4 ms·
PS: I want to add why i think they shouldn't. Using a single sensor to control a plane is a mistake, which not even an undergraduate engineer would do. There i
by randomNumber7 6y ago
PS: I want to add why i think they shouldn't.
Using a single sensor to control a plane is a mistake, which not even an undergraduate engineer would do. There is no way this was just accidentally badly designed.
They made this on purpose to change lives for $$
- FabHK 6y agoNo. Initially, MACS was conceived with insufficient control authority to endanger the plane. It was therefore classified as insufficiently critical to necessitate redundancy. Later, the scope of MCAS was extended, but the assumptions weren't revisited. Furthermore, pilots were assumed to quickly identify and fix a "runaway horizontal stabiliser trim condition", providing the necessary backstop in case of system failure. It's absurd to say that they made this on purpose to save some money. The aircraft already has two AoA sensors, but only one was used for MCAS. How is that saving money? Rather, it was a convoluted concatenation of circumstances, pressure, occasional lapse in competence that gave rise to the problem.
- randomNumber7 6y agoIf they would have used both sensors the plane would have needed recertification, because redundant systems are safety critical. Therefore they only used one sensor and declared the system non saftey critical.
- FabHK 6y agoInteresting. Do you have a source for that claim?