4 ms·

> Neither article has an answer for how auto-trim was re-actived, be it the pilots or something else. The answer to that question may have wide reaching implica

by acqq 8y ago

> Neither article has an answer for how auto-trim was re-actived, be it the pilots or something else. The answer to that question may have wide reaching implications. I can imagine that being irrelevant in this case: Even if the pilots activated it, it doesn't mean they must have made any error, see my other comment here for the details. In short, if the pilots turned the switch off, turning off much more than just the MCAS (as there's no switch "just turn MCAS off, keep the rest on"), but then the plane was already not possible to save (it was only 1000 ft above the ground!) and they turned the switch back on, hoping for obtaining more power/possibility to trim, and the faulty MCAS kicked in again (despite being the reason for the switch cutoff before) and even sped up the crash, then the pilots in fact did absolutely all that was possible to do. And I can even imagine that the code which included the promised "fix" by Boeing until just a few days ago still had the built-in "obvious to implement by default" logic: "oh, I'm booting, now I can point the plane to the ground again because the sensors say so and I'm completely ignoring the fact that the pilots already turned me off shortly before" and that that was the reason the fix release is now delayed. But also note that that plane, the way it is constructed, certified and sold simply needs the MCAS and can't reliably fly without it, otherwise Boeing's fix would have been turning the feature off completely.

SolaceQuantum 8y ago
"...if the pilots turned the switch off, turning off much more than just the MCAS (as there's no switch "just turn MCAS off, keep the rest on"), but then the plane was already not possible to save (it was only 1000 ft above the ground!) and they turned the switch back on, hoping for obtaining more power/possibility to trim, and the faulty MCAS kicked in again (despite being the reason for the switch cutoff before) and even sped up the crash, then the pilots in fact did absolutely all that was possible to do..." If this is indeed what is announced, I sincerely hope the responsible parties for making the decision to go through with MCAS in this way are paid well in jail time.
- KMag 8y ago
  > If this is indeed what is announced, I sincerely hope the responsible parties for making the decision to go through with MCAS in this way are paid well in jail time. I'm sorry, but your wording sounds like you're advocating taking revenge on engineers / managers for poor decisions made in good faith. That's barbaric, and I hope we as a society move beyond this sort of communal revenge. We'll all be psychologically better off if we encourage more healthy ways of seeking relief from tragedy.
  - WalterBright 8y ago
    Such a proposal would mean no more new airplane designs. Note that modern airliners are much safer than their predecessors. An awful lot of mistakes are only "obvious" in hindsight; engineering is full of such.
    - acqq 8y ago
      > Such a proposal would mean But who actually proposed what here?
      - WalterBright 8y ago
        Read the parent of my post.
    - chopin 8y ago
      I don't think there is a hindsight here. Boeing made false statements when certifying the plane.
  - acqq 8y ago
    > but your wording sounds like you're advocating taking revenge No. It's you, KMag, who is creating a straw man against SolaceQuantum. SolaceQuantum's actual wording is using "paid well in jail time." Which means the expectancy of the involvement of the judicial system (courts, lawyers etc.) which could also eventually produce such a sentence (jail time). And that is certainly not "advocating taking revenge." SolaceQuantum also never mentions "engineers." It's again your straw man construction and a false claim. It's already clear that in this case the "fox was guarding the hen house" (As reported in (1)): "The FAA, citing lack of funding and resources, has over the years delegated increasing authority to Boeing to take on more of the work of certifying the safety of its own airplanes." Note: FAA "is a governmental body of the United States with powers to regulate all aspects of civil aviation." Also note, just as an example: "The FAA has been cited as an example of regulatory capture, in which the airline industry openly dictates to its regulators its governing rules, arranging for not only beneficial regulation, but placing key people to head these regulators." (3) 1) https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/failed-certification-faa-missed-safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/faile... ) Also (2): 2) https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/senate-committee-opens-737-max-probe-over-whistle-blower-complaints-about-faa-inspectors-training/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/senat... 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aviation_Administration#Conflicting_roles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aviation_Administratio... All that is certainly not about the "engineers." And the Senate Committee already investigates.

by acqq 8y ago

SolaceQuantum 8y ago

"...if the pilots turned the switch off, turning off much more than just the MCAS (as there's no switch "just turn MCAS off, keep the rest on"), but then the plane was already not possible to save (it was only 1000 ft above the ground!) and they turned the switch back on, hoping for obtaining more power/possibility to trim, and the faulty MCAS kicked in again (despite being the reason for the switch cutoff before) and even sped up the crash, then the pilots in fact did absolutely all that was possible to do..." If this is indeed what is announced, I sincerely hope the responsible parties for making the decision to go through with MCAS in this way are paid well in jail time.

KMag 8y ago
> If this is indeed what is announced, I sincerely hope the responsible parties for making the decision to go through with MCAS in this way are paid well in jail time. I'm sorry, but your wording sounds like you're advocating taking revenge on engineers / managers for poor decisions made in good faith. That's barbaric, and I hope we as a society move beyond this sort of communal revenge. We'll all be psychologically better off if we encourage more healthy ways of seeking relief from tragedy.
- WalterBright 8y ago
  Such a proposal would mean no more new airplane designs. Note that modern airliners are much safer than their predecessors. An awful lot of mistakes are only "obvious" in hindsight; engineering is full of such.
  - acqq 8y ago
    > Such a proposal would mean But who actually proposed what here?
    - WalterBright 8y ago
      Read the parent of my post.
  - chopin 8y ago
    I don't think there is a hindsight here. Boeing made false statements when certifying the plane.
- acqq 8y ago
  > but your wording sounds like you're advocating taking revenge No. It's you, KMag, who is creating a straw man against SolaceQuantum. SolaceQuantum's actual wording is using "paid well in jail time." Which means the expectancy of the involvement of the judicial system (courts, lawyers etc.) which could also eventually produce such a sentence (jail time). And that is certainly not "advocating taking revenge." SolaceQuantum also never mentions "engineers." It's again your straw man construction and a false claim. It's already clear that in this case the "fox was guarding the hen house" (As reported in (1)): "The FAA, citing lack of funding and resources, has over the years delegated increasing authority to Boeing to take on more of the work of certifying the safety of its own airplanes." Note: FAA "is a governmental body of the United States with powers to regulate all aspects of civil aviation." Also note, just as an example: "The FAA has been cited as an example of regulatory capture, in which the airline industry openly dictates to its regulators its governing rules, arranging for not only beneficial regulation, but placing key people to head these regulators." (3) 1) https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/failed-certification-faa-missed-safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/faile... ) Also (2): 2) https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/senate-committee-opens-737-max-probe-over-whistle-blower-complaints-about-faa-inspectors-training/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/senat... 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aviation_Administration#Conflicting_roles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aviation_Administratio... All that is certainly not about the "engineers." And the Senate Committee already investigates.