Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Financial Collapse of 2001 Unwinding -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: elmatador who wrote (2120)	3/19/2019 3:23:18 AM
From: Elroy Jetson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13775

Boeing already knew they needed an extension of something like the Embraer E-Jet line. It's a much less costly solution than designing from scratch. By comparison, Airbus got the dog's breakfast with Bombardier. Both Airbus and Boeing have implemented really a really heavy-handed correction to a stall violation of the flight envelope. Both solutions place their aircraft into a steep dive to gain speed to correct the perceived stall. Stalls are a major problem because pilots rarely believe they're really in a stall when they are alerted by the stick-shaker. The Air France 447 crew refused to believe they were in a stall and rapidly falling in a horizontal position, until the senior pilot got to the flight deck and issued commands too late when he realized what was happening. The saving grace or fault with the Boeing MCAS is it can be switched-off, the Airbus response to faulty data from the AIDRU give the pilot no chance to over-ride the flight computer. Airbus still has no idea what causes their AIDRU to swap data channels. They say it shouldn't be possible, but it happened three times before their software fix which makes it possible for the flight computer to decide if a sudden change in altitude and AOA might in fact be due to an AIDRU fault. Being a fan of air crash investigation shows, the only cause of crashes which is more frustrating are pilots who don't believe their ground proximity radar warning that they are too close the ground - almost always because they're flying into a mountain range because they're not where they think they are. As the warning repeatedly whoops twice followed by a woman's voice saying "Terrain, terrain, pull-up, pull-up" they always all agree this has to be wrong because they actually not near a mountain. I suppose there probably are many cases where the pilots immediately pull up and put the plane into a turn to avoid the terrain, because we only have the transcripts of the aircraft which crashed.