Tutti
← Back to Squawk list
Software Patches - Perfume for a Pig?
I am curious to hear what members think of this article. I have written commercial firmware and software for non-aviation controller applications and I know that a LOT can be done to make the user think the performance has been enhanced by a patch. Sometimes a patch fixes a "bug" (in this case a bug is piece of erroneous code) and that is a good thing. But sometimes a patch compensates for a hardware design flaw. This article makes me think that Boeing is up to the latter. Comments? (www.zdnet.com) Altro...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Why would anyone listen to a moron who calls the FDR a "black box" This reporter/moron does it 4 times
As a software designer myself, I agree that this patch appears to be an attempt to paper over a design flaw. What's particularly galling is that MCAS only takes input from one AOA sensor. So much for redundancy. I would never consider flying my Cessna 172 on only one magneto; why should the designers of the 737 MAX give up redundancy when the consequences are - as we have been graphically shown - so severe?
To date , i have read two different concerns , both regarding the weight ,size and positioning of these larger engines . In one comment it is said that the engines were moved closer to the wings leading edge with a shortened pylon , to reduce twisting and bouncing stresses on the pylons . This effectively moved the centre of balance backwards , which gives the aircraft a nasty habit of pitching up during the high angle of attack during the climb out . With the weight shift towards the back , it makes for the possibility of the nose to suddenly pitch rapidly up and above a safe climb angle . Hence ...MCAS . This is the scenario that i feel is correct .In the 2nd comment where the engines are moved up and forward , with all other things unchanged , this would cause the nose to have a natural tendency to want to drop ,and not suddenly pitch up . So i do not believe this scenario .In either case it is my belief that the Max-8 and -9 have a centre of balance problem , that Boeing has tried to solve with MCAS . It is my belief that no Program will solve the out of balance problem . That is my humble opinion . I'd love to hear from others ,about my comments , and thanks for letting me share my views .
The article clearly points out that the plane is safe as long as the proper training is received. Both US and European agencies said so. The issue appears to be Boeing not providing the training to the airlines (cost savings), not that the aircraft itself is flawed.
Have you ever heard of a flight critical system without redundancy?
ZDNET readers - See what airline enthusiasts are saying about your article "Boeing 737 Max: Software patches can only do so much" Time to engage flyers with system design engineers"