4 ms·

> It's not "just to retain the same type rating" that the MCAS worked as it worked. > > The MCAS, as it was implemented in the planes which crashed had to be im

> It's not "just to retain the same type rating" that the MCAS worked as it worked. > > The MCAS, as it was implemented in the planes which crashed had to be implemented for the plane to pass the certification requirements which exist because of the safety. Citation needed. No indication of that at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuvering_Characteristics_Augmentation_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuvering_Characteristics_Au... and a quick Google turns up no suggestion that it's true.

acqq 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... Note the section "In flight test, MCAS changes" I've posted the link in my other comment too. The initial introduction of MCAS was motivated by "type rating" issues. The later changes were the real safety issues. The later were activated during the crashes. But the certification rules for type rating are also there to provide safety, and not some crazy bureaucracy decision. It was designed to prevent the pilots flying the planes for which they aren't trained. Boeing just lied about what MAX is as it was selling it and as it preformed the certification. So the narration that implies the plane was "inherently" safe is just wrong. It could have been in completely useless purely technical terms "stable" (as ryanlol in the other comment writes that that apparently technically means only "longitudinal static stability") but that is just a red herring in the whole context.
- xtiansimon 7y ago
  > “It could have been in completely useless purely technical terms "stable"...” Not for nothing, how is this dismissal of terms helping forward understanding? This is in part a technical discussion with intelligent individuals. If avionics takes ‘stable’ to have a special meaning, then denying the term’s special meaning undermines credibility of those who are working so hard to hold Boeing to account.
  - acqq 7y ago
    Nobody is denying the technical meaning. That is a strawman claim. If any intelligent individual remained after all this misinformation actions he/she will see at least that much.

acqq 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... Note the section "In flight test, MCAS changes" I've posted the link in my other comment too. The initial introduction of MCAS was motivated by "type rating" issues. The later changes were the real safety issues. The later were activated during the crashes. But the certification rules for type rating are also there to provide safety, and not some crazy bureaucracy decision. It was designed to prevent the pilots flying the planes for which they aren't trained. Boeing just lied about what MAX is as it was selling it and as it preformed the certification. So the narration that implies the plane was "inherently" safe is just wrong. It could have been in completely useless purely technical terms "stable" (as ryanlol in the other comment writes that that apparently technically means only "longitudinal static stability") but that is just a red herring in the whole context.

xtiansimon 7y ago
> “It could have been in completely useless purely technical terms "stable"...” Not for nothing, how is this dismissal of terms helping forward understanding? This is in part a technical discussion with intelligent individuals. If avionics takes ‘stable’ to have a special meaning, then denying the term’s special meaning undermines credibility of those who are working so hard to hold Boeing to account.
- acqq 7y ago
  Nobody is denying the technical meaning. That is a strawman claim. If any intelligent individual remained after all this misinformation actions he/she will see at least that much.