Honda Sensing Autopilot FK8.

[SpinRush]

Japan FK8 has no Honda Sensing?!?! Lucky us! I'm glad to hear that. I've had 2 Honda's that both had Honda Sensing and I absolutely loved it. Good safety settings, plus it eliminates driver fatigue with LKAS / Cruise Control systems.

But every now and then we are reminded that the driver of a car or a pilot of an airplane needs to be in complete control of a vehicle. This becomes immediately evident when you are in an emergency situation and you absolutely must maintain control of the vehicle. We can not have computer systems fighting against our commands.

In addition to loving cars, I'm also into commercial jetliners. I even have my own YouTube channel where I share Flight Simulator vids. This was a bad week for me because I've always been a big fan of 737 aircraft. Many of us in the aviation community believe the cause of the recent crashes ( Ethiopian Air and Lion ) is the MCAS system which the pilot has no control over. In fact, it is a passive system that automatically kicks in based on flight behavior. If provided the wrong data by sensors, the software will fight against the pilot's commands and we believe it is this software that sent the plane into a nosedive.

**The MCAS system was created to save a buck. They wanted better fuel consumption so the aircraft length was extended and engine position altered. MCAS was developed because on an unusual nose pitch up experienced when flying the aircraft.

Honda Sensing sometimes kicks in with a warning, handle shake even though the vehicle is in no danger at all. I've notice it happen on highway on-ramps that have a steep incline while accelerating to speed. Please keep in mind I'm not discussing the FK8 right now. I experienced this with StepWGN Spada and Honda Fit RS 2019. I will receive my FK8 soon and I'm really glad that I can drive the car the way I wish. I want to be in full command.

Of course, we all have our opinions about Honda Sensing or systems like MCAS which take the pilot out of equation. So the question is..."Are you scared of these software systems driving / flying you around?" Or do you prefer to be in complete control?

Sponsored

 

[RedGiant217]

It is highly likely that both Honda sensing and MCAS have saved many more lives than they have taken. If they've really taken lives at all. They make cars safer every year and yet the number of people dying in car accidents continues to go up. At some point these systems and the smooth/quiet ride of cars today are giving people a false sense of security. This leads to people driving faster and justifying things like texting and driving. But I digress...

I don't mind the lack if sensing on the NA Type R. I've never had any of that stuff on my cars anyway.

 

[enishi]

I have honda sensing plus made it even better with comma ai enhancement. Basically it replace honda sensing lane following software with a better version. It's not perfect but I can override in a split second. So it's not like it would kill you .. unless you have a reaction of a 90yo. Self driving car is a good thing.

 

[Victor1507]

What is your YouTube channel, if you don't mind?

 

[BriteBlue]

I'm sure all the safety features save lives, but people have to put down their phones & pay attention. I don't want a self driving car because I enjoy driving, but hopefully the distracted idiot next to me has one so that he doesn't hit someone.

I had the Adaptive Cruise on the other day & traffic was slowing & coming to a stop. It still amazes me how well this technology works, but thank goodness I'm prepared to stop in case the system doesn't work. I was down to 1 or 2 mph behind another car when all of sudden my car started taking off. I have no idea why, but it was like no one was in front of me all of a sudden. Good thing my foot was right above the brake pedal.

 

[Gruber]

I have all the sensing but I'm also trying to be sensible. Sometimes I get warning flashes on the display when I get close or even not so close to the car in front of me. But I have never had any actual braking or shaking. I don't use LCAS except on longer trips on not so busy freeways. I think it's great, but not for anything beyond that.

Regarding the 737 issue, Boeing, and anybody else trying to automate flying or driving, need to understand that actual deadly accidents caused by machines, which could be easily prevented by humans, will never ever be tolerated. This is regardless and no matter how much these systems possibly may have been helping to avoid some other potential accidents. Some companies may need to go out of business if they refuse to accept this reality.

But, as I understand, this system can be in fact disabled by the pilots in case of observed false sensor inputs. The problem is that, apparently, Boeing didn't particularly emphasize that fact in training and manuals, especially to those third world country pilots....because in their stupidity, they certainly would not appreciate how very beneficial the automation is....and they would keep turning it off all the time....like those DRLs in cars....

Since there are people thinking that automatic driving is almost possible today, (while in reality it's not even close to practical) I'm sure there are plenty who would advocate making turning off a dumb flight automat difficult or impossible. Hey, "it's a safety feature" and safety is to die for.

 

[Browncoat3000]

I have all the sensing but I'm also trying to be sensible. Sometimes I get warning flashes on the display when I get close or even not so close to the car in front of me. But I have never had any actual braking or shaking. I don't use LCAS except on longer trips on not so busy freeways. I think it's great, but not for anything beyond that.

Regarding the 737 issue, Boeing, and anybody else trying to automate flying or driving, need to understand that actual deadly accidents caused by machines, which could be easily prevented by humans, will never ever be tolerated. This is regardless and no matter how much these systems possibly may have been helping to avoid some other potential accidents. Some companies may need to go out of business if they refuse to accept this reality.

But, as I understand, this system can be in fact disabled by the pilots in case of observed false sensor inputs. The problem is that, apparently, Boeing didn't particularly emphasize that fact in training and manuals, especially to those third world country pilots....because in their stupidity, they certainly would not appreciate how very beneficial the automation is....and they would keep turning it off all the time....like those DRLs in cars....

Since there are people thinking that automatic driving is almost possible today, (while in reality it's not even close to practical) I'm sure there are plenty who would advocate making turning off a dumb flight automat difficult or impossible. Hey, "it's a safety feature" and safety is to die for.

As an actual professional pilot, let me correct some misinformation you have there.

The 737 is the most successful, longest produced and one of the safest jets ever built. 99 percent of all 737’s are TOTALLY unaffected by the the recent emergency Airworthiness Directive. The problematic system is only installed on the 737-800MAX and -900MAX series aircraft.

The MAX has a new wing and engines, and to improve fuel efficiency, they made the aircraft less stable. This required a new computer system to make the airplane fly like previous 737’s, which was important to airlines who did not want to pay for a separate training program (Type ratings, as they are known) for their pilots.

The sensor involved is related to the stall protection system. For a variety of reasons, the software took input from a single source. An errant signal from this sensor seems to be what doomed the two crash planes.

Here’s where you are both WRONG and more than a little offensive. When this sensor malfunctioned, the computer took measures to correct for what it thought was a stall (pitch down). We haven’t been told exactly what happened on the flightdeck at that point, but it’s easy to infer that the pilots were presented with conflicting information. One system is telling them the airplane is stalling (the wing has stopped flying) and others are (correctly) saying that that all is well.

This has NOTHING to do with “third-world” pilots. That is seriously offensive and misguided. The situation is not at all dissimilar from what happened to Air France when they stalled the airplane and crashed into the Atlantic. They got conflicting information. Were they Inadequately trained? Is France the third-world? No.

As a result, training programs the world over were changed to expose pilots to the exact scenario that crashed Air France. A similar outcome (and a software correction) will undoubtedly result from these accidents. That’s how it works.

Aviation is a VERY Darwinian business. It doesn’t matter where in the world the airplane flies, the laws of physics and the skills required to master it are identical. If you can’t handle it, you will either be weeded out of the gene-pool or self-select for extinction.

In aviation, it’s not a single decision that leads to an accident, it’s always the result of a series of decisions which eventually result in someone running out of options. The chain leading to these accidents is long indeed, and even involves the state of US politics (the Trump shutdown caused the FAA to delay approving Boeing’s software update). Blaming the pilots seems simple, but it’s wrong.

 

[SpinRush]

As an actual professional pilot, let me correct some misinformation you have there.

The 737 is the most successful, longest produced and one of the safest jets ever built. 99 percent of all 737’s are TOTALLY unaffected by the the recent emergency Airworthiness Directive. The problematic system is only installed on the 737-800MAX and -900MAX series aircraft.

The MAX has a new wing and engines, and to improve fuel efficiency, they made the aircraft less stable. This required a new computer system to make the airplane fly like previous 737’s, which was important to airlines who did not want to pay for a separate training program (Type ratings, as they are known) for their pilots.

The sensor involved is related to the stall protection system. For a variety of reasons, the software took input from a single source. An errant signal from this sensor seems to be what doomed the two crash planes.

Here’s where you are both WRONG and more than a little offensive. When this sensor malfunctioned, the computer took measures to correct for what it thought was a stall (pitch down). We haven’t been told exactly what happened on the flightdeck at that point, but it’s easy to infer that the pilots were presented with conflicting information. One system is telling them the airplane is stalling (the wing has stopped flying) and others are (correctly) saying that that all is well.

This has NOTHING to do with “third-world” pilots. That is seriously offensive and misguided. The situation is not at all dissimilar from what happened to Air France when they stalled the airplane and crashed into the Atlantic. They got conflicting information. Were they Inadequately trained? Is France the third-world? No.

As a result, training programs the world over were changed to expose pilots to the exact scenario that crashed Air France. A similar outcome (and a software correction) will undoubtedly result from these accidents. That’s how it works.

Aviation is a VERY Darwinian business. It doesn’t matter where in the world the airplane flies, the laws of physics and the skills required to master it are identical. If you can’t handle it, you will either be weeded out of the gene-pool or self-select for extinction.

In aviation, it’s not a single decision that leads to an accident, it’s always the result of a series of decisions which eventually result in someone running out of options. The chain leading to these accidents is long indeed, and even involves the state of US politics (the Trump shutdown caused the FAA to delay approving Boeing’s software update). Blaming the pilots seems simple, but it’s wrong.

AMEN! You said it perfectly. Pilots are often the scapegoat of a more systemic problem or influence. The 737 has always been my favorite plane. Knowing how we love cars and engines, the same can be said of airplanes. I love the stance of the 737 and it's Pratt and Whitney or Rolls Royce engines. That thing can really fly.

Unfortunately, or maybe not, we live in a time when commercial flying all comes down to computers and fuel management to keep airlines in the black. Of course, it's normal and logical to try to save money to keep an airline alive. I still think that when the airplane gets in the air, the pilot should always have max control. If the pilot thinks he has to use more power or a higher rate of ascent to get the plane to safety he should have the right to do. FMCs and company economy codes that they have to enter to be economical is fair. I'm just focused on the MCAS system and possible flaws with it. Those sensors need to give the MCAS accurate information. If BOEING went with the lowest bidder to make those parts then it's borderline criminal in my book. I'm not the judge though and it's just my opinion.

Very soon though, I fear that cars will have such systems installed that will result in accidents. Of course, manufacturers may or may not be held accountable then either. They will find a way to blame the drivers involved in those accidents.

The "third world" pilot thing was an insult. That sounded kind of Trumpish IMO. They worked hard to get where they were and it might surprise you that other countries have very intelligent people. Wakanda Forever! If you get my drift. Stop living in a bubble. Safety systems, ha! A lot of things these days are mislabelled. Politicians are very good at rebranding something that would not appeal to the general public.

 

[Gruber]

As an actual professional pilot, let me correct some misinformation you have there.

The 737 is the most successful, longest produced and one of the safest jets ever built. 99 percent of all 737’s are TOTALLY unaffected by the the recent emergency Airworthiness Directive. The problematic system is only installed on the 737-800MAX and -900MAX series aircraft.

The MAX has a new wing and engines, and to improve fuel efficiency, they made the aircraft less stable. This required a new computer system to make the airplane fly like previous 737’s, which was important to airlines who did not want to pay for a separate training program (Type ratings, as they are known) for their pilots.

The sensor involved is related to the stall protection system. For a variety of reasons, the software took input from a single source. An errant signal from this sensor seems to be what doomed the two crash planes.

Here’s where you are both WRONG and more than a little offensive. When this sensor malfunctioned, the computer took measures to correct for what it thought was a stall (pitch down). We haven’t been told exactly what happened on the flightdeck at that point, but it’s easy to infer that the pilots were presented with conflicting information. One system is telling them the airplane is stalling (the wing has stopped flying) and others are (correctly) saying that that all is well.

This has NOTHING to do with “third-world” pilots. That is seriously offensive and misguided. The situation is not at all dissimilar from what happened to Air France when they stalled the airplane and crashed into the Atlantic. They got conflicting information. Were they Inadequately trained? Is France the third-world? No.

As a result, training programs the world over were changed to expose pilots to the exact scenario that crashed Air France. A similar outcome (and a software correction) will undoubtedly result from these accidents. That’s how it works.

Aviation is a VERY Darwinian business. It doesn’t matter where in the world the airplane flies, the laws of physics and the skills required to master it are identical. If you can’t handle it, you will either be weeded out of the gene-pool or self-select for extinction.

In aviation, it’s not a single decision that leads to an accident, it’s always the result of a series of decisions which eventually result in someone running out of options. The chain leading to these accidents is long indeed, and even involves the state of US politics (the Trump shutdown caused the FAA to delay approving Boeing’s software update). Blaming the pilots seems simple, but it’s wrong.

It's a pity that as a "professional pilot" you don't have the ability to read with comprehension. Don't they teach it in K-12? Now try to read my post again, and only then you are allowed to read the rest of this one. [ .........waiting time for your rereading...............]

You are trying to be personally extremely offensive:

If you can’t handle it, you will either be weeded out of the gene-pool or self-select for extinction.

but you yourself failed to understand a bit of innocent sarkasm, actually directed at Boeing. I hope natural selection will eliminate people who can't understand a short text.

Sarkasm : Sarcasm is an ironic or satirical remark that seems to be praising someone or something but is really taunting or cutting (or the other way around).

Get it now?
Everything will be investigated, but I chose to believe Boeing is almost 100% responsible for these accidents with MAX planes. It seems that they failed to clearly convey and emphasize to the pilots in training (done by Boeing) and in manuals (written by Boeing) how to act when this particular system fails (and there is no if, it will fail). These planes made thousands of flights safely, and never crashed in the USA and all other countries that have them, although some pilots did see erratic behavior. I said that i believe Boeing did not provide equal and sufficient information/training to all airlines and I still believe it.

Additionally, I don't believe in the widespread propaganda that a large majority of serious large passenger plane accidents are caused by "the human factor". Much more than is asserted are caused by technical problems, bad design, and unnecessary equipment failures.

So why are you attacking me in an offensive manner if you then say the same? Or actually you said that Boeing is not guilty, pilots are not guilty, Trump shutdown is guilty...

For a variety of reasons, the software took input from a single source.

You completely made it up. What are "the variety of reasons" ? Doesn't make any sense and is not even relevant. The issue is why the pilots had to fight for long minutes the obviously erratic system until they reached terrain instead of just turning it off.

As a professional pilot you should know that (certainly) on large modern airliners there are no single sensors. You should also know that the pilot and the copilot have two independent systems. The job of the pilots is to figure out which one is correct. You should also have read (if you want to even discuss this), that the copilot had only 200 hours flight time. FAA requires 1500 for the copilot.

You repeat the not so relevant information about engine/wing changes, while the principles of these systems (reading the angle of attack and air speed and correcting a stall condition) are in principle the same on all aircraft. Then you contradict yourself by saying that "The situation is not at all dissimilar from what happened to Air France." Of course it is not dissimilar. Two differences: perfect weather (the weather was a catastrophe in itself in the Air France case) and the Air France pilot was sleeping in the passenger compartment and had to be awaken and brought to the cockpit. During the take off and climb even the worse pilots are paying 100% attention, so generally this should never happen. Everything is just guessing at this stage, but I blame Boeing for these accidents, since even average pilots should be trained and informed to know immediately how to disable the MCAS system, and disabling this system should be straigtforward. It's a recklessness and a foolhardiness of Boeing to not make sure this system is better protected in case of failure, and that all pilots are strongly warned about it..
Anyone who has any idea what an AOA (angle of attack) sensor is, understands that two sensors like this can fail even at the same time. The whole system will at some time fail in some of the thousands of aircraft of this type thy want to sell, only question when.

So why did you get triggered and wrote all that nonsense above, "professional pilot?" Btw. have you ever even seen the cockpit of a large airliner?

 

[Gruber]

The "third world" pilot thing was an insult. That sounded kind of Trumpish IMO. They worked hard to get where they were and it might surprise you that other countries have very intelligent people. Wakanda Forever! If you get my drift. Stop living in a bubble. Safety systems, ha! A lot of things these days are mislabelled. Politicians are very good at rebranding something that would not appeal to the general public.

See where the lack of basic education in reading comprehension leads? Blame your school.
You found exactly opposite meaning to what was written.

How blind (or immature) would someone need to be to fail to understand a post where I disparage (see a dictionary) excessive and prone to failure automation, and criticize Boeing for their patronizing attitude towards the pilots, particularly from some countries, and to read exactly the opposite.

But, as I understand, this system can be in fact disabled by the pilots in case of observed false sensor inputs. The problem is that, apparently, Boeing didn't particularly emphasize that fact in training and manuals, especially to those third world country pilots....because in their stupidity, they certainly would not appreciate how very beneficial the automation is....and they would keep turning it off all the time....like those DRLs in cars....

Since there are people thinking that automatic driving is almost possible today, (while in reality it's not even close to practical) I'm sure there are plenty who would advocate making turning off a dumb flight automat difficult or impossible. Hey, "it's a safety feature" and safety is to die for.

Read again and I demand an apology.

 

[Browncoat3000]

It's a pity that as a "professional pilot" you don't have the ability to read with comprehension. Don't they teach it in K-12? Now try to read my post again, and only then you are allowed to read the rest of this one. [ .........waiting time for your rereading...............]

You are trying to be personally extremely offensive:


but you yourself failed to understand a bit of innocent sarkasm, actually directed at Boeing. I hope natural selection will eliminate people who can't understand a short text.


Get it now?
Everything will be investigated, but I chose to believe Boeing is almost 100% responsible for these accidents with MAX planes. It seems that they failed to clearly convey and emphasize to the pilots in training (done by Boeing) and in manuals (written by Boeing) how to act when this particular system fails (and there is no if, it will fail). These planes made thousands of flights safely, and never crashed in the USA and all other countries that have them, although some pilots did see erratic behavior. I said that i believe Boeing did not provide equal and sufficient information/training to all airlines and I still believe it.

Additionally, I don't believe in the widespread propaganda that a large majority of serious large passenger plane accidents are caused by "the human factor". Much more than is asserted are caused by technical problems, bad design, and unnecessary equipment failures.

So why are you attacking me in an offensive manner if you then say the same? Or actually you said that Boeing is not guilty, pilots are not guilty, Trump shutdown is guilty...


You completely made it up. What are "the variety of reasons" ? Doesn't make any sense and is not even relevant. The issue is why the pilots had to fight for long minutes the obviously erratic system until they reached terrain instead of just turning it off.

As a professional pilot you should know that (certainly) on large modern airliners there are no single sensors. You should also know that the pilot and the copilot have two independent systems. The job of the pilots is to figure out which one is correct. You should also have read (if you want to even discuss this), that the copilot had only 200 hours flight time. FAA requires 1500 for the copilot.

You repeat the not so relevant information about engine/wing changes, while the principles of these systems (reading the angle of attack and air speed and correcting a stall condition) are in principle the same on all aircraft. Then you contradict yourself by saying that "The situation is not at all dissimilar from what happened to Air France." Of course it is not dissimilar. Two differences: perfect weather (the weather was a catastrophe in itself in the Air France case) and the Air France pilot was sleeping in the passenger compartment and had to be awaken and brought to the cockpit. During the take off and climb even the worse pilots are paying 100% attention, so generally this should never happen. Everything is just guessing at this stage, but I blame Boeing for these accidents, since even average pilots should be trained and informed to know immediately how to disable the MCAS system, and disabling this system should be straigtforward. It's a recklessness and a foolhardiness of Boeing to not make sure this system is better protected in case of failure, and that all pilots are strongly warned about it..
Anyone who has any idea what an AOA (angle of attack) sensor is, understands that two sensors like this can fail even at the same time. The whole system will at some time fail in some of the thousands of aircraft of this type thy want to sell, only question when.

So why did you get triggered and wrote all that nonsense above, "professional pilot?" Btw. have you ever even seen the cockpit of a large airliner?

Wow, where to begin? I know, let’s start with a visual aid. That picture is of yours truly taken just after earning my latest Type-rating in January (I’m in the left seat). I’ve been flying since I was 15, and soloed on my 16th Birthday. I’ve flown turbine aircraft for 25 years now, 21 as a Captain with my present carrier, with whom I’ve been an instructor pilot, check airman, and a flight standards manager where I helped design the CRM training program. So, yes, I know a thing or two about large transport category aircraft and human factors.

I grossly over simplified my explanations for the laymen in the audience. But since you seem to have some knowledge, I’ll gladly step it up for you.

What I took umbrage with was when you said;

“The problem is that, apparently, Boeing didn't particularly emphasize that fact in training and manuals, especially to those third world country pilots....because in their stupidity, they certainly would not appreciate how very beneficial the automation is....and they would keep turning it off all the time.”

I find that offensive for several reasons, not least being its racial overtones. If you were really trying to be sarcastic, you are doing it wrong. I may be a cynic, but in my experience when anyone tries to pass off some heinous remark as sarcasm, it’s usually an attempt to deflect because they know that they got caught out.

I am absolutely correct when I say that aviation is a Darwinian business. If you don’t have the requisite skills for the type of flying you do, you will not make it. That will happen one of 3 ways: you will realize your limitations and quit, you will not pass your training and quit/get fired, OR you will crash and burn. Literally. That’s what I meant when I say you will be removed from the gene pool, although it might have been more clear if I specified the “Aviation gene pool.” I’m sorry if that gives you the butthurts, but I say it with the humility of knowing it applies to myself as well. Frankly, at this point if I got into a single engine aerobatic plane like a Pitts or an Extra, I’d likely kill myself. It’s been close to 30 years since I flew a tail dragger. So I’d seek extensive instruction.

I will grant that the information Boeing provided was most likely inadequate. However to imply that they deliberately withheld information for the reason you gave is libelous to Boeing, and insulting to those of us in the craft. If anyone can rise to the challenge of flying a 737, they are also capable of appreciating the benefit of automation.

Moving on to the 737, here’s a good description of the stall protection mode of the MCAS that caused the two accidents:

https://www.seattletimes.com/busine...-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/

There are some pretty serious flaws with the system, obviously. When I said The stall protection mode is in fact triggered by a single sensor, I was simplifying. It would be more accurate to say that it’s triggered by a single parameter, which is provided by the pair of AOA vanes. This is problematic because the mechanical nature of the AOA vane allows it to be “fooled” by turbulent air. It’s also possible, as you pointed out, that it could fail. Although the former is the more likely; for example, my present aircraft has a more primitive cousin of the MCAS, a stick shaker/pusher combination. It is not unusual while landing in turbulence for the AOA vanes to trigger the stall warning sound, but this doesn’t trigger the shaker/pusher because there is a considerable pad between the audio cue and the actual stall.

When the MCAS triggered, it shoved the nose down. The pilot did override the system, but this allowed the MCAS to reset itself, causing another push. Because Boeing evidently didn’t tell anyone that this would happen (according to the above article) confusion ensued, and the cycle repeated until the plane ran out of altitude.

This is in fact very similar to what happened to Air France. You described the weather as “a disaster”. That’s untrue. They encountered some light turbulence, but they did encounter some unusual icing. The icing event (which lasted 1 minute) blocked the pitot tubes, for all of 30 seconds. The blocked pitots caused the autopilot to disconnect, AND the flight control computers (MCAS’ bigger brother: the Airbus is fly by wire) to drop into a “backup” mode. The crew did not know this had happened, and when the flying pilot took control he over corrected, and pitched the nose up. The airplane began to climb, trading its speed for altitude. The backup flight mode did not provide stall protection, and so the airplane entered not just a stall, but a very deep stall.

With what they thought was an unreliable airspeed indication, a high rate of descent, a nearly level pitch attitude, and maximum available power, the crew could not resolve the contradictions, one pilot was pulling the nose up, the other was trying to push it down. They did not know that they were cross controlling, and because of Airbus control logic the nose-up input ruled and the airplane remained stalled. The Captain did eventually realize the airplane was stalled, but because he could not see the two contradictory control inputs, and did not know the computers had switched, he couldn’t understand why they couldn’t break the stall either.

So you see, the situations are similar, both crews thought they were doing the correct thing (overriding MCAS, attempting to break the stall), but when the plane did not respond as expected, they were left confused, with very little time to sort it out.

In the case of the MAX, you are correct when you say that Boeing will likely get most of the blame, but it’s also on the FAA, and yes, Trump: There was a software fix for the MCAS that was held up by the shutdown.

When I said the stall mode used one input “for a variety of reasons “, I was not making it up, I was alluding to the above. Boeing was under enormous pressure to deliver the MAX, and so they rushed it through so quickly that evidently no one noticed that the single input stall protection could cause a problem.

View attachment 141715

 

[SpinRush]

View attachment 141715 [/QUOTE]
Total respect to you, my friend. You do what I only dream of doing. VATSIM will never compare to spooling your engines up, calling out V1, V2, rotate. I have high respect for the aviation pilots that fly us through more traffic in the airways that people are aware of. If you ever want to check out a wannabe pilot my channel is Spinrush C1. I made this short series of videos called FSX PocketFlights. My best vid is landing into St. Maarten. NO ILS, I didn’t cheat ;-)



You’ll find my car vids on that channel as well.

 

[Gruber]

I will grant that the information Boeing provided was most likely inadequate. However to imply that they deliberately withheld information for the reason you gave is libelous to Boeing, and insulting to those of us in the craft. If anyone can rise to the challenge of flying a 737, they are also capable of appreciating the benefit of automation.

Don't make me laugh by saying I'm libelous to Boeing.

This may soon be (already is) relevant to "self driving" cars. Boeing "engineers" with the coder-boy mentality approached designing extremely dangerous systems like programming computer games. If there are bugs, the next update will fix it. But a passenger airliner is not a game or a phone. They didn't provide adequate manuals, training, and explicit warnings. Pilots have to pull out and read the aircraft checklists to find the cut-off switch, while the faulty MCAS system can bring the plane to terrain literally in minutes.

Their managers were OK with it, and the FAA also left it to the Boeing coder-boys in a blatant dereliction of duty. A system, that can bring the plane down in minutes, was based of only one of the two sensors.

At the same time, some pilots who apparently are greater than others, because they know without reading checklists how to deal with this issue, say that "there is nothing wrong with the plane."

 

[Gruber]

In any case, since you failed to apologize but instead doubled down on your racial insults, you eliminated yourself from the pool of people I communicate with.

I find that offensive for several reasons, not least being its racial overtones. If you were really trying to be sarcastic, you are doing it wrong. I may be a cynic, but in my experience when anyone tries to pass off some heinous remark as sarcasm, it’s usually an attempt to deflect because they know that they got caught out.

 

[Civics4Ever]

If you cant keep your eyes on the road, you shouldn't be driving. Screw driving aids, drive it and stop it yourself.

Sponsored