3 ms·

The structure of the plane is solid and it will fly. The issue I have and obviously the FAA has a similar one is the fact buggy software is driving it. Its one

by geggam 7y ago

The structure of the plane is solid and it will fly. The issue I have and obviously the FAA has a similar one is the fact buggy software is driving it. Its one thing when the system offers assistance but when it takes over to the degree you cannot fix it and lives are in danger it needs to be reworked

snarf21 7y ago
I don't even think it is a bug. It was intended to work this way. The real issue is that Boeing flat out LIED and claimed it flew exactly the same as any other 737 so they could avoid having to factor re-training pilots on this plane. It was all caused by greed and people should be going to jail.
- geggam 7y ago
  The fact its all by wire and doesnt have an override stop button or something is a bug. A serious one.
xtracto 7y ago
Last I read, the structure of the thing actually is not meant to fly, and they had to add a software workaround to make it fly (hence the MCAS), given the way they placed the turbines and due to their size.
- o-__-o 7y ago
  Look, I am an ultra lightweight pilot and fly experimental planes a lot. FAA requires, and doesn’t F around with, that all airframes must be aerodynamically stable. So let’s throw that out right now, the airframe is not the issue. The engines push the cog forward which causes more lift at high thrust. This is not an airframe issue but a loading issue. FAA requires load limits and practical methods to check and resolve loading issues. Let me pause here. We can simulate the 737MaX design by taking an older 737, filling with 1/4 passengers and load them all in the front of the plane. Tada we have a forward cog scenario. Could the plane fly? Sure but the plane will want to nose up more than usual. What does the flight manual say? Reseat passengers to fix cog over limits, or limit throttle inputs if not over limit. So would a properly designed MCAS system solve this problem? Yes. But Boeing didn’t properly design MCAS the second time around.

by geggam 7y ago

snarf21 7y ago

I don't even think it is a bug. It was intended to work this way. The real issue is that Boeing flat out LIED and claimed it flew exactly the same as any other 737 so they could avoid having to factor re-training pilots on this plane. It was all caused by greed and people should be going to jail.

geggam 7y ago
The fact its all by wire and doesnt have an override stop button or something is a bug. A serious one.

xtracto 7y ago

Last I read, the structure of the thing actually is not meant to fly, and they had to add a software workaround to make it fly (hence the MCAS), given the way they placed the turbines and due to their size.

o-__-o 7y ago
Look, I am an ultra lightweight pilot and fly experimental planes a lot. FAA requires, and doesn’t F around with, that all airframes must be aerodynamically stable. So let’s throw that out right now, the airframe is not the issue. The engines push the cog forward which causes more lift at high thrust. This is not an airframe issue but a loading issue. FAA requires load limits and practical methods to check and resolve loading issues. Let me pause here. We can simulate the 737MaX design by taking an older 737, filling with 1/4 passengers and load them all in the front of the plane. Tada we have a forward cog scenario. Could the plane fly? Sure but the plane will want to nose up more than usual. What does the flight manual say? Reseat passengers to fix cog over limits, or limit throttle inputs if not over limit. So would a properly designed MCAS system solve this problem? Yes. But Boeing didn’t properly design MCAS the second time around.