4 ms·

Isn't handling unexpected conditions the entire reason for having a pilot onboard? If the pilot is not expected to detect and respond to something like a fault

Isn't handling unexpected conditions the entire reason for having a pilot onboard? If the pilot is not expected to detect and respond to something like a faulty sensor that causes an unwanted control surface movement, then why have the pilot onboard at all? Why not just let the plane fly itself?

ddalex 8y ago
Unexpected conditions is not to mean "the aircraft software design is stupid and will try to kill you".
- sjwright 8y ago
  Surely autopilot failure is a predictable fault regardless of the underlying cause?
  - varjag 8y ago
    There isn't one predictable manifestation of autopilot failure you can train over.
- VBprogrammer 8y ago
  Oh please. Go read about some of the rudder hard-over failures the 737 suffered over the years. A pilot should be able to fly out of these things. I think unfortunately the children of the magenta line are the ones truly trying to kill us.
raverbashing 8y ago
"Unexpected conditions" are different from "a plane that actively tries to commit suicide" And if you think all pilots do is respond and detect to fault, I suggest you learn more about their duties on the cockpit.
weaksauce 8y ago
The 37 max was designed to change stabilizer pitch in a key moment of unstable flight and that trim is not able to be overridden by elevator input. You have to disengage a thing a t a critical altitude when flaps 0 happens at only 1000’ or so agl on a system you didn’t know exsisted and only activates under a few uncommon parameters to counteract the large rotation moment that the forward engines give. You really don’t quite know what you are talking about. 1000’ per min vertical speed is not uncommon for a controlled descent.
- heavenlyblue 8y ago
  While you seem to know what you're talking about, you're not very good at expressing it at all (lack of proper grammar doesn't help).
  - weaksauce 8y ago
    it was on mobile, sorry. perhaps this is more clear: The 37-max was designed to change the stabilizer to be more nose down in attitude in a key moment of unstable flight and that nose down stabilizer trim is not able to be overridden by elevator input on the yoke because of the design. To fix it, you have to disengage the runaway trimming of the stabilizer at a critical altitude when you disengage flaps at about 1000’ or so agl(above ground level) on a system you didn’t know existed. To further complicate this, it only activates under a few uncommon parameters(max thrust, high angle of attack, steep bank angle, flaps retracted, autopilot disengaged) to counteract the large rotation force that the forward engines give. 1000’ per min vertical speed is not uncommon for a controlled descent so you don't have much time to fix it. You really don’t quite know what you are talking about.

ddalex 8y ago

Unexpected conditions is not to mean "the aircraft software design is stupid and will try to kill you".

sjwright 8y ago
Surely autopilot failure is a predictable fault regardless of the underlying cause?
- varjag 8y ago
  There isn't one predictable manifestation of autopilot failure you can train over.
VBprogrammer 8y ago
Oh please. Go read about some of the rudder hard-over failures the 737 suffered over the years. A pilot should be able to fly out of these things. I think unfortunately the children of the magenta line are the ones truly trying to kill us.

raverbashing 8y ago

"Unexpected conditions" are different from "a plane that actively tries to commit suicide" And if you think all pilots do is respond and detect to fault, I suggest you learn more about their duties on the cockpit.

weaksauce 8y ago

The 37 max was designed to change stabilizer pitch in a key moment of unstable flight and that trim is not able to be overridden by elevator input. You have to disengage a thing a t a critical altitude when flaps 0 happens at only 1000’ or so agl on a system you didn’t know exsisted and only activates under a few uncommon parameters to counteract the large rotation moment that the forward engines give. You really don’t quite know what you are talking about. 1000’ per min vertical speed is not uncommon for a controlled descent.

heavenlyblue 8y ago
While you seem to know what you're talking about, you're not very good at expressing it at all (lack of proper grammar doesn't help).
- weaksauce 8y ago
  it was on mobile, sorry. perhaps this is more clear: The 37-max was designed to change the stabilizer to be more nose down in attitude in a key moment of unstable flight and that nose down stabilizer trim is not able to be overridden by elevator input on the yoke because of the design. To fix it, you have to disengage the runaway trimming of the stabilizer at a critical altitude when you disengage flaps at about 1000’ or so agl(above ground level) on a system you didn’t know existed. To further complicate this, it only activates under a few uncommon parameters(max thrust, high angle of attack, steep bank angle, flaps retracted, autopilot disengaged) to counteract the large rotation force that the forward engines give. 1000’ per min vertical speed is not uncommon for a controlled descent so you don't have much time to fix it. You really don’t quite know what you are talking about.