velocity), but terrain would require a database matching the terrain over the area of travel, which would obviously need to be updated frequently.Will the GPS used in aeronautic avionics now give elevation (over terrain?) as well as Lat/Lon ground position?
IME that's not really how avionics are developed. Both S/W and H/W are strictly overseen and directed by the systems engineers who are supposed to determine in fine detail how the system should work. Add to that the demanding and extensive level of review and testing required not only by regulators but the airframe manufacturers as well, and the S/W developers don't have a lot of freedom to make mistakes.Any S/W developer with proper avionics experience would refuse to write substandard code- instead of making a buck.
Actually many of those pilots are not much older than 18 years old themselves at maybe 23 or 24 years old. Actually they do place their lives in the hands of those writing the software, at least when a FA 18 Hornet or Super Hornet is launched from the deck of an aircraft carrier. The FA18 Flight Manual mentions "Immediately after the end of the catapult stroke, the aircraft will rotate to capture the 12° reference AOA (hands-off). To avoid PIO with the FCS, do not restrain the stick during catapult launch or make stick inputs immediately after catapult launch. The pilot should attempt to remain out of the loop but should closely monitor the catapult sequence". As the aircraft leaves the catapult the pilot is relying totally on his flight computer.The argument was made long ago to automate aircraft launch and recovery on carriers. The pilots were not at all bashful about their refusal of the idea. The prominent objection was along the lines of "I refuse to put my life in the hands of some 18-year-old pimple-faced kid tasked with working on my avionics"!
Wasn't it reported earlier in this thread that the FAA allowed Boeing to do their own evaluation of the plane, because FAA couldn't be bothered? Wouldn't that if true make it the FAA's fault?Now it's the FAA's fault...
U.S. House panel faults FAA review of Boeing 737 MAX, plane design failures
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/u...ane-design-failures/ar-BB10QgxE?ocid=msedgntp
by Jake Hertz
by Aaron Carman
by Jake Hertz
by Jake Hertz