3 ms·

That's still prompt -> response. This is a discussion about mandatory responses to no prompt at all. Although on reflection, that undersells the level of stupi

by jerf 3y ago

That's still prompt -> response. This is a discussion about mandatory responses to no prompt at all. Although on reflection, that undersells the level of stupidity being proposed here. The pilots need to not only respond to no prompt, but be actively monitoring a condition changing state so that they can then perform the unprompted action. So, in all seriousness... by what algorithm are the pilots performing this assessment that is not something a computer can perform? How on Earth is it not cheaper and faster to add that to the system than petition a government agency for an exemption? What are all the computers on a plane even for other than monitoring state changes and performing actions in response? Even high-assurance, safety-critical coding should be able to outpace a Federal bureaucracy on something like this comfortably.

operatingthetan 3y ago
Yes it's different, but similar to the comment I replied to in the sense that the machine just turns off if the user is idle for a time.
vitiral 3y ago
I agree, but you underestimate the cost of software in "safety critical" applications. I've heard stories of cases where development orgs were given the option of changing a line of code or re designing the hardware. They of course redesigned the hardware.
nostrademons 3y ago
Boeing is no longer capable of building safe planes. If you are no longer capable of building safe planes, your next best option is to petition the government to accept unsafe planes.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  That's only the next best option in the very short term. Boeing will suffer significant damage if there's another Max fiasco - more than they did from the first one. Probably much more. If your company can't build safe planes, the real "next best option" is to fix your company.
  - gambiting 3y ago
    What damage can they actually suffer though? Boeing is a strategic asset of the US government, they would never allow any harm to come to it. Some heads would roll for sure, maybe even the government would step in and assume direct control of certain parts of the company, but it's not like it would go out of business, or like companies would cancel all of their orders and buy Airbuses instead - they could, but again, the US government would never allow that to happen, either through direct monetary action or promises and guarantees that whatever the worry is won't ever happen again.
    - eastbound 3y ago
      > What damage can they actually suffer though? Loss of market share. As in, customers actively looking at the type of aircraft when they book a ticket. Airplanes becoming reluctant to ordering Boeing. At this time, every $1 you invest in making it known what Boeing does since 15 years, results in $2 or $3 of loss of market share for Boeing. Absolutely the time to buy ads to promote articles about Boeing. I would actually trust Comac more than Boeing, as Comac has something to prove, whereas Boeing has been proven to crash planes and bribe the FAA.
      - traverseda 3y ago
        Can someone make a list of unsafe Boeing planes?
        nostrademons 3y ago
        The 737 MAX and 787 have both had significant issues. Basically it's anything introduced after the merger with McDonnell Douglass in 1997.
        eastbound 3y ago
        Boeing’s processes, not planes, are unsafe. In 2013 they received frames (the circular structures that make the fuselage) which instead of being machined, has been created manually. Voids were all in the wrong place because the workers had taken the blueprints symmetrically. Did they ditch the frames? Of course not? They remade the cuts so that it fits upside down! And soldered the I-beam parts that had been cut! Result: The circular frames, which are a critical structural component, have twice as many gaps and holes and soldered sections than the designed piece. Bulkheads, circular frames, MCAS… It’s appalling engineering practices. And the dinner party system with FAA, introduced by Mac Donnell’s practices when it was bought over, has to stop. They should not be friends in real life.

by jerf 3y ago

operatingthetan 3y ago

Yes it's different, but similar to the comment I replied to in the sense that the machine just turns off if the user is idle for a time.

vitiral 3y ago

I agree, but you underestimate the cost of software in "safety critical" applications. I've heard stories of cases where development orgs were given the option of changing a line of code or re designing the hardware. They of course redesigned the hardware.

nostrademons 3y ago

Boeing is no longer capable of building safe planes. If you are no longer capable of building safe planes, your next best option is to petition the government to accept unsafe planes.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
That's only the next best option in the very short term. Boeing will suffer significant damage if there's another Max fiasco - more than they did from the first one. Probably much more. If your company can't build safe planes, the real "next best option" is to fix your company.
- gambiting 3y ago
  What damage can they actually suffer though? Boeing is a strategic asset of the US government, they would never allow any harm to come to it. Some heads would roll for sure, maybe even the government would step in and assume direct control of certain parts of the company, but it's not like it would go out of business, or like companies would cancel all of their orders and buy Airbuses instead - they could, but again, the US government would never allow that to happen, either through direct monetary action or promises and guarantees that whatever the worry is won't ever happen again.
  - eastbound 3y ago
    > What damage can they actually suffer though? Loss of market share. As in, customers actively looking at the type of aircraft when they book a ticket. Airplanes becoming reluctant to ordering Boeing. At this time, every $1 you invest in making it known what Boeing does since 15 years, results in $2 or $3 of loss of market share for Boeing. Absolutely the time to buy ads to promote articles about Boeing. I would actually trust Comac more than Boeing, as Comac has something to prove, whereas Boeing has been proven to crash planes and bribe the FAA.
    - traverseda 3y ago
      Can someone make a list of unsafe Boeing planes?
      - nostrademons 3y ago
        The 737 MAX and 787 have both had significant issues. Basically it's anything introduced after the merger with McDonnell Douglass in 1997.
      - eastbound 3y ago
        Boeing’s processes, not planes, are unsafe. In 2013 they received frames (the circular structures that make the fuselage) which instead of being machined, has been created manually. Voids were all in the wrong place because the workers had taken the blueprints symmetrically. Did they ditch the frames? Of course not? They remade the cuts so that it fits upside down! And soldered the I-beam parts that had been cut! Result: The circular frames, which are a critical structural component, have twice as many gaps and holes and soldered sections than the designed piece. Bulkheads, circular frames, MCAS… It’s appalling engineering practices. And the dinner party system with FAA, introduced by Mac Donnell’s practices when it was bought over, has to stop. They should not be friends in real life.