More MAX information

[Vraciu]

Do you read what you type before posting?

Clearly not. 

[Vraciu]

My understanding is that MCAS was added to make the airplane certifiable with the new engines. It saved them a lot of money when compared to what it would have cost to change the air-frame. Nothing wrong with that, but the way you describe it they went out of their way to make the airplane safer despite additional cost which is definitely not what I am seeing.

There is nothing unusual about this. 

The customers wanted a common type for many reasons.   As technology changes adaptations take place.   MCAS is no different in principle than things used by virtually every commercial/corporate jet airplane builder.

It is becoming quite clear this crew was over its head.   This is unfortunate but not uncommon in the third world.  It’s just the way it is.  Ticket-buyer beware.   

[pembquist]

There is nothing unusual about this. 

Who said there was?

[Vraciu]

Who said there was?

Look below your post a few spots.   

[Toad]

My understanding is that MCAS was added to make the airplane certifiable with the new engines.

To be more precise, this from Aviation Week:

The MCAS is a new flight-control-computer (FCC) function added to the MAX to enable it to meet longitudinal stability requirements for certification.

However, the system is only needed to enhance stability with slats and flaps retracted at very light weights and full aft center of gravity (CG). The aircraft exhibits sufficient natural longitudinal stability in all other parts of the flight envelope without the MCAS to meet the rules. Boeing emphasizes that the MCAS is not an anti-stall or stall-prevention system, as it often has been portrayed in news reports.

So, yeah, MCAS was added to meet the certification at the extreme edges of the envelope. Was it cheaper than designing an entirely new aircraft? Well, sure.

It's an effective, safe solution to longitudinal stability problems at the extreme edges of the envelope. I would venture to say it would be a one in a billion (or more) situation where an airline launched with the CG full aft. In ANY of their aircraft. The airlines compute weight and balance for every flight.

To construe this negatively as a way to put profit ahead of safety is, again and IMO, the reasoning I'd expect from somebody about 12 years old.

Again, for emphasis, both the Lion Air and Ethiopian crashes were not the result of MCAS. In the case of Lion Air it was a non-airworthy aircraft with an AOA problem. In the case of the Ethiopian aircraft, it was most probably a bird strike causing an AOA problem. The solution was pretty simple, as the OTHER Lion Air crew demonstrated the day before.

[Toad]

But why fly something that for sure has a problem. This incident you can’t blame just one person. There’s a lot of things that went wrong imo. For sure a case of profits over people.

So what's your analysis of AF 447? 228 people dead.

There was no AOA indicator in the cockpit displays. Much like a MAX where the AOA gauge was an option. They probably should have grounded all A330s, right?

How about the A330 pitot tubes? The clogging of that particular probe design was a known issue on the A330. Airbus probably chose that design to save money, right? Because they had used it before on other Airbus aircraft.

What about the design of the side-stick controllers with no feedback between the two sides? The pilot’s and co-pilot’s side-sticks are not linked and do not move in unison. When the Pilot Flying deflects his stick, the other stick remains stationary, in the neutral position. What a BAD design, eh? Yet there's a bunch of Airbus models flying around that still use this system. Probably should ground every Airbus, right? I mean...that's an idiot design.

So...why aren't A330s grounded? Why aren't all Airbus aircraft with no-feedback side sticks grounded?

[Busher]

So what's your analysis of AF 447? 228 people dead.

There was no AOA indicator in the cockpit displays. Much like a MAX where the AOA gauge was an option. They probably should have grounded all A330s, right?

How about the A330 pitot tubes? The clogging of that particular probe design was a known issue on the A330. Airbus probably chose that design to save money, right? Because they had used it before on other Airbus aircraft.

What about the design of the side-stick controllers with no feedback between the two sides? The pilot’s and co-pilot’s side-sticks are not linked and do not move in unison. When the Pilot Flying deflects his stick, the other stick remains stationary, in the neutral position. What a BAD design, eh? Yet there's a bunch of Airbus models flying around that still use this system. Probably should ground every Airbus, right? I mean...that's an idiot design.

So...why aren't A330s grounded? Why aren't all Airbus aircraft with no-feedback side sticks grounded?

Damnit, I said I was going to stay out of this.

Toad, I have the greatest respect for your knowledge and intelligence but please don't waste your time responding to that poster boy for the Dunning - Kruger effect. I doubt he even looked it up.

I am repeating myself but these 737 accidents have huge political ramifications.

If the authorities find the cause to be gross pilot inexperience and mishandling (AF447 a perfect example), the media will begin to publish investigative reports on cockpit experience and training. All of this will likely result in fewer enplanements worldwide. Airlines lose money; they stop buying airplanes; the aviation recession begins anew.

If on the other hand, the authorities crucify Boeing and the airplane, the insurance companies payout huge settlements, Boeing licks it wounds and life goes on.

So if you'll forgive a skeptical pessimist, I really doubt that the truth will ever be officially published.

[Vraciu]

Again, for emphasis, both the Lion Air and Ethiopian crashes were not the result of MCAS. In the case of Lion Air it was a non-airworthy aircraft with an AOA problem. In the case of the Ethiopian aircraft, it was most probably a bird strike causing an AOA problem. The solution was pretty simple, as the OTHER Lion Air crew demonstrated the day before.

Wouldn’t surprise me a bit.   I hit more birds in Africa over the span of two years than in the other two-plus decades of my career combined.

We clobbered one on landing at about five feet that would have gone right through my F/O’s face without the windscreen.   It was a big one, too.   I’ve never seen anyone flinch so fast in my life—he jumped out of his skin.   At least it was my leg not his because it startled the begeezus outta’ him.

[Vraciu]

I think what Busher means is that feeding trolls is counterproductive.     

[Puma44]

.........I really doubt that the truth will ever be officially published.

This exactly. 

[Shuffler]

Yep. Ya don’t have to agree with me. But it’s obvious.

Takes all kinds I guess

[mikeWe9a]

Also could be broken by the faulty MCAS.

There is no indication that the MCAS itself was faulty.  All published info indicates that it performed exactly as it was supposed to given the sensor inputs.  The sensors malfunctioned, for one reason or another, with various effects. One of those effects was the repeated activation of the MCAS system.

Mike

[ACE]

There is no indication that the MCAS itself was faulty.  All published info indicates that it performed exactly as it was supposed to given the sensor inputs.  The sensors malfunctioned, for one reason or another, with various effects. One of those effects was the repeated activation of the MCAS system.

Mike

One would assume that the sensors are apart of the MCAS package. When I buy control boards in my world sensors come with it because they directly relate to each other.

[FLS]

The MCAS uses the AOA sensors that are already on the aircraft. When the two sensors disagree there is a procedure for the pilots to follow.

[DmonSlyr]

Any info about the Amazon crash? They are surely keeping that one under wraps.