billy few mates wrote: » I hadn't realised that all mention or reference to the MCAS system had been deliberately omitted from the FCOMs, I thought it was the case that it hadn't been highlighted sufficiently or not properly picked up on
STB. wrote: » Boeing maintain that it was documented in maintenance manuals for the plane. From articles I have read, pilots may not have been aware of the MCAS as the decision was made not to tell them/train them. This seem to be the case with the Lion Air where the MCAS pitched the nose down 26 times in reaction to bad sensor data, so it didn't matter what the pilot did with the yoke, without flipping off the stabilizer cutout switches.
STB. wrote: » Boeing maintain that it was documented in maintenance manuals for the plane. From articles I have read, pilots may not have been aware of the MCAS as the decision was made not to tell them/train them.
lintdrummer wrote: » 737 Max isn't FBW. In our QRH we have a table of power settings and pitch attitudes that will maintain safe level flight, climb or descent, if you have unreliable airspeed indications. It's exactly the same principle you would use in your single engine. It's pure nonsense suggesting that such a situation would lead to "a death spiral with a load of bongs". Also, 2 engines is plenty. If you have a bird strike that takes out 2 engines (Sully style) then in all likelihood it would have taken out 4 if you had them. Any other "dual failure" is so statistically unlikely as to be considered practically impossible. I'm surprised you're comfortable flying a single if you really feel that paranoid about modern jets.
cnocbui wrote: » With MCAS on and making the decisions, it might as well be fly-by-wire. I read somewhere that the stabiliser can overpower the elevator, giving it authority. The MCAS therefore has more input than the pilot does. Pilots are trying to arm wrestle a Terminator. So much seems wrong about the 737 Max and the MCAS that I suspect the final findings will be that the FAA has become embedded in Boeing and have been giving them too much of what they want and not enough independent oversight.
Youdunnit wrote: » Could be a factor alright,political interference in regulation and oversight Tweaking things a little in Boeings favour, wouldn't surprise me with trump around
bryangiggsy wrote: » Does Norwegian Air fly the Max from Dublin to Providence daily ? I see one parked up every day on the Swords Rd just inside the fence between 10 & 2 What was the cause of the Lion Air crash ? Was it faulty readings or sensors which meant the plane was going too fast ? Tks
cnocbui wrote: » Trump tried to get his personal pilot to head the FAA.
Nijmegen wrote: » The working theory is that a faulty sensor led to the computer thinking it was in a stall, pitching the nose down 2 degrees for 10 seconds at a time. You can override by cutting off the stab trim, but when the aircraft is pitching down and telling you you're in a stall I imagine it's a pretty novel situation and figuring out to flip the cutoff switches isn't second nature. Taking it back further, the 737MAX has a different flight envelope due to the engine weight and positioning, and software has been used to try make it fly like a NG as far as any pilot is concerned, meaning certification on a NG is good for a MAX. Makes it easier to introduce it into 737 fleets. Now, Lion shouldn't have been in the air after giving problems the previous flights. But there is a lot of feeling I sense among folks who think the aircraft shouldn't try to actively kill you if one sensor is having trouble. That's based on some preliminary data and not nailed down, and folks like to equate every problem to previous ones (note the marked uptick in speculation about pilot suicide in recent years); but if I could unpick the commentary on the MAX it seems to boil down to a sense that (a) she doesn't like to fly the way a NG does, and perhaps the platform has gone a step too far; and (b) the software introduced to help her fly like a NG as far as a pilot is concerned may well put you in the ground. Again, I stress it's all preliminary and even suggesting Lion and ET are the same cause is speculation, but 2 crashes within 5 months of one another of a 2 year old type is going to demand some critical reviews and good answers as to why either it's a terrible coincidence, or there's an issue that we've fixed.
Henry Ford III wrote: » That's very interesting, and might be proved correct in time. What's more incredible is that someone random on an internet site would know how to save a 737 MAX in that situation whereas those who actually pilot the things apparently don't.
thebond wrote: » Ryanair expected to make annoucement later about new orders of MAX, hopefully they will suspend order until crash investigation completed etc
RiseToMe wrote: » Indonesia looks to have ordered all local airlines to ground all 737 Max from tomorrow
Tenger wrote: » Well the issue was examined after the 1st MAX crash, the flight data is in the public sphere. The MCAS issue was raised and Boeing communicatedto operators. The software in place to ease transition from NG model to MAX model is also public ally known. So an experienced individual who reads these type of manuals and advisories can give an educated guess with the current data.
vicwatson wrote: » Weren't they Max 200's not 8 or 9's?
Tenger wrote: » MAX 200 is just a higher density version of the MAX 8.
