6 ms·

No. In no way is the aircraft unstable with or without MCAS activated. Delete 'unstable' from the discussion. It's is a completely incorrect term to be using.

No. In no way is the aircraft unstable with or without MCAS activated. Delete 'unstable' from the discussion. It's is a completely incorrect term to be using. MCAS - Movement Characteristics Augmentation System is a system to give the 737 Max the same handling characteristics as previous generation 737. The use of larger engines on the 737 Max and the short undercarriage meant that the engines had to sit further forward on the wing. This caused a vary very small difference in handling characteristics but was enough to cause the aircraft to need a new type rating as it didn't handle in the exact same way as previous generations. MCAS was born to make adjustments to the horizontal stabiliser in order to make the aircraft feel the same as before so pilots wouldn't need retraining and the aircraft could keep the same type rating. Absolutely no part of the 737 Max is unstable and no part of MCAS has anything to do with stability. This information is widely verifiable for anyone taking the time to look.

onethought 7y ago
So if it is stable. Then it crashed because of pilot error? (No retraining required. These pilots never crashed a non MCAS plane, and MCAS was actively moving the plane towards the ground). <--- How do you conclude this plane is stable?
- _ph_ 7y ago
  No, it crashed because MCAS malfunctioned and drove it into the ground.
  - jacobush 7y ago
    AND it must always be said in the same, the pilots were not trained in what to do. (Because not training pilots is cheaper than training them.)
    - sokoloff 7y ago
      Boeing’s argument (and I’m inclined to agree on this specific point) is that the existing stab trim runaway checklist was an appropriate and sufficient pilot response here. Lion Air crew did it the day before to save the aircraft. The Ethiopian Air crew almost saved their aircraft by executing that checklist. They then turned the trim back on and for whatever reason only initially commanded nose up electric trim and then stopped, leaving the system powered. Boeing has significant fault here, but I don’t agree that pilots were not trained to deal with a stab trim runaway (obviously). The crux is whether existing stab trim runaway training was sufficient for the MCAS equipped Max. Evidence suggests it was not.
      - jacobush 7y ago
        "The crux is whether existing stab trim runaway training was sufficient for the MCAS equipped Max. Evidence suggests it was not." So, you agree with me? I'm confused.
        sokoloff 7y ago
        I think the pilots were trained in what to do. Runaway stabilizer trim? Cutoff the stabilizer trim power, as you've been trained to do as one of the only 14 memory items on a 737. They weren't trained specifically in what to do in the event of an MCAS failure, because the thinking at Boeing was that the presentation was one of stab trim runaway, something that is already trained for. I have a lot of sympathy for this point of view when looking forward from several years' ago. It turns out to have been proven wrong in the field.
        jacobush 7y ago
        Oh then I understand. I know too little, but I have a bias against megacorp.
- benmarks 7y ago
  “There’s a simple explanation. MCAS is not meant to control an unstable aircraft. It is meant to restrain the aircraft from entering the regime where it becomes unstable. This is the same strategy used by other mechanisms of stall prevention—intervening before the angle of attack reaches the critical point. However, if Brady is correct about the instability of the 737 MAX, the task is more urgent for MCAS. Instability implies a steep and slippery slope. MCAS is a guard rail that bounces you back onto the road when you’re about to drive over the cliff.” http://bit-player.org/2019/737-the-max-mess http://bit-player.org/2019/737-the-max-mess
- KaiserPro 7y ago
  No it crashed because the MCAS malfunctioned. That malfunction manifested as the plane pitching down consistently. No matter what the input of the stick, it'd point to the floor. Now, if a big flashy light+warning buzzer had been sounding (like with a stall warning) then this would have never happened. But it didn't, and because the pilots were not trained for this specific feature (cause it had the same rating) They didn't know what to do. Its nothing to do with stable. the MCAS silently pointed the plane at the floor regardless of user input.
tempguy9999 7y ago
I'm not having a go at you particularly but this is a typically 'faulty' post - you don't say what aircraft experience you have (captain? engineer? or PC Flight Sim?), and even more important you claim something and state "it's easy to find" but don't post it yourself. If you say "This information is widely verifiable" then post links, please.
- PuffinBlue 7y ago
  My father-in-law is the former chief test pilot for the RAF. And he was Head of Flight Test and Evaluation for large parts of the Eurofighter programme (now retired). He has decades of pilot, engineering and aircraft design experience. We have had numerous discussions on this topic and any pilot with an understanding of the definition of the term will tell you that the 737 Max is inherently stable. My comments parrot his words. Many here have to understand that learning about these things is not compatible with a 5 minute HackerNews comment. There is a good deal to educate yourselves about. One excellent series to do so comes from Juan Browne - a current 777 pilot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3LrsvaCUoo&list=PL6SYmp3qb3uPp1DS7fDy7I6y11MIMgnbO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3LrsvaCUoo&list=PL6SYmp3qb3... Yes, that's a playlist, yes watching all of them is necessary to understanding the true nature of the problem. If understanding this was a simple 5 minute thing then you can expect pilots with years of direct training to be able to deal with it. The fact something has gone this catastrophically wrong should give sufficient indication that this is a complex and difficult subject. There is also clearly a massive misunderstanding about what stability is. This site has a good overview: https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/aerodynamics/3-types-of-static-and-dynamic-stability-in-aircraft/ https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/aerodynamics/3-types... To misunderstand this means one will misunderstand what went wrong with MCAS. MCAS is about trimming the aircraft (moving the horizontal stabniliser) in order to recreate the exact same handling characteristics as the previous generation 737's. On the 737 Max (and most aircraft actually) there is a pitching moment that results in the engine nacelle producing lift. Most aircraft will do this to some extent - more power = increase in altitude for many aircraft. The 737 Max is not unusual or unstable in this regard. The important thing to know is that the pitching moment on the 737 Max was different enough due to design and engine changes that the aircraft handled slightly differently in certain phases of flight and in certain flight configurations - namely high angle of attack. Because the aircraft handled differently to previous generation 737 it weould have needed a new type rating and that would have likely cost billions of dollars in certification and pilot retraining. Boeing saught to avoid this through the use of MCAS. The important things to know are: 1) If an aircraft model retains the same type rating as previous generations then pilots don't need retraining, this saves money. 2) The 737 Max engines and mounting design produced a slightly higher pitching moment in certain phases of flight and under certain flight configurations than previous 737 designs. This was enough to make the handling different - not unstable, but different. In general terms, this would require slightly different trim level to 'balance' the aircraft under certain flight configurations (notably high angle of attack). Balance does not relate to stability/instability, it relates to balanced aerodynamic forces on flight control surfaces and ensures pilots don't have to continually input control stick movement to counteract an unbalanced setup. Trimming an aircraft is piloting 101 and noting to do with inherent stability. 3) To keep the same type rating, Boeing decided to create an automated system that adjusted the trim on the 737 Max automatically in order to cause the aircraft to handle in the exact same fashion as previous generations 737 under all phases of flight. This automated system allowed the 737 Max to retain the same type rating as pilots flew an aircraft with the exact same characteristic thanks to the automation provided by MCAS. What went wrong: MCAS had too much authority and took input of flight data from too few sources. This meant that when those inputs were erroneous, MCAS was able to apply greater nose down trim than could be overcome with other flight control surfaces. In order to recover from this pilots would have to pull the stabiliser trim cutout switches and manually trim the aircraft. Again, this is nothing to do with stability/instability and is piloting 101 stuff. The problem was compounded further because the failure mode of this runaway trim condition was not clear to the pilots. It presented as a series air speed indication and other warnings with a the highly disconcerting addition of automatic nose down trim. This multi-failure presentation can quickly overwhelm a pilot and make identifying the correct course of action difficult. Further, stabiliser trim cutout is a memory item, it's not contained in a checklist. So human factors, overwhelming error indications and the fact MCAS was not even explained fully in early manuals meant that pilots didn't immediately know what the issue was. When there is just a few seconds to identify the problem before crashing, these factors combine into a fatal outcome.
acqq 7y ago
No: The information you present is what was documented as the initial rationale for introducing the MCAS. But even during the development and the test of the plane it turned out that it wasn't enough. MCAS was redesigned to correct for more than that initial flaw -- check the widely researched and published articles about that. There are different moments at which MCAS was modified to turn itself on, and the more power over the pilot was added, to the point of crashing two planes while the pilots fought against the wrongly implemented device (which was made non redundant "to preserve the type rating" -- i.e. to "not affect the sales"). 737 MAX under any type rating can't be certified to fly without something doing something similar corrections to MCAS. There are articles documenting that.
- salawat 7y ago
  https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/the-inside-story-of-mcas-how-boeings-737-max-system-gained-power-and-lost-safeguards/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/the... For example.
hpaavola 7y ago
> No In that case we just disagree on what unstable means. Where I come from it means something that suddenly stops working and that thing happens too often. The plane is grounded because it suddenly stopped working few times. I call that unstable. Like Windows Vista with old GPU drivers was unstable.
- AshleyGrant 7y ago
  And in aircraft design, that is not what unstable means.
  - hpaavola 7y ago
    Well, this is hacker news.
    - FabHK 7y ago
      Debian is totally unstable: when I throw the server out of the window and it experiences an upset around the pitch axis, it does not tend to revert to the original flight attitude without control input.
      - hpaavola 7y ago
        Was there a point in this message? I did not get it.
        FabHK 7y ago
        Yes, I should've been more explicit: It's evidently problematic to use jargon from one field in another field. "Stable" has a common sense definition, and has a meaning in IT that's fairly close to that common sense definition, but has a meaning in aerodynamics that's much more specific. A lot of confusion in this thread resulted from a mixing of those definitions. That's the point I tried to humorously make above.
    - mcguire 7y ago
fraggle222 7y ago
Do you think MCAS worked well in the event of a failed angle of attack sensor? I mean ignore fucking "stability" semantics. Also this: "The MCAS deflects the horizontal stabilizer four times farther than was stated in the initial safety analysis document..[19] Due to the amount of trim the system applies to the horizontal stabilizer, aerodynamic forces resist pilot control effort to raise the nose." Wikipedia
mlyle 7y ago
> Absolutely no part of the 737 Max is unstable and no part of MCAS has anything to do with stability. Vs. how Boeing describes it: > The Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) flight control law was designed and certified for the 737 MAX to enhance the pitch stability of the airplane – so that it feels and flies like other 737s.

onethought 7y ago

So if it is stable. Then it crashed because of pilot error? (No retraining required. These pilots never crashed a non MCAS plane, and MCAS was actively moving the plane towards the ground). <--- How do you conclude this plane is stable?

_ph_ 7y ago
No, it crashed because MCAS malfunctioned and drove it into the ground.
- jacobush 7y ago
  AND it must always be said in the same, the pilots were not trained in what to do. (Because not training pilots is cheaper than training them.)
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    Boeing’s argument (and I’m inclined to agree on this specific point) is that the existing stab trim runaway checklist was an appropriate and sufficient pilot response here. Lion Air crew did it the day before to save the aircraft. The Ethiopian Air crew almost saved their aircraft by executing that checklist. They then turned the trim back on and for whatever reason only initially commanded nose up electric trim and then stopped, leaving the system powered. Boeing has significant fault here, but I don’t agree that pilots were not trained to deal with a stab trim runaway (obviously). The crux is whether existing stab trim runaway training was sufficient for the MCAS equipped Max. Evidence suggests it was not.
    - jacobush 7y ago
      "The crux is whether existing stab trim runaway training was sufficient for the MCAS equipped Max. Evidence suggests it was not." So, you agree with me? I'm confused.
      - sokoloff 7y ago
        I think the pilots were trained in what to do. Runaway stabilizer trim? Cutoff the stabilizer trim power, as you've been trained to do as one of the only 14 memory items on a 737. They weren't trained specifically in what to do in the event of an MCAS failure, because the thinking at Boeing was that the presentation was one of stab trim runaway, something that is already trained for. I have a lot of sympathy for this point of view when looking forward from several years' ago. It turns out to have been proven wrong in the field.
        jacobush 7y ago
        Oh then I understand. I know too little, but I have a bias against megacorp.
benmarks 7y ago
“There’s a simple explanation. MCAS is not meant to control an unstable aircraft. It is meant to restrain the aircraft from entering the regime where it becomes unstable. This is the same strategy used by other mechanisms of stall prevention—intervening before the angle of attack reaches the critical point. However, if Brady is correct about the instability of the 737 MAX, the task is more urgent for MCAS. Instability implies a steep and slippery slope. MCAS is a guard rail that bounces you back onto the road when you’re about to drive over the cliff.” http://bit-player.org/2019/737-the-max-mess http://bit-player.org/2019/737-the-max-mess
KaiserPro 7y ago
No it crashed because the MCAS malfunctioned. That malfunction manifested as the plane pitching down consistently. No matter what the input of the stick, it'd point to the floor. Now, if a big flashy light+warning buzzer had been sounding (like with a stall warning) then this would have never happened. But it didn't, and because the pilots were not trained for this specific feature (cause it had the same rating) They didn't know what to do. Its nothing to do with stable. the MCAS silently pointed the plane at the floor regardless of user input.

tempguy9999 7y ago

I'm not having a go at you particularly but this is a typically 'faulty' post - you don't say what aircraft experience you have (captain? engineer? or PC Flight Sim?), and even more important you claim something and state "it's easy to find" but don't post it yourself. If you say "This information is widely verifiable" then post links, please.

PuffinBlue 7y ago
My father-in-law is the former chief test pilot for the RAF. And he was Head of Flight Test and Evaluation for large parts of the Eurofighter programme (now retired). He has decades of pilot, engineering and aircraft design experience. We have had numerous discussions on this topic and any pilot with an understanding of the definition of the term will tell you that the 737 Max is inherently stable. My comments parrot his words. Many here have to understand that learning about these things is not compatible with a 5 minute HackerNews comment. There is a good deal to educate yourselves about. One excellent series to do so comes from Juan Browne - a current 777 pilot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3LrsvaCUoo&list=PL6SYmp3qb3uPp1DS7fDy7I6y11MIMgnbO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3LrsvaCUoo&list=PL6SYmp3qb3... Yes, that's a playlist, yes watching all of them is necessary to understanding the true nature of the problem. If understanding this was a simple 5 minute thing then you can expect pilots with years of direct training to be able to deal with it. The fact something has gone this catastrophically wrong should give sufficient indication that this is a complex and difficult subject. There is also clearly a massive misunderstanding about what stability is. This site has a good overview: https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/aerodynamics/3-types-of-static-and-dynamic-stability-in-aircraft/ https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/aerodynamics/3-types... To misunderstand this means one will misunderstand what went wrong with MCAS. MCAS is about trimming the aircraft (moving the horizontal stabniliser) in order to recreate the exact same handling characteristics as the previous generation 737's. On the 737 Max (and most aircraft actually) there is a pitching moment that results in the engine nacelle producing lift. Most aircraft will do this to some extent - more power = increase in altitude for many aircraft. The 737 Max is not unusual or unstable in this regard. The important thing to know is that the pitching moment on the 737 Max was different enough due to design and engine changes that the aircraft handled slightly differently in certain phases of flight and in certain flight configurations - namely high angle of attack. Because the aircraft handled differently to previous generation 737 it weould have needed a new type rating and that would have likely cost billions of dollars in certification and pilot retraining. Boeing saught to avoid this through the use of MCAS. The important things to know are: 1) If an aircraft model retains the same type rating as previous generations then pilots don't need retraining, this saves money. 2) The 737 Max engines and mounting design produced a slightly higher pitching moment in certain phases of flight and under certain flight configurations than previous 737 designs. This was enough to make the handling different - not unstable, but different. In general terms, this would require slightly different trim level to 'balance' the aircraft under certain flight configurations (notably high angle of attack). Balance does not relate to stability/instability, it relates to balanced aerodynamic forces on flight control surfaces and ensures pilots don't have to continually input control stick movement to counteract an unbalanced setup. Trimming an aircraft is piloting 101 and noting to do with inherent stability. 3) To keep the same type rating, Boeing decided to create an automated system that adjusted the trim on the 737 Max automatically in order to cause the aircraft to handle in the exact same fashion as previous generations 737 under all phases of flight. This automated system allowed the 737 Max to retain the same type rating as pilots flew an aircraft with the exact same characteristic thanks to the automation provided by MCAS. What went wrong: MCAS had too much authority and took input of flight data from too few sources. This meant that when those inputs were erroneous, MCAS was able to apply greater nose down trim than could be overcome with other flight control surfaces. In order to recover from this pilots would have to pull the stabiliser trim cutout switches and manually trim the aircraft. Again, this is nothing to do with stability/instability and is piloting 101 stuff. The problem was compounded further because the failure mode of this runaway trim condition was not clear to the pilots. It presented as a series air speed indication and other warnings with a the highly disconcerting addition of automatic nose down trim. This multi-failure presentation can quickly overwhelm a pilot and make identifying the correct course of action difficult. Further, stabiliser trim cutout is a memory item, it's not contained in a checklist. So human factors, overwhelming error indications and the fact MCAS was not even explained fully in early manuals meant that pilots didn't immediately know what the issue was. When there is just a few seconds to identify the problem before crashing, these factors combine into a fatal outcome.

acqq 7y ago

No: The information you present is what was documented as the initial rationale for introducing the MCAS. But even during the development and the test of the plane it turned out that it wasn't enough. MCAS was redesigned to correct for more than that initial flaw -- check the widely researched and published articles about that. There are different moments at which MCAS was modified to turn itself on, and the more power over the pilot was added, to the point of crashing two planes while the pilots fought against the wrongly implemented device (which was made non redundant "to preserve the type rating" -- i.e. to "not affect the sales"). 737 MAX under any type rating can't be certified to fly without something doing something similar corrections to MCAS. There are articles documenting that.

salawat 7y ago
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/the-inside-story-of-mcas-how-boeings-737-max-system-gained-power-and-lost-safeguards/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/the... For example.

hpaavola 7y ago

> No In that case we just disagree on what unstable means. Where I come from it means something that suddenly stops working and that thing happens too often. The plane is grounded because it suddenly stopped working few times. I call that unstable. Like Windows Vista with old GPU drivers was unstable.

AshleyGrant 7y ago
And in aircraft design, that is not what unstable means.
- hpaavola 7y ago
  Well, this is hacker news.
  - FabHK 7y ago
    Debian is totally unstable: when I throw the server out of the window and it experiences an upset around the pitch axis, it does not tend to revert to the original flight attitude without control input.
    - hpaavola 7y ago
      Was there a point in this message? I did not get it.
      - FabHK 7y ago
        Yes, I should've been more explicit: It's evidently problematic to use jargon from one field in another field. "Stable" has a common sense definition, and has a meaning in IT that's fairly close to that common sense definition, but has a meaning in aerodynamics that's much more specific. A lot of confusion in this thread resulted from a mixing of those definitions. That's the point I tried to humorously make above.
  - mcguire 7y ago

fraggle222 7y ago

Do you think MCAS worked well in the event of a failed angle of attack sensor? I mean ignore fucking "stability" semantics. Also this: "The MCAS deflects the horizontal stabilizer four times farther than was stated in the initial safety analysis document..[19] Due to the amount of trim the system applies to the horizontal stabilizer, aerodynamic forces resist pilot control effort to raise the nose." Wikipedia

mlyle 7y ago

> Absolutely no part of the 737 Max is unstable and no part of MCAS has anything to do with stability. Vs. how Boeing describes it: > The Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) flight control law was designed and certified for the 737 MAX to enhance the pitch stability of the airplane – so that it feels and flies like other 737s.