21–30 of 158 posts
> Because the fault was triggered by specific streams of erroneous flight data, a new software patch can be devised that monitors the computer for that highly unusual condition and prevents movement of the stabilizer when it occurs, one of the people said. Oh man. That sounds like a mess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bandaid fix if I've ever heard of one.
It's proper. This is exactly how you do things with life-critical embedded software. You detect when things are crazy, which of course shouldn't happen but nevertheless does, and you react in a way that is hopefully not disastrous. The alternative is to ignore the problem. Sensors go bad. Actuators go bad. Voting hardware goes bad. Message routing goes bad. Even the RAM sometimes goes bad. When the hardware is failin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The plane has no fundamental mechanical flaw, it has a software bug. The only flaw the plane had was being treated as 'just another 737'
It has plenty of uncertifiable components grandfathered in for 50 years, topped with ‘still within range of grandfathering’ pieces of bandaid software on top. It’s fundamental because the whole fundament this rests one isn’t stable and all the adding instability add-ons do not make sense.
the 737MAX could have been certified as a new airplane, with a new type certificate, and a new pilot type rating to go with it - but that would have removed much (or all) of its economic justification to exist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So one more plane crash is possible but two are not?? Huh?
Yes. After one more plane crash, it will probably become uneconomical for carriers to continue operating the 737.
> Because the fault was triggered by specific streams of erroneous flight data, a new software patch can be devised that monitors the computer for that highly unusual condition and prevents movement of the stabilizer when it occurs, one of the people said. Oh man. That sounds like a mess.
It's one of those fixes where they add up the value of human life if something goes wrong and say 'OK we can handle that, ship it"
In other words, even in financial terms, it cost more than damages. It may have cost the entire company. They “DeHavailland”’ed their company. Ever heard of DeHavailland? No? That’s probably to do with their 4 successive deintegrating planes that “CEOs have complete trust in.” It just died, as a name. The risk is high.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bandaid fix if I've ever heard of one.
It's proper. This is exactly how you do things with life-critical embedded software. You detect when things are crazy, which of course shouldn't happen but nevertheless does, and you react in a way that is hopefully not disastrous. The alternative is to ignore the problem. Sensors go bad. Actuators go bad. Voting hardware goes bad. Message routing goes bad. Even the RAM sometimes goes bad. When the hardware is failin…
This might just be a bad case of people talking past one another.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, if another 150 people die that will be the end of the 737 program - and probably Boeing. 300 more deaths is highly unlikely.
I think you underestimate Boeing size, wealth, and importance to the federal government.
If another 737 Max crashed then that would be the end of the Max, IMO, but I doubt older 737s would be dropped and Boeing would still be around easily enough.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bandaid fix if I've ever heard of one.
It's proper. This is exactly how you do things with life-critical embedded software. You detect when things are crazy, which of course shouldn't happen but nevertheless does, and you react in a way that is hopefully not disastrous. The alternative is to ignore the problem. Sensors go bad. Actuators go bad. Voting hardware goes bad. Message routing goes bad. Even the RAM sometimes goes bad. When the hardware is failin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has plenty of uncertifiable components grandfathered in for 50 years, topped with ‘still within range of grandfathering’ pieces of bandaid software on top. It’s fundamental because the whole fundament this rests one isn’t stable and all the adding instability add-ons do not make sense.
Since you seem to be an expert in airplanes and complex systems, which components are not certifiable? the 737MAX could have been certified as a new airplane, with a new type certificate, and a new pilot type rating to go with it - but that would have removed much (or all) of its economic justification to exist.
Any new airplane would be a bit higher, it brings some downsides (ground operations people really like the easy access), but having bigger engines under the wings is such an advantage that it overrides all other considerations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bandaid fix if I've ever heard of one.
It's proper. This is exactly how you do things with life-critical embedded software. You detect when things are crazy, which of course shouldn't happen but nevertheless does, and you react in a way that is hopefully not disastrous. The alternative is to ignore the problem. Sensors go bad. Actuators go bad. Voting hardware goes bad. Message routing goes bad. Even the RAM sometimes goes bad. When the hardware is failin…