3 ms·

Then they go and make a single failure prone sensor capable of overriding pilots' control of flight surfaces.

WalterBright 4y ago
Actually, the electric thumb trim switches overrode MCAS. This is why the Lion Air crew managed to restore normal trim 25 times. The Egypt Air did twice.
- namaria 4y ago
  > restore ... 25 times Yeah that's not restoring.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    You can make up your own terminology as you please, but the normal trim position was restored because the thumb switches overrode MCAS commands. The mistake the pilots made was not then turning off the trim system (which also overrides MCAS). The first MCAS incident ended with the pilots restoring trim to normal with the thumb switches a couple times, then turning off the stab trim system, then continuing on and safely arriving at their destination. The media never mentions this.
    - namaria 4y ago
      No this isn't about semantics. You're trying to tell me a system that brought down 2 airliners isn't that bad because it didn't bring down others. What?
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        > No this isn't about semantics. Inventing your own meanings for words in order to advance an argument is a waste of time for you and me. > You're trying to tell me a system that brought down 2 airliners isn't that bad because it didn't bring down others. I'm saying that pilot error was a contributing cause to the two crashes, and the media narrative that the pilots could not have saved the situation is incorrect. Boeing even sent out an Emergency Airworthiness Directive to all MAX pilots after the first crash, detailing the two step recovery procedure (restore normal trim with the thumb switches, then turn it off). The EA pilots did not do that. There were numerous causes of the accident that all had to combine to result in the crash. One of the causes was the single path design of the MCAS system. All of the causes needed to be addressed.
        namaria 4y ago
        Either Boeing is serious about systems safety or it isn't They let profit motive trump engineering concerns and hundreds paid with their lives. Finding nuance to defend the corporate player that killed hundreds of innocents is disgusting.
        WalterBright 4y ago
        The errors in the MCAS system design did not save Boeing any money. > Finding nuance to defend the corporate player that killed hundreds of innocents is disgusting. I did not defend Boeing. Besides, do you want airliners to be safe or not? If you want to fly safely, you've got to address all factors in a crash, including pilot error.
        namaria 4y ago
        They obviously hid a new system from view to avoid retraining, when the aerodynamics and automated behavior had changed substantially. It was motivated by profit and cost so many lives. It's pretty horrible and I cannot comprehend why you'd defend it in any way. Yeah plane crashes are complex and should be studied in detail. No that doesn't mean in this case corporate greed didn't play a decisive role. Cute false dichotomy tho.

Actually, the electric thumb trim switches overrode MCAS. This is why the Lion Air crew managed to restore normal trim 25 times. The Egypt Air did twice.

namaria 4y ago
> restore ... 25 times Yeah that's not restoring.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  You can make up your own terminology as you please, but the normal trim position was restored because the thumb switches overrode MCAS commands. The mistake the pilots made was not then turning off the trim system (which also overrides MCAS). The first MCAS incident ended with the pilots restoring trim to normal with the thumb switches a couple times, then turning off the stab trim system, then continuing on and safely arriving at their destination. The media never mentions this.
  - namaria 4y ago
    No this isn't about semantics. You're trying to tell me a system that brought down 2 airliners isn't that bad because it didn't bring down others. What?
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      > No this isn't about semantics. Inventing your own meanings for words in order to advance an argument is a waste of time for you and me. > You're trying to tell me a system that brought down 2 airliners isn't that bad because it didn't bring down others. I'm saying that pilot error was a contributing cause to the two crashes, and the media narrative that the pilots could not have saved the situation is incorrect. Boeing even sent out an Emergency Airworthiness Directive to all MAX pilots after the first crash, detailing the two step recovery procedure (restore normal trim with the thumb switches, then turn it off). The EA pilots did not do that. There were numerous causes of the accident that all had to combine to result in the crash. One of the causes was the single path design of the MCAS system. All of the causes needed to be addressed.
      - namaria 4y ago
        Either Boeing is serious about systems safety or it isn't They let profit motive trump engineering concerns and hundreds paid with their lives. Finding nuance to defend the corporate player that killed hundreds of innocents is disgusting.
        WalterBright 4y ago
        The errors in the MCAS system design did not save Boeing any money. > Finding nuance to defend the corporate player that killed hundreds of innocents is disgusting. I did not defend Boeing. Besides, do you want airliners to be safe or not? If you want to fly safely, you've got to address all factors in a crash, including pilot error.
        namaria 4y ago
        They obviously hid a new system from view to avoid retraining, when the aerodynamics and automated behavior had changed substantially. It was motivated by profit and cost so many lives. It's pretty horrible and I cannot comprehend why you'd defend it in any way. Yeah plane crashes are complex and should be studied in detail. No that doesn't mean in this case corporate greed didn't play a decisive role. Cute false dichotomy tho.