Re: Criminal Negligence and/or Corporate Malfeasance? Those are a Rock and a Hard Place
Fair point, hand't thought of that...
209 posts • joined 5 Jun 2007
Your car is required (provided that you are in Europe and it has been built recently) to have daytime running lights, thus obviating the need to manually turn on your headlights if it happens to rain during the day.
The mainstream media seems to keep misrepresenting the role of MCAS.
It is not a simple anti-still mechanism. There is a stick pusher for that.
I am pasting a very clear explanation of what MCAS does and why it came to be. Credit to FCeng84 (https://www.pprune.org/member.php?u=291487) from PPRune for this post.
"There is a cert requirement that as AOA increases, the nose up pilot command required must not decrease. This is demonstrated at fixed thrust levels so there is no change in thrust pitching moment. The 737MAX issue here that gives rise to the need for MCAS is that as AOA increases the lift provided by the engine cowling that is so large and mounted so far forward of the wing causes a nose up pitching moment that results is a decrease in the column pull needed to maintain a steady positive AOA rate. That characteristic is not compliant with the requirements. MCAS comes active during this maneuver putting in nose down stabilizer that must be countered by the column. The net effect of engine cowling lift and MCAS nose down stabilizer as AOA increases is that the column needed to complete the maneuver does not decrease part way through the range of AOA for which characteristics must be demonstrated. 737MAX without MCAS fails the cert demo. 737MAX with MCAS passes the cert demo."
It exists to make sure that the "feel of the aeroplane" is consistent across increasing Angles of Attack in order to pass certification, not as a protection against stall as such.
That said, that is more or less irrelevant. The engineering of it (one single data feed? Seriously?) and the certification process (the manufacturer self-certifies? Seriously?) are critical issues which, I believe, are rooted in complacency: 2017 was the first year in aviation history where not a single life was lost to commercial aviation.
It's sad to see that this flagship industry is starting to let its guard down.
Good to see their business and broadband “customer service” emulates my experience with their mobile phone products.
I have never experienced such incompetence in my life (and having had a brief contract with BT, that’s saying something) and I was pleased I managed to get the hell out within the 14 day cooling off period.
Still, at least their CS experience is consistent across all their products...
The days when people all sit on front of the telly watching the same thing at the same time are over.
People consume content intermittently and at whatever time is convenient for them. Multicast doesn’t fix the problem in that model.
In Portugal at least, multicast is used for “live” IPTV already.
I see where you're coming from but have to disagree with you.
Loopholes are, by definition, technicalities that allow you to defeat the spirit of the law because it was shoddily implemented.
You may well be doing something that is not technically illegal but you know damn well that your intent is certainly not pure.
Was it Einstein that said "Never put down to malice what can be easily explained by human stupidity"? And also "There are only two infinite things, the Universe and human stupidity. And I'm not so sure about the first"?
I'm still putting my money on malice, though. The whole thing is just so very suspicious...
Well, I’m assuming the terms and conditions of .eu registration precede Brexit by a significant number of years.
If all along they clearly stated that "Any natural person, company or organisation residing in or established in the European Union, Iceland, Liechtenstein or Norway can register a .eu or .ею (Cyrillic script) domain name." then it seems to me like they’re simply applying them to the letter...
Also “register a domain” does not simply mean the act of actively registering but also the ongoing fact of owning the domain name so whilst letting it lapse rather than cancelling the registrations would be a practical and pragmatic approach, cancellation is pretty much in line with the T&Cs registrants agreed to.
You are right but my one misgiving is that you’re relying on an notorious data slurper to run those services (I’m assuming you use Google products but am happy to be corrected) and whilst I agree on most of the above comments about the extortionate pricing, I still see Apple as pretty much the only large tech company willing to fight for your privacy. I avoid Google like the plague.
That has value to me and makes their products contenders and difficult to compare side by side to other manufacturers, but it is of course a value that varies from person to person and is difficult to put a price to.
I am more than half tempted to believe they never were a security threat, but I absolutely do not buy the promise that they never will be so.
I think there’s probably good reason for some degree of paranoia, but then again all major state actors are rotten apples from the same rotting tree...
Oh, how I miss lugging my 486DX and monitor and keyboard and all that malarkey to my mate’s for a LAN party.
Internet wasn’t as ubiquitous in Portugal back in the day so it was a lot easier and a lot more fun to get all your mates together and plug all the boxes into an Ethernet hub and spend a whole night fragging each other (hur hur) on Quake.
Man, why am I so *old*?
Unfortunately, Google have now become "that sinister company" in my mind and as far as I'm concerned their brand is so toxic that I won't touch any of their services with a bargepole.
I am well aware that I am in the minority but I can only wonder just how much more personal data they can harvest from that particular service...
“Sounds like that angle of attack sensor should be triplicated. How else can the software decide which sensor is bad, if both produce plausible values (one being wrong, but not impossibly so).
- And the same for goes for all other safety-critical sensors.”
Yes, I’m somewhat perplexed by the lack of a “tie breaker”.
Again, comparing with the Airbus implementation:
The Airbus aircraft generally have 3 ADIRUs (Air Data and Inertial Referencing Units), each with its own AoA sensor. And yes, there is a voting system so that a rogue sensor will merely cause a DISAGREE state and is disregarded, rather than something potentially rather more catastrophic.
“If the priority button remains pressed for more than 45 seconds, then the other stick will he disabled for the remainder of the flight.
That's not good.”
If you have a faulty stick it makes sense to disable it rather than constantly taking priority every few seconds and risk an unexpected random input at a critical time, IMHO.
Also.... The issue with that particular AF flight was multifactorial (as these things often are) and started before the actual event (as these things often do).
In a very very quick summary, there were significant training issues. Losing Air Data at high altitude is serious but it's fairly trivial to maintain level flight using Thrust and Attitude (pitch up measurement) alone. There are tables for that in the manual: ""For this thrust, at this weight, with this pitch, this plane will fly at approximately this altitude and continue doing so").
The choice of route (straight through a thunderstorm from which other planes had deviated) was probably a determinant factor and indicated the complacency of the pilots and the over confidence in the superiority of the technology (the last point being driven home by the fact that the copilot had a full nose up input on the stick for most of the incident which is a schoolboy error when dealing with a stall, because he assumed the alpha-protections would keep the plane from stalling). That the Captain was absent from the flight deck when the plane entered the storm cell again may suggest complacency or a lack of awareness of the risk.
It was all very sad and it is easy to analyse with the retrospectoscope but ultimately the software did exactly what it should do and the plane should not have come down.
Then again I wasn't there and the barrage of inconsistent warnings and failures would probably have overwhelmed me as well.
Whenever the two side stick receive a command, there is a very loud DUAL INPUT aural and visual warning on the FMA.
The end result of the command to the plane is the sum of the vectors of both inputs (so a full “pitch down” input would effectively nullify a “full pitch up input”).
Moreover, there is a SidestIck Priority button which, when pressed, disables the other one, gives a loud PRIORITY LEFT/RIGHT aural warning and a visual warning on the console of the pilot who lost priority. This is in case a stick fails and starts sending weird inputs.
Having long deleted my Facebook and Twitter accounts (and recently Instagram), I am probably a bit biased.
But I do wonder if the perceived benefits of social media actually outweigh the fact that we’re putting the sickest, most depraved, most horrifying aspects of human nature in a platform where they are now accessible to everyone.
Or maybe I’m just getting old and grumpy.
If the experience on my iPad is anything to go by, I’d rather have the two physical SIMs any day.
Also, am I the only one thinking that this puts WAY too much power on apple’s side?
The handset should be utterly network agnostic and log into whichever network it has a SIM for.
eSIM means networks will have to actually engage with Apple in order to allow their offers to show up on a selection menu.
I suspect it may be free now but what’s to stop Apple charging networks for the privilege?
Been with Three for years and their data performance has been getting crappier pretty much everywhere I go, which is a shame.
Tried Vodafone a couple of years ago and the shambles with C/S was such that even if they scored top of the ranking I still wouldn’t touch them with a barge pole.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019