Airplanes are technology

Based and controlpilled

Ultra lights can be considered airplanes if you squint hard enough right?

Ya sure.

At a glance it looks like some fat dumb smiling bird faggot.

you will be visited by armed men

Attached: 1551427228234.jpg (1094x768, 182K)

Being fag here
Can confirm, diversity hires are a damn plague.
Ever try to train some 50yt old Mexican lady who spent her whole life cleaning how to do complex aerospace work?
Try to explain why 0.001in can make or break everything?

Anyways, shit skins with bad training crashes two 737 MAx.
That's it

Don't fly on a MAXo 8. It can stay in the air for at most 8 minutes before crashing.

Unlikely.

No one cares about the dream plane. They only made one after all.

Reminder all these inventions are for """fuel efficiency"""

if they made planes for safety, shit would be a lot more expensive

planes are right up there with elevators for being the safest mode of travel

a car doesn't stop you from turning left because it knows better

MCAS was made to make planes lighter and more fuel efficient

American planes are shit.

>a car doesn't stop you from turning left because it knows better
what

fly-by-wire systems

youtube.com/watch?v=dEFsyQdYT1o

I don't know, I don't know.

There are few ways to make a plane safer that arent completely retarded or increase the ticket price to absurd levels. The only reason plane crashes make the news is because they are so damn rare; if they crashed at a similar rate as cars did, they wouldn't go noticed at all(and death tolls would be sky high, but thats irrelevant).

me on the right

Do you propose going back to hydraulic control systems?

Attached: 1182916516099.jpg (196x196, 5K)

>Which ones are safe to fly?
>Which ones don't have any programmer involved in their creation?

Attached: Piper_Cub.jpg (1600x1071, 1.04M)

>hey man, electronics and programmers are ruining airplanes, they were far safer when they were still human controlled

Attached: 1970-2018_fatalities_per_revenue_passenger_kilometre_in_air_transport_(cropped).png (1009x660, 132K)

>fatalities still >0
>computers r good just trust them bro

>3000 people dying in the hands of manual control is okay
>400 people dying in the hands of computer control is not

>400 people dying in the hands of a computer is a good thing

>far less people dying in the hands of computers than in the hands of people is a bad thing
Why are humans so critical about computers, but let literally any level of shit slide when it's about other humans?

this is the retardation that will hold back autonomous driving

stop putting words in my mouth asperger
enjoy your fucking air travel brainlet

>747s have been involved in accidents resulting in the highest death toll of any aviation accident, the highest death toll of any single airplane accident and the highest death toll of a mid-air collision
tldr, maybe not your Pic Related, they lost 4% of them (to date) already. If its Boeing? say you aint going -just scream lots at the airport till they you an Airbus

The thing is accountability. Someone gets killed through negiligent driving, there is usually legal recourse you take against their estate for restitution. Once cars become autonomous, they’ll require a EULA to ride in, so when your smart car drives into oncoming traffic, your family eats the cost. That’s just one issue of many with autonomic car implementation. Won’t happen for atleast 50 years en masse.

>Euro poor spotted.
anyways, the 747 doesn't carry passengers anymore.
4 engine wide bodies are a relic of the past. there's a reason they sell 1x 747 a month and airbus is stopping production of the A380 (aka big ugly).
and Boeing still has fewer crashes per flight compared to airbus.

>your family eats the cost
no, your fucking insurance pays out you dumb fuck.
do you not understand how our current driving system works?
are you perhaps under the age of 18 and lack a license?

So you're saying the real problem is that when an accident happens there won't be anyone to blaim and possibly sue for money? We're gonna hold back a potentially much safer means of travel because because of that?
Are you american by any chance?

I do understand how insurance works. And you clearly don’t, or have never been in a serious car accident. Tell me, how does insurance pay for the costs incurred during an accident with serious injury or death? What coverage do you possess that guarantees you payment in the case of injury or death? What if someone is uninsured in an autonomous car? Does the manufacturer pay? Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt who exactly caused the accident and why? How do you establish culpability in a case where a vehicle piloted by nothing kills someone? I’ve practiced insurance law for 12 years now and if you think technology and retarded thinking is what’s keeping autonomous cars from being a thing, you’re smoking crack.

No, I’m saying if it kills someone, who’s responsible? Is it the person? But it’s autonomous? So surely it’s the manufacturer right? No it’s not you signed a EULA. When you put the ability to kill at any given moment in a machines hands, then have that machine be used as commonly as cars are, you really have to come to terms with the fact that you are now 100% leaving everyone’s lives in the air, and with zero recourse for an injured party. Not only is it foolish, but also morally wrong. You wouldn’t want police to have automated turrets that could bug out and murder you on accident, but you’re in favor of autonomous cars? Why? Because Elon musk smoked some weed?

>You wouldn’t want police to have automated turrets that could bug out and murder you on accident
Between policemen that shoot 3000 people a year and turrets that shoot 400 people a year, I'd rather have the turrets.

>I do not understand how insurance works
fixed for you.
its obvious you have never been in an accident and had your insurance sued for damages.

You’re avoiding the point, the statistics are arbitrary. You are comfortable leaving your life in the hands of an autonomous car, that’s fine you’re smarter than everyone in the world congratulations, but what you will realize when you grow up, is that just because you are ok with it, does not mean that you have the right to impose that risk on others. When a human controls a car, a human pays a price for a mistake. When a computer controls a car, what happens when it kills someone, you shrug your shoulders and walk away? Nobody has provided an answer to this, because it isn’t viable technology yet, but when it is, and it kills someone, which it certainly will, someone will come up with an answer, and it won’t be one anyone likes.

I’ve repesented cases from fender benders worth $400 to cases including severe injury and death up to $9mil in damages. Thank you for avoiding the question though, just like the other user. Really convincing argument.

>Boeing still has fewer crashes per flight
that scraping noise when you reach Absolute Bottom of the aviation safety statistic barrel. Still, nice of Boeing to (eventually..) join ROTW in grounding their stuttering airwrecks, and, I mean that sincerely

Wait, you would seriously be ok with the police having automated turrets? That make their own decisions in when to shoot? Are you kidding?

>and it kills someone, which it certainly will
the uber self-driving car already killed someone, but it was a hobo so it was fine.
the responsible one was the woman behind the wheel, but she was on her phone when it happened. I think she did get away with it.

>MCAS was made to make planes lighter and more fuel efficient

Pilot here... So much wrong info in this thread. MCAS was not designed to make planes lighter and more fuel efficient. The engines on the MAX aircraft are placed higher and more to the front, which changes how the plane flies (it causes a natural nose up attitude). MCAS was added as a software system to use the elevator trims to correct this behavior, hidden from pilots who have before flown other 737 models without this system

>fly-by-wire systems

The 737 MAX planes are not fly by wire. The flight controls are mechanically linked to the control surfaces. This is why MCAS uses trimming to counteract the nose up, not elevators.

That particular case is still pending, but more than likely she will get away with it due to a variety of factors such as lack of legitimate presedence due to new tech, the liability of the pedestrian being in the road, weather conditions, Uber paying through the nose in an out of court settlement, Arizona wanting be seen as a business-friendly-low-regulation state etc. This is one of the things many people do not understand about insurance law, you pay/are paid in accordance with your liability, even if you are awarded let’s say $10,000,000, if it has been established that the defense was only 20% liable, you get 20% of that money, and $10mil is a lot to ask for. A fuckload too much. An example case for that would be a trucker client hitting a police officer who was removing debris from the road. Did the insurance we represented have to pay? Yes. But, due to a large number of factors, namely the cop being a fucking retard, his estate was awarded $1mil, at about 10% liability on the behalf of the trucker. Barely enough for their funeral costs after their legal fees. That’s why prosecutors are typically considered scum fucks, they’ll take a case pro-bono but not really, in the deal they assure you you’ll win, he’s one the case a million times before blah blah blah you’re gonna be rich, and he’ll do it for free, just take his pay out of the winnings. Except you don’t win fucking shit, because the case sucks dick, and he took it because he’ll usually have a clause that states payment is due regardless of the outcome of the case. Which of course, if you don’t pay, he will sue you for. It’s pretty fucked.

The only precedent I found after a little searching was Tesla that killed its driver, which hilariously enough they found Tesla not at fault because they stated the software wasn’t designed to stop the car in the situation it encountered. Which is like Boeing saying it’s okay their planes crash because they’re eventually supposed to land anyways. Kek

More like ((((fuel efficiency))))

(((Aircrafts))) count people who suicide with trains to claim they are the safest.

Fuck modern lifts tho.
Why door have to close for 1 fucking minute, and it waits 20 other minutes before going up

Airplanes, especially Airbus, but now even Boeing, have retard-protections, which will stop you from doing this.
Car has direct control

Why birds don't crash?

Why cant the pilot just trim manually? Why the fuck does mcas exist? It seems like a purely convenience feature that you are forced to use unless you turn off electronic trim entirely, which is fucking stupid

>Perhaps the single most complex, insidious, and long-lasting mechanical problem in the history of commercial aviation was the mysterious rudder issue that plagued the Boeing 737 throughout the 1990s. Although it had long been rumoured to exist, the defect was suddenly thrust into the spotlight when United Airlines flight 585 crashed on approach to Colorado Springs on the third of March, 1991, killing all 25 people on board. The crash resulted in the longest investigation in NTSB history, years of arduous litigation, and a battle with Boeing over the safety of its most popular plane.

from imgur.com/a/5wcFx8M

>Why cant the pilot just trim manually?
They can
>Why the fuck does mcas exist?
FAA said that shit is too difficult to control in stall, since engines are skookum choochers, and they were mounted in weird place, which forces plane to raise nose. MCAS is designed to help pilots in case of stall, by trimming aircraft ,so it is easier to dive and gain needful speed.
Pajeets forgot to compare two values of AoA sensors in code, which will cause plane to dive in case of malfunction.
Airbus had same issue, but they were lucky, since it happened high in the air, not during takeoff, and they fixed this, by switching to Alt. Law, which doesn't have retard-protection.
Boeing doesn't have any laws, due to their philosophy, but why the fuck they didn't included MCAS in difference course I don't know. And why they didn't add designated MCAS switch?

Automatic trim predates MCAS. Automatic trim alone is not the issue.

>MCAS was added as a software system to use the elevator trims to correct this behavior, hidden from pilots who have before flown other 737 models without this system

hewwo

Attached: file.png (1920x1298, 3.74M)

safest ones are probably old but not too old.

like a 10year old plane of a 20year old model.

probably a 777 or some thing. thou they might have heaps of annoying upgrades as well.

flying is super degenerate thou its a huge waste of resources try and live the best life you can where you are. people who fly on holiday every year or work every 3months are a huge part of why the world is at war.

>FAA said that shit is too difficult to control in stall,

Bullshit. How many commerical airlines have stalled lately? Everyone knows the instinctual reaction to escape a stall, which is to point the nose down. It will happen anyway as the plane stalls, so how could a fucking slow ass trim that moves like a degree per second be better to fix a stall than a human pushing the stick forward. It’s an airbus “we automate the plane such that retards can fly it” (((feature)))).

There should at least be a circuit breaker to kill it without affecting the rest od the trim system. Pilots should be able to decide to turn off mcas without using the stab cutoff switches

>How many commerical airlines have stalled lately?

The Airfrance one between Brazil and France.

777-300ER is king dick

I didnt mean to be so rude. It sounds like we agree on a few points like there needing to be a separate cutoff switch.

I also like how the FAA was the last global body to act. Really shows the influence of the boeing lobby

Safest is Tupolev.

>there needing to be a separate cutoff switch
There is. But the pilots didn't have the training to do this because Boeing didn't give them the full docs on the plane.
Pilots are list-driven. They are trained to handle certain situations. They weren't trained to shut off anti-stall controls when they were triggered in error.
It all stems from the larger engines on the latest 737s. This needs more ground clearance at the front of the plane. So the "angle of repose" of the plane is nose-up. But they didn't alter the wing angle; the plane flies level. At take-off the plane is higher at the nose than usual, which promotes stall. There's nothing in the pilot's docs about this.

What is this cringe? I can literally see your pimples and angst.

What makes you draw these conclusions? Are you at least compensated for your disability by your government?