/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10478489
Graduating with a low a grade

It is the fault of code monkeys/software “engineers”, not real engineers.

software engineers too busy tugging themselves off over pictures of their competitor's Starship Hopper like the cucks they are.

>>10478497
this

you design a circuit that automatically noses the plane down and dont tell the pilots it's there or give them any way to turn it off

>>10478537
the cause of the crash was not so much faulty design but insufficient training overseas which is both boeings and the airlines fault because they green light this shit, the retards that think boeing would favor money over safety when thier product hinges on safety and is paramount to success are retarded, it was just a major mismanage, that happens and they will pay

>>10478489

By not checking their work, same as every other engineer. But this has nothing to do with the 737-MAX's problems, the vehicle is not defective it's autopilot control software is. If you want a more serious, in-depth response either check the corresponding thread on >>>/n/ or go into the RC plane thread on >>>/diy/ and ask them about their accidents.

Also, just in general even the "best" airplanes still have stress limits that can be exceeded if the pilot preforms unsafe maneuvers at high speed. For example, on 9/11 the hijackers didn't nose the planes over into the towers but glided them in slowly so they could maintain control whereas Flight 93's hijackers went full power and nosedived the plane when they scrubbed it wrecking their hydraulic control systems in the process.

>>10478497
>>10478534

Boeing doesn't outsource their software or use h1bs for it. This doesn't exonerate them (how jewish do you have to be to push an untested software update onto airplanes given to airlines with poor pilot training) but it has nothing to do with immigrants or migration. There's plenty of companies to accuse of outsourcing IT/programming (Marriott, Delta, Equifax, the DCCC among others) but Boeing isn't one of them simply because they own so much. This is the power of a monopoly.

>>10478583
Management is to blame. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the managers decided to lower costs by offshoring software duties to street shitters.

>>10479359
>>10478583
Guess I am wrong. Expected pajeet coders when I heard the story

I work at an aerospace institute and no way I'll ever fly something they've constructed.

>>10478497
Dumb engineer, you're no better than code monkeys

>>10478497
It's not the software at fault though. It was the large engine and their low hanging position that was decided by shitty mechanical and aviation engineers. They then gave up fixing the inherent instability of the aeroplane and begged the software guys for a solution.

>>10479449
no it was the senso again and the pilots not being able to override it from insufciient training

They hired retarded engineers who graduated from shitty state schools.

>>10479406
I work at the lazy B and I don't fly anymore

>>10478489
>contruct
Same way as in typing, typos happen.
The real question is, how do you get a defective aircraft to pass tests and get certified?

>>10479469
edit: the sensor reading data incorrectly then initiating anti stall software ruining the trajectory of the plane, and the pilots not having the know how for the specific situation due to a lack of training determined the end of their flight

this is my impression since other pilots in N.A have had no problem or had the problem and were able to override, but this may be inaccurate information so we should wait

>>10478570
this?

>>10479501
But to having tha behaviour isnt inherently dangerous?

>>10479511
The anti stall software is probably there to prevent retarded monkeys at the controls from being able to stall it out at 40k feet and then keep full back pressure on the stick all the way down to the surface.

>>10479496
Good point

>>10478583
>even the "best" airplanes still have stress limits that can be exceeded if the pilot preforms unsafe maneuvers at high speed
This isn't what happened in either of the recent 737 crashes.

>>10479496
boeing certifies their own planes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvkEpstd9os

>>10479469
>>10478570
It's not possible to turn off the software that caused the crash. Look at the reports of the flight logs from the recent crash, the pilots fought the software more than 20 times in a row before it brought them down. Its not a question of training.

>>10480021
>It's not possible to turn off the software that caused the crash
It is. It's just a complicated process.

>>10480049
I looked into it more and yeah looks like there's ways to defeat MCAS if you know it's there. Good thing Boeing told pilots about it

>>10480067
Yeah, that was the issue. From what I read it's not an intuitive process even if you know it's there, which I'm not sure they did. I'd like to hear the voice recorder.

>>10478489
Why are you asking Sci

>>10480049
>They didn't know the secret procedure
What kind of pilots are they hiring, I could've done it in my sleep

>>10479531
The anti stall software was there because (((they))) wanted to keep old 737 type rating for pilots. Boeing can cheap out on the certification process, airlines don't have to buy new simulators and spend money to retrain pilots. But the new engines caused the 737 airframe to naturally pitch up, so in manual flight they put a new system to ensure the flight characteristics to be the same as the old 737s, ie naturally stable. Even US pilots has said they didn't know this difference since they were told the new planes fly the same.

>>10480139
correct

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/failed-certification-faa-missed-safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/
>>>/n/1299760
linked post copied below:
>>FAA rushed safety assessments of 737MAX and delegated them to Boeing
>>Boeing changed MCAS to have 2.5 degrees of control over horizontal stabiliser instead of 0.6 degrees without updating safety documents for the FAA
>>MCAS resets every time the control column is manually engaged, so can move stabiliser in unlimited increments of 2.5 degrees if the plane is being pulled up repeatedly by pilots
>>MCAS only takes readings from one AoA sensor despite 737MAX having two
>>Doesn't check if AoA reading is accurate before takeoff, so both sensors can differ by up to 20 degrees while taxiing
>>Boeing didn't include MCAS in flight manual
>Boeing certainly isn't looking too good here, being hand in hand with the FAA and allowing this to happen and all.

>>10478570
>the cause of the crash was not so much faulty design but insufficient training

Bullshit. If you design the aircraft so that it nosedives unless an obscure system is disabled, then it is a fundamentally bad design.

Aviation Engineer here.

What Boeing did with the 737MAX was incredibly retarded. They wanted to save costs by copying the Boeing 737 hydraulics design but still use a partial Fly-By-Wire system for only the spoilers.

This is bad engineering and purely a cost cutting measure, however if it was only this and nothing else then it wouldn't really matter, however Boeing was even more retarded by doing the following.

To counteract the hydraulics controls and Fly-By-Wire controls having different inputs they installed a specific sensor that would measure the force on the hydraulics and then translate it into the force the Fly-By-Wire system should accommodate to the spoilers in relation to the hydraulics of the rest of the controls.

This is overly convoluted, but whatever this wouldn't really be a problem either if you were willing to train your pilots based on this change in the system.

But then Boeing put the final nail in the coffin. They didn't train the pilots for this new implementation that has a DIRECT impact on how the plane controls because they could cut training costs this way and just hoped that the impact would be minimal.

What happened is that the pilots pulled the steering wheel like in a normal 737 expecting a similar effect. But instead the sensor over-accommodated like designed and pulled way harder through this shitty hybrid hydraulics/fly-by-wire control system.

So now the plane has a too high Angle Of Attack causing the wings to stop generating lift and the plane falls like a brick out of the sky.

In an Airbus plane the computer would have intervened and restricted the Pilot's ability to increase the Angle Of Attack that much. But Boeing has a philosophy of always letting the pilot overrule the computer which is something almost no Aviation Engineer actually agrees with and is only done to please pilots.

Ask any questions you might have about this plane or any other.

>>10480749
Boeing or Airbus, who makes the best planes?
What plane would you buy?

>>10480759
Airbus without a doubt.
The philosophies are as follows

>Boeing tries to Engineer planes as simple and cheaply as possible and please the airlines and airports as much as possible in their design. But usually disregard safety to achieve this
>Airbus tries to Engineer planes as advanced and safe as possible, but usually ignore the economical aspects and demands of the airlines and airports such as with the A380

Airbus are the best planes by far. Airbus also lets the computer overrule pilots if the plane thinks the pilots are making irrational movements which pilots absolutely hate and people find scary however as an Engineer you KNOW that the most broken part of the plane is always a pilot and I applaud Airbus for sticking with this mindset even though Airlines (under pressure from pilots) keep pressuring Airbus to remove that restriction. It's single-handedly the reason why Airbus is so safe compared to Boeing planes.

>>10480749
>But then Boeing put the final nail in the coffin. They didn't train the pilots

Is Boeing in charge of training pilots, or is that the responsibility of the airlines?

>>10480749
>So now the plane has a too high Angle Of Attack causing the wings to stop generating lift and the plane falls like a brick out of the sky.

Except that's not what happened -- the "nose down" commands from the computer overrode the pilot input, and the plane flew nose down into the ground.

>>10480778
Boeing has to create training programs for pilots and either include them in the cost of the airplanes or provide that service for a fee. The problem is that Boeing needs a lot of time to make this training program and they wanted to sell this plane as quickly as possible before a competitor came in to satiate the demand in the same aircraft class.

Airlines also don't like having to retrain their pilots (that could have flown extra flights instead) and would rather buy the competing plane without having to retrain staff.

It's basically pure safety neglect from Boeing trying to capture more marketshare and hoping no one would notice the 737MAX is an engineering disaster.

>>10480789

What is the next step for Boeing and the airlines? Does this plane get scrapped?

>>10480781
Boeing airplanes NEVER override pilot input. What happens is a disconnect in what the pilot inputs and what the sensor of the crappy hybrid system outputted on the hydraulics.

People call it a "faulty sensor" but really it's bad engineering combined with untrained pilots. Boeing has also obfuscated the circumstance of how the planes crashed so don't take their word for it.

>>10480842
i would imagine a software fix that takes input from both AoA sensors and does various sanity checks, with new training on how to override the system in an emergency for every pilot. i also wouldn't be surprised if the FAA requires new training certs for pilots for the max 8, even if only to satisfy public unhappiness

>>10480842
Boeing kinda fucked themselves by naming this plane a 737 which could in theory hurt the reputation of their other 737 planes. I think they will most likely fix the system or retrain pilots rather than put it out of commission because scrapping the plane would give the impression that the entire plane is at fault. And training the pilots make it seem to unaware consumers that it was a piloting mistake instead of an engineering one which salvages their public image.

I personally never flied with Boeing after becoming an Aviation Engineer and neither should you if you can easily avoid it by booking another ticket.

>>10480285
>MCAS resets every time the control column is manually engaged, so can move stabiliser in unlimited increments of 2.5 degrees if the plane is being pulled up repeatedly by pilots
Good fucking god that's pajeetery you shouldn't do after your first time ever programming a stepper motor

>>10480749
>But then Boeing put the final nail in the coffin. They didn't train the pilots for this new implementation that has a DIRECT impact on how the plane controls because they could cut training costs this way and just hoped that the impact would be minimal.
Yes this is the essence pretty much.
>What happened is that the pilots pulled the steering wheel like in a normal 737 expecting a similar effect. But instead the sensor over-accommodated like designed and pulled way harder through this shitty hybrid hydraulics/fly-by-wire control system.
Nope. It did the exact opposite. Without any pilot input, it started to pitch down because MCAS decided the plane is approaching stall based and a single defective AoA sensor. This could've benn prevented by flipping a single switch cutting the electric motor from the trim system.
>In an Airbus plane the computer would have intervened and restricted the Pilot's ability to increase the Angle Of Attack that much.
Which, all other things equal, is exactly what would've made it crash even harder.

Check this 737 pilot's video, and other ones too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfQW0upkVus

Also consider Air France Flight 447. Airbus ain't retard proof, if anything, it does more to encourage, clueless, 0 situational awareness piloting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5LUGaW6TyE

>>10481149
>Nope. It did the exact opposite. Without any pilot input, it started to pitch down because MCAS decided the plane is approaching stall based and a single defective AoA sensor. This could've benn prevented by flipping a single switch cutting the electric motor from the trim system.
Forgot to add:
However, the pilots weren't even told this systems existed. So just after take-off, at low altitude, when the plane suddenly started to trim the nose down at alarming rate, pilots had little time to understand and react to wtf is going on.

>>10478489
We currently have no way to tell if a plane is defective or not except by flying them. Planes contain computers and determining if an a program will stop is undecidable.

>>10478494
This plus >>10478497 plus and lowest bidder syndrome.

>>10481149
> This could've benn prevented by flipping a single switch cutting the electric motor from the trim system.

This is my main issue here, to have this system in the plane is inherently dangerous, regarding or not the pilot was trained knowing about it.

Also...is this how modern engineers solve these problems???

>>10481149
>>flipping a single switch cutting the electric motor from the trim system
I don't think you understand what fly by wire is.

>>10481479
From what I gather, MAX only made the spoilers FBW. Unlike the Airbus A320, which is full FBW, the 737 is steel wire from the control surfaces all the way to the yoke, with a hydraulic boost box in the middle.
MAX still has the ability to cut off all the trim actions except the manual pilot controlled one. Pic related (2).

>>10478489
The Jews installed a MCAS program:
Might
Crash
Aircraft
Suddenly

Time to buy a new plane, goy.

>>10481149
Pierre is literally Hitler. Remember to send curses and insults to his family.

>>10480683
>thousands of flights
>two fuck ups
thats why its an issue of mismanagement overseas, no pilot in the west or europe has had this issue, you fuckin mong, im not blaming the pilots, i blame corporate, boeing and the airlines

>>10480749
ur not an avi eng, stop larping you faggot

>>10478489
It's not defective. It's automation gone awry. We were warned.

>>10480749
so what is the answer better pilots with more control or investing heavily on automatino and only allowing pilots control in certain scenarios

>>10482172
Everyone in this thread needs to read this article from beginning to end right now:
http://nautil.us/issue/52/the-hive/the-perils-of-letting-machines-into-the-hive-mind
It foretold what's going on right now. Automation is good to a fault.

>>10478583
Wrong.
You are all stupid.
The whole reason it needs that software is because they keep it so low to the ground.

>>10482172
>>10482177
>The automation paradox is that the very effectiveness of automated safety systems leads to a dependence on them, and that this dependence undermines the contribution of the human operator, leading to greater danger. Modern technology is extremely sophisticated and getting more so. Automated safety systems are improving. As they get more complex and include additional bells and whistles and backup systems, they get exploited to do more and more. When they fail, the resulting catastrophe is that much bigger. The irony is that automated systems on airplanes, trains, and industrial equipment can compromise overall safety. Because the technology doesn’t understand what the system is trying to accomplish—because it doesn’t share the humans’ intentionality—there’s always the danger that something will go wrong. And when the human part of the system isn’t ready for the technology to fail, disaster can ensue.
>humans are stupid, that's why we need less automation

>>10478489
Picture your workplace except instead of doing what they do, their job is to construct airplanes

Yeah

>that guy who doesn't know anything but convinces others he does
>that guy who always try to get out of work so he just does the bare minimum and sits around
>that girl who is there because she was the first one to apply and upper management said diversity is good for synergistic, holistic, sustsinable and dynamic design processes.

>>10481163
>and determining if an a program will stop is undecidable
Hmmm....

Big brain...

>>10479449
The software is all over the news, get over it software baby

>>10481175
how good of news are these crashes this for the American engineers' job market to not get outsourced

>>10481163

Wtf? Where I work they formally verify all circuits and programs. Every state they can be in must be known and failproof. It's astonishing that some companies don't do this at all.

>>10478489
Ccorruption

>>10478489
purposefully

>>10480078
I doubt they did.
I worked in an airline and there was a problem of the same nature in the company's fleet.
The problem was known, but the manufacturer did not issue any bulletin about it, since it would probably mess with the certifications and airworthiness.
The company also did not notify the pilots in a official capacity. Probably so it wouldn't leave any records of it.
They would just go over the issue and explain the fix during groundschool recycle, so pilots who weren't due yet for the recycle wouldn't have heard of it.

>>10478497
>>10479364
>>10478570
>>10482172
>>10482177
>blaming pajeets
>blaming software engineers
>blaming "poor overseas training"
>blaming automation
pol logic just can't explain it this time, sorry boys.

Muh regulation-free self-oversight free market meme is the reason. See >>10480285
None of this would have happened if Boeing didn't have a culture of ((($$$$))) over safety.

>>10479484
You mean they hired rich white males from Ivy-league schools with """management""" experience, and paid them between 10 to 100 times as much as an engineer because of their great decision-making capabilities.

>>10482164
It's not even like it's a prestigious degree. It's just a 4 year study at your local university. No idea why you won't believe something as simple as this
>>10482175
Yeah basically go the Airbus route and design the entire plane to have as little pilot input as possible. Boeing has always been leaning to much on Pilot behavior instead of engineering causing them to be inferior in safety.

>>10482796
>since it would probably mess with the certifications and airworthiness.
Oh it messed with the airworthiness alright

>>10483041
Don't be a fucking socialist tard and bring politics into everything.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XCU__OEftU

>>10480749
What's your opinion on Embraer?

>>10483041
Upvoted!

>>10483124
He is right though.
Safety must be a prime factor for design an aircraft, now, how much the safety regulations would induce the plane's cost...that's another issue that would be discussed in other board.

But leaving too much freedom to the pilots, jjust because they do like to do steeper climbs...and stuffing an automatic abomination to control them, instead of putting some kind of limit to the pilots is plain bad engineering.

>>10478497
When you say software engineers are you doing so knowing that is a discipline of engineering, or are you referring to the comp sci and code bootcamp people who get jobs with engineer in the title and are using it illegally?

t. leaf

>>10478489
99.9% they are going to find out the automation worked as designed but the pilots interfered with it OR the pilots entered incorrect data into it.

>>10478489
Hiring women and people of color

>>10484219
The second one made me laugh.

>>10480021
retard, an off duty pilot literraly saved the lfight crew from the flight before the crash flight becuase he knew what to do, there were numerous occasions they had the issue in the air before and did nothing about learning to prepare

>>10484141
> or are you referring to the comp sci and code bootcamp people who get jobs with engineer in the title and are using it illegally?
This is the only kind that exists if he happens to be American.

>>10483124
I see you and raise you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM

>>10483191
I hope English isn't your first language

>>10480749
It was mostly pilot error, they didnt train this possible outcome during simulation.

>>10485885
It wasn't pilot error you dumb fucking cunt when Boeing told every it's just like the previous version and didn't include MCAS's failure into manual.

>>10485920
You would'nt include a failure in your manual, you know?

>>10485958
You would include how to turn off your faulty piece of shit in your manual, instead of just telling everyone they don't need any training if they flew on the previous planes.

>>10482190

>The whole reason it needs that software is because they keep it so low to the ground.

what was meant by this

>>10485958
you would put what you need to do in case of a critical system failure into the manual

>>10483124
>don't zoom out, goyim! keep your eyes on those engineers!

>>10478489
Non brahmin Indians

>>10484141
software engineer is not a legally protected term

>>10484892
yeah, i was wrong, but i wrote that post before we knew about that pilot on the previous day

>>10486424
It is in leafland though and I believe there are lots of countries outside the US that protect it as well. Was just wondering the context that anon who generalized the title was using it in

>>10483191
>instead of putting some kind of limit to the pilots is plain bad engineering.
Companies have a flight standards manual and there is an equipment called foqa that records every parameter of the aircraft during the flight and generates a flag that's reported to the company if the pilots did anything to violate company standards. The pilots can loose their job over something like this.

>>10484219
OR a sensor malfunction, BUT relying on ONE sensor would be a MAJOR design flaw.

>>10478494
>>10478497
>>10479484
> Grade inflation.
> Code monkeys
> Shit- tier schools
> Poor standards
Yeah, all of the above.

>>10483041
Kill yourself

>>10486111
>reddit spacing
Literally what I said, faggot. The engines are too low to the ground. They have just a few inches of clearance. This causes the plane to go nose up and the software is meant to correct that.

Okay it goes

People in plane need place to go
People ride plane to place where plane can navigate but not fly;
Plane alters course and people land into zones here and there
Plane arrives with distinction and all is accorded
People enter other plane
People make nasty mistake
Other plane leaves ground, other other;
Plane flies on auto without people or personnel
People on route to other place are found guilty of something
Other plane spirals into nose and all function is formal for declaring black box for navigation
Plane asplode
Plane land
Plane on atom bomb in the plane
People in space
Other planes getting ready to hurl over pundit scheme

Ready to wink or die? because you helping...I am 15 year sage.

>>10478489
>a defective aircraft
So far its one software system. And they haven't even completed the investigations into the crashes to figure out how much viable such as pilot error contributed to the crash.
1,261 occupant fatalities for pic related and they are still flown today.

>>10480049
If you wathc the news, they make it look like toggling two dedicated mechanical switches. Hardly complicated, but you have to know to do it.

>>10487638
Musical chairs?

>>10478570
>the retards that think boeing would favor money over safety when thier product hinges on safety
Because of regulatory capture, Boeing's product doesn't hinge on safety. They have seen almost no liability from previous crashes caused by design flaws. The US is incredibly protective of this corporation.