3 ms·

I get where you are coming from, and it's true that "the FARs are written in blood" but I'm not convinced that a non-linear stick force would have caused any re

I get where you are coming from, and it's true that "the FARs are written in blood" but I'm not convinced that a non-linear stick force would have caused any real world issues. For a start, all of the critical phases of flight (takeoff, landing and go-around) usually involve some amount of flaps, for which MCAS is apparently unnecessary.

salawat 8y ago
I'd like to point you here, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19527543 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19527543 This is an interview with D.P. Davies, a test pilot of the Aviation Review Board of the UK. He faced many of the same arguments back in the 1950's with regards to the certifiability of the 707-300 I believe, but nevertheless rejected it for non compliance. In that case, even if the plane stalled itself, it would immediately pitch back down, making it a "benign" aberrant flight characteristic. However, as he successfully argued, certifying that plane as is would set a precedent Which would deteriorate the overall airworthyness of airframes over time as the goal posts were allowed to slip further and further away from what was required by law. We call this Normalization of Deviance, and it's an Engineering firms favorite way to get people killed in high profile ways. I am far from the best example of a person who doesn't exceed the boundaries of "rules" when they keep me from getting something done, but once you have the thing done in a non-compliant way, it is absolutely imperative to bring it back into compliance somehow or ensure every stakeholder (regulator/customer/user alike) is aware of the exceptionality of the non-compliant piece, and owning it in whatever capacity is required to get the job done safely. Creators, designers, manufacturers, etc are given a great deal of leeway when it comes to doing things; part of that is the expectation that you know the rules you are breaking, and you are making the best effort to either communicate or remedy the non-compliance. Don't know as it will change your mind, but I hope it makes where I'm coming from clearer.

salawat 8y ago

I'd like to point you here, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19527543 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19527543 This is an interview with D.P. Davies, a test pilot of the Aviation Review Board of the UK. He faced many of the same arguments back in the 1950's with regards to the certifiability of the 707-300 I believe, but nevertheless rejected it for non compliance. In that case, even if the plane stalled itself, it would immediately pitch back down, making it a "benign" aberrant flight characteristic. However, as he successfully argued, certifying that plane as is would set a precedent Which would deteriorate the overall airworthyness of airframes over time as the goal posts were allowed to slip further and further away from what was required by law. We call this Normalization of Deviance, and it's an Engineering firms favorite way to get people killed in high profile ways. I am far from the best example of a person who doesn't exceed the boundaries of "rules" when they keep me from getting something done, but once you have the thing done in a non-compliant way, it is absolutely imperative to bring it back into compliance somehow or ensure every stakeholder (regulator/customer/user alike) is aware of the exceptionality of the non-compliant piece, and owning it in whatever capacity is required to get the job done safely. Creators, designers, manufacturers, etc are given a great deal of leeway when it comes to doing things; part of that is the expectation that you know the rules you are breaking, and you are making the best effort to either communicate or remedy the non-compliance. Don't know as it will change your mind, but I hope it makes where I'm coming from clearer.