4 ms·
The 737 Max fiasco to me is a sign that yes, this is how engineering should work. For example, a well engineered plane allows the pilots to control the fuel fl
by strgcmc 6y ago
The 737 Max fiasco to me is a sign that yes, this is how engineering should work.
For example, a well engineered plane allows the pilots to control the fuel flow to engines, but also does not allow pilots to dump fuel into the passenger compartment. Much engineering goes into, how to isolate the toxic chemicals of fuel or other fluids/gases away from the passenger compartment. So you have freedom, but you also have constraints.
Likewise, a well engineered plane probably should allow pilots to fly the plane according to their needs, rather than overriding their inputs as they fight to point the nose up while the plane decides that no you really want the nose down right now. Of course the pilots should've disengaged MCAS, but in a crisis it's bad engineering to force operators to remember which unhelpful/murderous system needs to be disabled in order to avoid catastrophe. The system took too much agency away from the operators, and violated the principle as espoused by that comment you're quoting.
- cratermoon 6y agoYou're conflating "owner" with "operator". The airlines bought the 737Max because they calculated it could increase profits. The operators – pilots – were not sufficiently involved in designing, implementing, or documenting MCAS to even know they should be advocating for agency.