Bad day for Boeing

[AnalHamster]

There was no redundancy option to purchase, just a warning light option and a warning light boeing mistakenly didn't hook up correctly.

There are two redundancies available for purchase

Nope.

Yep, and all the major American carriers purchased them. Better check up on it, GoogleFurhrer

I take it from the silence you now grasp what a redundant system actually is. Maybe you should work on your googlage.

[AnalHamster]

There was no redundancy option to purchase, just a warning light option and a warning light boeing mistakenly didn't hook up correctly.

There are two redundancies available for purchase

Nope.

Yep, and all the major American carriers purchased them. Better check up on it, GoogleFurhrer

I take it from the silence you now grasp what a redundant system actually is. Maybe you should work on your googlage.

Nah, just not going to debate with someone who doesn’t know jack shit.

Well you're wrong and you know you are, so now you have to necro. What do you think redundancy means? Name the redundant systems for MCAS that you claim US airlines bought.

You cannot answer those simple questions because you understand you are wrong. It was a critical system with a single point of failure and zero redundancies. I doubt you'll have the balls to clarify, but I assume what you mistakenly thought were redundancies were actually an optional warning light showing an AOA disagree, and an optional display showing the output of both AOA sensors. The first warning light wasn't even intended to be an optional extra, it simply didn't work unless the optional display had been purchased due to another fuckup by boeing. They caught it before either crash had occurred and decided it wasn't important enough to tell anyone. Neither feature would have affected the operation of MCAS in any way, since there were no redundancies built in to that. If pilots had been made aware MCAS existed, and also had the warning lights, it may have clued them in to which critical system had failed, but that is not a redundancy, it is a warning. Dodge away.

[AnalHamster]

Nope.

Yep, and all the major American carriers purchased them. Better check up on it, GoogleFurhrer

I take it from the silence you now grasp what a redundant system actually is. Maybe you should work on your googlage.

Nah, just not going to debate with someone who doesn’t know jack shit.

Well you're wrong and you know you are, so now you have to necro. What do you think redundancy means? Name the redundant systems for MCAS that you claim US airlines bought.

You cannot answer those simple questions because you understand you are wrong. It was a critical system with a single point of failure and zero redundancies. I doubt you'll have the balls to clarify, but I assume what you mistakenly thought were redundancies were actually an optional warning light showing an AOA disagree, and an optional display showing the output of both AOA sensors. The first warning light wasn't even intended to be an optional extra, it simply didn't work unless the optional display had been purchased due to another fuckup by boeing. They caught it before either crash had occurred and decided it wasn't important enough to tell anyone. Neither feature would have affected the operation of MCAS in any way, since there were no redundancies built in to that. If pilots had been made aware MCAS existed, and also had the warning lights, it may have clued them in to which critical system had failed, but that is not a redundancy, it is a warning. Dodge away.

Sorry, Wikifurhrer, I know and speak with people in the industry all the time, including pilots. Run along and refine your Googling skills

Yeah, I remember last time I proved you wrong on things you claimed secret knowledge too. Try proving it, Liar.

What do you think redundancy means? Name or describe the redundant systems for MCAS that you claim US airlines bought. You have to avoid these questions because they prove you wrong. Man up, don't be a necro.

Did the CEO email you about secret redundancies that you can't reveal, is that why you have to pretend you can't see the question?

[AnalHamster]

Did the report come out?

The preliminary report did and you welched, you welcher. Still waiting on the final reports, but since the CEO got demoted, the hearings are finding they knew in advance and kept it quiet, hundreds of people are dead and the planes are still grounded, I'm quietly confident.

Don't worry though, I'm like totally gracious in victory. Not going to rub it in at all.

I didnt welch, as the prelim report is not the official report

Planes will be back by February

737 max production has now been suspended, because they won't.

Seems boeing are having some trouble making their lemon airworthy. As I flagged up months ago, it's not actually possible to fix this without pilot retraining, and they tried to make not needing to do that a major selling point. They slid MCAS in by the backdoor to try and get around a problem with changing the flight envelope, significantly, by shoving bigger engines on a 1960s airframe after airbus caught them with their pants down with the neo. No need to train pilots to deal with the problems they created if a computer did it for them. Then the computer fix killed people. Whoopsie daisy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50817124

[AnalHamster]

Have you figured out what the redundancy options are yet? I suppose its not Googlable

There were none. You were mistaken. I have pointed this out already.

Usually when you make a blatant mistake like that you just run away, which avoids most of the humiliation, yet here you are bringing it up again poor fool. You cannot state what the imaginary redundancies were because they did not exist. A warning light is not a redundant system.

Go ahead and prove me wrong if you can, you lying tit.

[AnalHamster]

Have you figured out what the redundancy options are yet? I suppose its not Googlable

There were none. You were mistaken. I have pointed this out already.

Usually when you make a blatant mistake like that you just run away, which avoids most of the humiliation, yet here you are bringing it up again poor fool. You cannot state what the imaginary redundancies were because they did not exist. A warning light is not a redundant system.

Go ahead and prove me wrong if you can, you lying tit.

Youre a fool. I actually speak with pilots and airline executives unlike you, Googlefuhrer

Yeah right, and you get fake news from the CEO direct by email, liar.

I'm stating you are wrong, there was no redundant system available which is why you cannot name it. Pretty simple, your stupid mistake was falsely believing 'redundant system' means 'warning light'. All you would have to do to prove me wrong is state what redundancy was available, shouldn't be too hard to find if it existed, your problem is it didn't.

[AnalHamster]

QED.

[AnalHamster]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... res-report

Dipshit

What do you think that says? Do you know what a redundant system is? You keep trying to pretend you know something about this topic yet you cannot answer that. Hint: It is not a warning light, which is the claim you have yet again tried to make there dummy.

[AnalHamster]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... res-report

Dipshit

What do you think that says? Do you know what a redundant system is? You keep trying to pretend you know something about this topic yet you cannot answer that. Hint: It is not a warning light, which is the claim you have yet again tried to make there dummy.

Those are safety options for the Max. Youre Google skills are declining.

They are warning lights, yes. So are you claiming that a warning light is a redundant system? In other words, are you admitting you do not know what a redundant system is?

Such a simple question you have to run away from, you poor lying fool. Sucks you be you.

[AnalHamster]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... res-report

Dipshit

What do you think that says? Do you know what a redundant system is? You keep trying to pretend you know something about this topic yet you cannot answer that. Hint: It is not a warning light, which is the claim you have yet again tried to make there dummy.

Those are safety options for the Max. Youre Google skills are declining.

They are warning lights, yes. So are you claiming that a warning light is a redundant system? In other words, are you admitting you do not know what a redundant system is?

Such a simple question you have to run away from, you poor lying fool. Sucks you be you.

Here are my choices:

Believe the commercial pilots and airline executive or believe the Googlefurher? Tough one

Believe what? That a warning light is a redundant system? No commercial pilot or fictional airline executive would claim that, that's just you being stupid and refusing to admit you can see the words.

[Wut]

I think we need to empanel a UJ jury to resolve this dispute.

[Antknot]

We can't even prove if s.murph is alive or dead. And we supposedly have members living in the same city.

[CaptQuint]

We can't even prove I'd s.Murphy is alive or dead. And we supposedly have members living in the same city.

Slap posted the obit, he's gone

[AnalHamster]

This one is a little simpler than proving if smurph is dead (he is), a redundant system is one where there is an actual redundancy, as in a backup for something that could fail. A simple example of a redundancy is one Boeing belatedly introduced to MCAS - instead of relying on a single sensor, it now relies on two, and will deactivate if they disagree. There is a redundant sensor, one that is only necessary if the other fails. This is what the words mean. A warning light is not a redundant system because it does not do the job of the failed system.

Is there a single person in the forum other than biker, who is only pretending not to understand, who cannot understand the simple meaning of the words? Even the obsessive fan club aren't chiming in on this one.

[DandyDon]

This one is a little simpler than proving if smurph is dead (he is), a redundant system is one where there is an actual redundancy, as in a backup for something that could fail. A simple example of a redundancy is one Boeing belatedly introduced to MCAS - instead of relying on a single sensor, it now relies on two, and will deactivate if they disagree. There is a redundant sensor, one that is only necessary if the other fails. This is what the words mean. A warning light is not a redundant system because it does not do the job of the failed system.

Is there a single person in the forum other than biker, who is only pretending not to understand, who cannot understand the simple meaning of the words? Even the obsessive fan club aren't chiming in on this one.

Pretty close, but not exactly accurate. A true redundant system will take over if there is a failure of system 1, yet still provide full functionality via system two. And you will never notice the change-over, except maybe a warning message or light.

[Antknot]

This one is a little simpler than proving if smurph is dead (he is), a redundant system is one where there is an actual redundancy, as in a backup for something that could fail. A simple example of a redundancy is one Boeing belatedly introduced to MCAS - instead of relying on a single sensor, it now relies on two, and will deactivate if they disagree. There is a redundant sensor, one that is only necessary if the other fails. This is what the words mean. A warning light is not a redundant system because it does not do the job of the failed system.

Is there a single person in the forum other than biker, who is only pretending not to understand, who cannot understand the simple meaning of the words? Even the obsessive fan club aren't chiming in on this one.

Pretty close, but not exactly accurate. A true redundant system will take over if there is a failure of system 1, yet still provide full functionality via system two. And you will never notice the change-over, except maybe a warning message or light.

Exactly. NASA has at least one system that uses 3 computers. If one doesn't match the others it is ignored. That way they know which system is in error.

[AnalHamster]

This one is a little simpler than proving if smurph is dead (he is), a redundant system is one where there is an actual redundancy, as in a backup for something that could fail. A simple example of a redundancy is one Boeing belatedly introduced to MCAS - instead of relying on a single sensor, it now relies on two, and will deactivate if they disagree. There is a redundant sensor, one that is only necessary if the other fails. This is what the words mean. A warning light is not a redundant system because it does not do the job of the failed system.

Is there a single person in the forum other than biker, who is only pretending not to understand, who cannot understand the simple meaning of the words? Even the obsessive fan club aren't chiming in on this one.

Pretty close, but not exactly accurate. A true redundant system will take over if there is a failure of system 1, yet still provide full functionality via system two. And you will never notice the change-over, except maybe a warning message or light.

Exactly. NASA has at least one system that uses 3 computers. If one doesn't match the others it is ignored. That way they know which system is in error.

Airbus actually have a similar system to MCAS, and have done for years but it relies on three sensors so it can ignore a bad one based on the other two rather than shutting down the whole system if one fails. Even that has suffered one fatal failure, when 2 sensors jammed and outvoted the third.

[FSchmertz]

This one is a little simpler than proving if smurph is dead (he is), a redundant system is one where there is an actual redundancy, as in a backup for something that could fail. A simple example of a redundancy is one Boeing belatedly introduced to MCAS - instead of relying on a single sensor, it now relies on two, and will deactivate if they disagree. There is a redundant sensor, one that is only necessary if the other fails. This is what the words mean. A warning light is not a redundant system because it does not do the job of the failed system.

Is there a single person in the forum other than biker, who is only pretending not to understand, who cannot understand the simple meaning of the words? Even the obsessive fan club aren't chiming in on this one.

Pretty close, but not exactly accurate. A true redundant system will take over if there is a failure of system 1, yet still provide full functionality via system two. And you will never notice the change-over, except maybe a warning message or light.

Exactly. NASA has at least one system that uses 3 computers. If one doesn't match the others it is ignored. That way they know which system is in error.

Airbus actually have a similar system to MCAS, and have done for years but it relies on three sensors so it can ignore a bad one based on the other two rather than shutting down the whole system if one fails. Even that has suffered one fatal failure, when 2 sensors jammed and outvoted the third.

If I recall correctly, the military version (maybe the neo though) was required to monitor both sensors, unlike the commercial. Apparently the military requires back up systems in their contracts.

[AnalHamster]

This one is a little simpler than proving if smurph is dead (he is), a redundant system is one where there is an actual redundancy, as in a backup for something that could fail. A simple example of a redundancy is one Boeing belatedly introduced to MCAS - instead of relying on a single sensor, it now relies on two, and will deactivate if they disagree. There is a redundant sensor, one that is only necessary if the other fails. This is what the words mean. A warning light is not a redundant system because it does not do the job of the failed system.

Is there a single person in the forum other than biker, who is only pretending not to understand, who cannot understand the simple meaning of the words? Even the obsessive fan club aren't chiming in on this one.

Pretty close, but not exactly accurate. A true redundant system will take over if there is a failure of system 1, yet still provide full functionality via system two. And you will never notice the change-over, except maybe a warning message or light.

Exactly. NASA has at least one system that uses 3 computers. If one doesn't match the others it is ignored. That way they know which system is in error.

Airbus actually have a similar system to MCAS, and have done for years but it relies on three sensors so it can ignore a bad one based on the other two rather than shutting down the whole system if one fails. Even that has suffered one fatal failure, when 2 sensors jammed and outvoted the third.

If I recall correctly, the military version (maybe the neo though) was required to monitor both sensors, unlike the commercial. Apparently the military requires back up systems in their contracts.

Yep and some airlines didnt buy purchase a single option, including Southwest

The only option they could possibly have purchased was a warning light. Only you think that is a redundant system, cos you're kinda ignorant.

[AnalHamster]

Exactly. NASA has at least one system that uses 3 computers. If one doesn't match the others it is ignored. That way they know which system is in error.

Airbus actually have a similar system to MCAS, and have done for years but it relies on three sensors so it can ignore a bad one based on the other two rather than shutting down the whole system if one fails. Even that has suffered one fatal failure, when 2 sensors jammed and outvoted the third.

If I recall correctly, the military version (maybe the neo though) was required to monitor both sensors, unlike the commercial. Apparently the military requires back up systems in their contracts.

Yep and some airlines didnt buy purchase a single option, including Southwest

The only option they could possibly have purchased was a warning light. Only you think that is a redundant system, cos you're kinda ignorant.

Nope, there are two options available. You have Google, I have peeps that actually work in the airlines. Sorry, bitch

Yes, we've been over this already. The two options were a warning light and another warning light. That is not a redundant system, it is just a warning light. I know you know this, that is why you can't admit seeing what I just typed and will yet again pretend you can't see it.

[DandyDon]

Exactly. NASA has at least one system that uses 3 computers. If one doesn't match the others it is ignored. That way they know which system is in error.

Airbus actually have a similar system to MCAS, and have done for years but it relies on three sensors so it can ignore a bad one based on the other two rather than shutting down the whole system if one fails. Even that has suffered one fatal failure, when 2 sensors jammed and outvoted the third.

If I recall correctly, the military version (maybe the neo though) was required to monitor both sensors, unlike the commercial. Apparently the military requires back up systems in their contracts.

Yep and some airlines didnt buy purchase a single option, including Southwest

The only option they could possibly have purchased was a warning light. Only you think that is a redundant system, cos you're kinda ignorant.

Nope, there are two options available. You have Google, I have peeps that actually work in the airlines. Sorry, bitch

Give it up biker. Your oil light is not a redundant system that will supply oil in case of a failure of your oil pump, it is a warning to stop the engine. Grow a pair and admit defeat.

[AnalHamster]

If I recall correctly, the military version (maybe the neo though) was required to monitor both sensors, unlike the commercial. Apparently the military requires back up systems in their contracts.

Yep and some airlines didnt buy purchase a single option, including Southwest

The only option they could possibly have purchased was a warning light. Only you think that is a redundant system, cos you're kinda ignorant.

Nope, there are two options available. You have Google, I have peeps that actually work in the airlines. Sorry, bitch

Give it up biker. Your oil light is not a redundant system that will supply oil in case of a failure of your oil pump, it is a warning to stop the engine. Grow a pair and admit defeat.

Nope, because I actually know pilots and execs. Hammy knows Google.

Ball game

Poor wittle biker stuck doing a necro

[AnalHamster]

Did the report come out?

The preliminary report did and you welched, you welcher. Still waiting on the final reports, but since the CEO got demoted, the hearings are finding they knew in advance and kept it quiet, hundreds of people are dead and the planes are still grounded, I'm quietly confident.

Don't worry though, I'm like totally gracious in victory. Not going to rub it in at all.

I didnt welch, as the prelim report is not the official report

Planes will be back by February

737 max production has now been suspended, because they won't.

Seems boeing are having some trouble making their lemon airworthy. As I flagged up months ago, it's not actually possible to fix this without pilot retraining, and they tried to make not needing to do that a major selling point. They slid MCAS in by the backdoor to try and get around a problem with changing the flight envelope, significantly, by shoving bigger engines on a 1960s airframe after airbus caught them with their pants down with the neo. No need to train pilots to deal with the problems they created if a computer did it for them. Then the computer fix killed people. Whoopsie daisy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50817124

Do you know why they suspended production? Quick, head to Google, bitch

They can't get clearance for their lemon to fly after 2 fatal crashes due to a failed attempt to fix a problem they created by putting modern engines on a 1960s airframe, plus a few more issues that showed up when the FAA actually did its job, having failed to do so initially due to a corrupted process partly farmed out to boeing. It's actually pretty straightforward, they already have a backlog of 400 finished jets (pending upgrades) that they can't deliver and don't know when they can.

Boeing has delayed their software fix again. It's a pretty straightforward bit of coding - take readings from 2 sensors instead of 1, don't kamikaze if they disagree, and tell the pilots what the plane thinks is happening. I'm guessing the hold up is that implementing the simple fix means they reintroduce the stall problem from the bigger engines on a 50 year old airframe that wasn't designed to take them. Major pilot retraining costs for airlines if they can't get around it, with boeing on the hook for it.

Well golly gee whiz, looks like someone predicted both the fix they'd have to bring in and the additional problems that would create back in April. Maybe I got a secret email from the CEO..

[Wut]

If I recall correctly, the military version (maybe the neo though) was required to monitor both sensors, unlike the commercial. Apparently the military requires back up systems in their contracts.

Yep and some airlines didnt buy purchase a single option, including Southwest

The only option they could possibly have purchased was a warning light. Only you think that is a redundant system, cos you're kinda ignorant.

Nope, there are two options available. You have Google, I have peeps that actually work in the airlines. Sorry, bitch

Give it up biker. Your oil light is not a redundant system that will supply oil in case of a failure of your oil pump, it is a warning to stop the engine. Grow a pair and admit defeat.

Nope, because I actually know pilots and execs. Hammy knows Google.

Ball game

Why don't you disclose your super secret knowledge for the rest of us?

[CaptQuint]

Because Republicans make claim without evidence, it's like breathing to them.