4 ms·

Physics cannot be fixed by software. The necessity of MCAS means the airframe has fatal flaws. I would avoid 737 Max by all means, no matter whatever software

• wp381640 8y ago
  most modern fighter jets would drop out of the sky like a rock without software they'll eventually get this right - they just need to step back and recognise that the MAX is a completely new type of aircraft and stop taking shortcuts on certification and training what saves them is that Airbus is at production capacity on the neo
  • yardie 8y ago
    I wouldn't hold fighter jets up as an example of safety. They spend more time broken then they do operational. Require a an entire team of engineers for each airframe, and the number of pilot deaths/flight time is pretty atrocious. But since it's 1-2 pilot deaths rather than >100 passengers we put up with it. A well designed aircraft should not have a single point of failure, including the software.
  • bobowzki 8y ago
    While it's true that fighter jets have been aerodynamically unstable for decades, they're not built for transportation and have ejection seats. The main reason they are unstable is to increase agility. Is this necessary or even wanted in passenger aviation? I don't know but I'd guess not. Probably safety, comfort and fuel economy are far more important and can (should?) be achieved with a stable airframe.
    • wp381640 8y ago
      fighter jets are the more extreme and established example, it also applies to most modern airliners which have software systems in place to prevent human controls from exceeding the aircraft flight envelope fuel efficiency in these modern aircraft has been gained with swept back wings, larger intake engines etc. which with direct control and no software would be almost impossible to keep flying discarding all of these systems because of a problem with one would set airline safety and efficiency back decades
      • bobowzki 8y ago
        Swept back wings and larger intake/bypass engines does not make the airframe inherently unstable. The fly-by-wire system has multiple redundancies and layered protection, including direct law (at least for Airbus). Fly by wire is, like you say, of course a great innovation for improved control and safety, but it's nice when the plane continues flying even during a failure, however unlikely. I guess in the case of MCAS the software was activity working against the pilots so maybe it's more of a problem with the design of this particular system and training.
• TheCraiggers 8y ago
  You realize that many modern aircraft are all fly-by-wire, right?
  • petschge 8y ago
    Fly-by-wire does not necessarily imply that there is software interfering. You can have a very linear system that just translates yoke input into control surface deflection, but uses software and cables instead of hydraulic lines.
    • dingaling 8y ago
      That's an obtuse definition of FBW that has no implementation that I know. There's no benefit in developing and certifying software that just passes raw pilot commands to actuators.