Another 737 Max 8 goes down.

[LewisM]

China pulling out of Boeing contracts is a key piece of the trade spat between the US and China. US now lost it's key-asset. Things could get VERY interesting now.

Knowing the US, they'll sanction France and try to stop Airbus sales.

[FlashDrive (Poppy)]

Gee ...I wonder if Airbus is looking for AME's now .... plenty of work coming their way ....!!

If I was much younger this would be a perfect opportunity to go back working on Aircraft.

Back to Aviation School ... head down / ass up into study books again.

Col....

[glend (Glen)]

Originally Posted by FlashDrive

Gee ...I wonder if Airbus is looking for AME's now .... plenty of work coming their way ....!!

If I was much younger this would be a perfect opportunity to go back working on Aircraft.

Back to Aviation School ... head down / ass up into study books again.

Col....

No cables and pulleys these days Col. You will need to be a software engineer, and as Boeing has shown us, AI systems controlling trim can kill a lot of people.
Part of the Certification process should be to turn off all the electronics and have the pilot land the plane. Too many aircraft are aerodynamically unstable and thus require computers to keep them in the air, and you can thank the military for that innovation. Boeing took a workhorse airframe, with a good history, and messed around with sticking bigger engines on it in the wrong place, and buggered the centre of gravity. Totally Boeing's fault, and the decimated FAA (thanks Trump), allows Boeing to Self-Certify the aircraft.

[FlashDrive (Poppy)]

Originally Posted by glend

No cables and pulleys these days Col.

True, True , I'd go to the ' Engine Assembly Facility ' ( some of us got to put the Engines together and do ' run ups ' ) and leave all the Avionics / Electrical / Airframe / and Software to the other guru's ....

Besides, they wouldn't take me at my age now ( approaching 64 ) .... I'd be just dreaming

Col....

[FlashDrive (Poppy)]

Originally Posted by glend

Too many aircraft are aerodynamically unstable and thus require computers to keep them in the air, and you can thank the military for that innovation.

F35 comes to mind ....!!

[AndyG (Andy)]

Horses for courses. In a passenger plane, a neck snapping turn rate could end your life. In a fighter, it could save your life. The F-16 is an earlier example of computer managed deliberately unstable design. I'm sure it wasn't the first.

[raymo]

And back in 1969, Concorde, as i mentioned in an earlier post.
raymo

[multiweb (Marc)]

Remember that F-117 fly-by-wire that still landed with a missing part of its wing or tail years ago, I can't remember. The computer compensated for it and the pilot didn't even know he had a missing bit, he was told by another jet flying next to him.

[LewisM]

MCAS from the TM:

[glend (Glen)]

Originally Posted by LewisM

MCAS from the TM:

Isn't the Stabilizer Trim Cut Out exactly what the Air Indo jump seat pilot told the crew to do on the flight prior to the one that crashed, which had the same problem. If he had not suggested it, they might have gone down. Proves it helps to know the manual.

[Exfso (Peter)]

The simulator finding that pilots have around 40secs to correct the issue as it stands is pretty damn short.

[gary]

Gregory Tavis, a software engineer with a pilot's license, provided an
opinion piece at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
web site.

Tavis also noted the chain of decisions that went into the aircraft's design
as mitigating circumstances.

Namely the requirement for better fuel efficiency necessitated larger
engines and nacelles that had to be brought forward and up in order
to clear the ground. The subsequent changing of the centreline of thrust
this brought about. The decision to design-in MCAS to avoid pitch-up.
All designed to maintain the "737" designation for less pilot re-training.

Opinion piece here :-
https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/...ware-developer

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by gary

Gregory Tavis, a software engineer with a pilot's license, provided an
opinion piece at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
web site.

Really good article Gary.

It is astounding that no one who wrote the MCAS software for the 737 Max seems even to have raised the possibility of using multiple inputs, including the opposite angle-of-attack sensor, in the computer’s determination of an impending stall. As a lifetime member of the software development fraternity, I don’t know what toxic combination of inexperience, hubris, or lack of cultural understanding led to this mistake.

Doesn't surprise me at all. I see that and am exposed to this day in day out when liaising with technical people or developers in larg(ish) companies. Mostly because the "glue" supposed to coordinate different services is managed by an extra layer of wankers who have absolutely no understanding of the low level stuff or what people on the ground do so how can they see the bigger picture?