Boeing 737s...deadlier than ever

One of the biggest flaws keeping Boeing's 737 MAX 8 grounded has nothing to do with AI and advanced flight-control software. Instead, it's an issue of whether all pilots will have enough upper body strength to turn a crank - a surprisingly low-tech hangup in a scandal that was catalyzed by malfunctioning software.

Boeing has scrambled to redesign the 737 MAX and its software to eliminate the safety flaws that contributed to the crash lawn darting of two jets in under six months from October to March. All told, 346 people died after the 737's MCAS anti-stall software misfired, driving the planes into deadly downward spirals, murdering all aboard. Not to mention the 12 NG 737s that crashed for the same reasons in 2018.

That's a lot of dead people. Not just TWO crashes, but a DOZEN. Max and NG.

However the real problem is the design of the plane, not the software. Which means the problems will not go away with a silly software upgrade ala Tesla Motors.

Now, the latest obstacle for Boeing, which hadn't been reported before WSJ published a story on Wednesday morning, appears to be convincing regulators that all pilots will possess the upper body strength to turn a crank that controls a panel in the rear of the plane. That panel, in turn, can change the angle of the plane's nose, potentially saving it from the types of malfunctions that afflicted the two planes that crashed. Apparently, during times of crisis, when the plane is moving unusually fast at an unusually steep angle, the crank can become extremely difficult to move.

What's worse for Boeing, not only is this safety procedure part of the 737 MAX 8, but its also present in the 6,000+ 737s from the prior generation of planes which are also in service. The question is whether regulators will request that this issue be fixed on those planes, too.
All of the 737 MAX’s underlying safety issues must be resolved before the FAA will unground the planes. At this point, Boeing is considering operational, training and pilot manual changes to resolve safety concerns (though, to be sure, there are no plans to restrict which pilots are allowed to fly what planes, based on sex, because that would be extremely sexist). Not that we need to tell you that.
With Boeing finding the first new buyer for its 737 MAX at the Paris Air Show, the company is probably optimistic that the day when the planes will be re-certified will soon arrive, especially given that the company officials were bribed to lay down the order, a common practice in aviation to encourage other sales by other airlines and governments.

REAL PROBLEMS OF THE 737. FROM THE PILOTS WHO FLY THEM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQCPSXTE9Mg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoNOVlxJmow 

FROM THE INTERNET

So, this plane has hi tech software controlling its flight, but the pilot has to 'hand crank' a panel open to gain control over the software? Can't 'software' be used to help open the panel?

Or how about just training pilots to fly these things like we used to? Use the software to control things like the 'fasten your seat belts' lights, or to play the in-flight movie, but leave the actual FLYING to pilots?

There is such a determination to get 'tech' into everything. Tech needs to be kept in its place, as an ASSIST to humans, not to take over all functions. There should ALWAYS be an easy, fast way for a human operator to take control from a software program without compromising the operation. No system unable to be over-ridden should ever be permitted to operate, in ANY field.

Because as wonderful as these 'toys' may seem, in the end one must remember that they were designed and built by HUMANS. The same human 'flaws and faults' that the tech is supposedly compensating for are already present in the design, because it was built by those same humans. If planes have become so hi tech that pilots are having trouble with them, then it is unlikely that any software designed to fly these things will be any better at it...can any of the designers of this stuff even fly a plane at all? And have they?

This is the conundrum of tech. We look to it to solve our real-world problems, problems we have always struggled with. But we forget that it is really just another human invention, and as such cannot ever be 'better' at it than the humans who invented it. You can't get something perfect from something imperfect, period. If 'tech' is outperforming people, it isn't because the tech is better, its because the tech has made people lazy. The same way that giving a child a calculator will erode their math skills, to the point where they become dependent on the calculator to perform even basic functions and soon forget how to manually add, subtract, divide...The tech isn't 'better' than the child, the child has deteriorated to the point that the tech just LOOKS better. And the better the tech LOOKS, the less likely the child is to bother even trying to learn those basics. Why bother when they can hit a few buttons and get the answer?
-----------

A bit of bad news. Another 737 crash is hard by the door. And the cause...well, you know. Don't you? All the intel is right here on this blog. 

Frankly the Max is out of balance and only a redesign and Boeing to stop farming it out to illegal alien employee companies in the south will correct the problem.

Finally this and REMEMBER. Many of these crashes are QRS311 fly by wire remote takeovers, using the MCAS as the cover scapegoat. The Ethiopian crash was such a crash, as UN investigators were heading back to report on human trafficking in the Congo area. Those witness, some two dozen, were murdered all at once, in a single flight.  They couldn't pass up the opportunity to kill a bunch of stones with one drone flight.

Indeed MCAS is a stupid fix to a hardware design failure, but in some cases, these planes were never meant to arrive at destination. Because of who was on board. MH370 was just such an instance of this.
----------------