More MAX information

[Vraciu]

Well, at least United was on the ball.   

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/2018/11/16/united-pilots-say-they-were-already-trained-to-override-boeing-737max-automatic-stall-recovery/#75476a667d5e

[Shuffler]

We build items for chemical plants, NASA, Military, Public..... we do not control how they install or use what we build.

[FLS]

If the actual problem is inexperienced pilots, because some countries choose to have lower standards, then you can certainly avoid responsibility if you have higher standards that avoid the problem. 

If you flew a Max 8 and heard about a crash caused by the MCAS would you get in the jet and make the same mistake a couple of weeks later?

And if you did whose fault would that be? The pilot is responsible for the safe handling of the aircraft.

OT nitpick. Begging the question doesn't mean what you think it means. It's the fallacy of assuming the conclusion. It's often misused to mean suggesting a question or leading to a question. Assuming the conclusion is a staple of forum posts so there's plenty of opportunity to use it properly. 

[Toad]

Arguing from authority never is a good argument busher.

He's arguing from vast experience. Big difference.

Ace, what information have YOU gathered? Share some links? As many as you have would be welcome.

[Toad]

In my world of fixing equipment nothing has just 1 sensor that’s just bad design. Everything has backups. It seems there’s an underlying issue with the MCAS fix it first.

First of all, the MAX is equipped with two AOA sensors.

I found this:

http://www.b737.org.uk/mcas.htm#aoa

The AoA source

Since MCAS is an FCC function, the AoA source for MCAS is that of the FCC in use; ie FCC 1 uses the Captains AoA probe and FCC 2 uses the F/Os AoA probe. When the 737 is powered up the FCC used is FCC 1 for that flight, this changes for each subsequent flight until the aircraft is powered down. Therefore the AOA sensor that is used for MCAS changes with each flight post power-up.

So while the MAX has 2 AOA sensors, the MCAS is wired to Flight Control Computer and the AOA currently in use.

The proposed Boeing fix, which is also in that link, would solve the problem of one bad AOA triggering MCAS along with a few other positive design changes.

None the less, even in the case of an MCAS runaway due to one bad AOA, there is now and always has been a procedure to successfully resolve the situation. The Runaway Stabilizer NNC.

In the end it comes down to FLY THE JET.

[Vraciu]

If the actual problem is inexperienced pilots, because some countries choose to have lower standards, then you can certainly avoid responsibility if you have higher standards that avoid the problem. 

If you flew a Max 8 and heard about a crash caused by the MCAS would you get in the jet and make the same mistake a couple of weeks later?

And if you did whose fault would that be? The pilot is responsible for the safe handling of the aircraft.

OT nitpick. Begging the question doesn't mean what you think it means. It's the fallacy of assuming the conclusion. It's often misused to mean suggesting a question or leading to a question. Assuming the conclusion is a staple of forum posts so there's plenty of opportunity to use it properly. 

Who said it was caused by MCAS?

It can just as easily be said the cause was poorly trained and inexperienced pilots.   


We don’t know.   But the peanut gallery insists, without evidence, that it’s the airplane’s fault, despite the initial request by the professionals to refrain from speculation. 

It’s all about ego to the sub-laymen.   They want to be “first to be right” with their stupid speculations devoid of ANY real-world experience. 

[Vraciu]

See rule #4

[Vraciu]

He's arguing from vast experience. Big difference.

Ace, what information have YOU gathered? Share some links? As many as you have would be welcome.

And experience is often the difference between winning and losing.    Sure doesn’t hurt our chances...

[Toad]

I also mentioned this.   But facts don’t register with these noobs.

I did edit that post Vraciu. I finally found something definitive on which AOA triggered MCAS. I think the Boeing changes are more than adequate.

I wouldn't hesitate to fly it the way it is right now. I've got a lot of time in different Boeings and Runaway Stab is well....Runaway Stab. Procedure hasn't changed really.

[FLS]

Who said it was caused by MCAS?

I did, in my hypothetical question for Pemquist.

[ACE]

I did edit that post Vraciu. I finally found something definitive on which AOA triggered MCAS. I think the Boeing changes are more than adequate

Thanks. I was never taking shots at real pilots such as yourself experience levels. Clearly you and I read a similar article..  my stance stays the same fix the problem which you agree with here. They have done the right thing. That’s all that matters at this point. Changes are being made! 

[Toad]

Here's where we differ: I DON'T think it's a significant problem.

Yes, the crews need to be aware of MCAS. The purpose, the "how" of what it does, what triggers it and, of course, knowing what to do if it malfunctions. The what to do is the standard, decades old Boeing Runaway Stab procedure.

Again, just about EVERY aircraft with electrical trim has just such a procedure. Potential Runaway Stab problems are not exclusive to Boeing.

However, I do think that they are going to 'have to make changes' to reassure the public due to all the misinformation spread around by pundits that don't know an aileron from spoiler panel. IMO, the MAX is not a 'dangerous' aircraft. It went through Part 25 certification and the FAA didn't find any problem with Boeing design during that process. Likely because of....wait for it...the decades old Runaway Stabilizer NNC.

As many here have pointed out, even after these changes there will continue to be 737 MAX crashes. And Airbus 320 crashes. And Embraer crashes. Crashes of all sorts of aircraft.

Because the REAL problem afflicting the airline industry world wide is a deepening shortage of highly qualified, well experienced aircrews. There's no easy fix for that so it will not be addressed. All IMO.

[Vraciu]

Point of order though, and I hope I don’t jinx it.  Nobody has ever died aboard an Embraer 145-series jet.   That’s a remarkable record considering the amount of hours it has flown in a high cycle environment with relatively inexperienced pilots (compared to their Boeing and Airbus brethren).    Embraer really got it right on that jet from a systems standpoint.  Something I preach to every new pilot to the airplane I meet—“Don’t be the first one to ruin this record.”

The 170 was doing okay, too, for awhile until a Chinese airline-operated 170 killed 44 people in a runway overrun.   That is the only one so far.   Let’s hope it is the last. 

Good points, Toad.

I did, in my hypothetical question for Pemquist.

I missed the hypothetical part.  My mistake. 
 

[Vraciu]

I did edit that post Vraciu. I finally found something definitive on which AOA triggered MCAS. I think the Boeing changes are more than adequate.

I wouldn't hesitate to fly it the way it is right now. I've got a lot of time in different Boeings and Runaway Stab is well....Runaway Stab. Procedure hasn't changed really.

The Falcon 900 has two AOA sensors.    The Captain’s side is primary.   If it misses the stall condition the co-pilot’s AOA will trigger two degrees AOA after the Captain’s should have.    It does all sorts of things as AOA continues to increase like extending slats, retracting speedbrakes, activating igniters, retracting inboard slats...   

In any case, your point is valid.   

Also I wish someone would explain this to me:


http://www.b737.org.uk/images/mcas-mtm.jpg



Looks like it was in SOME manual. 

[ACE]

Here's where we differ: I DON'T think it's a significant problem.

Yes, the crews need to be aware of MCAS. The purpose, the "how" of what it does, what triggers it and, of course, knowing what to do if it malfunctions. The what to do is the standard, decades old Boeing Runaway Stab procedure.

Again, just about EVERY aircraft with electrical trim has just such a procedure. Potential Runaway Stab problems are not exclusive to Boeing.

However, I do think that they are going to 'have to make changes' to reassure the public due to all the misinformation spread around by pundits that don't know an aileron from spoiler panel. IMO, the MAX is not a 'dangerous' aircraft. It went through Part 25 certification and the FAA didn't find any problem with Boeing design during that process. Likely because of....wait for it...the decades old Runaway Stabilizer NNC.

As many here have pointed out, even after these changes there will continue to be 737 MAX crashes. And Airbus 320 crashes. And Embraer crashes. Crashes of all sorts of aircraft.

Because the REAL problem afflicting the airline industry world wide is a deepening shortage of highly qualified, well experienced aircrews. There's no easy fix for that so it will not be addressed. All IMO.

You say it isn’t a significant problem. We will just have to agree to disagree. I respectfully disagree with that.

I still enjoy reading your write ups and post. And again I am in no way of trying to disrespect you. I just have a different view than you. .