3 ms·

But there is on the KC-46 tanker for the USAF, but unlike the MAX it cuts-out upon pilot control input: http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2019/March%20

But there is on the KC-46 tanker for the USAF, but unlike the MAX it cuts-out upon pilot control input: http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2019/March%202019/USAF-Reviewing-Training-After-MAX-8-Crashes-KC-46-Uses-Similar-MCAS-System.aspx http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2019/March%202019/... Again it derives from trying to push an older non-FBW design to new limits; a 767 wasn't designed for the large shifts in CoG which occur when offloading fuel in flight. A FBW type like the A330 that was its rival for the USAF contract can just subtly command constant minir trim changes.

raverbashing 8y ago
Interesting, I didn't know this. Maybe the KC-46 was the prototype (though it might be checking other inputs) to the MAX system? > The KC-46 has a two-sensor MCAS system, which “compares the two readings,” the Air Force said. > Moreover, while the MAX 8 MCAS will reset and come back on automatically, the KC-46’s system is “disengaged if the pilot makes a stick input,” according to the Air Force So it seems someone did their homework in this case (well hadn't they done, it would have gotten very ugly as well)