3 ms·

<Boeing added larger, more powerful engines, but that required it to reposition them to maintain ground clearance. As a result, the 737 can pitch up under certa

<Boeing added larger, more powerful engines, but that required it to reposition them to maintain ground clearance. As a result, the 737 can pitch up under certain circumstances.> This has to be THE MOST Stupidest decision i have ever read about.. either extend the landing gear or start from scratch. Aeroplanes should be naturally neutral Longitudinally and also have longitudinal static stability it should never require complex control systems to achieve any of this. It should never have passed certification. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitudinal_static_stability https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitudinal_static_stabilit...

lutorm 8y ago
"Under certain circumstances" is, as I understand it, close to stall. Many planes have less-than-desired stall characteristics. The tendency of T-tail planes to go into an unrecoverable deep stall comes to mind. Or have you ever flown a Cessna 152 or 172? They have the same tendency to pitch up strongly when power is advanced at low speeds. This is probably the most common training aircraft in the world, and yet have a behavior that may cause them to stall at exactly the most inopportune time. And they're flown by students, not airline transport pilots! The 737 MAX does not require the MCAS. The pilots could be trained to expect and handle this characteristic. (And they are, as it is apparently, to a lesser degree, present on all 737 models.) The big problem lies in the design of the MCAS system and the fact that it was decided to rely on this and not train pilots on the new behavior.
- basicplus2 8y ago
  putting and engine on the wing in an undesirable position because of the height of the landing gear is stupid.. just because "a pilot should be able to handle it" is not acceptable. Aeroplanes traditionally are designed with as much passive self correcting features as possible for safety. When a plane has a real emergency the less a pilot has to actively deal with the more likely people are going to come out alive. The evidence is clear that this was a huge mistake.. many people have already died.

lutorm 8y ago

"Under certain circumstances" is, as I understand it, close to stall. Many planes have less-than-desired stall characteristics. The tendency of T-tail planes to go into an unrecoverable deep stall comes to mind. Or have you ever flown a Cessna 152 or 172? They have the same tendency to pitch up strongly when power is advanced at low speeds. This is probably the most common training aircraft in the world, and yet have a behavior that may cause them to stall at exactly the most inopportune time. And they're flown by students, not airline transport pilots! The 737 MAX does not require the MCAS. The pilots could be trained to expect and handle this characteristic. (And they are, as it is apparently, to a lesser degree, present on all 737 models.) The big problem lies in the design of the MCAS system and the fact that it was decided to rely on this and not train pilots on the new behavior.

basicplus2 8y ago
putting and engine on the wing in an undesirable position because of the height of the landing gear is stupid.. just because "a pilot should be able to handle it" is not acceptable. Aeroplanes traditionally are designed with as much passive self correcting features as possible for safety. When a plane has a real emergency the less a pilot has to actively deal with the more likely people are going to come out alive. The evidence is clear that this was a huge mistake.. many people have already died.