I_M4_AU

The hiring of CCM was a God send for Gus. @doc4aday mentioned Gus didn’t hire a young kid as his OC, but if Arky hadn’t fired CCM who do you think Gus would have hired? Dilly was going to FSU anyway and CCM fell in his lap. Each year Gus has the ability to bring hope to the fan base as he corrects certain deficiencies only to squander the good fortune that he receives. We are in for another interesting year.

WarTiger, I have throughly enjoyed the Touchdown Auburn Bowl the last few years and fully understand you thought process. I do hope you will re-start when it becomes ‘the right time’ for you. Thanks for doing this, it was enjoyable.

The big one is the follow up with Warren indicating the moderator disregarded Burnie’s reply and asking Warren what she thought when Sanders told you a women couldn’t win the election. It’s like asking a man “when did you stop beating your wife?”

Do they make glasses for tunnel vision?

It will be interesting to see a defensive minded coach in that conference. I wonder how is offense will look and who he has lined up for the OC.

But there is a Nix to nix their hopes. Sorry, couldn’t help it.

I can agree with this. The question is how Coach O will handle next year’s offense. Will he attempt to hire a new Co-offensive Coordinator and hope for the same dynamic he had with Brady and Emsminger, or hope Emsminger learned enough about the offense they ran to do it himself and hire a WR coach? So many questions, time will tell.

I have to disagree here, I flew that aircraft and it was one of the most stable aircraft I flew. It is not controversial at ......oh wait....you’re talking about the paint scheme......never mind.

Some times the multimillionaire just enjoys the sport and wants to give back. At least I hope that is what it is. If he can keep his motivation when things look bad and not think “why am I doing this” it could be great for all concerned.

Manufacturers have been doing this for years. The original B737 (seating of 100 pax) was known as a FLUF (Fat Little Ugly F***ker) and the story goes, on a takeoff one pilot that observed the takeoff said over ATC, “nice punt”. That thing has been stretched so many times, but has maintained it’s status as the most produced Airliner in the world. The reason, as you point out, is cost. It is extremely expensive to bring on a new model. One of the hidden costs are pilot training, if it is the “same” aircraft there is no need for separate training cost and this is a big selling point. Airbus brought out the A319, A320 and A321 and one of it’s selling points was pilot training. If you then buy the A330 the training footprint is reduced because of how close these aircraft are in philosophies. The A321 has been stretched to the point that there is concern, every time it lands, it could have a tail strike. Look at this Beech 1900D and what engineers had to do to make it stable enough to fly. It must have had some instability in the tail section because is was stretched. I used to be taxing out and look at those saying, I’m glad I don’t have to fly that thing. The FAA bought off on the MCAS and I’m sure during testing the issue of bad sensors did not come up. That was in the engineering of the system that didn’t follow basic redundancy rules as pointed out by DKW’s article. Someone should have thought of this while they were developing the software. It went horribly wrong. The FAA will never be blamed for their lack of oversight as government agencies take no responsibility, but they are feeling the heat internally and will be extremely cautious if and when they approve the software fix. To your original point, that is the responsibility of upper management on recommendations from their staff. I don’t know if it was ever brought up to create a new model, but it didn’t go far if it was brought up. Some mid level manager will be fired while the upper management will dodge the bullet. In hindsight, they should have designed a new model.

We really need to look at the positives going into the hype season. You mentioned the game last night and it was very impressive the way LSU’s offense adjusted on the fly to take a lead gong into the half. Their defense, in the second half, was great save the first drive from Clemson. As I sit here and type I am convinced that Gus, by way of CCM, sees the possibilities an offense similar to LSU’s will put him and his offense into the elite category. Book it.

To clarify, the article I posted was from Boeing and was what they changed to “solve” the problem. So now, they are going to finalize the update (again) before being put into service. Looking at the Lion Air crash and what they changed, you can determine how screwed up the process was, and yes, I agree it was rushed in to service. Quoting Boeing’s articles is their spin. Before Boeing went to Fly-by-Wire technology they poo-poo’d Airbus’ entry into that technology. The saying was “if it ain’t Boeing, I ain’t going”. Manufacturers will alway protect their product to the public. Back then Boeing and Airbus took a totally different view of investigating accidents. The very first thing Boeing would do is blame the pilots and then, after all the publicity calms down, they would fix the hardware that caused the problem. Airbus, on the other hand, would first blame the pilots and change the software. This is the bottom line. The redundancy has been (and should always be) the standard. Here it appears that the MCAS just looked at any one of the AOA sensors instead of comparing the three that are installed and didn’t warn the crew when it was activated (speculation). If the B737 MAX ever makes it back into service there will be heighten awareness in procedures and training of the crews of this scenario. This statement is blaming the lowest common denominator. Sh!t truly does runs down hill.

The reason manufacturers have been going to “fly by wire” aircraft is the weight savings which equals fuel savings. The computers drive the controls to keep the aircraft in a stable state (if no input by the pilot the aircraft is 1g). The computers only limit control inputs is to protect the aircraft from exceeding aircraft parameters (to save itself). Airline aircraft can not withstand the g forces a military aircraft go through, again for weight purposes. Pilots have a tendency to believe the aircraft is doing what it is suppose to do, when they realize it is not, sometimes it is too late as in the two B737 crashes. The Lion Air crash was interesting as the pilots turned off the MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) and regained control of the aircraft, only to re-engage the MCAS and that system reactivated and they lost control a second time. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/boeing_two_deadly_crashes In the Lion Air crash there was a bad sensor feeding the computers erroneous information. Boeing has changed the software to allow the pilots to be able to over-ride the MCAS by manual control. Boeing has developed an MCAS software update to provide additional layers of protection if the AOA sensors provide erroneous data. The software has been put through hundreds of hours of analysis, laboratory testing, verification in a simulator and numerous test flights. Before it is finalized, the software will be validated during in-flight certification tests with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) representatives. The additional layers of protection that are being proposed include: Flight control system will now compare inputs from both AOA sensors. If the sensors disagree by 5.5 degrees or more with the flaps retracted, MCAS will not activate. An indicator on the flight deck display will alert the pilots. If MCAS is activated in non-normal conditions, it will only provide one input for each elevated AOA event. There are no known or envisioned failure conditions where MCAS will provide multiple inputs. MCAS can never command more stabilizer input than can be counteracted by the flight crew pulling back on the column. The pilots will continue to always have the ability to override MCAS and manually control the airplane. These updates are expected to reduce the crew's workload in non-normal flight situations and prevent erroneous data from causing MCAS activation. https://www.boeing.com/commercial/737max/737-max-software-updates.page Just reading the corrections and reading what happened to the Lion Air Crew, you can see the MCAS had some unforeseen flaws that made it into service. A lot of things missed during the development stage.

Very close, Homer. Airbus had been producing the A320 family of aircraft for a long time. They upgraded their product to introduce the “Neo” which had design improvements to reduce fuel consumption and was eating Boeing up. Boeing had to respond and rushed the B737 MAX into production. Airbus has had fly-by-wire aircraft for a long time and had gone through several software changes to improve their product and Boeing was relatively new to this concept in commercial jets. Any aircraft that has engines under the wing, on a swept wing jet, has a pitch up moment that can be handled, but it can startle pilots if they are not ready for it. This usually happens when an aircraft is at low power and the pilot increases thrust quickly as happens during a go-around. It has been such a problem airlines had changed the way they instruct stall recovery after 30 some odd years of just powering out of the stall. To get the fuel consumption better Boeing did change the engines, but more importantly, they moved the engines forward that exasperated the pitch moment problem. To counter this Boeing a introduced a new restriction to their software that only (supposedly) would be activated when it sensed certain parameters were met when the thrust was increased. Boeing decided to “train by memo” to tell the pilots of this new software update and put their product out without proper training. Cost was definitely the reason this B737 was rushed into service and I’m sure many employees raised concern, but were not listened to. It’s just not right to “profit” from decisions that were so economically driven.

Trump acted under the AUMF Joint Resolution that was enacted after Sept 11, 2001. Bush and Obama both exercised that right in their terms as President. He did not declare war by taking out Soleimani, he took out a terrorist. The intent was not to get in a prolonged battle (war) so the War Powers Clause is not applicable. If the retaliation had killed US Soldiers and Trump wanted to escalate the skirmish, possible so, but there was a precedent set when Obama continued and escalated his spat with Syria. I would hope we learned from that.