Quote:

---

The Best Analysis Of What Really Happened To The Boeing 737 Max From A Pilot & Software Engineer

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"As I recall, the problem with the Airbus flight was that it hit really bad weather. That plane is highly automated, and the pilots simply didn't know how to keep the plane from crashing because they were undertrained in manual flight control."

I haven't looked it up, but I believe one of the problems with that plane is that it has only one airspeed sensor, whose port iced-up. That caused a faulty reading that the autopilot tried to correct.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"As I recall, the problem with the Airbus flight was that it hit really bad weather. That plane is highly automated, and the pilots simply didn't know how to keep the plane from crashing because they were undertrained in manual flight control."

I haven't looked it up, but I believe one of the problems with that plane is that it has only one airspeed sensor, whose port iced-up. That caused a faulty reading that the autopilot tried to correct.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

This is what happens when we let computers do everything for us.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
You need to stop picking one sentence out of my posts and taking them out of context, shit for brains.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
This is what happens when we let computers do everything for us.

---

Wrong. The design would crash the plane when one sensor fails. One. Sensor. Fails. The people who work at Boeing knew this BEFORE THE CRASH. They spoke to the Seattle Times, which kept their names secret because otherwise they will be fired from Boeing. The Times wants to write future stories about Boeing and it wants its sources to continue working there.
www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/failed-certification-fa
a-missed-safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
For most of Aviation History, Investigation of Catastrophic Failures focused on how many seconds elapsed after the "Oh Shit" moment, signifying when the Pilot-in-Command realized there was a serious problem - and striving to find a solution which could have been implemented instead of the actions which resulted in the failure.
Now that birds are flown by computer, there is almost never an Oh Shit moment - it has been replaced by the "What's It Doing?" Query. Meaning the Pilot-in-Command wonders what is the Flight Computer doing.

There seems to be some confusion between Computer Controlled Flight and Auto Pilot.
IIRC, there were 4 Categories of Auto-Pilot. Including Flight from 400 ft of Altitude after Takeoff until the final 400 ft of Approach to Landing. And from 200ft beginning to end. And 100 ft begin to end. And entire sequence from Takeoff until Touchdown and Stop. That last one was never allowed to be selected on the Auto Pilot. I believe that one was Category 1. I believe the 400 ft one was Category IV, and that was the only selection I ever saw selected when installing the Auto Pilot.

Auto Pilots have been used since at least the 1970s, and I think the 1960s.

It is not really the Auto Pilot which is causing failures, it is the Flight Computers, and the lack of experience ingrained in Pilots who no longer ever fly the bird.

Airbus has been the most Safety-Designed birds built.
Frozen Pitot Tubes are a known potential failure. When Pilots depart Visual Flight Rules flight, they are required to dedicate complete faith to Instruments. Without visual reference due to dark, fog, etc, they must trust the instrument readings to be true indicators of Airspeed, A-o-A, Altitude, Bank. When the first 2 Pitot Tubes freeze up, caution should be exercised before relying upon the final.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

In the case of one sensor, the Pilot was able to have enough sense to know what corrective flight control to attempt, but the Flight Computer kept overriding the Pilot's efforts, because we gave the computer the authority to do everything for us. Even when it is wrong. Computers do not have a self-preservation instinct, but Pilots do.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
No matter what the issue or event, we can always count on SECOND to find a way to say It's All Trump's Fault. So despite the fact that the max series design was begun in 2011 and Boeing was in constant communication with the FAA during the design and certification process (for example, the FAA had to approve the request to certify the max series as a "modification" instead of as a whole new design) I think we can take as a given that SECOND will work Trump into the thread somehow, and ignore anything it posts aloong those lines.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Several FAA technical experts said in interviews that as certification proceeded, managers prodded them to speed the process. Development of the MAX was lagging nine months behind the rival Airbus A320neo. Time was of the essence for Boeing.

A former FAA safety engineer who was directly involved in certifying the MAX said that halfway through the certification process, “we were asked by management to re-evaluate what would be delegated. Management thought we had retained too much at the FAA. There was constant pressure to re-evaluate our initial decisions,” the former engineer said. “And even after we had reassessed it … there was continued discussion by management about delegating even more items down to the Boeing Company.”

Even the work that was retained, such as reviewing technical documents provided by Boeing, was sometimes curtailed.

“There wasn’t a complete and proper review of the documents,” the former engineer added. “Review was rushed to reach certain certification dates.”

When time was too short for FAA technical staff to complete a review, sometimes managers either signed off on the documents themselves or delegated their review back to Boeing.

www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/failed-certification-fa
a-missed-safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Several FAA technical experts said in interviews that as certification proceeded, managers prodded them to speed the process. Development of the MAX was lagging nine months behind the rival Airbus A320neo. Time was of the essence for Boeing.

A former FAA safety engineer who was directly involved in certifying the MAX said that halfway through the certification process, “we were asked by management to re-evaluate what would be delegated. Management thought we had retained too much at the FAA. There was constant pressure to re-evaluate our initial decisions,” the former engineer said. “And even after we had reassessed it … there was continued discussion by management about delegating even more items down to the Boeing Company.”

Even the work that was retained, such as reviewing technical documents provided by Boeing, was sometimes curtailed.

“There wasn’t a complete and proper review of the documents,” the former engineer added. “Review was rushed to reach certain certification dates.”

When time was too short for FAA technical staff to complete a review, sometimes managers either signed off on the documents themselves or delegated their review back to Boeing.

www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/failed-certification-fa
a-missed-safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/

---

Wasn't the redesign and certification all begun in 2011? Remind me who was president then. Because I'm sure that president had to sign the budget or risk a shutdown.
Or are you not talking about the 2011-2016 period when the plane was being redesigned and put into service, and instead conflating two unrelated things?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
This is what happens when we let computers do everything for us.

---

Wrong. The design would crash the plane when one sensor fails. One. Sensor. Fails. The people who work at Boeing knew this BEFORE THE CRASH. They spoke to the Seattle Times, which kept their names secret because otherwise they will be fired from Boeing. The Times wants to write future stories about Boeing and it wants its sources to continue working there.
www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/failed-certification-fa
a-missed-safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/

---

Here you are wrong again, as usual. 6ix made a correct statement.
Just like today's kids don't know how to do math, because their handheld device tells them what to think, today's Pilots do not have the experience of flying planes, enduring long boring flights while at the controls.
Perhaps 6ix did not intend this context, but his statement is accurate.

In the case of one sensor, the Pilot was able to have enough sense to know what corrective flight control to attempt, but the Flight Computer kept overriding the Pilot's efforts, because we gave the computer the authority to do everything for us. Even when it is wrong. Computers do not have a self-preservation instinct, but Pilots do.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
This is what happens when we let computers do everything for us.

---

Wrong. The design would crash the plane when one sensor fails. One. Sensor. Fails. The people who work at Boeing knew this BEFORE THE CRASH. They spoke to the Seattle Times, which kept their names secret because otherwise they will be fired from Boeing. The Times wants to write future stories about Boeing and it wants its sources to continue working there.
www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/failed-certification-fa
a-missed-safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/

---

Here you are wrong again, as usual. 6ix made a correct statement.
Just like today's kids don't know how to do math, because their handheld device tells them what to think, today's Pilots do not have the experience of flying planes, enduring long boring flights while at the controls.
Perhaps 6ix did not intend this context, but his statement is accurate.

In the case of one sensor, the Pilot was able to have enough sense to know what corrective flight control to attempt, but the Flight Computer kept overriding the Pilot's efforts, because we gave the computer the authority to do everything for us. Even when it is wrong. Computers do not have a self-preservation instinct, but Pilots do.

---

That, and more, was my intent. Not only don't they get any experience, literally being able to doze off while "piloting" as if it were a night job at a hospital security desk, but the qualifications for such a job have much lower standards than they used to as well.

You see it everywhere. That's why companies can't wait to fire the old dogs, no matter how much experience and knowledge they had, when they can hire three new idiots out of college for what they were being paid.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Would you like to guess what are the 2 most worn out spots for each seat location, total of 4 per cockpit?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Would you like to guess what are the 2 most worn out spots for each seat location, total of 4 per cockpit?

---

I couldn't possibly guess, but I'd sure like to know!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Those required actions were in the AvE video.

Basically you have to shut off the power to the electronics. That supposes that you've adequately troubleshot the plane ... while falling like a stone from the sky... to realize that the trouble is in the software or electronics and not hydraulic or mechanical or even meteorological (microburst).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

I've also said it was SELECTIVE and MALICIOUS POLITICALLY-MOTIVATED prosecution, which - while not technically illegal, certainly tells me that the the FBI, CIA, DOJ, NSA etc are NOT above politics, and reduces my confidence in these institutions greatly.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SECOND:
The grand jury and the ordinary jury exist to stop "selective and malicious politically-motivated prosecution" of Boeing or Trump. That is 2 dozen citizens volunteering to oversee prosecutors on each case. That's enough to keep it safe. Or do you think prosecutors need a third and fourth jury? A grander jury and the grandest jury in addition to the grand jury and the plain-vanilla jury?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Well I noticed that SLOPPY SECONDS totally ignored the probable illegal aspects of the so- called "investigation" by the FBI.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I've also said it was SELECTIVE and MALICIOUS POLITICALLY-MOTIVATED prosecution, which - while not technically illegal, certainly tells me that the the FBI, CIA, DOJ, NSA etc are NOT above politics, and reduces my confidence in these institutions greatly.

---

The grand jury and the ordinary jury exist to stop "selective and malicious politically-motivated prosecution" of Boeing or Trump. That is 2 dozen citizens volunteering to oversee prosecutors on each case. That's enough to keep it safe. Or do you think prosecutors need a third and fourth jury? A grander jury and the grandest jury in addition to the grand jury and the plain-vanilla jury?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I've also said it was SELECTIVE and MALICIOUS POLITICALLY-MOTIVATED prosecution, which - while not technically illegal, certainly tells me that the the FBI, CIA, DOJ, NSA etc are NOT above politics, and reduces my confidence in these institutions greatly.

---

The grand jury and the ordinary jury exist to stop "selective and malicious politically-motivated prosecution" of Boeing or Trump. That is 2 dozen citizens volunteering to oversee prosecutors on each case. That's enough to keep it safe. Or do you think prosecutors need a third and fourth jury? A grander jury and the grandest jury in addition to the grand jury and the plain-vanilla jury?

---

Another example of a Troll. This Troll believes Citizens are not spoon-fed pablum from Prosecutors. That Grand Juries never indict an innocent victim. That Juries never convict an innocent victim. That Grand Juries won't Indict a ham sandwich. That no innocent victims have ever been imprisoned.

Beginning to blur the line between Troll and Tool.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I remember the good old days when the Democrats were absolutely against alphabet agencies like the FBI. For, yanno, making people disappear and stuff like that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
In a thread about the 737 max, whose f design began in 2011 smack dab in the middle of the Obama administration andwhose continuing reviews occurred mostly under Obama's reign, SECONDRATE brings up Trump.

Why?

Because SECONDRATE is an unhinged hater who should be ignored until he comes to his senses.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
In a thread about the 737 max, whose f design began in 2011 smack dab in the middle of the Obama administration andwhose continuing reviews occurred mostly under Obama's reign, SECONDRATE brings up Trump.

Why?

Because SECONDRATE is an unhinged hater who should be ignored until he comes to his senses.

---

Somebody is overly optimistic about the future.

Push too hard, he'll blame it on Bush.

---

Quote:

---

In a thread about the 737 max, whose f design began in 2011 smack dab in the middle of the Obama administration andwhose continuing reviews occurred mostly under Obama's reign, SECONDRATE brings up Trump.
Why?
Because SECONDRATE is an unhinged hater who should be ignored until he comes to his senses.- SIGNY

Somebody is overly optimistic about the future.
Push too hard, he'll blame it on Bush.- SIX

Blah blah blah ... In 2004 ...

---