Who told you that? You don't know that.
what do you think? Is Boeing going to be sued into oblivion?
Boeing is currently saying that their design is sound as they try to ram a SW only fix to the problem. Boeing has not been honest in this. The second crash is criminal. The first crash demonstrates a breakdown of Their technical cultural. I hope that the max does not fly until Boeing comes clean.
The authors botched that. My understanding (which could be faulty) is that only one AoA sensor provided input to MCAS. They did not use two or three combined with "auction" control logic to determine which instrument data was valid. So, with only one sensor input, there is no way to "verify accuracy" of incoming data. The only data you get are from the one sensor. That sensor on the Ethiopian airliner jumped to a 75 degree AoA within one second. That suggests a bird strike. With the control system being told the plane was at such an out-of-envelope AoA, it commanded nose down, all the way to the ground.
I'm surprised the control logic doesn't take account of the myriad other data such as increasing air speed, engine thrust, decreasing altitude, ground proximity, etc to determine pitch-down is not a good flight strategy.
I am just a long time pilot of hang gliders, ultralight aircraft and general aviation airplanes and have lived on an airport for the last 25 years. I live between two FAA guys and the whole family three doors down are airline pilots both retired and active, along with many others here. Also my brother has been a captain for Southwest for the last 20 years or so.
When this 2nd accident happened all of the people I know who are more qualified than me to make informed judgments on this jumped all over the two third world pilots and blamed them completely. Now they are starting to realize that there have been some screw ups by Boeing that are probably going to cost them. I don’t know that the way that you are characterizing the situation is completely accurate. But the plot has been thickening, that is for sure.
“The redesign of the 737-800 Max resulted in an aircraft that was unstable in pitch around the lateral axis when flown at high angles of attack and under conditions of high thrust. Rather than address the underlying aeronautical design flaws, and risk certification as a 737 variant, a decision was made to fix the problem with a “software kludge” the MCAS system.”
I told you so.
Details like this end to make my eyebrow rise . If I were a whole lot more cynical I might think that the Boeing execs wanted to try an experiment to see if the company could survive a series of designed in crashes. You don’t tell your test pilots about a crucial characteristic? You omit redundancy? Is somebody at Boeing making big money on a bet how soon one would crash? Some kind of insurance scam? It keeps getting crazier over there.
Boeing effed up hard.
Dr John Demming had QC right.
Want to know more?
Geez it’s like watching Starship Troopers without the boobs!
The MCAS system looked down right scary to me, you have to risk breaking your arm/hand to manually override it?
The Software engineers allowed it to engage below 1000 feet?
Of course any decent pilot would never engage these automated systems until they hit altitude.
Stop spreading lies.
The bottom line is that human intervention was over-ridden by AI. Any craft that does not permit the pilot to immediately assume stick control of the aircraft is a flying coffin. Furthermore, FAA should never have certified a craft that was inherently unstable.
Since the larger more powerful engines were used and relocated, and affected the trim on takeoff, you would have to make some physical alterations to the wings and tail of the plane to offset that engine change.
Using MCAS software to accomplish this was the less expensive way of correcting this.
What I don't like is not having the second external flight plane indicator made mandatory and being specific in what to do if you get two radically different readings - Tom
It has been obvious from the start, BOEING and/or the FAA engaged in criminal activity to get this plane certified for airworthiness. The model with a single sensor being used to override pilot input could NEVER pass the most basic review.
Either BOEING faked/lied about this to the FAA, or they bribed folks in the FAA to look the other way.
There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY engineers did not raise concerns about this configuration and there is NO WAY, FAA oversight would not have picked this up. Either BOEING completely lied about how MCAS operated in this version to the FAA, or greased palms there to get it to pass.
The fact the CEO went from “WE OWN IT” in less than two weeks, to telling investors “IT WASN’T OUR FAULT” further reinforces the fact malfeasance occurred.
300+ people are dead, as a result of pure greed, pure and simple.
“The redesign of the 737-800 Max resulted in an aircraft that was unstable in pitch around the lateral axis when flown at high angles of attack and under conditions of high thrust. “
Um, no. The plane was dumbed down for untrained, inexperienced pilots by suits around conference tables and they also made the decision to leave test pilots out of the loop.
I still maintain the plane is safe in a trained, experienced pilot’s hands, but that Boeing screwed the pooch in handling the redefined flight characteristics and attempting to oversimplify the plane toward what is obviously a drive to autonomous flight.
Big mistake. Yuge.
FTA: "MCAS is a longitudinal stability enhancement. It is not for stall prevention (although indirectly it helps) or to make the MAX handle like the NG (although it does); it was introduced to counteract the non-linear lift generated by the LEAP-1B engine nacelles at high AoA and give a steady increase in stick force as the stall is approached as required by regulation."
FTA: "As the nacelle is ahead of the C of G, this lift causes a slight pitch-up effect (ie a reducing stick force) which could lead the pilot to inadvertently pull the yoke further aft than intended bringing the aircraft closer towards the stall. This abnormal nose-up pitching is not allowable under 14CFR §25.203(a) "Stall characteristics"."
Here's FAR §25.203(a): "(a) It must be possible to produce and to correct roll and yaw by unreversed use of the aileron and rudder controls, up to the time the airplane is stalled. No abnormal nose-up pitching may occur. The longitudinal control force must be positive up to and throughout the stall. In addition, it must be possible to promptly prevent stalling and to recover from a stall by normal use of the controls." For anyone that's interested, here's the link for FAR Part 25. Para §25.173, §25.175 and §25.203 are well worth reading.
Here's my interpretation...if anyone disagrees, please feel free to comment.
The 737 Max:
1. Is not longitudinally unstable.
2. Engine nacelles produce lift forward the CG at High AOA. This lift causes a pitch up effect as the aircraft approaches stall due to reducing stick force (in the fighter world, we called this stick force lightening).
3. Would not receive Airworthiness Certification without MCAS as required by FAR §25.203(a)
My conclusion is that using MCAS to correct the stall pitch up effect is perfectly acceptable. However, the original MCAS design is faulty.
Also, Boeing's proposed fix is a bandaid. It disables MCAS whenever AOA gages disagree. So, the FAA would not certify the Max without MCAS and yet Boeing's fix will disable MCAS under certain conditions.
IMHO, the proper fix would include a third AOA sensor so the flight control computer could determine a faulty sensor and lock it out. MCAS always stays on.
Comments please...