3 ms·

There's another thread on here about this article that discusses one potential issue that's being looked at: https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/what-is-

There's another thread on here about this article that discusses one potential issue that's being looked at: https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/what-is-the-boeing-737-max-maneuvering-characteristics-augmentation-system-mcas/ https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/what-is-the-boeing... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19365179 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19365179

taneq 8y ago
My interpretation of that first link: The new engines meant the plane would stall easier under some circumstances so rather than telling everyone about it, they bandaided this behaviour by adding pitch-down based on the measured angle of attack. However, if the single angle-of-attack sensor fails the plane can suddenly dive. Sounds like planes need an "automation e-stop", some kind of quick standardized way to return a plane to full manual control.
- LIV2 8y ago
  They don't get UX at all, "flip these specific circuit breakers" is their answer and it's different depending on the issue A big red "disable all automation" and better user interfaces that actually tell you why the computer is commanding a maneuver would save lives.
- xenadu02 8y ago
  My understanding is there are two FCCs (flight control computers), but there is only one sensor package used for the MCAS. Normally separate sensor packages would feed into the separate FCCs and require agreement before taking action. I'm not sure why something that overrides pilot input wouldn't absolutely require multiple sensors monitored by the independent computers. My understanding is each computer is dual-CPU, though I'm not sure if they exclusively have each computer check the other or if each CPU checks its partner within the same computer (or both), and whether that applies to all tasks or just some of them.

3 ms·

There's another thread on here about this article that discusses one potential issue that's being looked at: https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/what-is-

by djsumdog 8y ago

taneq 8y ago
My interpretation of that first link: The new engines meant the plane would stall easier under some circumstances so rather than telling everyone about it, they bandaided this behaviour by adding pitch-down based on the measured angle of attack. However, if the single angle-of-attack sensor fails the plane can suddenly dive. Sounds like planes need an "automation e-stop", some kind of quick standardized way to return a plane to full manual control.
- LIV2 8y ago
  They don't get UX at all, "flip these specific circuit breakers" is their answer and it's different depending on the issue A big red "disable all automation" and better user interfaces that actually tell you why the computer is commanding a maneuver would save lives.
- xenadu02 8y ago
  My understanding is there are two FCCs (flight control computers), but there is only one sensor package used for the MCAS. Normally separate sensor packages would feed into the separate FCCs and require agreement before taking action. I'm not sure why something that overrides pilot input wouldn't absolutely require multiple sensors monitored by the independent computers. My understanding is each computer is dual-CPU, though I'm not sure if they exclusively have each computer check the other or if each CPU checks its partner within the same computer (or both), and whether that applies to all tasks or just some of them.