Tweet
If this is correct, they have a big problem.
-
If this is correct, they have a big problem. -
A lot of it rings true, but what the SW engineer is really saying is that they executed their test plan as prescribed by whatever management software Boeing uses, and so it isn't their fault. Where blame sticks is important in these debacles. But to have the AoA sensor be a single point of failure, easily compounded by maintenance and training failures, doesn't exonerate an over-reliance on software to make this plane supposedly fly like older 737 models. Some heads will roll, but probably not in the SW engineer ranks. -
A flight control system that can override Pilot input - or, as bad, pilots who just ride along and let the computer fly the plane and hope they won't have to make any decisions - (especially low hour pilots without much real world experience) has to lead to disaster. And (for once!) I agree with togor that having a sensor that can be a single point of failure (no redundancy) is inexcusable. US engineered critical products used to have double and triple redundancy. CCColt, Glock and Remington factory trained LE Armorer
LE Trained Firearms InstructorComment
-
Look at the numbers. Yes, it's complicated, but just because Da by has thousand ft' skyscrapers(old time) doesn't mean they can fly. Well, they can fly, but they aren't trained in landing. The crashes are Asian or whatever.Last edited by dryheat; 03-18-2019, 02:58.If I should die before I wake...great,a little more sleep.Comment
-
Pilots trained to Boeing standards have no trouble with "Runaway Trim" procedures. Regards, ClarkComment
-
Boeing sold that aircraft as "no retraining required".Comment
Comment