The on-board computer to believe that the aircraft is stalling, causing it to automatically initiate a dive

I would so dearly love it if I could just jump in my car and eat breakfast on the way to work.

That's an issue in turbulence.

I would dearly love to have guns.

Eat a sandwich while you drive bro, there's red lights and traffic where you can eat a full meal

Distracted driving charges generally cover cars that aren't moving too.

>literally programmed to fly into a volcano
youtube.com/watch?v=ODfMN170lEw

It's just a joke dude

Just be sneaky while eating it.

people crash into non-moving cars.

The computers are really only as good as the input.
As long as the sensors are working properly, there would be no problems. The same is true for humans.
The main problem is detecting that there is an actual fault and react accordingly, and that's not so easy.

Only a dum-dum would crash into a stationary car while he's driving nice and slow.

>The Therac-25 itself also started buzzing in an unusual way. The patient began to get up off the treatment table when he was hit by a second pulse of radiation. This time he did get up and began banging on the door for help. He received a massive overdose. He was hospitalized for radiation sickness, and died 5 months later.
You would type a character to choose between a small and large dose of radiation, but it was programmed poorly, and if you hit the wrong one, then tried to back out and send another one, it sent both.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25

Attached: Image3.png (367x238, 218K)

>C programmers
Not even once

C programmers have blood on their hands

actually, this is easy: you just have a second sensor and monitor for a difference between the two. if one exists, you disable the system.

if your system is really critical and can't be allowed to fail because of a single sensor going out, like the fly-by-wire system on an airbus, then you have no less than 3 sensors and if any one of them individually disagrees, you disregard its input and use the other two.

the 737 MAX MCAS wasn't a failure of software engineering, but of system engineering - the requirements were wrong.

Attached: 1369400420898.jpg (1920x1200, 524K)

people say driving isn't safer because statistically it isn't
of course when driving you are in control, so if you drive like a retard you are likely to crash

>actually, this is easy: you just have a second sensor and monitor for a difference between the two. if one exists, you disable the system.
Yeah, true enough.
They have that for a number of systems already, the question is why they didn't for this system.

the problem is that the MCAS could make trim inputs independent of the autopilot, with full control authority, and that its existence not communicated to the pilots.

admittedly, the previous day's pilots had encountered the same issue and figured out which breakers to pull to disable it, but it's still a dangerous system design.

Plot twist: its written in java

thats not even the best part of this shitshow

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
seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/failed-certification-faa-missed-safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/

for whatever reason (HA bribery)FAA decided that each company should certify their own planes in house instead of letting actual FAA employees

ebin!!!

Computered Flight In Terrain.

(Airbus had same issues, but they were lucky. Boeing pajeets have no idea about stuff happening in aviation)

Not breakers, but trimcutoff

>pajeetware is now killing people

He warned us

Attached: richard-stallman-100586957-primary.idge_.jpg (640x426, 124K)

>computer causes 1 crash
>massive outrage

>dumb ass pilots go against systems for decades
>wow brave pilots

>get told to descend due to imminent collision
>pulls up

>gets stall warning
>impossible!
>throttles down
>stick shaker kicks in
>pulls up

If it's boeing, you ain't going

Just stick to Airbus

You're not taking into account the endless amount of dumbfucks out on the road. You can be the safest driver in the world, but that won't stop some chucklefuck from slamming into you head on because they were distracted or drunk.
At least in the air you don't have to worry about mid-air collisions that much.

yeah I know, I just feel funny on flights
I saw a vid where a Rolls Royce collided against a jeep or something and basically it was unscathed while the other vehicle was absolutely smashed up. Impressive engineering.

Airbus was diving too, but they were lucky it happened at high altitude.
Same shit...

even if you drove perfectly (which you dont) your chance of getting killed by another idiot on the road is quite high. 45% of deadly accidents involve more than 1 car.

>it was unscathed while the other vehicle was absolutely smashed up.
I agree that having a tougher vehicle definitely helps with making the other faggot die for his recklessness, but remember that you're also a fleshy bag of organs and there's still a chance of not surviving the impact, even with a seatbelt.
It's just better to avoid crashes altogether.

I didn't know Intel made avionics now

Remember that one with ice in the air speed sensor that fell out of the sky in the Atlantic because the pilot who took over caused a stall?

kek

AF447 was 100% a pilot error.
There was an accident, where quantas A330? did couple dives, since Airbus had some bug of sort.

What's mile? Is it dumb measure of subhumans?

>They have that for a number of systems already, the question is why they didn't for this system.
it was cheaper this way.

It's literally outlined in full detail complete with pictures in the plane's flight manual - it's not Boeing's fault that 3rd world shitskin pilots don't even know anything about the plane they're flying

Has Dennis Ritchie been arrested yet?

sunnyday.mit.edu/papers/therac.pdf

>bribery

Americans don't do that. They do lobbying.

I saw claims that one of the planes was constantly descending and ascending while attempting to maintain altitude. Thats most likely an inherent control system error. Id bet its a fault in the physical hardware rather than the software. Tuning the vast number of solid state electronics is a rather precise task, one little design fuckup and youre screwed.

>wiki

>letting qbittorent developers program aircraft onboard computers
you asked for it

Hey, now. Two AOA sensors would eat into Boeing's profit margins.

Paying off 400 families is apparently cheaper than installing another sensor on every 737 Max... or at least making turning the MCAS system off really easy.

There was no mention of it in any pilot literature or training material actually.

Thank Jesus only one human died.

Attached: lionaira422057.png (287x182, 5K)