Blog Entries
Fight Computer Against Humans
Category: BEYOND ILLUSION
Tags: Computer AI Fight Humans Boeing 737 Max 8 Airbus Aircraft Aviation Disaster US Parsifal

Fight Computer Against Humans


After studying the previous information and statements about the two crashes of a Boeing 737 Max 8 and the characteristics of this airplane, I come to the result in a few words, here a fight took place between the computer of the airplane and the pilots.

That means, because of wrong information of sensors the computer put the plane in a dangerous position, the pilots tried to correct this, but the computer corrected the correction and put the plane in a dangerous position again.

This explains why the recorded flight profile goes up and down very erratically.
Finally, the plane crashed almost vertically into the ground at extremely high speed.

The first graph shows the speed of the 737 Max 8 of Lion Air that crashed into the sea on October 29, 2018 in Indonesia shortly after taking off from Jakarta.


All 189 people on board lost their lives.
Parsifal, March 14, 2019

Among this is the profile of Ethiopian Airlines 737 Max 8, which fell out of the sky last Sunday shortly after takeoff from Addis Ababa and crashed to the ground, killing all 157 passengers and crew.

What is noticeable is the up and down speed of the planes, where both planes lost hundreds of meters of height, a sign of very big problems.

Both planes were brand new, those of Lion Air three months and those of Ethiopian Airlines only four months in service.
Both pilots had a lot of flying experience.

Interruption: Just as I am writing these lines on Friday at late noon, the latest news reaches me, a Boeing 737-800 had to make an emergency landing in the north of Russia, this time due to engine failure.

On my long-haul flight, there was also the problem that the autopilot corrected the altitude up and down, the plane moved like on a roller coaster.

The only solution for the pilot was to switch off the autopilot, take over the control and continue flying manually.

But now the 737 Max 8 does not allow the pilot to switch off the computer, at least not the part of the software that should prevent the side-slip.

So what could have happened, the computer said during the climb after the takeoff by a defective angle of incidence sensor, the machine is side-slipping and therefore pressed the nose down to increase the speed.
The pilot noticed, however, that this is wrong and pulled the nose upwards.

Then the computer corrects again and pushes down.
The pilot did the counter manoeuvre again.
That repeated itself several times and the machine carried out this roller coaster movement, which rose bigger and bigger.

According to radio records, the Ethiopian Airlines pilot reported that he had difficulty controlling the plane and demanded an immediate return to the airport, which he was granted.

In this fight against the computer and the ups and downs, more and more altitude was lost, which is low anyway because of the takeoff shortly before, until it came to an impact with the ground.

The Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Crash Site

However, I would like to remind you that such a problem has also been reported by Airbus pilots in the past.
There have been cases where planes fell thousands of metres steeply down because the computer did this incorrectly and the pilots only regained control by switching off the computer.

This raises the question, why can't the pilots of the 737 Max 8 switch off this computer crash-prevention when it performs wrong manoeuvres?

The answer is unbelievable
The manufacturer Boeing says that the pilots of a 737 Max 8 do not even know that this autocorrection exists, a function of the 'Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System' (MCAS).

The description was omitted from the flight manuals, because according to Boeing a pilot should 'never see the effect of the MCAS' when flying normally.

I have to grab my head when I hear this bullshit
So Boeing has incapacitated the pilots and says, the computer is always right and pilots don't have to know what the computer does, no one is allowed to intervene.

Now it looks like, the computer got wrong signals from the angle of attack probe and said, the machine is about to crash, therefore performed wrong maneuvers as supposed correction.

The pilots tried everything to gain control, but the computer prevented it.
They could only have turned off most of the power to 'kill' the computer, which would have turned off other critical functions as well.

Now that the pilots on my long-haul flight had the problem with the 'crazy' autopilot, all they had to do was press the 'off' button to get back in control.
This is obviously no longer possible with the latest airplane models, because the AI (artificial intelligence) flies the plane.

Why do the manufacturers do this?
Because the airlines demand this in order to hire less qualified pilots who need less flight training and are therefore cheaper.

It's about profitability in the face of fierce competition
But this is also the fault of customers who are demanding ever cheaper flights.
How can there still be safe flight operations when flights are only allowed to cost 50 euros?
This means massive safety savings and automation.

This is generally the trend now for all means of transport; they will soon be able to transport people independently and autonomously without a guide, driver, captain or pilot.

That's great, but if the computer suddenly 'gets cracy' because of wrong input and no one can intervene, then the catastrophe is ready:

B 737 MAX - Finally the scrap from Seattle has to stay on the ground
The example of the Boeing 737 and especially the latest development stage MAX 8/9 shows how fatal it is when it is not engineers who make the decisions, but merchants.
No engineer in his right mind would have built the 737 MAX like this if he hadn't been forced to do so by greedy managers.
The nearly 400 deaths in two crashes were caused by Boeing's board of directors, as well as the impending bankruptcy of the entire group.

The Boeing B 737 was a crutch right from the start
When Boeing planned the B 737-100 in the early 1960s, a seat configuration of 2/3 was planned, as with the DC 9.
Lufthansa, as the largest first customer for the 'City-Jet', wanted a 3/3 version, as with the B 727 and the B 707.
However, the construction was already advanced and so the tinkering began in order to save costs. Boeing simply left the already planned cockpit as narrow as it was and so the pilots have to squeeze themselves into a cockpit for all versions of the 737, for which you actually need a shoehorn to get in. But this mini cockpit is of course lighter than an ergonomically reasonable one and so the merchants are pleased.
However, this was not the only cost-saving sellout.

In order to save costs, Boeing has designed flying crutches
The nose and main landing gear were not designed for the now larger hull from the beginning.
Flight engineers told me that during their studies of aeronautical engineering in the 1960s the nose landing gear of the 737 was presented to them as a negative example of how not to do it.
Nevertheless, the B 737-100 became a successful model, which was mainly due to a lack of competitor models.
In the 1970s, the B 737 was modernised for the first time with the model B 737-200.
The more powerful JT-8 engines were still small in size and fitted under the low wings.
Boeing responded to the contemporary requirements for bad weather conditions with an autopilot construction that was a crutch from the beginning, but is still used in all B 737 models today.
This led, for example, to the crash of the 'Fly Dubai' in Rostow in April 2016.

Boeing introduced the 737-300 model in the mid-1980s.
It had a 'glass cockpit' like the Airbus A 310 (with screens instead of a 'clock shop') and contemporary engines with a large front rotor.
Boeing would already have had to carry out a new design here, because the engines no longer fit under the low wing.
In order to save the costs for a new construction and above all the complex approvals for it, the next crutch came.
The engine was placed a little higher and further forward and the intake of the engine was flattened at the bottom so that it wasn't too close to the ground and so absorbed every stone from the ground that would have destroyed the engine.
In the following years Boeing 'enhanced' the 737 more and more with the models up to -800.
Boeing did not change the basic construction from the 1960s with its deficits.
It is simply inexpensive for production to continue using already certified construction units.

At the end of the 1980s, Airbus introduced the A 320, a completely new design that set new standards in terms of flight guidance systems and design.
The A 320 became a direct and successful competitor for the B 737.
Boeing was forced into action, but was able to win more customers for its crutch 737 because of the favourable purchase price.
This is also because Airbus was unable to deliver as many aircraft as there was worldwide demand. Here we are faced with a fundamental problem in international aviation: enormous growth, especially in Asia and Africa.
There is a lack of qualified young pilots and mechanics with sufficient experience.
Airbus had anticipated this problem and designed the A 320's flight guidance systems to provide useful support for less experienced pilots.
Boeing is trying to catch up, but can't get close to the A 320, which was more cleverly designed from the start.

Airbus has once again set new standards with the A 320-NEO
Now we have to look at the markets for this class of aircraft.
They have been located not only since today in areas where other qualities are desired than in Europe. Even in the USA, airlines have no capacity for landings in extremely poor visibility.
To date, there are only a few airports in the US that offer the ground-based conditions for landing according to 'Category III', means for visibility below 100 meters.
These conditions are expensive, on the ground and in the air.
In Africa or Southeast Asia they practically do not exist at all, simply because the need is not there.
This explains why Boeing never set about bringing its crutch from an autopilot to a decent level.
An estimated 90 percent of customers have no need.

High oil prices have increased demand for fuel-saving models
Airbus has again set standards with the A 320-neo and its particularly efficient engines.
Boeing was on a tight squeeze.
The super engines of the A 320 simply didn't fit under the wings of the old B 737, but instead of finally constructing a completely new model, the Boeing merchants decided to build the ultimate crutch beyond all aerodynamic rules.
The engines that were too big for the 737 were moved even further forward and upwards.
During the first test flights it turned out that physics cannot be outwitted so easily.
The airflow of the engine now passed directly under the wing, which must have several negative effects. Once the buoyancy is negatively influenced, but the biggest problems showed up in the extreme slow flight, thus shortly before the stall, which can lead to the crash.

In this situation, with the 737 MAX, the airflow from the engine is directed under the entire lower outer wing, putting the aircraft in an uncontrollable state.
Instead of finally redesigning the aircraft, the managers at Boeing decided on the worst crutch: they had a system installed that takes complete control of the aircraft at this limit.
When a sensor, and in this case, there is only ONE sensor, detects this limit, the attached computer causes the aircraft to move the tailplane trim all the way down to 'nose down'.
That wouldn't be wrong in principle, but it would overshoot the mark.
The fact that this lethal system has no control system, which as such should not occur in aviation, has now proved fatal on two occasions.
This means that if this single sensor gives an error message, pilots have little chance of preventing their aircraft from flying into the ground.
The hole in Ethiopia's soil speaks a clear language about this.

It's not the engineers who are responsible, it's the managers
Now you should know that the tailplane trim of all smaller Boeing models has always been a prone crutch.
It is a motor-spindle unit that tends to 'run away' or jump out and jam in the event of a relay fault.
For this reason there was a prominently placed emergency switch on the B 727 with which the trim motor could be switched off.
That was practiced in the simulator.
The newer 737 models no longer have this emergency stop device.
The pilots cannot switch off the trim motor and save the glider even if they have detected the error.
They would have to switch off the entire busbar on which the trim motor hangs.
As previously said, this would, however, put other elementary systems out of operation and it is a process that cannot be carried out in a fraction of a second.
So if the only sensor for the angle of attack sends a wrong signal to the only computer, then this plane can no longer be saved, at least if it flies at low altitude.

The B 737 MAX is a faulty design right from the start
Anyone who knows anything about aerodynamics will recognize it immediately if they only look at the aircraft.
It forms the top of a series of crutch constructions that run through the entire history of B 737 development.
It is not the engineers who are responsible for this, but the managers who force the engineers to build crutches against their better knowledge.
The fact that this better knowledge is actually happening again is proven by the fact that there is an e-mail from summer 2018, so before the first crash, in which Boeing employees already document what effects this design-error (or rather error by design?) can have.
Boeing's board of directors did not react and accepted so approvingly that exactly what occurred twice within a few months - with almost 400 dead.

Ethiopia trusts neither the manufacturer, nor the US licensing authority FAA
In addition to Boeing's managers, the heads of the FAA, the American regulatory authority, must of course also be called to account.
They certified the airworthiness of the 737 MAX, although they had to know what kind of crutch it was. So it is not surprising that the FAA was the last to ban the 737 MAX from flying.
It is a unique event in the history of aviation that individual countries all over the world first had to rush ahead with flight bans, before the authority actually responsible for the matter would let itself down. However, this was preceded by a unique process.

It was not the FAA or the manufacturer Boeing that banned the 737 MAX from flying in the USA
It was Donald Trump who pulled the emergency brake with a decree.
After that, the FAA and Boeing could no longer help but to follow the step that would actually have been due by summer 2018 at the latest.
Also interesting is the next process, which is again unique: Ethiopia did not leave the accident investigation to the FAA or Boeing.
Contrary to standard procedures, the examination was transferred to the French BEA and the flight recorder was sent to Paris for examination.
This is almost a declaration of war on the American aircraft industry, but at least a demonstration of how little trust remains in the integrity of American institutions.
This is probably also a consequence of the fact that experts are aware of a large number of deliberately falsified results which the American authorities have provided on aircraft accidents.
It is only exemplary to remember the TWA 600, which was downed by an American rocket and which was hidden with all criminal methods from the public and even from pilots.

The history of the B 737 MAX and all 737 models shows the state of the USA and its (aircraft) industry For short-term profit, all the rules are set aside that have been developed for decades out of bitter necessity.

What role do a few hundred deaths play when it comes to saving profits?
The FAA itself is obviously corrupted thoroughgoing and here comes the next interesting aspect.
Donald Trump obviously knows this, because he wanted to put his personal chief pilot on the FAA's executive chair, but this met with massive resistance.
That brings us to the next point, why the American establishment hates Trump so much.
He obviously wants to dry up the swamp at all levels.
If he had his will, it is not unlikely that the 737 MAX in this configuration would not have received any approval and 400 people would not have been crushed.
Another piquant detail is that from the beginning warnings came from Russia regarding the airworthiness of the 737 MAX.

Turbo-capitalism cannot persist in the long run
The disasters with the B 737 MAX have put the entire aviation industry in great distress.
There will also be bottlenecks in Europe in the charter summer of 2019.
But for Boeing itself it can mean the end.
After all, several hundred copies of the 737 MAX have already been delivered and will probably have to be scrapped, because a simple retrofit with software cannot solve the basic problem of the faulty design. Simply resuming production of the old models of the 737 is not a solution either.
It's not that easy and who wanted to have an airplane that couldn't survive next to the A 320 neo?
The 737 MAX case makes it clear that turbo-capitalism cannot exist in the long run.
The whole world cannot function 'sustainably', and aviation certainly cannot, if only profit is the determining element.
Not only the 'diesel scandal' shows this, now drastically Boeing.

So what we need is a radical rethink
Capital and its managers and profiteers must be deprived of power and given back to reason and public spirit.
This applies not only to the aircraft and car industries, but above all to the pharmaceutical industry, which does not want to heal people at all, but pursues the primary interest of selling more and more medicines to healthy people.
However, in order for an improvement to be possible, and in order to prevent thousands of people continuing to lose their lives because of profit addiction, the entire system must be fundamentally renovated.
This must be radical and must not leave out anything that should have been questioned long ago.

How this could have happened during the development of the Boeing 737 Max
Wouldn't surprise me if all this ended up making waves similar to those of the diesel scandal and putting people in jail:

Test pilot and/or simulation manager: 'We have a problem. Due to the new engine position, there are flight situations from which the pilot cannot easily steer the aircraft out. We can't get approval that way'.
One of the members of the group says: 'I told you right away that this wouldn't work. We should have extended the main landing gear and left the engine in place. Or take an engine that fits. Now what?'
Management says, 'We don't have the time or the money to make such extensive changes. We're too far for that. What other options do we have?'
One says: 'After all, the problem only occurs when a pilot flies with too much thrust and too much angle of attack. He was never supposed to do that. In such a situation, can't we somehow electronically reduce the thrust?'
Other says, 'Risky. Everyone has had bad experiences with systems that take away or limit thrust. In the end: Gave it full blast, but it just didn't come, and then it's our fault. Any other suggestions?'
'Well, we could enlarge the elevator' - 'That would also set us back at least a year, probably two. Can't we do something with electronics and computers without having to do mechanical design?'
Some genius comes up with the idea: 'Hmm, if we take the whole tailplane instead of the elevator for steering, it should work. We just use the motors for the trimmer. If a pilot flies too steep at full throttle, we just trim forward.'
Critics: 'Are you nuts? Take the trimmer to control? That's not what it's for.' - 'Come on, that's just for registration anyway. In practice, the system will practically never become active. And test pilots also use the trim system for special maneuvers.'
'Okay, let's try it out. How long will it take you to wire the prototype?' - 'Well, we've got two ports left on the trim control module, so we could put the signal from an angle-of-attack sensor and a pitot tube on it'.
'And the software?' - For testing purposes, we do this very primitively: If the angle of attack is greater than X degrees and the thrust is greater than Y percent, we trim forward for five seconds. Then we'll wait a few seconds before we check again'.
Test pilot comes back after test flight: 'Works great. The nose even comes down all by itself when the pilot does nothing at all'.
Management: 'Ok. We have a solution. Let's go to the certification tests'. - 'But that's just a temporary arrangement for testing. We need at least half a year to do this properly and to consider the other sensors as well'.
'What, half a year. We won't have that much time. 'Is what we have enough for registration?' - 'Formally, yes. It's not nice, but the pilots can also counter-trim by hand if there are problems'.
'Then we'll go to certification with what we have. We can still do this right later when we have time'.
'How do we communicate this to the outside world?' - 'As little as we can. It's not good for the reputation if it gives the impression that we have a fundamental design flaw that we fixed with a workaround'.
'But the pilots should know about it, and it must be included in the checklists' - 'Oh, this detail is not that important now. Just put it somewhere inconspicuous in one of the back chapters of the manual'.
Two years later: 'Didn't we want to revise the MCAS again?' - Now two hundred machines are already flying with the system every day without any problems. Do we really want to touch something that's already proven itself?'
October 2018: 'Fuck.'
March 2019: 'Fuuuuuuck!

UPDATE: A 'part' was found in the debris related to the trim (lowers or raises the nose), and it was set to bring the aircraft into a nosedive.
This find convinced the FAA to keep all 737 Max 8 on the ground.

That means I'm right with my explanation above.
MCAS pushed the plane down and the pilots couldn't pull it up.
They had pulled the pitch elevator back to the stop, but the computer ignored this command and did the opposite.

Question: Is this 'officially' the first time the AI has killed people?

How safe is Boeing's 737 Max 8 aircraft? | Inside Story
Boeing calls its 737 the most popular jet aircraft of all time.
The US plane maker hoped its new 737 MAX 8 would bring in a new era of passenger safety.
However, two fatal crashes in five months are raising serious questions.
Aviation analysts have noted remarkable similarities between Sunday's Ethiopian Airlines crash, and one involving the same model of aircraft in Indonesia in October.
More countries are grounding the planes, and passengers are cancelling their trips.
But Boeing and US aviation regulators say there's nothing to worry about.
So who's right?
And will Sunday's crash affect confidence in modern air travel?

video
 

Finally, I'd like to show you this.
Two women piloting an Airbus A380 for Emirates, the largest series-produced civil airliner in the history of aviation ... RESPECT!

video

Computers make it possible - if they work.

credit image top: Von Arcturus - Eigenes Werk, CC BY-SA 3.0, 7

RSS
"(awakening process and so ... ) Amen Ha..."
In: Ultimatum of Sananda to the Illuminati
by: SiNeh
"Thanks Peter for posting in 2013... Although I was looking for something..."
In: Ultimatum of Sananda to the Illuminati
by: Parsifalrain
"Livestream: New yellow vest protests in Paris despite demo bans at..."
In: Macron forbids demos and deploys soldiers
by: Parsifalrain
"MSM Media Ignores History Being Made NOW In France! pt 2 ..."
In: Macron forbids demos and deploys soldiers
by: SiNeh
"Yup, I think that was all about. I've seen and read other..."
In: Something is very wrong but watch for yourself
by: SiNeh
Search Archive

March 2019 (111)
February 2019 (127)
January 2019 (152)
December 2018 (141)
November 2018 (69)
September 2018 (131)
August 2018 (127)
July 2018 (151)
June 2018 (121)
May 2018 (112)
April 2018 (97)
March 2018 (19)

WHO IS ONLINE
Donation / Support

We take BITCOIN too

3GgibGqh4Rr5i6WmGKeQqdisENLJNKeJH4

The B.O.L.E. is completely funded by community, managed and maintained by volunteers. Please consider making a contribution so more stories of awakening and alternative views can be shared!

THANK YOU

 

Focusing On Real Values

A great way to a new standard.

Gold in small units, also one gram at time

Products for your Wellness

Important: For all products chose at the top of the page the  language (English or German) and currency!

 click HERE to reach all products

TATWellness deliver worldwide.

In Your Service

The BOLE at

Subscribe to basic income for all. A currency by the people for the people, not by central banks. Click either at the picture or the link below.

SiNeh~

MANNABASE

SiNeh~

Live Support