Bang on, I think: bean counters trying to save the buck. Now they must be paying for it in lots of lost business and $100M in damages to bereaved families. Not that the compensation does any justice for lost loved ones. And in the end, far too much reliance on technology instead of human faculties. A clear case to put man more in the middle of business, less of the machines and reliance on them.
On Sat, Jul 6, 2019, 9:19 PM Dennis Lee Bieber <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 08:45:59 +0530, Venkatesh Vadde > <[email protected]> declaimed the following: > > >Wow, Beiber. This is as close a dissection of the MAX-737 issue as I have > >read or heard anywhere. Sounds criminal to have not used redundancy in the > >sensors, especially in civil aviation with so many lives at stake on a > >trip. Human complacency takes over, I guess, when something works so well > >for so long. The lifting torque you mention was of the yaw kind or roll > >kind? > > > > PITCH (which is why the MCAS gets described as an "anti-stall" > system). > The air-flow over the top of the nacelles tries to pitch the nose up -- > increasing the angle of attack, increasing the pitch force over the > nacelles (feedback loop), leading to potential stall over the wings > themselves. MCAS is supposed to adjust trim tabs to counteract the upward > pitch -- and supposedly be unnoticed by the pilots trained on older 737 > models. It was an assist-feature, not considered flight-critical -- without > it, pilots could manually adjust the trim, but this would have been an > unnatural adjustment relative to previous 737 models (there was one news > report of a pilot who knew this much of the MCAS system being a guest on > the flight deck when they encountered a similar condition -- he told the > actual pilots to shutdown some part of the system which let them regain > control) > > I'd put the major fault on the bean counters putting cost savings > ahead > of anything else: make the system transparent so pilots don't need to be > retrained; make it a "plug-in" module so only it, in isolation from the > rest of the flight management software, needs to run through certification > process; make the additional (purportedly non-critical) sensors optional so > airlines can save money by leaving them off; get the planes out the door > now rather than next year... > > Most of this evaluation came from various web sites and the more > detailed news articles (rather than the short blurbs TV news gives). > > > -- > Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber AF6VN > [email protected] > http://wlfraed.microdiversity.freeddns.org/ > > -- > For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "BeagleBoard" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/oif1iehrpv3uqc2k6iv7f6128utfei2s42%404ax.com > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BeagleBoard" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/CAHW0bczvQWaiOGOaU%3DvMUDZU687z_713-70Bfsgy5mn1yUFTug%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
