POTUS HAS 'WELCOME BACK JOE' PINNED
test
https://www.trendingnws.com/2019/04/05/ilargi-meijer-boeings-problem-is-not-software/
I just picked out a few sentences from article.
This is a hit piece on Boeing, but it is interesting about the hardware problem with Boeing because of no built in redundancy. It is almost as if somebody was inside the company intentionally sabotaging it.
The 4-month old 737 MAX 8’s anti-stall software reengaged itself four times in 6 minutes as the pilots struggled to straighten the plane post-takeoff. In the end, the anti-stall software won and pushed the plane nose-down towards the earth.
The Seattle Times did an article on March 26 that explains a lot more than all other articles on the topic combined. The paper of course resides in Boeing’s backyard, but can that be the reason we haven’t seen the article quoted all over?
For one thing, it needs to address serious hardware, not software, issues with its planes.
Lack Of Redundancies On Boeing 737 MAX System Baffles Some Involved In Developing The Jet
Boeing has long embraced the power of redundancy to protect its jets and their passengers from a range of potential disruptions, from electrical faults to lightning strikes. The company typically uses two or even three separate components as fail-safes for crucial tasks to reduce the possibility of a disastrous failure. Its most advanced planes, for instance, have three flight computers that function independently, with each computer containing three different processors manufactured by different companies. So even some of the people who have worked on Boeing’s new 737 MAX airplane were baffled to learn that the company had designed an automated safety system that abandoned the principles of component redundancy, ultimately entrusting the automated decision-making to just one sensor — a type of sensor that was known to fail.==
The underlying idea is so basic and simple it hurts: safety come in groups of three: three flight computers that function independently, with each computer containing three different processors manufactured by different companies, and three sensors. The logic behind this is so overwhelming it’s hard to see how anyone but a sociopathic accountant can even ponder ditching it.
At over 5000 orders for the plane, which costs $121 million each, there’s big money involved.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Who benefits when Boeing loses sales?
Follow the money to EU’s AIRBUS!