Airplanes are technology

Airplanes are technology
>Boeing 737max
Crashes 2 times due to computer fault
>A321
Banks 45 degrees and hits shit on runway due to some weird fault
>A330
Starts diving on itself

Why all modern planes have weird computer issues? Stop killing people, Jow Forums.

Attached: gma_plane_mishap-110929_wg.jpg (640x360, 48K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_123
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

I blame pajeet (((programmers)))

(((computer fault)))

A320 was made in pre-pajeet era, yet it has similar faults, even more weirder ones.

pajeet (((firmware updates)))

Hm... Screw you guys, I'm flying Tupolev. Not moder FBW garbage, but real plane, where you fuck up - you die.
Tu-154M
>Metric instruments
>913 km/h
>3 cabin crew
>Supreme soviet asbestos smell

Wasn't the last one retired like 10 years ago?

Yes, but I think they need to start manufacturing it again

>asbestos
enjoy your lung cancer

Because they're fly-by-wire, instead of conventional mechanical manual flight controls. Fly-by-wire is basically hooking up controls to a computer, and having the computer control all the control surfaces and shit.
This allows fancy shit like allowing for worse designed planes to be flown because the computer automatically makes the plane point in the right direction. But considering planes are difficult, it requires big computer systems. And big computer systems mean more chances for glitches. Those glitches can be catastrophic if it's your fucking ability to control the plane.
With direct control you at least know what the plane is doing. Fly-by-wire is only going to work on simple shit, or with extremely advanced computers. They should have manual overrides still in my opinion.

only faggots get cancer

in Russia there are no faggots

wow im impressed that Boeing shills are still working hard.

No Cancer but plenty of AIDS in Russia

Attached: E2C6A3F3-EA27-424C-9F20-F25DFE46EBE2.jpg (630x680, 136K)

>Boeing Shill

oh nononono sir

Attached: C10B6227-EE88-4827-910F-04FAAADE80F8.jpg (1024x633, 72K)

Where can I get my Boeing bucks?
I am more of "automation is overkill" shill.

What the actual fuck that picture is
Why is this allowed anywhere on Earth

I have more

Attached: 6AD46C65-C627-465E-9D22-4418FAB65AFD.jpg (1024x633, 81K)

Well, there was an override which would have saved the plane and pilots were trained to operate it in different circumstances, but the actual MCAS feature and the way to disable it were poorly communicated to the pilots, so that they didn't all know how to disable MCAS, let alone what it was in the first place.
Fly-by-wire as a concept isn't at fault here. The software apparently did what it was designed to do, but it wasn't designed to gracefully handle a fault in the AoA sensor that fed it. The reasoning was that MCAS was not safety critical, since the pilot could always override it and take over the plane, flying it normally.
The problem with that was that Boeing chose to minimize training for pilots transitioning to the Max (to make the plane cheaper for airlines to adopt into their fleets), and failed to make sure pilots were aware of MCAS and knew how to identify and correct for its failures. They assumed that pilots would be able to see the MCAS failure and intuitively recognize it as a different failure scenario, but two crashed aircrews pretty much negate that assumption.

>but the actual MCAS feature and the way to disable it were poorly communicated to the pilots
I thought it would still be fly-by-wire at that point, not direct control. Which in my opinion is still a mistake.

>Fly-by-wire as a concept isn't at fault here. The software apparently did what it was designed to do, but it wasn't designed to gracefully handle a fault in the AoA sensor that fed it.
Sure, but I'd say that the risk of anything going wrong in a computer system is too great.

All there systems are inefficient.
All airplane should do is simulate drunk flight instructor shouting in the ear.
"NO, GO AROUND YOU ASSHOLE" etc.

kek true

There's no way to do "direct control" with fly by wire, ever. The whole point of fly by wire is reduced weight and mechanical complexity.

So I work for Boeing as an aerospace Mechanic.
They spam the gender/race politically correct shit.
But when it comes to actual practice, they hire a fuck ton of white and asian people.
Women are rare in Aerospace.

I know. They only had three or 4 of them and had to use a man for one of their ads

Attached: 0D5B8B84-8858-4F4C-8D1E-08F37F9BF917.jpg (1024x633, 84K)

i'd tap that

What about this one?

Attached: 80CDAF4C-46DD-443E-8825-F9C2F568E3C8.jpg (1024x633, 73K)

*crashes your plane*
Nothing personal, sir

Attached: 3973E57A-17A9-4D4D-AB16-7C86012A58D9.jpg (1280x720, 64K)

Well no, Boeing 777 has mechanical flight control backup systems.

I blame the stupid Americans in a shitty American company.

>Crashes 2 times due to computer fault
It was a sensor fault and lack of pilot training.

A sensor fault that wasn't correctly handled by the computer. The computer did what it was told to do, but it should've been programmed differently, the computer was part of the problem.

>MCAS feature and the way to disable it were poorly communicated to the pilots, so that they didn't all know how to disable MCAS, let alone what it was in the first place.

MCAS is just one of many systems controlling the trim wheel (pic related).
737 pilots are trained to switch off power to the trim wheel and trim manually if ANY system trims opposite to what they want it to do.
There is no need for pilots to disable MCAS specifically, they should disable power to the trim wheel FIRST and THEN figure out which of the many systems was responsible or just keep trimming manually.

Attached: eHg23jM.jpg (1450x1600, 323K)

Sure they could have added extra safety nets.
Which is what Boeing is adding now.

Like you said the computer did what it was told to do.
It was designed to work exactly the way it did.
The people designing it just never expected the pilots to act the way they did, they expected pilots to follow their training but it turned out pilots sometimes forget their training.

Cable flying these massive planes would be nearly impossible. Especially with women in the industry. A B29 Super Fortress was one of the largest analog planes mass produced. A 737 Max 8 weighs twice as much as it.

how the fuck would you have a mechanical control airliner? you can't have a fucking 80m steel bar to move the rudders

You don't need fly-by-wire to make use of hydraulics.
Pilots can operate the hydraulics themselves or leave it to a computer - those are the choices.

To be honest, they didn't forget their training, they never got the extra training because Boeing went through loopholes to make the training cheaper by saying it's basically the same plane. It's also bad to expect the pilots to pick up faults in sensors and computers, while the computer could easily pick that up.
There are definitely planes that don't use fly by wire in current commercial airplanes.
Hydraulics.

>they never got the extra training

No extra training was needed.
The way to deal with a fault in MCAS is exactly the same as dealing with a fault in any other system with control over the horizontal trim: you trim manually.

That's not what I heard, but fair enough, I didn't do that much research into what each training covered.

Couple spoilers aint mechanical backup. It is like steering car by braking using stick you put through a window.

You should edit wikipedia then.

Unironically, you can.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_123
But some servo-tabs would make it easier.

No, but that is marginally better, than A320 rudder and trimwheel backup. Hydro-mechanical, which means you're fucked without hydraulics.

Your English is pretty fucking shit mate.

I know. A вooбщe пoшли вы нaхyй, вoт чe. Cкopo дaдим пeндocaм пococaть кoгдa MC21 дoдeлaeм