3 ms·
The answer is FAR 25.672 (c)(2). "It must be shown that after any single failure of the stability augmentation system or any other automatic or power-operated
by cameldrv 8y ago
The answer is FAR 25.672 (c)(2). "It must be shown that after any single failure of the stability augmentation system or any other automatic or power-operated system - ... The controllability and maneuverability requirements of this part are met within a practical operational flight envelope (for example, speed, altitude, normal acceleration, and airplane configurations) which is described in the Airplane Flight Manual"
MCAS is only required in high AoA, flaps up, manual flight. To get high AoA, you generally need some combination of slow speed, a steeply banked turn, and abrupt maneuvering. If you tell the pilots to keep the speed up, keep the bank angles down, and fly gently in the event of an MCAS failure, it meets the requirements.
From a practical standpoint, the aircraft should never see an AoA that would trip MCAS in normal flight. The only time a jetliner would typically see an AoA over ten degrees is on takeoff and landing, when the flaps are down (and MCAS is inhibited), or momentarily in turbulence.
From a risk control standpoint, you're multiplying probabilities together (of course assuming uncorrelated failures). Spitballing the failure probability chain, flights that would trigger MCAS are probably about 10^-4 to 10^-5 probability, and the lack of MCAS might cause an unrecoverable stall in perhaps 10^-1 to 10^-2 flights, so figure 10^-6 probability per flight of the airframe's poor stability leading to an accident. This is too high to be certified. If you have MCAS, but it's disabled when an AoA vane fails, figure the probability of an AoA vane failure is 10^-4, you get an accident probability of 10^-10, which is acceptable.
- m_mueller 8y agoI don't understand how your post squares with what happened in reality.
- cameldrv 8y agoBoeing has delivered 376 737MAXes since May 2017. About as many were delivered in 2019 as 2017, so figure their median age is 9 months. Figure a month from delivery to going into full service. That makes for 90,578 flight days of service. Figure 6 flights per day, you get about half a million flights. We know that the AoA vane had a failure in at least 3 flights, and we should probably assume that there were another three failures on the alternate side. That gives a failure rate of 6/500,000 = 1.2*10^-5. That's about 8x better than my spitball 10^-4. The reason two planes have gone down is that the MCAS cure is worse than the instability disease. MCAS incorrectly activates at 10^-5, and empirically this failure is 66% fatal. If you can get MCAS to only activate when it's needed, the fact that it won't always be there to protect you is not so crucial. Think about it like this: Would it bother you if the airbag in your car only went off 99.9% of the time when you got in an accident? It shouldn't, and it would hardly make any difference in auto fatalities. On the other hand, if the airbag in your car randomly went off on 0.1% of drives you took, you'd have that happen to you once a year or so, and there's a good chance that it would eventually cause you lose control of your car and crash.