Update from the Sunland
No.898
18.3.19 – 24.3.19
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The crashes of Lion Air Flight 610 (LN610) [29.10.2018; 878, 889] and Ethiopian Airline Flight 302 (EH302) [10.3.2019; 896], especially after the BIC’s grounding the B737-MAX8 and MAX9 aircraft [897], continue to consume considerable Press attention and speculation, predominantly in aviation circles. We still do not know the essential facts in either case. The FDR & CVR in both events have reportedly been read, but not yet made public. The focus remains on the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) and the certification process. Various federal investigators, including the FBI, are looking into the certification process by Boeing, and specifically, whether commercial forces and Boeing management compromised the process. It is quite unusual for the FBI to engage, which suggests probable cause most likely exists. Both accident aircraft owners/operators were among those who opted not to pay for the second, redundant, Angle-of-Attack (AOA) sensor in the MCAS system—a system that has the potential to make uncommanded control inputs. If true, it is yet one more of my myriad examples of “penny-wise, pound-foolish” in the aircraft certification process, i.e., weighting cost above many other engineering factors. When we add in the apparent minimal training on the MCAS for pilots transitioning to the MAX8 & MAX9 aircraft, the concern for the safety of the B737-MAX8 and MAX9 becomes painfully apparent. There is so much more we need to learn, but what we have so far is not looking good for Boeing. Further, based on what we know so far, the grounding probably should have been narrowed to those particular aircraft with only one AOA sensor feeing the MCAS, since the uncommanded aircraft response in both cases appears to be associated with a malfunction in the solo AOA sensor.
[Postscript: The B737-800 aircraft is not the same as the B737-MAX8 and IS NOT affected by the grounding.]
-- The day finally arrived! On Friday, Special Counsel Mueller [804] issued his long-awaited investigation report into the potential collusion of the BIC’s election campaign in the 2016 election. On Sunday, Attorney General Barr [883, 889, 893] issued his summary of the Special Counsel’s findings to Congress. Of course, the Department of Justice (except for the attorney general and deputy attorney general) do not work on the weekend, well at least the website staff, so I could not download the official copy. Several Press source sites scanned and presented a copy of Barr’s summary, but none of them allowed for copy & paste, and it is too late in the week to transcribe salient lines. According to my reading of Barr’s summary, the Special Counsel concluded the Russians carried out a multi-dimensional attack on the United States electoral process in 2016, and the BIC’s campaign did not conspire or coordinate with the Russian government. Further, according to Barr, the President’s conduct did not rise above the threshold of criminal obstruction of justice. Barr quoted the Special Counsel, “while this report [the Mueller report] does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Of course, the White House spin-machine derived their position that the Mueller report findings “are a total and complete exoneration of the President of the United States.” This White House statement does NOT comport with either the Barr summary or the rendition of the Special Counsel’s report. Both Barr and Mueller stated, the report “DOES NOT exonerate him.” (Emphasis added by me.) As would be expected from the BIC, he claimed the whole investigation was an “illegal takedown that failed” and further its findings were a “complete and total exoneration” of him and his campaign staff (well, other than presumably all the lying by his minions on his behalf) [interesting observations from a man who condemned the investigation from the outset]. And, what would contemporary life be like without the BIC’s infamous tweets:
No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION. KEEP AMERICA GREAT! [emphasis by originator]
1:42 PM - 24 Mar 2019
And, so it begins . . . we must deal with the twisting of facts we have not yet been made privy to in this topic; thus, we are left, for now, with no means to judge for ourselves. We, the People, are left with only . . . who do we wish to believe? I am not sure what is so confusing to the BIC with the wording, but that is who he is and who he has always been; we can expect nothing more. Nonetheless, the BIC, his sycophants and supporters, get to gloat . . . for now . . . at least in part.
Footnote 1: While the BIC and his campaign staff may not have conspired or coordinated with the Russians during the 2016 election campaign to a sufficient level to cross the threshold of criminal conduct beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no doubt in my little pea-brain that the BIC and his lieutenants acted with at least extraordinarily poor judgment and ham-fisted behavior in their desperate effort to win the election, including reaching out to the Russians for help.
Footnote 2: The difficulty I have with a simple four-page, filtered summary of the Special Counsel’s report is the reconciliation of the summary’s conclusions with the publicly known facts, e.g., BIC Tower meeting, Manafort polling data, broad spectrum lying by BIC associates (and ostensibly the BIC himself), WikiLeaks contacts, et cetera. The summary leaves far too many loose ends. Why?
Footnote 3: For all those among us who subscribe to the BIC’s consistent mantra—no collusion, no collusion, no collusion, two questions: how are we to learn if we do not investigate? Were we supposed to just accept the BIC’s chants as truth?
Footnote 4: This is not the conclusion of this matter. More to come.
Comments and contributions from Update no.897:
“We have another ‘uproar’ in the house-just now the speaker has stated that Mrs. May cannot put another motion down on Brexit unless she fundamentally alters the wording of such a motion. This he has declared because she has had two such similar motions previously rejected. Apparently the speaker was seen driving his car with the slogan ‘Bollocks to Brexit’ across the rear window. We will hear more-the speaker may well be looking for a new job. Of course he is an MP in his own right.
“Thanks for your update, I found your review of the Boeing flight control system most interesting.
“We look fwd. to spring here, certainly the days are growing in length with the equinox approaching.”
My reply:
Thx for the Brexit update. The situation is really getting out of hand. I am truly sorry that y’all must endure this ridiculous nonsense. I hope Mrs. May can lead Parliament out of the sucking swamp they are in now. I understood the parliamentary Speaker was supposed to be impartial and non-aligned. So much for my misconception.
We have so much more to learn about the B737-MAX8 MCAS. Understanding what happened remains a long way off, I suspect.
Warming up here. Astronomical spring is just a few days away. I hope spring arrives soon in the Motherland.
Comment to the Blog:
“From what I have seen on the Boeing 737 Max 8/9 investigation, the flight paths of the two accidents were very similar. Additional reports indicate that Boeing saw no need for additional pilot training on the new system. A software update had been promised by the end of last year after the Lion Air crash, but not delivered. All of this provides enough evidence to take the precaution of grounding the model in question. The question here is the well-being of the flying public, not some legal proof of wrong-doing (yet). This shapes up as another example of poorly-regulated capitalism at work—sloppy handling of issues that don't affect sales.
“I see the article on Brexit in another light. I have exactly the opposite view of your UK correspondent. The central issue is not obedience to party leaders. It's the system's blindness to the will of the people. The two-party system does not truly represent us or the British, or even the elected representatives of the two parties. The poorly-designed ballot question failed to address the varieties of a potential Brexit, resulting in the current chaos. That ballot assumed an either/or partisan loyalty in the notion that one of two parties would ‘win’ and then decide how to proceed. There was no way to win on that basis. That loyalty never existed on this issue. Realistically, as in the Massachusetts recall and election, no majority existed for any given option. This is not majority rule, but it's an example of two-party partisanship's failure. It illustrates the fact that two-party government is less representative than multi-party coalition governance. The checks and balances to which you refer are failing us here, and the two-party system has no place in the Constitution. The two-party system oversimplifies democracy. Brexit and that Massachusetts recall are by no means its only failures.
“The ‘sense of Congress’ has no legal force.
“I will not dignify the ramblings of the madman with an answer, nor will I address one more mass shooting.
The Wall saga drags on and on, with frequent Pink Floyd references. One additional factor with some potential: I find it difficult to believe Chump's heart health is sound, regardless of media reports. He places himself under incredible stress. What are the odds of his physical health failing?
“The college admissions scandal is framed as another example of racism, but I see it as an obvious example of class strife. We all know by now which class is winning that conflict.
“I have begun to doubt the net value to society of organizations of religion. I emphatically want people to use any belief that works for them, but as soon as they organize groups larger than a few dozen, strife begins.
“The Chump's implicit threat of violence to anyone who opposes him ought to be taken seriously.”
My response to the Blog:
Yes, the disturbing element of the two B737-MAX8 accidents beyond the tragic loss of life is the similarities—too many to be coincidence. However, as I’ve said, coincidence is a very weak rationale for grounding. However, it is what it is. The anecdotal indictment of the certification and training processes in these two cases are seriously premature. Two vid-clips in the Press suggest graphic similarities; yet, the sources appear to be external rather than FDR data; and, both aircraft react contrary to what the accusations are. I’m just very suspicious about these unofficial and undocumented sources. We should not investigate in the “court of public opinion.” Aircraft accident investigations, especially fatal ones, deserve careful, methodical, precise, scientific scrutiny.
There are many assailable aspects to the Brexit situation. You are also precisely correct; the Constitution is mute regarding any political system, and does not even imply preference. My point was, some questions or issues are not going to find solutions among 230 million voting eligible citizens. The situation in Massachusetts was a travesty, but a flaw in local jurisdiction election laws. Other jurisdictions use runoff elections of the top two vote-getters to achieve majority, which would have likely precluded that result.
True; “sense of Congress” is only a public, official statement of opinion on any particular issue . . . useful, but not the weight of law.
[Inserted postscript: Sense of Congress resolutions do have value to judicial rulings on a particular relevant topic]
Agreed. I only illuminate to record.
Like his finances and business practices, et al, his health is probably a hidden reality as well. Death comes to us all eventually.
I share your perspective. I see the college admissions scandal in far broader terms, including the corruption of money.
Perhaps I give more credit to organized religion than is warranted. I still see value. But, I also absolutely believe in the wisdom of the separation of church and State . . . a line that has all too often been blurred or crossed.
Oh, I take the BIC’s mob-boss conduct quite seriously, which is exactly why I illuminated that particular statement among so many.
. . . Round two:
“The 737 MAX8 accidents certainly merit ‘careful, methodical, precise scrutiny.’ In the meantime, concern for the lives of customers based on initial evidence properly overrules the cost to the airlines of grounding those planes.
"The issue with the elections (Brexit and that post-recall) is either/or decisions deciding complex issues. Those aren't majority rule because no true majority exists. Several different preferences contend for precedence, and this versus that is a false choice. In the Massachusetts post-recall election, the recalled official was the leading vote-getter, so a two-person runoff would probably get the same result. Ranked-choice voting is an improvement over this, but not good enough to express the will of the people in a Brexit-type dilemma.”
"The issue with the elections (Brexit and that post-recall) is either/or decisions deciding complex issues. Those aren't majority rule because no true majority exists. Several different preferences contend for precedence, and this versus that is a false choice. In the Massachusetts post-recall election, the recalled official was the leading vote-getter, so a two-person runoff would probably get the same result. Ranked-choice voting is an improvement over this, but not good enough to express the will of the people in a Brexit-type dilemma.”
. . . my response to round two:
Cost to the manufacturer or operators is not in my equation. Relevant factors that are in my consideration: there are roughly 400 B737-MAX8s flying worldwide since 2014, with thousands of pilots, and those aircraft have safely flown millions of operational, revenue, passenger miles. The question that occupies my thoughts is what happened with those two aircraft among all the others? The similarities bother me deeply. However, there are multiple potential causal factors, not least of which is pilot error. Emotional responses are NOT careful, methodical, precise or scientific.
I do not agree. The other four candidates combined accumulated more votes. The only to truly know would be a runoff election. The Brexit referendum vote was far too simplistic and emotional without a proper cost-benefit analysis. How on God’s little green Earth could anyone, and especially a common citizen, understand the complexity and value they were voting for or against? To me, again, it was an emotional vote, e.g., do you want peace or not? There are far too many of these emotional response matters put before the voters; it is wrong. It is like asking are you for or against life? That is an emotional question, not a scientific one.
. . . Round three:
“Certainly, the Brexit vote was too simplistic. The cost-benefit analysis was done by several different parties with several different outcomes. Cost-benefit analysis is a useful tool in less-emotional situations, but the analysis is necessarily based on assumptions. In this kind of situation, those assumptions will be based on feelings and beliefs that often do not predict results very well. Cost-benefit analysis is an important factor for design engineering, but is a flawed tool in this kind of analysis.”
. . . my response to round three:
So you say. I cannot argue.
However, without such analyses, how do we assess the weighted value of our vote?
. . . Round four:
“I don't see ranked-choice voting as a sufficient solution for the likes of Brexit, but the cost-benefit analysis doesn't work either. It is used by all sides and relies on assumptions about the un-quantifiable future. For more on ranked-choice voting, study the Maine experience.”
. . . my response to round four:
The implication . . . we vote on gut-feel (emotional); no facts required.
. . . Round five:
“That's what people do, as manipulated by bought-and-paid-for politicians. My point is that cost-benefit analysis sounds all technical and, by implication, objective, but that is 100% dependent on the insight and objectivity of the people doing the analysis. Those are not common qualities in the political world. Finding ‘objective’ facts remains essentially impossible for the general public. It wouldn't really help the British anyhow, because predictions are merely predictions, and nobody has a reliable track record predicting international issues. The voters make their own predictions, but they are more sophisticated than the either/or ballot question.”
. . . my response to round five:
I would agree, which is precisely why some matters should not be placed before voters. That reality is too late for Brexit. The die is cast. Now, MPs must make lemonade.
I would agree as well that some voters are more sophisticated, informed and able to consider such questions, but those voters are not the majority. Far too many blindly follow party loyalty or the last stimulant they receive . . . at least that’s my opinion. Perhaps I’m just reacting to U.S. citizens. How many U.S. citizens even know what Brexit is, or where the United Kingdom is located?
. . . Round six:
“The problem with what you said is that you assume the voters as a whole are less wise than the politicians. I disagree. The voters are also less corrupt, which is even more important.”
. . . my response to round six:
I’m afraid you may have misread my words. I do not see any group (political, commercial, military, religious, et al) as monolithic, and certainly not voters of any nation, including this Grand Republic. My point was, not all voters choose to be informed, engaged and knowledgeable about national and international issues. Those voters who fit that description are far more susceptible to being “influenced” by less rigorous sources, like a demagogue snake-oil salesman.
. . . Round six:
“The problem with what you said is that you assume the voters as a whole are less wise than the politicians. I disagree. The voters are also less corrupt, which is even more important.”
. . . my response to round six:
I’m afraid you may have misread my words. I do not see any group (political, commercial, military, religious, et al) as monolithic, and certainly not voters of any nation, including this Grand Republic. My point was, not all voters choose to be informed, engaged and knowledgeable about national and international issues. Those voters who fit that description are far more susceptible to being “influenced” by less rigorous sources, like a demagogue snake-oil salesman.
Oh my, you got that right . . . although I will add less corrupt because of less access to money.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
-->
