Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
June 27, 2019

Boeing's Software Fix For The 737 MAX Problem Overwhelms The Plane's Computer

The Boeing 737 MAX continues to be a troublesome airplane.

Two crashes of the plane type, which cost the lives of 346 people, revealed a significant problem not only with the messed up Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS).

It then turned out that the manual trim wheels which Boeing advised to use to counter MCAS are impossible to move when needed. Moon of Alabama detailed the problem back in May and last week the Wall Street Journal confirmed the issue. This also affects the older Boeing 737 NG.

While that problem has still not been solved a new one came up.

Boeing promised to release a software fix for the MCAS by April 2019. But that turned out to be more difficult than thought. Three month later there is still no final fix available. Meanwhile a new problem that will cause further delays was revealed only yesterday:

In a flight simulator last week, F.A.A. pilots tested erroneous activations of anti-stall software that pushes down the nose of the Max, two people with knowledge of the matter said. The software, known as MCAS, was involved in two crashes that killed 346 people.

In at least one instance, an F.A.A. pilot was unable to quickly and easily follow Boeing’s emergency procedures to regain control of the plane. The pilot rated that failure as catastrophic, meaning it could lead to the loss of an aircraft midflight, the people said.
The issue discovered last week is linked to the data-processing speed of a specific flight control computer chip, according to the two people with knowledge of the matter. In the test, the F.A.A. pilot encountered delays in executing a crucial step required to stabilize an aircraft.

It seems that the additional signal processing and calculations needed for the MCAS fix overload the Flight Control Computer's (FCC) processor and delay its reaction.

Boeing has been developing a software update for the Max for eight months, [a Boeing spokesman] said. It is unclear whether the new flaw can be resolved by reprogramming the software or requires a hardware fix, which would be costlier and could take much longer.

The 737 MAX has, like the previous 737 NG and Classic versions, two FCC's which each have two Central Processing Units (CPUs).

737 Flight Control System


As the former Boeing flight control engineer Peter Lemme wrote last year in a technical note of the issue:

Each FCC is comprised of two processors, each of which perform independently.

Each FCC has two 16-bit CPUs. The two processors have different part numbers to make sure that a design problem is not in both processors. The CPUs calculate different commands. ...

In another note Lemme wrote:

The 737 FCC installation is a "dual-dual" configuration. Within each of the two autopilot computers there are two different processors, that each themselves are programmed by different people. The greatest threat is a common-mode software failure. Having two different groups program from a common set of requirements is a means to diminish a common mode failure.
The 737 dual-dual architecture is very unique. The decision to make speed trim single channel, single processor goes back to the 737 classic. The MCAS function is just another FCC software module that behaves, at a high level, like speed trim, whose architecture would have then been replicated.

The 737 uses only one FCC at a time and the Speed Trim System (STS), of which MCAS is a part, runs only on one of that Flight Computer's two internal processors.

The processors in question are said to be Intel 80286 type CPUs. The original Intel version of that CPU, sold between 1982 and 1991, had a maximum clockrate of 4, 6 or 8 MHz. It was later manufactured by a number of other firms, including by AMD and aeronautics company Harris, with a clockrate of 20 and 25 MHz. It is likely that the Boeing 737 FCC uses these or similar types.

These old processors are very reliable and error free. But they have less than 1/1000nds of the computing capacity of a modern cell phone. According to Lemme one CPU in the flight computer runs up to 11 different processes. All need to receive the input of external sensors, run through their algorithms, and signal a command to the relevant actuators that control the moveable flight surfaces of the plane. That the FAA pilot "encountered delays in executing a crucial step" caused by the computer points to a capacity overload.

Some decades ago your host programmed special input device drivers for Intel 80286 and alike systems. Their purpose was to record and process data from industrial process sensors, often hundreds at a time. Performance and timing issues required that the 80286 input drivers had be written in low level assembler language. But even with extremely optimized code the system would eventually come to its limits. The delayed procession of data from one sensor would eventually cascade into further delays and in the end the system would fail to record and process anything. The task was simply above its physical limits.

Flight control computer run special operation systems with minimal overhead. They are programmed in highly efficient programming languages. The software design and implementation follows a very strict process using specialized tools (see Green Hills' products for examples). All these are much better than what I used during my programming times.

Programs written for flight control purposes are already highly optimized. To further optimize them 'by hand' would break the regulated process that production of such software requires.

Boeing says that it can again fix the software to avoid the problem the FAA just found. It is doubtful that this will be possible. The software load is already right at the border, if not above the physical capabilities of the current flight control computers. The optimization potential of the software is likely minimal.

MCAS was a band aid. Due to the new engine position the 737 MAX version had changed its behavior compared to the older 737 types even though it still used the older types' certification. MCAS was supposed to correct that. The software fix for MCAS is another band aid on top of it. The fix for the software fix that Boeing now promises to solve the problem the FAA pilot found, is the third band aid over the same wound. It is doubtful that it will stop the bleeding.

The flight control computers the 737 MAX and NG use were developed in the early to mid 1990s. There are no off-the-shelf solutions for higher performance.

Boeing's latest announced time frame for bringing the grounded 737 MAX planes back into the air is "mid December". In view of this new problem one is inclined to ask "which year?"

Previous Moon of Alabama posts on Boeing 737 issues:

Posted by b on June 27, 2019 at 18:41 UTC | Permalink

« previous page

Regarding all the "unstable" references.... The word "unstable" does not appear in any Part 25 certification rule, so there is often confusion when someone uses this word. A transport aircraft must demonstrate a certain degree of positive static and dynamic stability determined in part by the control force gradient as the aircraft approaches a stall. Positive stability means that the aircraft will attempt to return to its initial state after being disturbed. Negative stability means that it will continue to diverge after being disturbed. The 737 demonstrates positive stability throughout the flight envelope, however, the degree of positive stability decreases at high Angles of Attack which appears as a lightening of control forces. MCAS was developed to counter this effect and thus increase the positive stability factor, not because the aircraft ever demonstrated negative stability characeristics.

Posted by: 737 Guy | Jun 28 2019 18:23 utc | 101

3. With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead. -Callon, R. (1996). "The Twelve Networking Truths". IETF RFC 1925, p. 2

Posted by: Jonathan | Jun 28 2019 18:30 utc | 102

@B: While it was pretty hard, knowing now you can code Assembler rose my respect for you even higher.. ;)

Posted by: DontBelieveEitherPr. | Jun 28 2019 20:12 utc | 103

Guess: Slow computer, therefore only one AoA sensor could be used.

Question: Were dynamic stability margins made better or worse by the engine move?

Answer: A pile of bandaids for one thing fails more.

Who would you want to be President during the restructuring?

Posted by: Charles Peterson | Jun 28 2019 21:06 utc | 104

Kiza 99
FAA required a fix for a certain situation to certify the aircraft. Boeing came up with MCAS as that fix. Nowhere have I said FAA required MCAS.
My comments where in response to ADKC who thought MCAS may have been an optional extra type thing rather than a program that was used to fix a problem that had tyo be fixed for certification.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jun 28 2019 21:29 utc | 105

Boeing's 737 Max Software Outsourced to $9-an-Hour Engineers

I'd suppose this is a symptom rather than cause, for presumably the software was eventually written to specification. The issue which bothers me is the willingness of Boeing to cut corners. What else has their Bean Counter department been skimping on?

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jun 28 2019 21:31 utc | 106

737 Guy @102
the big question is, and no one seems to give it consideration, is how does the max handle when it has actually stalled. Can it be quickly returned to straight and level flight with minimal altitude loss or does it take a great deal of altitude to recover from a stall.
I believe this is the reason MCAS was designed to override pilots when the aircraft is approaching a stall.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jun 28 2019 21:42 utc | 107

For Kiza:

Posted by: Mooser | Jun 28 2019 21:49 utc | 108

Boeing 787 subpoenaed

Spiraling out...

Posted by: Arioch | Jun 29 2019 9:03 utc | 109

Yes, this catastrophe means also the end of the autonomous car dream.

The autonomous car always have been a pipe dream, but now it will be much more difficult (or may the bribes have to be much much higher) to convince the regulators to permit an "all out" market for fully autonomous vehicles.

The problem IS NOT that the number of deaths in the autonomous cars could be less than the existing cars, but WHO is the responsible for the deaths. WHO will be prosecuted in the case of a fatality where the "driver" is sleeping and the car is in full autonomous mode? the AI software developer? the OEM integrator? the supplier of some faulty sensor? the car maintainer? the regulators that allows a clearly dangerous machine on the roads? WHO will be prosecuted and send to jail? What is the risks for the investors in the fully autonomous cars companies if after some dozens deaths all the fleet of an specific car maker is "grounded" for months and/or years, WHO will pay the bill, the state, you?

The only way out of this is the (bribed) government to give the "driver" or the propietary of the vehicle, the full responsability of everything that happens, and, of course, this attempt will be met with fierce resistance by the Hoi Polloi


Posted by: DFC | Jun 29 2019 13:25 utc | 110

Going to be a dozzy adding that remote control back into a new faster CPU.

Considering it was not done at Intel but Intel now wants the business.

Posted by: Igor Bundy | Jun 29 2019 14:17 utc | 111

@ #111


I agree that passenger vehicles will be a legal rats nest, particularly as there is a staged push toward fully autonomous.

I should have been more specific. I think any inroads in that direction will first be through highway rigs. There is a serious shortage of drivers and the majority of the travel is on limited access thoroughfares. If it succeeds, can see a dedicated terminal model with limited access or a transfer point where a human takes over for the last mile or five.

As for liability, once a vehicle system gets to level 5, I think it's pretty cut and dried, as there is no human involvement, and in the case of transport, no human present.

The whole thing is an actuary's dream or nightmare, depending on how you view things. I can see the cost of operating a vehicle be very dependent on what controls package is installed, and statistics would be known in real time.

I'm not saying that it will ever get that far. I am in high tech and I am not convinced true general AI is even possible, Ray Kurzweil notwithstanding. That said, never underestimate someone's ability to make a buck at someone else's expense and suffering. If someone is connected, it will probably happen, and the US government could establish a pool or a trust, privatizing profits, and distributing any losses to the public. Sound familiar?

The 737 Max is IMHO a perfect example. I am pretty confident it will fly again in the USA, it's TBTF. I can't say that about other countries, particularly with the ongoing trade wars. Also, other countries still have some respect for the rule of law and individual rights.

Posted by: Pragma | Jun 29 2019 15:40 utc | 112

Peter AU 1

Yes, that is what I understood.

But, also, I now understand, that without the MCAS Boeing would have required the 737MAX to be approved as a different class of aircraft (i.e. Boeing would not have been able to add the 737MAX to the existing 737 certificate) and the 737MAX would, therefore, have been subject to a far more comprehensive and rigorous approval process.

And what 737Guy @101 indicates is that the MCAS is not actually required and this means that the reason Boeing won't drop the MCAS is that not only does it impose a far more rigorous approval process on the 737MAX, but, as Arioch @84 says, results in far more serious legal repercussions for Boeing.

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 29 2019 18:06 utc | 113

Peter AU 1

...and what Peter AU 1 here does provides the reason that would indicate that, from the public's commonsense view, the 737MAX is unstable and that MCAS is necessary to control the craft (albeit in certain circumstance). Is that acceptable (in my view not because it indicates in the event of MCAS failure the pilot may not be able to control the aircraft).

To me this all seems like FUD emanating from Boeing. Either MCAS is required or it is not? And if it is required, then why? And it seems only ambiguous and contradictory answers are in the public domain.

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 29 2019 18:22 utc | 114

My post @113 & @114 should have addressed to Peter AU1 @105 & @107 respectively.

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 29 2019 18:24 utc | 115

This is the situation according to Boeing test pilot Ray Craig which I quoted earlier.
"But in 2016, after the 737 MAX took off in its first test flight, test pilots reported “something was off.” The pilots were having trouble in low-speed stall conditions. "

These are the pilots that flew the max without MCAS. If test pilots are having trouble, how would the average commercial joystick jockey fair. I doubt any commercial pilot has flown a max without MCAS, and I doubt any have put one into a stall. Not the sort of thing to do when flying a commercial passenger aircraft.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jun 29 2019 18:47 utc | 116

Pragma @112

"The 737 Max is IMHO a perfect example. I am pretty confident it will fly again in the USA, it's TBTF"

It is not the 737MAX that is too big to fail, that really applies to Boeing.

What your post implies is that the 737MAX will fly again regardless of whether it is safe or not. You may well be right but that only postpones the day of reckoning for Boeing. There is a huge possibility that passengers will refuse the plane. There is also what happens when the next inevitable crash happens and the culprit is again MCAS?

In reality, Boeing needs state protection, while 737MAX is scrapped and a new aircraft is developed as outlined by VK@93 (also, me@95 & VK@96).

What we have now is manoeuvring around profits, liabilities, market share and getting the 737MAX back in the air and finding a "form of words" to satisfy the public.

For the 737MAX to fly again it will need to be approved by the FAA, but the problems in the FAA (that led to 737MAX approval in the first place) cannot have been addressed. And on FAA approval, EASA will follow shortly after, and no-one has even begun to look at the EASA yet (though, there must be serious problems with the EASA as well). (I suspect neither the FAA and EASA have the capacity or ability to conduct independent approval processes and approvals.) And this would result in the rest of the world losing faith into what, until' now, has been the world's most important aircraft regularity bodies.

So many countries must just rely on the processes of the FAA & EASA and if the rest of the world turns away from those bodies then the West effectively loses control of regulation of world aviation. Which may not be a bad thing but from an economic point of view would be a crazy thing for the West to just let happen.

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 29 2019 18:53 utc | 117

ADKC @ #117

Well, Boeing had over 5000 orders for the max so one could argue that the plane is TBTF, but that's moot now, so yes. Boeing is TBTF.

I am reading between the lines here, but when you say Boeing needs protection, are saying it should get protection and does it deserve protection?

How much longer do we pay CEOs multi-millions and then pay them more when they fail?
How much longer do we allow a revolving door between government and industry?
How much longer do we let corporations break the law and pay a token fine?

If I got fined $50 for every time I robbed a bank, that would be my new full time occupation.

This is not an isolated incident. To corporations, everything is an externality and that won't change until executives are jailed, and not at Club Fed either. Then the companies are dissolved, the shareholders lose it all. The companies are then put under guardianship to protect the workers and the industry, and a new IPO is issued.

Until then, anyone boasting about capitalism and the free market is either a shill or an idiot.

Boeing screwed up and should pay the price. The stock should have tanked but the big money know their investment is safe.

Rinse and repeat.

This is the inevitable result of a system with no feedback control. It is guaranteed to go unstable.

Posted by: Pragma | Jun 29 2019 19:22 utc | 118


We are talking about Boeing in the context of it being TBTF. If it isn't, then let it go to wall. The damage will be to the US economy. This I am more than happen to see.

Does Boeing deserve protection? Of course it doesn't but it is getting it (that's why you yourself said the 737MAX will fly again). All, we are talking about is the kind of protection it gets.

If Boeing abandons the 737MAX it will be destroyed because it will lose business and other competitors (principally, Airbus, but the new Russian and China aircraft as well) will take its market share. This isn't an option if we accept that Boeing is TBTF.

The current main implication of TBTF as it relates to Boeing is to get 737MAX flying again and get back to normal, regardless of safety, perhaps, even as your post earlier suggests, a "new normal" - a new "higher" acceptable level of crashes and deaths (covered by the taxpayer or, as I think you indicate in your earlier post, a redistributive fund taken from profits).

If we accept that Boeing is TBTF and will remain as it is (a private sector monopoly) then this means that the 737MAX will fly again regardless of risk and deaths; to do otherwise would doom Boeing, or...

...Boeing can be protected in a more rational, less crazy way - state protection and control, and state funding to build a new aircraft. Personally, I think Boeing should be nationalised and remain in the state sector.

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 29 2019 19:58 utc | 119

@ Pragma

You can follow here, in the case of the 737 Max, the huge problems actually caused by a very simple system, the AOA probe and the MCAS, fairly small routines that run on small processors; Can you imagine the nightmare to try to understand why an Uber car smash an small child on the road without touching the brake or something similar in a system of multiple sensors of ultra-complexity with speed of gigabytes in multiples CPU? And what to do to repeat it again?

The autonomous automobile is a pipe dream full of many enormous problems: technical problems to "solve" the enormous complexity of driving on a road in the real world (nor in the fantasy world of Elon Musk), the costs of the entire system (sensors, software, etc...) ; complexity and costs to maintain all these huge complex systems (trip tests, calibration of sensors, watch dog subsystems, revisions, etc.) of sensors, hardware and software; try to avoid hacking problems; communication problems in real time; Legal problems (for me probably the biggest).

I know there are billions over billions invested in this s**t technology, but this does not mean it will work; so the lobby to approve it on the roads "at any cost" will also be yuuuuge, as will the social and economic blowback if approved.


Posted by: DFC | Jun 29 2019 20:04 utc | 120

@ #120


I agree 100%, but no one seems to understand that just because you can do something means you should do something.

The "good" news is that between an impending economic collapse and an impeding environmental collapse, self driving cars will be way down on the list. Staying fed will be at the top.

I think we are overdue for a reset, anyway. Humans are no smarter than yeast.



Posted by: Pragma | Jun 29 2019 20:34 utc | 121

David: I'm sure you understood, but for clarity:

Just because you can do something, it doesn't mean you should do it.


Posted by: Pragma | Jun 29 2019 20:48 utc | 122

If what b says is true (as I presume), there are going to be a lot of airlines with aircraft they can't use, and a lot of airlines with financial problems. The Turkish plane I took back from Tabriz to Istanbul a month ago after my visit to Iran was a 737. Which variety was it? A lot of people are going to be asking that question. Sometimes you don't get a choice, but I can see people walking off 737-predicted flights and choosing others.

Posted by: Laguerre | Jun 29 2019 21:50 utc | 123

And the CEO is not in jail?

Buy the dip on Monday!

Posted by: Taffyboy | Jun 29 2019 22:22 utc | 124

Slightly more expensive, Boeing could have copied the Tupolev pods on the wing, to increase the height of the main landing gear. Minimising structural wing changes. Drag, could be attenuated by today's improved aerodynamics.
Thereby, placing the new LEAP engines in a conventional position, instead of being so far forward, and slightly above the wing leading edge.

Convair 990 had pods for aerodynamic purposes.

Boeing sadly has declined since takeover of McDonnell-Douglas.
DC-10 was a bad design. Too many short-cuts. Triple instead of quadruple hydraulic redundancy systems. And placed at the leading edge. How stupid!
Boeing board inherited McDonnell-Douglas people from St. Louis. McDonnell people!
They did not understand civil aviation.
One good aircraft, F-4, and Vietnam War made their fortune.

Boeing today is bad management.

If 737 MAX destroys them.
Who cares.
Apart from Airbus, there is the CR-929.
Demise of Boeing will stimulate more Sino-Russian commercial airframes.

Posted by: natrod | Jun 30 2019 6:26 utc | 125

Bees aren't supposed to fly either - no one told them, so they do.

US$ 9.00 engineers? Outside a kindergarten with children playing at being adult, where do you find these things?
Probably a prima facia indication of what is wrong with current economic models.

Solution: Fly Aeroflot - not very likely to encounter a Boeing 737 MAX for a ride flight.

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Jun 30 2019 8:32 utc | 126

When AI can with 95% confidence determine the difference between an innocent person's truthful plea and a guilty person's untruthful plea, only then will full confidence be given AI's abilities. (95% confidence rate will match current 95% conviction rate in U.S. halls of injustice). Even a 20% error rate for AI would seem god-like compared with the very best of juries.

There are three main categories that the U.S. makes its crust in foreign trade: airplanes, agriculture and motion pictures. Agriculture has damaged itself with antibiotic addled meats, chlorinated chicken, a morass of untested GMO grains all served with generous helpings of glyphosate. Now China has banned their import of GMO Soy, the future of agricultural exports isn't.
Now Boeing has wet the bed (fouled the nest) for civilian aviation exports on top of wonky offerings on the military aviation side of things; there, as the old song went, goes another rubber tree plant.
What Hollywood productions can provide as foreign exchange provision is highly questionable other than pickings are going to be slim for the economy as a whole.
Although financial gains have become 40% of the GNP of the U.S., it is not clear that financial ledger-desmane (control of ledgers) of multinational corporate management will be sufficient with a worls being quickly educated and sophisticated in responding to those challenges. Interesting times ahead for those interested.

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Jun 30 2019 10:23 utc | 127

@ 127

penultimate line: worls => world
edit failure

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Jun 30 2019 10:35 utc | 128

Some interesting comments on here...many thanks. Can't help wondering why they haven't used a simple AoA indicator like the one on the dashboard of the F-18, right in your face so you can't miss it. This could of course be linked to both AoA vanes (A320s have 3), and since it seems they have the data in the yaw damper system from both vanes, they can be compared. If they disagree, then high G/high thrust/high AoA must be avoided, and land the airplane now. Or we don't go flying today if still on the ground.

If they agree, then the simple indications (nose too high, too low...or just fine) would help the crew avoid stalling in the MCAS's intended regime of flight (the system also has the G load data somewhere). Then the pilots and Speed Trim alone can move the stabilizer so everyone remains happily in control...and all of those families would not have been destroyed, for the duration...hard to imagine really.

Also seems like they could have used an auto cutout if the stab trim runs away, to keep it from getting into the range where it is hard to move...both crews may have had trouble with that and at low altitude. To have them be blamed without clarity yet was shameful...but you can't buy class or respect in a store. Hindsight is awesome, and it is way easier to fly (out of control) airplanes sitting in this armchair. Looking forward to the accident reports...and I hope this won't have affects on the NG or we will really be in the Twilight Zone.

I've seen many examples of MBA's and politicians ruining things, since they are clearly lesser beings if they don't make every stupid dollar possible, no matter what. And except for the ongoing ruination of Florida (on purpose maybe, just to drill the oil)...this may be the worst one.

Posted by: B-52brat | Jun 30 2019 20:03 utc | 129

126, further to that observation about the 'great' US$9 South Asian offshores, after teaching TEFL and programming language in Asia for six months to see if it was worth doing, discovered two things:

South Asia students attempted to bribe me for As when their grades fell to Cs (e.g. too low to get an US H-visa). Their bribe was astonishingly low: $20. In frank conversation, they said that was the standard bribe in South Asia universities.

The other bit that I did not realize, in South Asia, 85% passing is an A and 90% is an A+, again, going towards the H-visa cutoff. 85% passing is enough to crash a 737MAX.

Another bit that I did not realize, South Asia universities certify their own students. There are no professional certification agencies. The university is pumping their own reputation for turning out 'scholars' by self-certification as scholars.

Wait, there's more!!

These Asians were fun students, and we often 'hung out' including trips to their parents' houses, sort of a 'soft' bribe for the A. 'Give the teacher a nice dinner will get you the A'. Their parents told me the price to get their kid INTO the H-visa human trafficking pipeline was $20,000. I heard this more often than I cared to.

In my experience, you will find South Asian engineers who can't obtain professional certification and write bloat code, who move (are moved) immediately into 'code checking' rather than code writing and constantly pushing for code administration titles and positions, the old post-Moghul-British Empire bureaucracy type. The rubber stampers. They Who Can Be Bribed.

Just my 2c. We're all gonna die of something. Rollercoaster into the ground in a 737MAX is better than painful bed-ridden years of the Big Hospice bleedout in USA, subject to every pill, jab, medical procedure, test and blood-letting they can auto-deduct from your dwindling reverse-mortgage, ending up parked in a wheel chair in front of Price Is Right in a chemical strait-jacket.

Funny morbid: Chinese hot-money has moved into SEAsia in a big way. Chinese condos sprouting up all over the place, and Chinese expats driving huge SUVs in heavy six-lane pedestrian, tuk-tuk, bicycle and truck traffic, with no traffic signals. A local mate there used to send me pictures of the human roadkill from these huge SUVs changing lanes. They just drive right over the pedestrians, and keep right on going. I'll bet the future of AI auto-pilot driving is the same. You'll wake up at home with Siri whispering some bum is skewered on your bumper, and you have to kill him with the shovel you bury him with, or Tim Cook's goons will double-tap you in a single-car accident in an empty intersection.

Posted by: Wes Oarket | Jul 2 2019 23:21 utc | 130

@ #130


Having worked in SE Asia, (Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia) I found your assessment bot bang on, and funny as hell.

Thanks for taking the time to write it.

Posted by: Pragma | Jul 3 2019 15:47 utc | 131

Not sure about software solution to hardware problem be in lime lipstick on a pig. Many of the most manoeuvrable fighter jets have dynamically unstable flight characteristics and are rendered flyable with software.

Posted by: Mark in Mayenne | Jul 10 2019 10:32 utc | 132

« previous page

The comments to this entry are closed.