0 Members and 289 Guests are viewing this topic.
During the certification of the MAX in 2017, Boeing removed a description of MCAS from the flight manuals, leaving pilots unaware of the system when the airplane entered service.[1][2] The Wall Street Journal reported that Boeing had failed to share information about that issue for "about a year" before the crash of Lion Air Flight 610.[3] Twelve days after the Lion Air accident, on November 10, 2018, Boeing publicly revealed MCAS in a message to airline operators, noting that the system operates "without pilot input."
You missed the point! The entire MCAS system is probably unnecessary: an angle of attack warning should suffice, along with sufficient training to anticipate and correct for the sudden increase in lift on rotation. Apparently the system was developed to assist the pilots of airforce tankers, which are subject to rapid oscillation as the cargo slops around, and was shoved into service on a passenger/ regular cargo ship where the load remains pretty stable, to overcome a minor oddity on the departure characteristic.
No additional regulatory process was required. A new type requires a new operating manual and it is then up to the regulatory authorities to decide what level of type rating is required for pilots. The new EASA type rating syllabus for the MAX includes learning how to switch off the MCAS, though it is possible that people flying a non-European registered MAX on a non-EASA licence may not require such training.No aircraft is indefinitely stable, and the instabilities change with speed, load and angle of attack. Hence mandatory type ratings, operating manuals, simulators, Company pilots, instructors and examiners.
Funny, that. If you modify the oven or the toilet, the ground and cabin crews get introductory training, but if you add a wholly unnecessary flight control that overrides the pilot, you don't have to tell him.
Evil? Not sure. I don't detect any malice. In fact the MCAS addition was well-intended but incompetent, and not including it in the operating manual should fall into the category of criminal negligence.
Hanlon's razor is an aphorism expressed in various ways, including:"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."Probably named after a Robert J. Hanlon, it is a philosophical razor which suggests a way of eliminating unlikely explanations for human behavior.The term stupidity can be generalized by replacing it with false believe/assumption. Take any example of something you think as immoral. You can always find something that you think is false in the believe of someone who commit that immoral thing.
The future economy won't be built by people and factories, but by algorithms and artificial intelligence, says data scientist Mainak Mazumdar. But what happens when these algorithms get trained on biased data? Drawing on examples from Shanghai to New York City, Mazumdar shows how less-than-quality data leads to AI that makes wrong decisions and predictions -- and reveals three infrastructural resets needed to make ethical AI possible.
Greg Koukl was asked why the idea that “we develop morality out of our desire to survive” fails to stand as a basis for morality. But Scott Clifton joins me to discuss why Greg's attempt to find failure is itself a failure.
Some years ago I fitted an experimental electronic ignition system to my father's car. But it was done with his knowledge and consent, .died about two years later.
Is there a hard line to tell if some action is evil or not? How can we tell if something is done with malice intention?
Do you think that people enjoy seeing other people get into trouble. Especially when the person who gets into trouble is your friend. Don't you feel pleasure, when your friend gets into trouble?