Daryl has no brain at all
===============
>
> >>> In the end what airlines buys will come down to cost and whether or
> >>> not they think the MAX is sorted and safe.
> >>>
> >>
> >> ** Then explain why that did NOT happen with the Comet, the Lockheed
> >> Electra or the DC10 ?
> >
> > The Electra and the DC10 continued to fly long after the problems had
> > been sorted.

** The Q was about buying *new* ones.

> Still some Electras flying commercially doing freight and fire bombing.

** Fuck you are so fucking dumb.

FYI:

After two horrible crashes ( wings broke off in flight ) American pax got very cold feet.
Lockheed had few more sales and soon stopped production.

The bad publicity however did not affect Australia so TAA bought a couple.
I got to ride in one from Mel to Syd and another on the way back in 1964.

Fantastic performance and pax comfort for a prop jet and a real treat for me at 11 years old.
Disaster for Lockheed.

....... Phil

keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Daryl wrote

>>>>>>> And plenty like us who do remember which plane crashed twice
>>>>>>> realise that the problem has been fixed and won't happen again.
>>>>
>>>>> That is not a " realise" that is a pious hope.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, there wont be any more crashes due to that issue, you watch.
>>>>
>>>> Neither Boeing nor the FAA are actually that stupid.
>>>>
>>>>> The two 737MAX crashes were the * biggest
>>>>> ever scandal * in passenger aviation history.
>>>>
>>>>> Clear criminal behavior by Boeing staff was at the core.
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant to whether we will see anymore of the MAXs crash for that
>>>> reason.
>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, after the shit hit the fan in such a big way I doubt that Boeing
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> FAA would be stupid enough to allow the Max to fly if it wasn't
>>>>>> fixed.
>>>>
>>>>> The basic flaw in the MAX is not possible to " fix "
>>>>
>>>> More of your mindless pig ignorant bullshit. Of course its possible to
>>>> fix using just a single sensor and to train the pilots in how to
>>>> override
>>>> the MCAS if it does fuck up again.
>>
>>> The basic problem is the fucked up aerodynamics,
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>>> MCAS was a workaround,
>>
>> Nope, it fixed the problem when done properly.
>>
>>> now there are workarounds to that workaround.

>> More of your mindless bullshit. Its now been done properly
>> with more than one sensor and the pilots have been told
>> about it so they can disable it if it fails, as all systems can.

> It's not just the sensor,

Never said it was.

> the software had more holes than a tonne of Swiss cheese. The FAA audited
> it and found even more problems than just MCAS.

Which is why it was redone completely from scratch.

> Boeings software seems to be shit in general,

More of your mindless bullshit.

> that's why they are going to have to fly the Starliner again at their own
> expense ($600M+) after NASA had such confidence in it that they did a line
> by line audit.

Still means that it has now been done properly.

>>> Had Boeing not been so eager to match the Neo, they wouldn't have gone
>>> cheap and built in a single point of failure,
>>
>> More of your mindless bullshit. The single sensor had nothing
>> to do with matching the neo, it was just another design fuckup.
>>
>>> and would have included MCAS in the documentation.
>>
>> And the training.
>>
>>> I've worked on a lot of high reliability systems and the mantra has
>>> always been no single points of failure *EVER*.
>>
>> And Boeing has done it like that forever now.
>>
>> And just fucked up with MCAS. And haven't now, otherwise
>> the FAA wouldn’t have allowed it to fly again.
>>
>> So its stupid to claim that its just a workaround on a workaround.
>>
>>> That goes doubly or more with systems where people die when there are
>>> failures.

On 16/10/2021 2:18 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Daryl wrote
>
>>>>>>>> And plenty like us who do remember which plane crashed twice
>>>>>>>> realise that the problem has been fixed and won't happen again.
>>>>>
>>>>>> That is not a  " realise"  that is a pious hope.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, there wont be any more crashes due to that issue, you watch.
>>>>>
>>>>> Neither Boeing nor the FAA are actually that stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The two 737MAX crashes were the * biggest
>>>>>> ever scandal *  in passenger aviation history.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Clear criminal behavior by Boeing staff was at the core.
>>>>>
>>>>> Irrelevant to whether we will see anymore of the MAXs crash for
>>>>> that reason.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, after the shit hit the fan in such a big way I doubt that
>>>>>>> Boeing or
>>>>>>> FAA would be stupid enough to allow the Max to fly if it wasn't
>>>>>>> fixed.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The basic flaw in the MAX is not possible to " fix "
>>>>>
>>>>> More of your mindless pig ignorant bullshit. Of course its possible to
>>>>> fix using just a single sensor and to train the pilots in how to
>>>>> override
>>>>> the MCAS if it does fuck up again.
>>>
>>>> The basic problem is the fucked up aerodynamics,
>>>
>>> Yep.
>>>
>>>> MCAS was a workaround,
>>>
>>> Nope, it fixed the problem when done properly.
>>>
>>>> now there are workarounds to that workaround.
>
>>> More of your mindless bullshit. Its now been done properly
>>> with more than one sensor and the pilots have been told
>>> about it so they can disable it if it fails, as all systems can.
>
>> It's not just the sensor,
>
> Never said it was.
>
>> the software had more holes than a tonne of Swiss cheese. The FAA
>> audited it and found even more problems than just MCAS.
>
> Which is why it was redone completely from scratch.
>
>> Boeings software seems to be shit in general,
>
> More of your mindless bullshit.
>
>> that's why they are  going to have to fly the Starliner again at their
>> own expense ($600M+) after NASA had such confidence in it that they
>> did a line by line audit.
>
> Still means that it has now been done properly.

In the aerospace industry, the expectation is that you get it right the
first time, otherwise people die.

>>>> Had Boeing not been so eager to match the Neo, they wouldn't have
>>>> gone cheap and built in a single point of failure,
>>>
>>> More of your mindless bullshit. The single sensor had nothing
>>> to do with matching the neo, it was just another design fuckup.
>>>
>>>> and would have included MCAS in the documentation.
>>>
>>> And the training.
>>>
>>>> I've worked on a lot of high reliability systems and the mantra has
>>>> always been no single points of failure *EVER*.
>>>
>>> And Boeing has done it like that forever now.
>>>
>>> And just fucked up with MCAS. And haven't now, otherwise
>>> the FAA wouldn’t have allowed it to fly again.
>>>
>>> So its stupid to claim that its just a workaround on a workaround.
>>>
>>>> That goes doubly or more with systems where people die when there
>>>> are failures.
>
>

On 15/10/2021 8:18 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 15/10/21 5:43 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 14/10/2021 2:09 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
>>> Daryl has no brain at all
>>> ===============
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The assessment by professional pilots that I have seen reckon that the
>>>>> Max could be flown without problem without the MCAS *as long as the
>>>>> pilots received training on the Maxs flying characteristic*.
>>>
>>> **   Made up, fake bullshit.
>>>
>>>> That makes sense,
>>>
>>> **  Concocted lies are like that.
>>>
>>>> can't see it being allowed to fly if it couldn't be
>>>> flown manually with MCAS disabled.
>>>
>>> ** Straw man -  not what was ever said.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In the end what airlines buys will come down to cost and whether or
>>>> not they think the MAX is sorted and safe.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ** Then explain why that did  NOT happen with the Comet, the Lockheed
>>> Electra or the DC10 ?
>>
>> The Electra and the DC10 continued to fly long after the problems had
>> been sorted.
>
> Still some Electras flying commercially doing freight and fire bombing.

And as the Orion with various airforces around the world, the RAAF still
has two.

keithr0 wrote:
===========
>
> In the aerospace industry, the expectation is that you get it right the
> first time, otherwise people die.

** Massive, dumb overstatement.

In *commercial passenger aviation * there is heavy govt regulation intended to prevent unsafe designs getting to carry pax.
Boeing illegally maneuvered the scheme to circumvent the process with the MAX.
We all know that making money for investors and themselves was the motive.

....... Phil

On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 21:20:35 +1100, Daryl scribed:

>> It's not just the sensor, the software had more holes than a tonne of
>> Swiss cheese.
>
> That's what happens when you sub contract the software out to a company
> on the sub continent and expect the job to be done quickly and cheaply.

Well, Boeing was done and it was cheap, so scored on both counts.

On 16/10/21 9:21 am, keithr0 wrote:
> On 16/10/2021 2:18 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Daryl wrote
>>
>>>>>>>>> And plenty like us who do remember which plane crashed twice
>>>>>>>>> realise that the problem has been fixed and won't happen again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is not a  " realise"  that is a pious hope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, there wont be any more crashes due to that issue, you watch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Neither Boeing nor the FAA are actually that stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The two 737MAX crashes were the * biggest
>>>>>>> ever scandal *  in passenger aviation history.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Clear criminal behavior by Boeing staff was at the core.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Irrelevant to whether we will see anymore of the MAXs crash for
>>>>>> that reason.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, after the shit hit the fan in such a big way I doubt that
>>>>>>>> Boeing or
>>>>>>>> FAA would be stupid enough to allow the Max to fly if it wasn't
>>>>>>>> fixed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The basic flaw in the MAX is not possible to " fix "
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More of your mindless pig ignorant bullshit. Of course its
>>>>>> possible to
>>>>>> fix using just a single sensor and to train the pilots in how to
>>>>>> override
>>>>>> the MCAS if it does fuck up again.
>>>>
>>>>> The basic problem is the fucked up aerodynamics,
>>>>
>>>> Yep.
>>>>
>>>>> MCAS was a workaround,
>>>>
>>>> Nope, it fixed the problem when done properly.
>>>>
>>>>> now there are workarounds to that workaround.
>>
>>>> More of your mindless bullshit. Its now been done properly
>>>> with more than one sensor and the pilots have been told
>>>> about it so they can disable it if it fails, as all systems can.
>>
>>> It's not just the sensor,
>>
>> Never said it was.
>>
>>> the software had more holes than a tonne of Swiss cheese. The FAA
>>> audited it and found even more problems than just MCAS.
>>
>> Which is why it was redone completely from scratch.
>>
>>> Boeings software seems to be shit in general,
>>
>> More of your mindless bullshit.
>>
>>> that's why they are  going to have to fly the Starliner again at
>>> their own expense ($600M+) after NASA had such confidence in it that
>>> they did a line by line audit.
>>
>> Still means that it has now been done properly.
>
> In the aerospace industry, the expectation is that you get it right the
> first time, otherwise people die.

Trouble is expectation and reality differ, rarely do they ever get
anything 100% perfect the first time.

--
Daryl

On 16/10/21 11:04 am, News 2021 wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 21:20:35 +1100, Daryl scribed:
>
>
>>> It's not just the sensor, the software had more holes than a tonne of
>>> Swiss cheese.
>>
>> That's what happens when you sub contract the software out to a company
>> on the sub continent and expect the job to be done quickly and cheaply.
>
> Well, Boeing was done and it was cheap, so scored on both counts.
>

Hopefully they learned their lesson and won't make the same mistake twice.

--
Daryl

keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Daryl wrote

>>>>>>>>> And plenty like us who do remember which plane crashed twice
>>>>>>>>> realise that the problem has been fixed and won't happen again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is not a " realise" that is a pious hope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, there wont be any more crashes due to that issue, you watch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Neither Boeing nor the FAA are actually that stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The two 737MAX crashes were the * biggest
>>>>>>> ever scandal * in passenger aviation history.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Clear criminal behavior by Boeing staff was at the core.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Irrelevant to whether we will see anymore of the MAXs crash for that
>>>>>> reason.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, after the shit hit the fan in such a big way I doubt that
>>>>>>>> Boeing or
>>>>>>>> FAA would be stupid enough to allow the Max to fly if it wasn't
>>>>>>>> fixed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The basic flaw in the MAX is not possible to " fix "
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More of your mindless pig ignorant bullshit. Of course its possible
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> fix using just a single sensor and to train the pilots in how to
>>>>>> override
>>>>>> the MCAS if it does fuck up again.
>>>>
>>>>> The basic problem is the fucked up aerodynamics,
>>>>
>>>> Yep.
>>>>
>>>>> MCAS was a workaround,
>>>>
>>>> Nope, it fixed the problem when done properly.
>>>>
>>>>> now there are workarounds to that workaround.
>>
>>>> More of your mindless bullshit. Its now been done properly
>>>> with more than one sensor and the pilots have been told
>>>> about it so they can disable it if it fails, as all systems can.
>>
>>> It's not just the sensor,
>>
>> Never said it was.
>>
>>> the software had more holes than a tonne of Swiss cheese. The FAA
>>> audited it and found even more problems than just MCAS.
>>
>> Which is why it was redone completely from scratch.
>>
>>> Boeings software seems to be shit in general,
>>
>> More of your mindless bullshit.
>>
>>> that's why they are going to have to fly the Starliner again at their
>>> own expense ($600M+) after NASA had such confidence in it that they did
>>> a line by line audit.
>>
>> Still means that it has now been done properly.

> In the aerospace industry, the expectation is that you get it right the
> first time, otherwise people die.

Irrelevant to what we are discussing, whether its safe now.

>>>>> Had Boeing not been so eager to match the Neo, they wouldn't have gone
>>>>> cheap and built in a single point of failure,
>>>>
>>>> More of your mindless bullshit. The single sensor had nothing
>>>> to do with matching the neo, it was just another design fuckup.
>>>>
>>>>> and would have included MCAS in the documentation.
>>>>
>>>> And the training.
>>>>
>>>>> I've worked on a lot of high reliability systems and the mantra has
>>>>> always been no single points of failure *EVER*.
>>>>
>>>> And Boeing has done it like that forever now.
>>>>
>>>> And just fucked up with MCAS. And haven't now, otherwise
>>>> the FAA wouldn’t have allowed it to fly again.
>>>>
>>>> So its stupid to claim that its just a workaround on a workaround.
>>>>
>>>>> That goes doubly or more with systems where people die when there are
>>>>> failures.

On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 21:20:35 +1100, Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au>
wrote:

>> It's not just the sensor, the software had more holes than a tonne of
>> Swiss cheese.
>
>That's what happens when you sub contract the software out to a company
>on the sub continent and expect the job to be done quickly and cheaply.
>
<https://news.slashdot.org/story/19/06/29/0057240/boeings-737-max-software-outsourced-to-lower-paid-engineers>
https://is.gd/64nJ94
It remains the mystery at the heart of Boeing's 737 Max crisis: how a
company renowned for meticulous design made seemingly basic software
mistakes leading to a pair of deadly crashes. Longtime Boeing
engineers say the effort was complicated by a push to outsource work
to lower-paid contractors. The Max software -- plagued by issues that
could keep the planes grounded months longer after U.S. regulators
this week revealed a new flaw -- was developed at a time Boeing was
laying off experienced engineers and pressing suppliers to cut costs.
Increasingly, the iconic American planemaker and its subcontractors
have relied on temporary workers making as little as $9 an hour to
develop and test software, often from countries lacking a deep
background in aerospace -- notably India.
--
Petzl
The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other
people's money. #Sir Ronald Millar

All governments lie about some things, but Ordogs totalitarian
governments lie about everything.

On March fourteenth, in the year of our Lord. Eighteen eighty three
Karl Marx made his most important contribution to mankind...
He died

There is no difference between communism and socialism,
except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end:
communism proposes to enslave men by force,
socialism - by vote.
It is merely the difference between murder and suicide
#Margaret Thatcher

Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
> Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote

>>> It's not just the sensor, the software had
>>> more holes than a tonne of Swiss cheese.

>> That's what happens when you sub contract the software out to a company
>> on the sub continent and expect the job to be done quickly and cheaply.

> <https://news.slashdot.org/story/19/06/29/0057240/boeings-737-max-software-outsourced-to-lower-paid-engineers>
> https://is.gd/64nJ94

> It remains the mystery at the heart of Boeing's 737 Max crisis: how
> a company renowned for meticulous design made seemingly basic
> software mistakes leading to a pair of deadly crashes.

Its no mystery, Boeing needed to get it operational quickly
to compete with the A320neo that was a lot easier to do
because the better engines could be added easily.

> Longtime Boeing engineers say the effort was complicated
> by a push to outsource work to lower-paid contractors. The
> Max software -- plagued by issues that could keep the planes
> grounded months longer after U.S. regulators this week
> revealed a new flaw -- was developed at a time Boeing was
> laying off experienced engineers and pressing suppliers to cut costs.
> Increasingly, the iconic American planemaker and its subcontractors
> have relied on temporary workers making as little as $9 an hour to
> develop and test software, often from countries lacking a deep
> background in aerospace -- notably India.

And Airbus wasn't that stupid.