3 ms·

MCAS wasn't designed because "autopilot systems cannot cope with AoA disagree." Reread what I wrote. MCAS wasn't enabled at all when autopilot was. Only manu

MCAS wasn't designed because "autopilot systems cannot cope with AoA disagree." Reread what I wrote. MCAS wasn't enabled at all when autopilot was. Only manual flying. Quite literally what I wrote. The Ethiopian Airline pilots never tried to enable autopilot, and didn't "keep trying to engage autopilot" that's pure fiction. I'm not sure what you're going on about. You can see plain as day that the captain engaged the autopilot — there are five AP warnings on the graphs in the preliminary report. You can also see the position of the AP master switch (which, yes, they engaged autopilot with the stick shaker going off). You can even read through the transcripts where they're fiddling with the autopilot throughout the whole flight.

Someone1234 8y ago
Your own post contradicts itself on that point: > The autopilot systems cannot cope with AoA disagree, that's why MCAS came into play. And: > Unfortunately for them MCAS is only needed when autopilot is disabled. Pick one. Either MCAS "came into play" to "cope with AoA disagree" because "the autopilot systems cannot" or "MCAS is only needed when autopilot is disabled."
- inferiorhuman 8y ago
  Pick one. Either MCAS "came into play" to "cope with AoA disagree" because "the autopilot systems cannot" or "MCAS is only needed when autopilot is disabled." The statements aren't mutually exclusive. Not even a little bit. Autopilot eventually disengaged because there was an AoA disagree. MCAS was active because the autopilot was disabled. That's how MCAS works. That's the only situation in which MCAS could be engaged. And that doesn't mean that MCAS was designed to mitigate the problems related to an AoA disagreement.
  - cjbprime 8y ago
    FWIW, I recall reading that Airbus uses three AoA sensors because autopilot becomes disabled when AoA is inoperable, and Boeing gets away with two because it does not disable autopilot on AoA disagree.
  - Someone1234 8y ago
    > And that doesn't mean that MCAS was designed to mitigate the problems related to an AoA disagreement. You literally said it was designed to do just that: > The autopilot systems cannot cope with AoA disagree, that's why MCAS came into play. I still have no idea what you were trying to say there.
    - inferiorhuman 8y ago
      You literally said it was designed to do just that No, I didn't.
    - FabHK 8y ago
      > You literally said it was designed to do just that: > > The autopilot systems cannot cope with AoA disagree, that's why MCAS came into play. He meant "The autopilot systems cannot cope with AoA disagree, thus the autopilot automatically disengaged when AoA measurements disagreed, that's why MCAS became active.", not "The autopilot systems cannot cope with AoA disagree, that's what MCAS was designed to handle."

Someone1234 8y ago

Your own post contradicts itself on that point: > The autopilot systems cannot cope with AoA disagree, that's why MCAS came into play. And: > Unfortunately for them MCAS is only needed when autopilot is disabled. Pick one. Either MCAS "came into play" to "cope with AoA disagree" because "the autopilot systems cannot" or "MCAS is only needed when autopilot is disabled."

inferiorhuman 8y ago
Pick one. Either MCAS "came into play" to "cope with AoA disagree" because "the autopilot systems cannot" or "MCAS is only needed when autopilot is disabled." The statements aren't mutually exclusive. Not even a little bit. Autopilot eventually disengaged because there was an AoA disagree. MCAS was active because the autopilot was disabled. That's how MCAS works. That's the only situation in which MCAS could be engaged. And that doesn't mean that MCAS was designed to mitigate the problems related to an AoA disagreement.
- cjbprime 8y ago
  FWIW, I recall reading that Airbus uses three AoA sensors because autopilot becomes disabled when AoA is inoperable, and Boeing gets away with two because it does not disable autopilot on AoA disagree.
- Someone1234 8y ago
  > And that doesn't mean that MCAS was designed to mitigate the problems related to an AoA disagreement. You literally said it was designed to do just that: > The autopilot systems cannot cope with AoA disagree, that's why MCAS came into play. I still have no idea what you were trying to say there.
  - inferiorhuman 8y ago
    You literally said it was designed to do just that No, I didn't.
  - FabHK 8y ago
    > You literally said it was designed to do just that: > > The autopilot systems cannot cope with AoA disagree, that's why MCAS came into play. He meant "The autopilot systems cannot cope with AoA disagree, thus the autopilot automatically disengaged when AoA measurements disagreed, that's why MCAS became active.", not "The autopilot systems cannot cope with AoA disagree, that's what MCAS was designed to handle."