Progressive Ideology

[old salt]

She's damaging her party & the interests of the voters she's supposed to represent

Odd. They said the exact same thing about Trump. In fact, they STILL say that about Trump.

Hmmm. It's almost as if we're dealing with the same thing, found in two different political parties here.

Examples like this is why the guys words are meaningless. In the old days, he could edit the board. A fraud.

..& Trump gets criticized 24/7 here. Even when he generates positive outcomes.
But cuddly little ACO is beyond critique. Hypocrite.

When logic fails, resort to personal attack. Typical.

[Typical Lax Dad]

She's damaging her party & the interests of the voters she's supposed to represent

Odd. They said the exact same thing about Trump. In fact, they STILL say that about Trump.

Hmmm. It's almost as if we're dealing with the same thing, found in two different political parties here.

Examples like this is why the guys words are meaningless. In the old days, he could edit the board. A fraud.

..& Trump gets criticized 24/7 here. Even when he generates positive outcomes.
But cuddly little ACO is beyond critique. Hypocrite.

When logic fails, resort to personal attack. Typical.

Uh huh.

[frmanfan]

If you can get this, a chilling story, and perfectly plausible as it is already happening in China. I am putting it in this thread, because this is what Lizzie W. wants also, total government control of all things internet.

The Autocrat’s New Tool Kit
The next generation of repressive technology will make past efforts to spread propaganda and quash dissent look primitive.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-autocr ... 1552662637

[dislaxxic]

Trump gets criticized 24/7 here. Even when he generates positive outcomes.
But cuddly little ACO is beyond critique.

Sez Dug-In-Like-A-Tick Mr. Benghazi. No credibility whatsoever.

..

[foreverlax]

Boeing stock is rising again (great buy opportunity)

Based on what?

As of today, BA has real risk if it closes below 364, with the major support line at 320. Upside buy should come when a new double top closes at 392...here is where I would consider a partial position.

While in this range, I would be inclined to wait until a more stable bottom has been put it or a clear breakout to the upside.

[HooDat]

She's damaging her party & the interests of the voters she's supposed to represent

Odd. They said the exact same thing about Trump. In fact, they STILL say that about Trump.

Hmmm. It's almost as if we're dealing with the same thing, found in two different political parties here.

Examples like this is why the guys words are meaningless. In the old days, he could edit the board. A fraud.

..& Trump gets criticized 24/7 here. Even when he generates positive outcomes.
But cuddly little ACO is beyond critique. Hypocrite.

When logic fails, resort to personal attack. Typical.

Uh huh.

there really was no reason for a personal attack

[a fan]

..& Trump gets criticized 24/7 here. Even when he generates positive outcomes.
But cuddly little ACO is beyond critique. Hypocrite.

It doesn't work like that. YOU ignore the stupid stuff Trump says, and focus on the policy. And then you went so
far as to make fun of us for hanging on Trump's every word. Multiple times.

So you're out, if you don't want to be a hypocrite. Ignore all the dumb things Cortez says, and focus on her policies.

Which means, obviously, ignore Cortez. She can't enact policies. Not with Republicans controlling the Senate.


Obama was criticized 24/7 at the Water Cooler. Even when he generated positive outcomes. You never complained about it. Not once.

[old salt]

..& Trump gets criticized 24/7 here. Even when he generates positive outcomes.
But cuddly little ACO is beyond critique. Hypocrite.

It doesn't work like that. YOU ignore the stupid stuff Trump says, and focus on the policy. And then you went so
far as to make fun of us for hanging on Trump's every word. Multiple times.

So you're out, if you don't want to be a hypocrite. Ignore all the dumb things Cortez says, and focus on her policies.

Which means, obviously, ignore Cortez. She can't enact policies. Not with Republicans controlling the Senate.


Obama was criticized 24/7 at the Water Cooler. Even when he generated positive outcomes. You never complained about it. Not once.

She want's to shut down pipelines, even if she doesn't know their names, so she attacks a bank that finances them.

She's wants to abolish ICE, so she attacks a bank that financed the company who built & operated (under Obama) the DHS facilities used to temporarily protect migrant children.

Her rhetoric is her policies. She's attacking companies who are acting legally, from her seat on a committee that's charged with regulating the banking industry.

[a fan]

That's fair. Stick that, and we're all set.


Like, you, I don't agree with these policies.

[seacoaster]

Not sure where else to put this interesting column from Frank Bruni of the Times:

"I had lunch on Monday with the Yale professor Nicholas Christakis, who’s the subject of my midweek column, and when we spoke about political polarization in America, his words came out freely and easily. When I asked him questions about his new book, “Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society,” he was animated, without a trace of self-consciousness.

But when I brought up what happened to him and his wife at Yale in the fall of 2015, and pressed him on how it left him feeling and possibly changed him, he tensed, willing his face into a kind of blankness, meting out his words at a slower pace. I noticed that he was stealing glances at a typewritten sheet and reading from it. That’s how fearful he was that he’d say something wrong — or, rather, something that would get him into fresh trouble. That’s how careful he wanted to be.

What happened at Yale, as I explained in my column and as many of you may recall, was this: His wife, Erika, who also taught there at the time, sent out an email questioning a school official’s directive that students avoid culturally insensitive Halloween costumes: She thought it infantilized students, who could surely police themselves and who should be free to screw up and tough enough to survive offense. She wrote that her husband concurred.

And hundreds of students, along with many faculty members, freaked out, accusing the couple of gross and unforgivable racial insensitivity. This led to a shocking encounter in a Yale courtyard between Nicholas Christakis and students, who hurled insults and screeched at him, as this video chillingly shows.

I did and do understand how many minority students feel marginalized and mocked by the sorts of costumes under discussion; I wouldn’t wear one or feel O.K. about a friend doing so. I’d actively discourage it. But what I didn’t and don’t understand is reacting to Erika Christakis’s email — which was making broader intellectual points about free expression, individual responsibility and the inevitable messiness of many young adults’ behavior — with vicious censure and the insistence that she be silenced. Her email could have been the beginning of a vigorous and valuable debate. Instead it was a prompt for unfettered outrage.

Is it any wonder, then, that her husband, at lunch with me three and a half years later, consulted those notes? No.

But it’s sad, because the way we as a society will reconcile our different perspectives, understand where everyone is coming from and make necessary and lasting progress on issues of social justice is to talk honestly and expansively, which sometimes means imperfectly. That can’t happen in a climate of dread.

Interestingly, the message of Nicholas Christakis’s book is a hopeful one. He argues that humanity is actually rigged for goodness, which will win out more often than not. I explain that better — or, rather, he does — in the column."

I have highlighted the sentence which suggests the central problem of our time -- we don't talk anymore.

[foreverlax]

Oh we talk, we just don't listen.

[old salt]

Boeing stock is rising again (great buy opportunity)

Based on what?

As of today, BA has real risk if it closes below 364, with the major support line at 320. Upside buy should come when a new double top closes at 392...here is where I would consider a partial position.

While in this range, I would be inclined to wait until a more stable bottom has been put it or a clear breakout to the upside.

Based on what ? -- what it's looking like caused the accidents & the fix.
Third World level maintenance, pilot training & pilot experience requirements.
Good explainer on Boeing 737 Max 8 (looks like BA leveled off in the 370"s)

[wahoomurf]

NACL....Trump gets criticized 24/7 here. Even when he generates positive outcomes.
But cuddly little ACO is beyond critique. Hypocrite.

When logic fails, resort to personal attack. Typical.

Wow.You are a big, brave, ass-kicking tough-guy when bullying and attacking that "cuddly little WOMAN". (Perhaps "there's the rub" ?) Yet your muscles and ire disappear when your beloved leader attacks Senator McCain and his family.

What brand of logic did you use when others "logic fails"?

And where is here? Fanlax,the East and West coasts of the U.S.A. Maybe here ain't a geographic location.Could here be sequestered in you head?

Please name a few POSITIVE outcomes that the titular leader of America has "generated",that benefits "we (all)the people)"?

[jhu72]

The entire reason for the MCAS is because of the bigger heavier engines not being fully mounted under the wings, making it less stable. The reason for not being able to mount under wing is because 737 is an ancient design with the fuselage too low to the ground. No room to put the engines under the wings. Modifying the old 737 design is cheaper than designing a new aircraft and has a lower regulatory burden. 737 was never intended to be powered by such engines.

[old salt]

The entire reason for the MCAS is because of the bigger heavier engines not being fully mounted under the wings, making it less stable. The reason for not being able to mount under wing is because 737 is an ancient design with the fuselage too low to the ground. No room to put the engines under the wings. Modifying the old 737 design is cheaper than designing a new aircraft and has a lower regulatory burden. 737 was never intended to be powered by such engines.

Aircraft of all designs are commonly up-engined.

Advantages of standardized cockpit design, digital flight controls & fly by wire, are that flying qualities can be digitally modeled to be similar enough, that a new Type Certification is not required. Pilots are trained on any systems & procedural differences between dash models.

That's why US airline pilots were confident in continuing to fly the MAX, before it was grounded for PR & political reasons & the need to ensure that other nations pilots are trained to FAA standards.

[RedFromMI]

The entire reason for the MCAS is because of the bigger heavier engines not being fully mounted under the wings, making it less stable. The reason for not being able to mount under wing is because 737 is an ancient design with the fuselage too low to the ground. No room to put the engines under the wings. Modifying the old 737 design is cheaper than designing a new aircraft and has a lower regulatory burden. 737 was never intended to be powered by such engines.

Aircraft of all designs are commonly up-engined.

Advantages of standardized cockpit design, digital flight controls & fly by wire, are that flying qualities can be digitally modeled to be similar enough, that a new Type Certification is not required. Pilots are trained on any systems & procedural differences between dash models.

That's why US airline pilots were confident in continuing to fly the MAX, before it was grounded for PR & political reasons & the need to ensure that other nations pilots are trained to FAA standards.

But the following is true about the max:

1. Boeing did a lot of the certification itself, and in communications with the FAA about the process did not fully inform the FAA about the actual programming parameters of the MCAS, which turned out to be substantially different in how it could operate in its extreme. I actually think the software engineers working on the system did not have a full idea of what the system could possibly do with a sensor failure.

2. There was not sufficient documentation about the MCAS system, and therefore appropriate training on the MCAS system was not done. This has to do with Boeing viewing the system as not of the same criticality as it actually turned out to be.

3. The base airplane only used a single sensor to determine if the angle of attack was too steep, unless the purchasing airline was willing to fork out more $$$ to pay for a redundant system. Foreign airlines don't always purchase the upgraded safety systems, and therefore were more vulnerable to the issues with MCAS, which is clearly lacking in its implementation.

4. Boeing will be providing upgraded MCAS systems for all future orders without charge to use multiple sensors and to have a light that indicates if the sensors disagree on the actual angle of attack.

5. American Airlines opted for a system using multiple sensors, as it is an internal airline policy. So their MAX series jets would not behave in the same way as the foreign ones. I understand that Southwest was going to install the same system in their jets as well.

If you want to better understand the issue, the Seattle Times as well as the Washington Post have had some great articles on the approval process and the issues of performance.

[jhu72]

The entire reason for the MCAS is because of the bigger heavier engines not being fully mounted under the wings, making it less stable. The reason for not being able to mount under wing is because 737 is an ancient design with the fuselage too low to the ground. No room to put the engines under the wings. Modifying the old 737 design is cheaper than designing a new aircraft and has a lower regulatory burden. 737 was never intended to be powered by such engines.

Aircraft of all designs are commonly up-engined.

Advantages of standardized cockpit design, digital flight controls & fly by wire, are that flying qualities can be digitally modeled to be similar enough, that a new Type Certification is not required. Pilots are trained on any systems & procedural differences between dash models.

That's why US airline pilots were confident in continuing to fly the MAX, before it was grounded for PR & political reasons & the need to ensure that other nations pilots are trained to FAA standards.

Sure looks like whatever level of confidence there was, was misplaced. No matter how you spin it, mounting heavier engines that far forward is a significant design change that significantly alters the flight characteristics. Frankly I doubt you could fly that plane without computer control. Might be fine for military aircraft, but the philosophy seems incredibly wrong in a commercial passanger carrier.

[old salt]

The entire reason for the MCAS is because of the bigger heavier engines not being fully mounted under the wings, making it less stable. The reason for not being able to mount under wing is because 737 is an ancient design with the fuselage too low to the ground. No room to put the engines under the wings. Modifying the old 737 design is cheaper than designing a new aircraft and has a lower regulatory burden. 737 was never intended to be powered by such engines.

Aircraft of all designs are commonly up-engined.

Advantages of standardized cockpit design, digital flight controls & fly by wire, are that flying qualities can be digitally modeled to be similar enough, that a new Type Certification is not required. Pilots are trained on any systems & procedural differences between dash models.

That's why US airline pilots were confident in continuing to fly the MAX, before it was grounded for PR & political reasons & the need to ensure that other nations pilots are trained to FAA standards.

But the following is true about the max:

1. Boeing did a lot of the certification itself, not uncommon and in communications with the FAA about the process did not fully inform the FAA about the actual programming parameters of the MCAS lack of FAA involvement, which turned out to be substantially different in how it could operate in its extreme. the software rigs it so that differences are masked. The MCAS was incorporated for the extreme edge of the envelope I actually think the software engineers working on the system did not have a full idea of what the system could possibly do with a sensor failure. That's why Boeing has test pilots involved from the start & the aircraft does extensive flight testing before it goes into service.

2. There was not sufficient documentation about the MCAS system, and therefore appropriate training on the MCAS system was not done. This has to do with Boeing viewing the system as not of the same criticality as it actually turned out to be.
US pilots (according to ALPA) said it was sufficient.

3. The base airplane only used a single sensor to determine if the angle of attack was too steep, unless the purchasing airline was willing to fork out more $$$ to pay for a redundant system. Foreign airlines don't always purchase the upgraded safety systems, and therefore were more vulnerable to the issues with MCAS, which is clearly lacking in its implementation. That's why pilots disconnect the MCAS & AP & hand fly the aircraft.

4. Boeing will be providing upgraded MCAS systems for all future orders without charge to use multiple sensors and to have a light that indicates if the sensors disagree on the actual angle of attack. That's being done to make it further fool proof for inadequately trained or experienced pilots. Worth the expense for airlines (& passengers) willing to risk their safety on lesser trained & experienced pilots.

5. American Airlines opted for a system using multiple sensors, as it is an internal airline policy. So their MAX series jets would not behave in the same way as the foreign ones. I understand that Southwest was going to install the same system in their jets as well.
It's worth it to Boeing to retrofit the entire MAX fleet to get it back in the air & restore consumer confidence, but not necessary for safety of flight when flown by pilots adequately trained or qualified to deal with all sorts of more complex emergency situations.

If you want to better understand the issue, the Seattle Times as well as the Washington Post have had some great articles on the approval process and the issues of performance.

[RedFromMI]

The entire reason for the MCAS is because of the bigger heavier engines not being fully mounted under the wings, making it less stable. The reason for not being able to mount under wing is because 737 is an ancient design with the fuselage too low to the ground. No room to put the engines under the wings. Modifying the old 737 design is cheaper than designing a new aircraft and has a lower regulatory burden. 737 was never intended to be powered by such engines.

Aircraft of all designs are commonly up-engined.

Advantages of standardized cockpit design, digital flight controls & fly by wire, are that flying qualities can be digitally modeled to be similar enough, that a new Type Certification is not required. Pilots are trained on any systems & procedural differences between dash models.

That's why US airline pilots were confident in continuing to fly the MAX, before it was grounded for PR & political reasons & the need to ensure that other nations pilots are trained to FAA standards.

But the following is true about the max:

1. Boeing did a lot of the certification itself, not uncommon and in communications with the FAA about the process did not fully inform the FAA about the actual programming parameters of the MCAS lack of FAA involvement, which turned out to be substantially different in how it could operate in its extreme. the software rigs it so that differences are masked. The MCAS was incorporated for the extreme edge of the envelope I actually think the software engineers working on the system did not have a full idea of what the system could possibly do with a sensor failure. That's why Boeing has test pilots involved from the start & the aircraft does extensive flight testing before it goes into service.

2. There was not sufficient documentation about the MCAS system, and therefore appropriate training on the MCAS system was not done. This has to do with Boeing viewing the system as not of the same criticality as it actually turned out to be.
US pilots (according to ALPA) said it was sufficient.

3. The base airplane only used a single sensor to determine if the angle of attack was too steep, unless the purchasing airline was willing to fork out more $$$ to pay for a redundant system. Foreign airlines don't always purchase the upgraded safety systems, and therefore were more vulnerable to the issues with MCAS, which is clearly lacking in its implementation. That's why pilots disconnect the MCAS & AP & hand fly the aircraft.

4. Boeing will be providing upgraded MCAS systems for all future orders without charge to use multiple sensors and to have a light that indicates if the sensors disagree on the actual angle of attack. That's being done to make it further fool proof for inadequately trained or experienced pilots. Worth the expense for airlines (& passengers) willing to risk their safety on lesser trained & experienced pilots.

5. American Airlines opted for a system using multiple sensors, as it is an internal airline policy. So their MAX series jets would not behave in the same way as the foreign ones. I understand that Southwest was going to install the same system in their jets as well.
It's worth it to Boeing to retrofit the entire MAX fleet to get it back in the air & restore consumer confidence, but not necessary for safety of flight when flown by pilots adequately trained or qualified to deal with all sorts of more complex emergency situations.

If you want to better understand the issue, the Seattle Times as well as the Washington Post have had some great articles on the approval process and the issues of performance.

You have to read the Seattle times report on this - they disagree...

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... air-crash/

From the article:

The safety analysis:

Understated the power of the new flight control system, which was designed to swivel the horizontal tail to push the nose of the plane down to avert a stall. When the planes later entered service, MCAS was capable of moving the tail more than four times farther than was stated in the initial safety analysis document.

Failed to account for how the system could reset itself each time a pilot responded, thereby missing the potential impact of the system repeatedly pushing the airplane’s nose downward.

Assessed a failure of the system as one level below “catastrophic.” But even that “hazardous” danger level should have precluded activation of the system based on input from a single sensor — and yet that’s how it was designed.

The people who spoke to The Seattle Times and shared details of the safety analysis all spoke on condition of anonymity to protect their jobs at the FAA and other aviation organizations.

[frmanfan]

My understanding is that the single sensor made possible by this system was a big bonus, as in cost savings up front and in maintenance. So from a bean counter viewpoint this is great. I am thinking that from an engineering viewpoint, and as this proves, that redundancy is sometimes a good thing.