4 ms·

> MCAS prevents the pilot from even knowing about this stall by preventing the plane from even going into that configuration. In other words it hides the stall

> MCAS prevents the pilot from even knowing about this stall by preventing the plane from even going into that configuration. In other words it hides the stall ...[.] [T]he control system should only magnify or reduce the signals the pilot sends to the control surfaces rather than actually sending it's own. What about fly-by-wire? Many aerodynamic controls are assisted by avionics, and have been for decades. The MCAS system is not fundamentally different. The intent of the system was to put the plane where the pilot wanted intended it to go, similar to how a fly-by-wire system will keep a plane flying straight if a pilot doesn't touch the yoke. The problem seems to be that the MCAS system breaks under certain conditions, however the fundamental idea is sound. Planes have been doing similar control adjustments for decades.

crimsonalucard 8y ago
No its not. Fighter planes like the F-16 are designed to be aerodynamically unstable for higher maneuverability. For this case an incredibly fast control system is required to make minor adjustments to the plane to maintain stability. This control system is in constant control of the plane and the entire jet aircraft is designed to operate in such a way. The 737 MAX was made more aerodynamically unstable then the original 737. A partial control system was put in place to hide this instability should the pilot maneuver the plane into the configuration that will trigger a stall. It's an entirely different situation than the jet plane above. Think of it like a bandaid to cover up a problem. I'm saying don't use bandaids. Design the plane correctly from the ground up.
- speedplane 8y ago
  > A partial control system was put in place to hide this instability should the pilot maneuver ... It's an entirely different situation than the jet plane above. I wasn't talking about military craft, I was referring to commercial aircraft that also have fly-by-wire capabilities, of which there are plenty of examples.[1] The MCAS is not fundamentally different from these other existing systems. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly-by-wire#Airbus/Boeing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly-by-wire#Airbus/Boeing
  - crimsonalucard 8y ago
    Right, except military aircraft is where FBW was developed and very very much required for performance. Such is not the case for passenger airliners. Only two Boeing planes use FBW, the 777 and 787. Every other plane does not use it including the 737. The MCAS is fundamentally different in that it is a partial FBW system that they tacked on on top of an existing control scheme that is not FBW. It's a random partial FBW component grafted onto something that's completely different. Sort of like a mod chip in a console. It's a hack. To drive home the exact opposite of what you said: "MCAS is abnormal and fundamentally different from many existing systems."
- WalterBright 8y ago
  Airbus also loads up its avionics with protections against dangerous pilot input. Quantas Flight 72 is an example of when that went awry with a random pitch down effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72

crimsonalucard 8y ago

No its not. Fighter planes like the F-16 are designed to be aerodynamically unstable for higher maneuverability. For this case an incredibly fast control system is required to make minor adjustments to the plane to maintain stability. This control system is in constant control of the plane and the entire jet aircraft is designed to operate in such a way. The 737 MAX was made more aerodynamically unstable then the original 737. A partial control system was put in place to hide this instability should the pilot maneuver the plane into the configuration that will trigger a stall. It's an entirely different situation than the jet plane above. Think of it like a bandaid to cover up a problem. I'm saying don't use bandaids. Design the plane correctly from the ground up.

speedplane 8y ago
> A partial control system was put in place to hide this instability should the pilot maneuver ... It's an entirely different situation than the jet plane above. I wasn't talking about military craft, I was referring to commercial aircraft that also have fly-by-wire capabilities, of which there are plenty of examples.[1] The MCAS is not fundamentally different from these other existing systems. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly-by-wire#Airbus/Boeing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly-by-wire#Airbus/Boeing
- crimsonalucard 8y ago
  Right, except military aircraft is where FBW was developed and very very much required for performance. Such is not the case for passenger airliners. Only two Boeing planes use FBW, the 777 and 787. Every other plane does not use it including the 737. The MCAS is fundamentally different in that it is a partial FBW system that they tacked on on top of an existing control scheme that is not FBW. It's a random partial FBW component grafted onto something that's completely different. Sort of like a mod chip in a console. It's a hack. To drive home the exact opposite of what you said: "MCAS is abnormal and fundamentally different from many existing systems."
WalterBright 8y ago
Airbus also loads up its avionics with protections against dangerous pilot input. Quantas Flight 72 is an example of when that went awry with a random pitch down effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72