3 ms·
I'm actually sympathetic to using fly-by-wire technology to keep the interface the same. When it works, it can be safer since pilots' experience transfers direc
by dehrmann 1y ago
I'm actually sympathetic to using fly-by-wire technology to keep the interface the same. When it works, it can be safer since pilots' experience transfers directly, they don't mix up subtle differences between the models, and it makes it an easy sell to airlines. I fault Boeing for not making it robust enough. It needed to be bullet-proof, and it wasn't.
- saurik 1y agoI mean, it is easy to be sympathetic to something if you add the constraint that it must be perfect under the assumption that it could be perfect... the issue is that there is no way this wasn't going to be a leaky abstraction, and so I would thereby offer the decision no sympathy.
- tim333 1y agoAircraft rely on a lot of systems that are not perfect. They are however generally very well made. The implementation that caused the 737 max crashes was terrible.
- immibis 1y agoBecause if it had redundancy, that would be a sign to the FAA that it was important. If it was important, the FAA would make them teach their customers and pilots about it. Obviously the problem here is the fact that aeroplanes are regulated.
- yread 1y agoproblem is you can't just take pilots input alone. You need angle of attack, air speed and probably other inputs to correct it. When your sensors disagree or are unreliable you get garbage out. Or you can switch the system off and revert to something like direct law mode. But then pilots would have to train flying a plane in that mode to be familiar with it. Which is the thing you want to avoid in the first place.