3 ms·

Turn off MCAS. Train the pilots on the MAX like it's a new type. Problem solved. This whole problem exists because Boeing tried to use software to fudge how

Turn off MCAS. Train the pilots on the MAX like it's a new type. Problem solved. This whole problem exists because Boeing tried to use software to fudge how the plain handles in order to avoid expensive retraining. Bite the bullet, train the pilots and the problem doesn't exist anymore. This entire article comes across as though an old man has read something he doesn't like in the newspaper and is suddenly an expert on it in order to justify his outrage when in reality the situation is much more nuanced than his understanding.

bilbo0s 8y ago
You have to wonder why this wasn't done in the first place? Are people really that greedy? You don't want to think they are, but at the same time you struggle to come up with any reason other than money for doing what Boeing did. It's really a sad statement on how people behave.
- philjohn 8y ago
  When you are judged on quarterly earnings results ... unfortunately, yes.
germinalphrase 8y ago
It’s been reports that Boeing is looking at a one billion dollar loss due to the grounding these plans. Surely, such training would come in far below this number...
cameldrv 8y ago
It's not that simple. I don't believe the unassisted aircraft meets the stick force/stability requirements of FAR 25. Even if it were a completely new type, it would need some sort of stability augmentation to be certifiable.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  Meeting FAR 25 is generally done by adding something like hydraulics, or electric engines to assist in moving control surfaces. Both solutions capable of working even in thte case of full engine and power shutdowns. To put an automated system on top of your force assists just seems like asking for trouble. In layman's terms, the more you pile on, the more that can go wrong. All that said, as a matter of full disclosure, I only know how to fly planes, not really an aeronautical engineer.
  - cameldrv 8y ago
    There are lots of ways to meet the handling and stability requirements for certification. You could just design the airframe to have the right stick force profile, you could have old school mechanical/hydraulic augmentation systems, you could have an electronic augmentation system like MCAS, or you could do what Airbus does and simulate the forces and responses of a virtual airplane, and then have the computer actually do the flying. These all can be done in reasonable and safe ways. Boeing just didn't do it.
gthtjtkt 8y ago
> Problem solved. You treated the symptom, not the problem. The problem is Boeing's willingness to cut corners and risk lives in the name of profit. You can't fix that with software or pilot training.

bilbo0s 8y ago

You have to wonder why this wasn't done in the first place? Are people really that greedy? You don't want to think they are, but at the same time you struggle to come up with any reason other than money for doing what Boeing did. It's really a sad statement on how people behave.

philjohn 8y ago
When you are judged on quarterly earnings results ... unfortunately, yes.

germinalphrase 8y ago

It’s been reports that Boeing is looking at a one billion dollar loss due to the grounding these plans. Surely, such training would come in far below this number...

cameldrv 8y ago

It's not that simple. I don't believe the unassisted aircraft meets the stick force/stability requirements of FAR 25. Even if it were a completely new type, it would need some sort of stability augmentation to be certifiable.

bilbo0s 8y ago
Meeting FAR 25 is generally done by adding something like hydraulics, or electric engines to assist in moving control surfaces. Both solutions capable of working even in thte case of full engine and power shutdowns. To put an automated system on top of your force assists just seems like asking for trouble. In layman's terms, the more you pile on, the more that can go wrong. All that said, as a matter of full disclosure, I only know how to fly planes, not really an aeronautical engineer.
- cameldrv 8y ago
  There are lots of ways to meet the handling and stability requirements for certification. You could just design the airframe to have the right stick force profile, you could have old school mechanical/hydraulic augmentation systems, you could have an electronic augmentation system like MCAS, or you could do what Airbus does and simulate the forces and responses of a virtual airplane, and then have the computer actually do the flying. These all can be done in reasonable and safe ways. Boeing just didn't do it.

gthtjtkt 8y ago

> Problem solved. You treated the symptom, not the problem. The problem is Boeing's willingness to cut corners and risk lives in the name of profit. You can't fix that with software or pilot training.