- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 737 Max software is still trying to Maximum Overdrive the plane
Posted on 7/27/19 at 10:17 am to Jester
Posted on 7/27/19 at 10:17 am to Jester
quote:
quote:
It's not the hardware of the plane itself causing the problems. It's a software issue. Maybe they need to scrap the software and start over.
False. The software was created to try to override shitty hardware.
Indeed, history is littered with stories like this. A flaw that could have been taken care of early on in the process but was not because they did not want delays and to have to write a big check is biting them on the arse in a way that will cause them to write an exponentially larger check and give Airbus a lot of new business. These decisions are often made these days by executives whose compensation and stock options are decided more on a short term rather than a long term basis.
I remember Ford knowing about the flaw that made Pintos explode but Lee Iaccoca did not want to spend the $11 a car on the fix because it might delay the rollout and the figured the payout on some fatalities would cost less.
This post was edited on 7/27/19 at 10:19 am
0
Posted on 7/27/19 at 10:17 am to N2cars
quote:
I'm certainly no expert, but a lot of this (design, getting plane certified) was done to avoid calling it a "new" plane.
And of course, the FAA just lapped it up.
Absolutely what happened. The FAA was complicit in a corrupt lacknof oversight to help an American company try to compete against a European one.
Posted on 7/27/19 at 10:18 am to Jester
Who thought it was a good idea to design an unstable airframe/engine combo that needs software to not pitch up
Posted on 7/27/19 at 10:19 am to Jester
quote:I'd like to learn more about that. Everything I've read has laid the blame on the on-board software misreading flight status and adjusting incorrectly.
False. The software was created to try to override shitty hardware.
Posted on 7/27/19 at 10:19 am to Strannix
quote:
Who thought it was a good idea to design an unstable airframe/engine combo that needs software to not pitch up
Um, that's rhetorical, right?
Posted on 7/27/19 at 10:21 am to LSURussian
Posted on 7/27/19 at 10:21 am to Jester
quote:
False. The software was created to try to override shitty hardware.
What is the point to having a system in place that the pilot can’t shut off? If all objective data shows the plane is wrong? How can a pilot not override it and manually fly the plane?
Posted on 7/27/19 at 10:22 am to N2cars
I had these on my bed. Wonder why I still have night terrors. Strange.
Anyway, imagine that on a PLANE
Posted on 7/27/19 at 10:24 am to danfraz
I'll pass.
Posted on 7/27/19 at 10:26 am to N2cars
quote:
of course, the FAA just lapped it up.
the Feds, and I'm no cheerleader for the FAA, actually push back against that a lot harder than one might think
Posted on 7/27/19 at 10:28 am to 777Tiger
You would no better than most. 
I've seen large primes get their way more often not.
I've seen large primes get their way more often not.
Posted on 7/27/19 at 10:29 am to N2cars
Thanks. That was an enlightening read.
Posted on 7/27/19 at 10:33 am to LSURussian
I thought it had something to do with a secondary pitot tube or something placed in the wrong position, and they wrote the entire flight software based off of that. Maybe that was a dream though
Posted on 7/27/19 at 10:35 am to N2cars
quote:
I've seen large primes get their way more often not.
back in the 90s the airlines, and mine was one of them, tried to get them to sign off on grouping the 737, 757/767, and the 777 as one common type rating, FAA rejected that, probably wanted to drug test the airline reps, they wouldn't even buy off on considering the 767-400 as common to the older 767 family, the airlines took another shot at asking that the 777 and 787 share a common type.. fuhgeddahbowdit!!!
Posted on 7/27/19 at 10:43 am to RedRifle
Posted on 7/27/19 at 10:44 am to danfraz
Posted on 7/27/19 at 10:47 am to LSURussian
The best thing I've seen on the issues.
Posted on 7/27/19 at 10:49 am to RedRifle
My buddy is an ex F-14 pilot and flys for United. He said that US pilots never would have crashed, he said you can just manually detach the rudders(sorry lack of official plane knowledge) or whatever is causing the dive. Doesn’t mean the issue still doesn’t need fixing though. He said most eastern pilots never take the plane offf auto pilot
Posted on 7/27/19 at 10:49 am to 777Tiger
And yet, they let these two (IMO) dissimilar airplanes be called the "same".
Posted on 7/27/19 at 10:50 am to Strannix
quote:
Who thought it was a good idea to design an unstable airframe/engine combo that needs software to not pitch up
Boeing Exec's.
Page 2 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News