3 ms·
See my response upthread. I don't think this is likely to be all that relevant. Aircraft systems are surprisingly dumb at times. They could easily have calculat
by VBprogrammer 8y ago
See my response upthread. I don't think this is likely to be all that relevant. Aircraft systems are surprisingly dumb at times. They could easily have calculated an approximate AoA from their known reference data, rate of change of altitude (for extra credit they could use GPS and pressure altitude) and attitude and used that for a sanity check.
- mannykannot 8y agoFor AofA from those inputs, you also would need to need to know what the air is doing. Over a period of time I imagine you could approximate it, but for what MCAS does with it, I would think you need near-instantaneous (~ 1 sec.) figures, especially in turbulence or a downburst. On the other hand, there is indicated airspeed, the traditional proxy for AofA. It, too, has its dependencies, but I think they are either measurable (e.g. flaps (, outside air temp.?)) or can be estimated from slowly changing values (e.g. weight from initial gross weight and fuel burn.)
- VBprogrammer 8y agoTrue. I'm sure some safeguards could have been put in-place using existing data. Similar to simultaneous location and mapping. But as I said, the design of aviation systems is surprisingly stupid. They have TCAS warning and know the height of the ground at any point on earth. Yet they'll let you dial up a path on the autopilot that flies straight through a mountain. It's only relatively recently that light aircraft autopilots gained envelop protection, until then they'd happily fly an aircraft into a stall trying to maintain the set parameters.