>>1296596Trump is an asshole and a criminal and needs to be removed from the Whitehouse as soon as humanly possible and I hate agreeing with anything he has to say, but he's not wrong in this case -- even if what he's saying is common sense.
Common sense: the more complex the machine, the greater the probability that machine will fail in some way. The hedge against this reality in this case is redundant systems, backup systems, and regular, thorough maintenance of said machine.
In the particular case of a large aircraft like the 737, a major element in the complexity of the overall machine is the software driving it's systems. If you have a classic triple-redundant system, for instance, but all three are running software with the same undetected bug(s), then all three are going to agree with each other -- and still be wrong. The final backup system for something as critical as an aircraft should always be the human pilot (and there's even a backup system for him: the co-pilot), but in modern jumbo jets, where the entire aircraft is fly-by-wire, the human pilot can't even fulfill that role as a 'backup system' if the control systems themselves are fighting against him/her (or flat-out denying him control in one way or another). Systems that are functioning correctly, but whose functioning have changed slightly (and the pilots weren't aware of that fact) count here.
Personally I can't think of many circumstances more horrifying than knowing what has to be done to prevent everyone from dying, yet the machine that's supposed to be your 'tool of the trade', that's supposed to obey you, is denying you the ability to save yourself and everyone else.
As an aside to this, there's nonsense I hear about that just amazes me in it's fucktardedness: "let's get rid of the windshields in the cockpit and replace them with cameras and monitors!" Great fucking idea, guys; add even more complexity to the overall machine, add even more critical points of failure.
