3 ms·

No. It was a software fix put in place to satisfy a regulatory requirement under specific, known flight conditions. The following planes (among others) all tra

by ethbro 7y ago

No. It was a software fix put in place to satisfy a regulatory requirement under specific, known flight conditions. The following planes (among others) all translate flight inputs. Airbus A320, A330, A340, A350, A380; Boeing 777. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_control_modes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_control_modes A non-Max 737 doesn't need MCAS because it already behaves like a 737. Essentially, most replies on this boil down to people being shocked (shocked!) that computers are currently helping all planes fly. I'm not sure how they thought AEs were getting efficiency gains while physics stayed the same...

AnthonBerg 7y ago
The replies do not all boil down to people being shocked that computers help planes fly. That is a willfully distorted charicature. Hundreds of people were killed due to a bad implementation of a deeply irresponsible and insensible approach to make money by skirting flight safety regulation. The bad implementation was in part software, but nobody is confusing that aspect with the whole picture. The 737 MAX does not need MCAS. Nothing needs MCAS. Boeing executives wanted the money that MCAS made them.
- ethbro 7y ago
  Is it really? If that were the case, then you'd see people debating the relative merits of SDLC approaches and organizational blinders to letting bugs slip through. In reality, that's only about 20% of any Boeing discussion. 80% is outrage about how Boeing could have released such an "obviously flawed" airplane that required flight computer adjustments. And misunderstanding that Boeing pivoted from a clean sheet design to instead build exactly what the carriers asked them to. Generally, HN comments are pretty good, but the amount of kneejerking in Boeing threads in lieu of informed discussion is terrible. Edit: Although reading through new replies this morning, it's nice to see voting mostly sorted the technical wheat from the chaff.
windexh8er 7y ago
> A non-Max 737 doesn't need MCAS because it already behaves like a 737. If I read this correctly you're implying a 737 Max doesn't behave, aerodynamically, as that a non-Max 737 does? And if we follow that line of thinking since non-Max 737 don't require MCAS to behave appropriately then the 737 Max is not a 737 airframe and it should be recertified as something else, no? I'm in no way "shocked" computers fly and/or help fly airplanes. I am shocked so many comments defend the gross negligence by Boeing, however. Remember that in all of the needless death the 737 Max is attributed with absolutely zero deaths were because of a flight computer. The real root cause of the 737 Max crashes are Boeing executives and FAA personnel making cognizant choices to allow process to be skipped in the vain of profits and loss avoidance. I believe we'll see this, at some point, no different than the commonly referenced Challenger failure [0]. [0] https://www.breakingthewheel.com/root-cause-analysis-five-whys/ https://www.breakingthewheel.com/root-cause-analysis-five-wh...

by ethbro 7y ago

AnthonBerg 7y ago

The replies do not all boil down to people being shocked that computers help planes fly. That is a willfully distorted charicature. Hundreds of people were killed due to a bad implementation of a deeply irresponsible and insensible approach to make money by skirting flight safety regulation. The bad implementation was in part software, but nobody is confusing that aspect with the whole picture. The 737 MAX does not need MCAS. Nothing needs MCAS. Boeing executives wanted the money that MCAS made them.

ethbro 7y ago
Is it really? If that were the case, then you'd see people debating the relative merits of SDLC approaches and organizational blinders to letting bugs slip through. In reality, that's only about 20% of any Boeing discussion. 80% is outrage about how Boeing could have released such an "obviously flawed" airplane that required flight computer adjustments. And misunderstanding that Boeing pivoted from a clean sheet design to instead build exactly what the carriers asked them to. Generally, HN comments are pretty good, but the amount of kneejerking in Boeing threads in lieu of informed discussion is terrible. Edit: Although reading through new replies this morning, it's nice to see voting mostly sorted the technical wheat from the chaff.

windexh8er 7y ago

> A non-Max 737 doesn't need MCAS because it already behaves like a 737. If I read this correctly you're implying a 737 Max doesn't behave, aerodynamically, as that a non-Max 737 does? And if we follow that line of thinking since non-Max 737 don't require MCAS to behave appropriately then the 737 Max is not a 737 airframe and it should be recertified as something else, no? I'm in no way "shocked" computers fly and/or help fly airplanes. I am shocked so many comments defend the gross negligence by Boeing, however. Remember that in all of the needless death the 737 Max is attributed with absolutely zero deaths were because of a flight computer. The real root cause of the 737 Max crashes are Boeing executives and FAA personnel making cognizant choices to allow process to be skipped in the vain of profits and loss avoidance. I believe we'll see this, at some point, no different than the commonly referenced Challenger failure [0]. [0] https://www.breakingthewheel.com/root-cause-analysis-five-whys/ https://www.breakingthewheel.com/root-cause-analysis-five-wh...