Out of the Blue

I'll probably pick the winners of the Game Key Giveaway tomorrow. There are still fewer entries than giveaways, so feel free to get in on this. At this point you should feel free to enter even if you aren't a supporter... I'll give backers first crack, but after that anyone who posts will be included in a second wave.

Obituary: New Yorker Milton Glaser, Creator Of "I Love NY" Logo, Dead At 91. Thanks Neutronbeam.

Inclusive Links
Thanks Ant and Neutronbeam.

Story

Science

Image

Media

Follow-up

The Funnies

View : : :
26 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older
26.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Jul 1, 2020, 23:01
26.
Re: Out of the Blue Jul 1, 2020, 23:01
Jul 1, 2020, 23:01
 
I thought we knew that already? Maybe they misled them is some other area too...
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies." -- Groucho Marx
25.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Jul 1, 2020, 22:00
25.
Re: Out of the Blue Jul 1, 2020, 22:00
Jul 1, 2020, 22:00
 
Damning watchdog report says Boeing shielded key 737 Max details from FAA
Boeing failed to tell regulators about significant changes it made to an automated flight control system when developing the 737 Max, according to the Transportation Department's inspector general.
NPR
A mask is not a political statement.
It's an IQ test.
It's a compassion test.
It's a decency test.
It's a social responsibility test.
Avatar 58135
24.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Jun 29, 2020, 17:16
24.
Re: Out of the Blue Jun 29, 2020, 17:16
Jun 29, 2020, 17:16
 
MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Jun 29, 2020, 14:39:
Don't get me wrong part 2, I'm not trying to convince you personally to just embrace the MAX when it finally gets recertified, but this might be a case of don't look into how the sausage is made, in some ways. Every new aircraft configuration/model has the chance for fatal accidents; even with the best design and testing, serious issues will sometimes sneak through into production and actual service.
Sausage making is an interesting and intriguing analogy. And yes, a freshly designed MAX could potentially have had a significant flaw as bad or worse than the current design. Engineers make mistakes too after all -- watch the show "Engineering Catastrophes" if you don't believe that. All that said, I think what sticks in my craw is the fact they literally designed the plane in a way they never would have, except for the reduced time to get certification for the plane. It just seems to be breaking a basic design principle, a serious one. I will also point out it is not my position to advocate that no one should fly on the plane once the issues have been resolved and tested. That is a decision each person has to make on their own. It is entirely possible from a engineering, technical point of view that the proposed changes will be sufficient. I just have a gut reaction to the breaking of a basic design principle I can not simply dismiss.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies." -- Groucho Marx
23.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Jun 29, 2020, 16:59
23.
Re: Out of the Blue Jun 29, 2020, 16:59
Jun 29, 2020, 16:59
 
jdreyer wrote on Jun 29, 2020, 15:15:
Mr. Tact wrote on Jun 29, 2020, 13:45:
Okay, I admit "fatality" flawed was an overstatement.

How to recognize a gamer: when they accidentally substitute the word "fatality" for "fatally."
Haha -- you know I looked at that and thought, "is that right?" And decided it was. LOL.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies." -- Groucho Marx
22.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Jun 29, 2020, 16:53
22.
Re: Out of the Blue Jun 29, 2020, 16:53
Jun 29, 2020, 16:53
 
jdreyer wrote on Jun 29, 2020, 15:12:
Did they upgrade all of the 737 MAXs to the Deluxe "Founders" Edition, the one that includes the "AOA disagree" light that might have prevented the two fatal crashes from a couple of years ago?
It all boiled down to money. The additional angle of attack sensors and warning lights were only available with the following package: A1Safety: “Mag Rims/MoonRoof” add-on which retailed for only $279,000.
A mask is not a political statement.
It's an IQ test.
It's a compassion test.
It's a decency test.
It's a social responsibility test.
Avatar 58135
21.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Jun 29, 2020, 15:42
21.
Re: Out of the Blue Jun 29, 2020, 15:42
Jun 29, 2020, 15:42
 
jdreyer wrote on Jun 29, 2020, 15:12:

Did they upgrade all of the 737 MAXs to the Deluxe "Founders" Edition, the one that includes the "AOA disagree" light that might have prevented the two fatal crashes from a couple of years ago?

You're joking somewhat, I assume, but whatever software/hardware fixes they eventually roll out in addition to more pilot training will most likely be far beyond the scope of just a warning light. We'll see what eventually gets finalized, but there have already been rumors of adding one or more AOA sensors, changing some aspects of how those work as well, in addition to MCAS patches. Keep in mind there are 4-5 MAX base models, then like automobiles, additional packages on top of those, so there are many configurations out there. It's interesting to me how much scrutiny is going onto the MAX and the recert process compared to other fatal aircraft incidents that basically got zero press, for whatever reason. Sign of the times, plus Boeing's clear and documented mistakes here, I guess.

I don't think there is an airplane or helicopter or rigid airship in current or past service that hasn't had multiple fatal accients, either due to maintenance, design, material failure, third party instrument failure, or of course pilot error. I'm a little curious to see if we'll get this level of public scrutiny for any aircraft crashes in the future.

Air travel is statistically safe, not absolutely safe.
Avatar 54863
20.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Jun 29, 2020, 15:15
20.
Re: Out of the Blue Jun 29, 2020, 15:15
Jun 29, 2020, 15:15
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Jun 29, 2020, 13:45:
Okay, I admit "fatality" flawed was an overstatement.

How to recognize a gamer: when they accidentally substitute the word "fatality" for "fatally."
To prevent CV-19, avoid the Serious Seven: weddings, funerals, faith-based activities, bars, gyms, house gatherings and other small events.
Avatar 22024
19.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Jun 29, 2020, 15:12
19.
Re: Out of the Blue Jun 29, 2020, 15:12
Jun 29, 2020, 15:12
 
MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Jun 29, 2020, 12:24:
Mr. Tact wrote on Jun 29, 2020, 00:11:
MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Jun 28, 2020, 22:13:
You are correct, but keep in mind, it's an engineering problem now. It can be solved, via software and hardware, and those planes will most definitely fly again, barring alien invasion or catastrophic meteor strikes. They will add sensors, redo software, etc. and it'll end up usable.
Maybe. It is possible for a design to be so flawed it is not fixable. I've been waiting for someone knowledgeable to make a convincing argument (which a non aeronautical engineer can understand) that the design is NOT fatality flawed. If someone has, I haven't read or heard it. It is unlikely I'll ever fly again, but if I do, it will not be on a MAX model. Maybe you can't be convinced without being an aeronautical engineer. I'll admit that might be the case.

Your opinion is pretty interesting to me honestly as you are a non-engineer member of the public who is not involved in aviation at all; if you are that uncomfortable then yes, you should never personally fly in a B737 Max again, just for stress reasons. "Fatally flawed" as a term is not applicable here (in my opinion, non-engineer but in aviation for 20+ years), because the plane currently is able to fly, even with unpatched MCAS, pilots just need to apply the correct procedure when MCAS has an error. MCAS got patched in March 2019? So there are no unpatched MCAS anymore (supposedly). In addition pilots are supposed to all be getting simulator training on MCAS failures in the B737 Max, which is one of the main issues that led to the crashes. The airframe itself is aerodynamic and capable of flight. Boeing is supposed to be adding additional sensors to all Max aircraft to further reduce the chance of MCAS error. Also important, because of the press and scrutiny, the FAA is running a much harder inspection set on these aircraft, hence the delay to return to service, and has revoked Boeing's ability to certify their own aircraft(which was another part of the whole problem).

Will all of that work? I think so, the process has occurred multiple times for other less publicized aircraft issues, software/hardware/pilot training whatever. So the end result will be: Mandatory Simulator Training, MCAS patches (mostly if not all done already), More Sensors added (mostly done? Not sure on progress), and then lengthy recertification by the FAA who will not be going easy this time (Yes, inspectors pawned it off the first time), So in my admittedly non-engineer opinion, it's just a matter of time, because this is not the first aircraft this has happened to. The overall procedure exists. Will it be enough to sway people like yourself to fly in a B737 Max? I don't know, personally I'd rather risk a patched and upgraded Max whenever I fly again in 2021+ than a lot of a 40+ year old aircraft flying around in the US, that were already decertified overseas, but that's another topic entirely.

A little more about MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) , versions of it exist in other aircraft and have for years, Boeing made a series of fatal mistakes though: Not telling pilots about it in the manual (why the fuck not, who knows?) and making the procedure to disengage it too complex for people who had not been trained in simulated MCAS failures (instead of disengaging it by pulling up stick, there is a whole procedure... very stupid software choice when seconds matter), then finally not making Simulator training mandatory (this was purely a financial decision, and yes, unsafe).

I can't find a site listing the total number of MAX flights made, unpatched, prior to the groundings, but it would have to be in the thousands, if not tens of thousands worldwide. Officially something like 380+ were delivered to airlines since 2017, and planes get used more than you would believe, multiple flights a day, wearing out multiple flight crews before the aircraft gets parked for a few hours at night. Statistically flying is one of the safest ways to travel, just when something does go wrong...


Did they upgrade all of the 737 MAXs to the Deluxe "Founders" Edition, the one that includes the "AOA disagree" light that might have prevented the two fatal crashes from a couple of years ago?
To prevent CV-19, avoid the Serious Seven: weddings, funerals, faith-based activities, bars, gyms, house gatherings and other small events.
Avatar 22024
18.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Jun 29, 2020, 14:39
18.
Re: Out of the Blue Jun 29, 2020, 14:39
Jun 29, 2020, 14:39
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Jun 29, 2020, 13:45:
Could the MAX have been built such that the MCAS wouldn't be needed? I would assume so, but I don't know it. Would Boeing have built the MAX as it did, if it didn't allow a shortcut through the certification process? I assume not, but again I don't know it. Is my concern for flying on a MAX overblown? I admit it might be. But fortunately it is a privilege I'm happy to exercise.

Yes, they could have built it where it would have taken a longer certification process, been a different airframe entirely, and not needed MCAS potentially. Massive amounts of money and time later, we'd have seen the MAX in like 2025 or something, instead of 2016/2017. Would that have been safer? No one can say, that horse left the barn already, and new airframes are not magically better, they must also be tested rigorously. Don't get me wrong, Boeing as I said, and Redyeye keeps repeatedly saying, made multiple mistakes, the FAA got lulled/budget cut into not doing their own inspections, multiple mistakes took place over years. It's easy for us on the sidelines to say, well shit, they should have done X, Y, Z, and nobody would have died (from this particular issue), but the reality is for-profit corporations won't spend an extra 5-10 years and many billions more dollars when they can try to force some new stuff into existing airframes/designs. The airline industry is not alone in this, look at the cost cutting and lives lost in the auto industry in the past 40-50 years. I'm sure there was backwards pressure from airlines as well, looking to skip insanely expensive simulator training, classroom and book training, hundreds of hours of live flight training, etc. for their entire pilot staff for a brand new aircraft, if it had been made. The reality is that some pilots would have aged out or not even passed training for the brand new hypothetical airframe, and I'm sure that was part of the consideration as well, from the airlines' side. On the airport side, a newer, taller, larger aircraft would make some airports have to buy new passenger and cargo loading equipment, possibly redesign their Gate sizes, etc. It was most likely pressure from many sources on Boeing, let alone internal cost saving pressure.

Don't get me wrong part 2, I'm not trying to convince you personally to just embrace the MAX when it finally gets recertified, but this might be a case of don't look into how the sausage is made, in some ways. Every new aircraft configuration/model has the chance for fatal accidents; even with the best design and testing, serious issues will sometimes sneak through into production and actual service.

*EDIT* Grammar, wording.

This comment was edited on Jun 29, 2020, 15:02.
Avatar 54863
17.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Jun 29, 2020, 14:01
17.
Re: Out of the Blue Jun 29, 2020, 14:01
Jun 29, 2020, 14:01
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Jun 29, 2020, 13:45:
Could the MAX have been built such that the MCAS wouldn't be needed?
No, with the new high efficiency engines there is no way the plane could be manufactured and not require some sort of recertification, training and specialized software to allow it to safely fly.

Boeing fucked up. The ex Boeing employees on the FAA providing government oversight fucked up. And hundreds of people are dead because of it.
A mask is not a political statement.
It's an IQ test.
It's a compassion test.
It's a decency test.
It's a social responsibility test.
Avatar 58135
16.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Jun 29, 2020, 13:45
16.
Re: Out of the Blue Jun 29, 2020, 13:45
Jun 29, 2020, 13:45
 
Okay, I admit "fatality" flawed was an overstatement. Clearly the plane had been flown for many thousands of hours without an incident, and hence the flaw doesn't rise to that level. What I have said previously and failed to say this time simply due to brain farting is I believe it to be "fundamentally" flawed. As I understand it, if you were an aeronautical engineer designing a plane (in modern times) you simply would never have designed the MAX the way it is. It is literally built in a way that doesn't conform to modern fundamentals of aircraft design. The plane is designed the way it is for one reason only, to allow Boeing to ride on the coat tails of the 737 certifications.

I'll also admit I didn't know the MCAS system was not created for the MAX. Although it now dominates the wiki page for it. It was created for the KC-46. However, on the KC-46 it could be overridden simply by pulling back on the control column. That said, I did know these kind of "flight assist" systems existed. And although I can not reference specifics, I was under the impression some other systems have, on occasion, been considered problematic.

Could the MAX have been built such that the MCAS wouldn't be needed? I would assume so, but I don't know it. Would Boeing have built the MAX as it did, if it didn't allow a shortcut through the certification process? I assume not, but again I don't know it. Is my concern for flying on a MAX overblown? I admit it might be. But fortunately it is a privilege I'm happy to exercise.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies." -- Groucho Marx
15.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Jun 29, 2020, 12:24
15.
Re: Out of the Blue Jun 29, 2020, 12:24
Jun 29, 2020, 12:24
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Jun 29, 2020, 00:11:
MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Jun 28, 2020, 22:13:
You are correct, but keep in mind, it's an engineering problem now. It can be solved, via software and hardware, and those planes will most definitely fly again, barring alien invasion or catastrophic meteor strikes. They will add sensors, redo software, etc. and it'll end up usable.
Maybe. It is possible for a design to be so flawed it is not fixable. I've been waiting for someone knowledgeable to make a convincing argument (which a non aeronautical engineer can understand) that the design is NOT fatality flawed. If someone has, I haven't read or heard it. It is unlikely I'll ever fly again, but if I do, it will not be on a MAX model. Maybe you can't be convinced without being an aeronautical engineer. I'll admit that might be the case.

Your opinion is pretty interesting to me honestly as you are a non-engineer member of the public who is not involved in aviation at all; if you are that uncomfortable then yes, you should never personally fly in a B737 Max again, just for stress reasons. "Fatally flawed" as a term is not applicable here (in my opinion, non-engineer but in aviation for 20+ years), because the plane currently is able to fly, even with unpatched MCAS, pilots just need to apply the correct procedure when MCAS has an error. MCAS got patched in March 2019? So there are no unpatched MCAS anymore (supposedly). In addition pilots are supposed to all be getting simulator training on MCAS failures in the B737 Max, which is one of the main issues that led to the crashes. The airframe itself is aerodynamic and capable of flight. Boeing is supposed to be adding additional sensors to all Max aircraft to further reduce the chance of MCAS error. Also important, because of the press and scrutiny, the FAA is running a much harder inspection set on these aircraft, hence the delay to return to service, and has revoked Boeing's ability to certify their own aircraft(which was another part of the whole problem).

Will all of that work? I think so, the process has occurred multiple times for other less publicized aircraft issues, software/hardware/pilot training whatever. So the end result will be: Mandatory Simulator Training, MCAS patches (mostly if not all done already), More Sensors added (mostly done? Not sure on progress), and then lengthy recertification by the FAA who will not be going easy this time (Yes, inspectors pawned it off the first time), So in my admittedly non-engineer opinion, it's just a matter of time, because this is not the first aircraft this has happened to. The overall procedure exists. Will it be enough to sway people like yourself to fly in a B737 Max? I don't know, personally I'd rather risk a patched and upgraded Max whenever I fly again in 2021+ than a lot of a 40+ year old aircraft flying around in the US, that were already decertified overseas, but that's another topic entirely.

A little more about MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) , versions of it exist in other aircraft and have for years, Boeing made a series of fatal mistakes though: Not telling pilots about it in the manual (why the fuck not, who knows?) and making the procedure to disengage it too complex for people who had not been trained in simulated MCAS failures (instead of disengaging it by pulling up stick, there is a whole procedure... very stupid software choice when seconds matter), then finally not making Simulator training mandatory (this was purely a financial decision, and yes, unsafe).

I can't find a site listing the total number of MAX flights made, unpatched, prior to the groundings, but it would have to be in the thousands, if not tens of thousands worldwide. Officially something like 380+ were delivered to airlines since 2017, and planes get used more than you would believe, multiple flights a day, wearing out multiple flight crews before the aircraft gets parked for a few hours at night. Statistically flying is one of the safest ways to travel, just when something does go wrong...

Avatar 54863
14.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Jun 29, 2020, 10:57
14.
Re: Out of the Blue Jun 29, 2020, 10:57
Jun 29, 2020, 10:57
 
Burrito of Peace wrote on Jun 29, 2020, 10:39:
Blue,

I have Steam Gifts for Civ 5 and Offworld Trading Company I can throw on the pile if people would be interested in those.

That's very generous of you. I'd say it will be more orderly to complete the current giveaway and then we can do another one.
Stephen "Blue" Heaslip
Blue's News Publisher, Editor-in-Chief, El Presidente for Life
Avatar 2
13.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Jun 29, 2020, 10:54
13.
Re: Out of the Blue Jun 29, 2020, 10:54
Jun 29, 2020, 10:54
 
Burrito of Peace wrote on Jun 29, 2020, 10:39:
Blue,

I have Steam Gifts for Civ 5 and Offworld Trading Company I can throw on the pile if people would be interested in those.
I reposted this in the giveaway thread.
El Presidente will definitely see it there.
A mask is not a political statement.
It's an IQ test.
It's a compassion test.
It's a decency test.
It's a social responsibility test.
Avatar 58135
12.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Jun 29, 2020, 10:39
12.
Re: Out of the Blue Jun 29, 2020, 10:39
Jun 29, 2020, 10:39
 
Blue,

I have Steam Gifts for Civ 5 and Offworld Trading Company I can throw on the pile if people would be interested in those.
"No matter where you go, there you are." Buckaroo Banzai

There are two types of computer users: Masochists and Linux users.

If you would like help or further details on a technical discussion we're having, email me at bnhelp (at sign) keepusiel.net . Pl
Avatar 21247
11.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Jun 29, 2020, 07:22
11.
Re: Out of the Blue Jun 29, 2020, 07:22
Jun 29, 2020, 07:22
 
Why simple cloth masks without valves are better at fighting the spread of covid-19.

By combining different kinds of cloth, you can get near N95 filtering.

Tighter-woven cotton alone was found to be effective, particularly two layers of 600 thread-per-inch cotton. So was a cotton quilt made of two 120 thread-per-inch cotton sheets, with a 0.5-centimeter batting of cotton, polyester and other fibers. Four layers of silk — imagine someone bundled up in a scarf — also performed well.
But the best overall filtration was provided by a sandwich consisting of one layer of the tighter-woven cotton plus two layers of silk, or two layers of chiffon, or one layer of flannel — because of the electrostatic filter created by the non-cotton layers.
To prevent CV-19, avoid the Serious Seven: weddings, funerals, faith-based activities, bars, gyms, house gatherings and other small events.
Avatar 22024
10.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Jun 29, 2020, 06:44
10.
Re: Out of the Blue Jun 29, 2020, 06:44
Jun 29, 2020, 06:44
 
Well, not an American originally, he was naturalized as a US Citizen on 13 December 2019.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies." -- Groucho Marx
9.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Jun 29, 2020, 05:37
9.
Re: Out of the Blue Jun 29, 2020, 05:37
Jun 29, 2020, 05:37
 
John Oliver (not an American) raises a really excellent effect of the COVID19 crisis that has gone a bit under the radar for most of us: the rental (and mortgage) and eviction crisis that we're going to face in the coming months, at a time when people still need to be sheltering at home. It's really odd that some of our most critical social issues are covered the most in-depth by a comedian.
To prevent CV-19, avoid the Serious Seven: weddings, funerals, faith-based activities, bars, gyms, house gatherings and other small events.
Avatar 22024
8.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Jun 29, 2020, 00:11
8.
Re: Out of the Blue Jun 29, 2020, 00:11
Jun 29, 2020, 00:11
 
MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Jun 28, 2020, 22:13:
You are correct, but keep in mind, it's an engineering problem now. It can be solved, via software and hardware, and those planes will most definitely fly again, barring alien invasion or catastrophic meteor strikes. They will add sensors, redo software, etc. and it'll end up usable.
Maybe. It is possible for a design to be so flawed it is not fixable. I've been waiting for someone knowledgeable to make a convincing argument (which a non aeronautical engineer can understand) that the design is NOT fatality flawed. If someone has, I haven't read or heard it. It is unlikely I'll ever fly again, but if I do, it will not be on a MAX model. Maybe you can't be convinced without being an aeronautical engineer. I'll admit that might be the case.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies." -- Groucho Marx
7.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Jun 28, 2020, 22:13
7.
Re: Out of the Blue Jun 28, 2020, 22:13
Jun 28, 2020, 22:13
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Jun 28, 2020, 13:34:
As I have said before:

Boeing tried to fix a hardware problem they intentionally introduced, with a software fix which they then purposely glossed over, in order to essentially hide an inherent design flaw which probably never should have happened/been allowed.

I have no doubt the plane will be cleared for usage again. The only question is if the public will submit to flying on the planes. Personally, I suspect they will -- the public's memory is usually short. I might be wrong, only time will tell.

You are correct, but keep in mind, it's an engineering problem now. It can be solved, via software and hardware, and those planes will most definitely fly again, barring alien invasion or catastrophic meteor strikes. They will add sensors, redo software, etc. and it'll end up usable. There will be more scrutiny on the Max than most other airliners and that'll be a good thing; you'd be surprised at the insane issues the Airbuses have had, and still have, but they have not led to publicized fatalities like the Max. The Osprey was almost as bad of a shitshow, and multiple fatal crashes led to many hardware/software alterations and now they fly well. Ospreys were barely in the news though, because it was mostly military deaths. Aviation is unforgiving of mistakes in terms of fatalities, but it's rare for a production plane to just be dropped completely. That usually only happens to military prototypes, honestly. One could argue it's the sunken cost fallacy, but whatever the reason, the outcome will be updates and repairs until the Max or any other flawed aircraft becomes usable.

The more real problem for the air industry in general is the massive drop in air traffic overall, due to Covid-19 and most nations shutting their borders. Predictions now are that the world won't resume anything approaching 'normal' pre-covid19 traffic until 2024. Even without B737Max concerns, people are (outside the US!) afraid to get into a plane for hours with strangers breathing on them.
Avatar 54863
26 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older