81–90 of 188 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or you can simply delete the message. You've posted a race-loaded analysis from an AI that called itself MechHitler because "somebody" decided to mess with the prompt.
[flagged]
Someone who can’t cook can still identify a shit sandwich as bad food.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That does not however answer the question of whether they just got lucky, or were more skilled, though there are some indications that it may have been skill. What a load of bullcrap. Full stop. The crews of the two crashed 737Max were also well trained, skilled professionals. That the US-based crews decided to re-engage the auto-pilot, and with that action, by sheer luck, managed to bypass the fatal MCAS issues, s…
Shear luck is mostly used when you hope the sheep you're shearing doesn't kick you in the face.
there's a 1992 wrap up book on that: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/robotica/article/abs...
all a bit before Boston Dynamics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well yes but Boeing also said it "would not result in a safety of flight condition." There's a lot of gray going on here.
Yeah saved boeing losing face and sales by requiring all the planes be grounded and fixed. Just eye it up every 5 years, if you want to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> I guess you should do your own manual research showing that the US pilots are indeed superior and post it now. Someone who can’t cook can still identify a shit sandwich as bad food.
Some are forgetting how risk in technology works: No technology is designed or operated without flaws; that's an absurd approach and impossible to implement. To reduce negative outcomes, we use risk management: assessing the likely lifetime cost of the flaw, and taking cost-effective measures to reduce the risk to an acceptable level. As a familiar example, redundant mass storage drives are much more cost-effective t…
They do mention that the DC10 (this plane's predecessor) was decommissioned for similar issues.
Aviation rules are written by blood, you either follow them or you add a few more lines with your own blood.
I recall a lot of fingerpointing minutes after the crash by people blaming the presumably foreign maintenance crew. Even now there is a lot of uncertainty around this crash, maintenance - or lack thereof - or even wrong maintenance could still be a factor. But given the location of the part asking for a 'visual inspection' is a pretty strange move, the part is all but inaccessible when it is in its normal position an…
I wonder on what basis Boeing thought that damage to a load-bearing part could be safely ignored? I hope it wasn't "nothing bad has happened for 50+ years, so it's unlikely to happen now"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That does not however answer the question of whether they just got lucky, or were more skilled, though there are some indications that it may have been skill. What a load of bullcrap. Full stop. The crews of the two crashed 737Max were also well trained, skilled professionals. That the US-based crews decided to re-engage the auto-pilot, and with that action, by sheer luck, managed to bypass the fatal MCAS issues, s…
Shear luck is mostly used when you hope the sheep you're shearing doesn't kick you in the face.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct. And you could pay for the MCAS to use both sensors which all US airlines did. Edit: I was misremembering. Both sensors were enabled on all planes and MCAS only used one at a time on all planes. What was disabled, unless paid for, was software which displayed to the pilots that the 2 sensors were disagreeing, which would immediately have alerted them to what may have been wrong. > According to Bjorn Fehrm, Ae…
It’s kinda darkly refreshing that purchases in the tens/hundreds of millions of dollars still try to nickel and dime you.
Boeing: Do you want a two line code which triggers a potentially life-saving warning when your flying sausage with wings has an important sensor malfunction?
Customer: Of course!
Boeing: That'll be $25K, thanks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They do mention that the DC10 (this plane's predecessor) was decommissioned for similar issues.
This article does not? And the DC-10 was not decommissioned. It is, in fact, still in service.
https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/us-faa-broadens-md-11-gr...