TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
RE: Empiric studies on the impact of documentation
Subject:RE: Empiric studies on the impact of documentation From:"Janoff, Steven" <Steven -dot- Janoff -at- hologic -dot- com> To:"techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>, David Artman <David -at- DavidArtman -dot- com> Date:Fri, 29 Mar 2019 21:53:33 +0000
On the contrary, I've found this thread to be very enlightening, and hope that the conversation will continue.
Steve
On Thursday, March 28, 2019 3:20 PM, David Artman wrote:
Hey, man.
I begin my apologia by hoping that you are aware of my respect for you and Gene.
And perhaps techwrl's modern context is expanding to nuances of technical writers' roles as scribes/testers/advocates-of-users... as perhaps the last information funnel before deliverables are cast in bytes.
Perhaps, however, you and he could take this thread to a sidebar?
I only ask because I do not want the practical impact of the list to be lost in theory and anecdotes, and the list thereby lose recent or beginning adopters that need our experience with day-to-day challenges. Yes, the details of how you and he and we have tread and been tripped by Business and Politics are fabulous cautionary tales. Yet the folks who need us the most have almost no power to influence the issues about which you guys are trading ripostes.
...
I would never try to silence truth.
Is this the forum for your and his truths?
With ALL respect, and trepidation that I might have offended; David
On March 28, 2019 5:03:19 PM EDT, Robert Lauriston <robert -at- lauriston -dot- com> wrote:
>From what I've read, the 737 Max is more like the A320. They replaced
>the old gauges with computer displays. To avoid triggering training
>requirements they duplicated the layout.
>
>"The problem with the Lion Air flight was the MCAS went to work when it
>shouldnât have. The 737 MAX was climbing normally, but due to a faulty
>sensor the digital flight data recorder detected a hard-to-believe
>20-degree difference in the angle of attack between the left and right
>sides. Over the next 10 minutes, the pilots repeatedly tried to pull
>the planeâs nose back up, but the MCAS kept forcing the yoke forward,
>pushing the plane down. Ultimately, the plane crashed into the Java
>Sea, killing everyone aboard.
>
>"If the pilots had known the MCAS was at fault, they could have shut
>down the planeâs ability to automatically adjust its trim (which
>determines its position in the air) so they could manually do it
>themselves. But they ended up 'behind the airplane,' confused and
>trying to figure out what the computer was up to."
>
>https://www.wired.com/story/boeing-737-max-8-ethiopia-crash-faa-softwar
>e-fix-lion-air/
>
>On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 1:21 PM Gene Kim-Eng <techwr -at- genek -dot- com> wrote:
>>
>> In "the old days" when I worked aircraft, pilots used to say that the
>737
>> was an airplane with a computer in it while the A320 was a computer
>with an
>> airplane around it. They thought the 737 provided more control
>feedback.
>>
>> Boeing control mechanicals are mostly hydraulic while Airbus mostly
>> uses electric motors. But for every failure that can happen to
>electric
>> controls there is an equivalent hydraulic failure point, and neither
>system
>> is inherently more reliable. Also, Boeing has been using
>electro-hydraulic
>> actuators for some time now, so their cockpit controls are just as
>> "fly-by-wire" as an Airbus, with artificially-generated feedback that
>works
>> the same way as a flight sim.
>>
>> Pre-MAX, Boeing autopilot was overridden by pushing against it on the
>> controls, while on an Airbus, you override autopilot by switching it
>off.
>> So I suppose one possible factor in the MAX crashes could be that the
>> pilots were trying to fly it like a Boeing because nobody told them
>that
>> the MCAS flies like an Airbus.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Visit TechWhirl for the latest on content technology, content strategy and content development | https://techwhirl.com
