4 ms·
This is misleading. Yes, the aircraft is most likely stable. But without MCAS, the 737 MAX would likely NOT meet certification requirements (at all, not just 73
by nemetroid 7y ago
This is misleading. Yes, the aircraft is most likely stable. But without MCAS, the 737 MAX would likely NOT meet certification requirements (at all, not just 737 type requirements) with regard to handling, specifically FAR 25.173 point C.
https://leehamnews.com/2019/02/15/bjorns-corner-pitch-stability-part-10-wrap-up/ https://leehamnews.com/2019/02/15/bjorns-corner-pitch-stabil...
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4286602-boeing-737-max-misconceptions-engineers-view https://seekingalpha.com/article/4286602-boeing-737-max-misc...
> If test pilots from the OEM and subsequently from the FAA/EASA consider the feel in pitch for a part of the envelope above a certain rating, the aircraft will not pass Certification. It needs augmentation for this part of the flight envelope.
> The aircraft OEM is asked to propose fixes to the pitch characteristics of the aircraft so it can be judged acceptable for use by a minimum standard (Re. training and proficiency) pilot. This was the reason behind the MCAS pitch argumentation for the 737 MAX.
- PuffinBlue 7y agoI addressed this in another comment more fully as the discussion evolved away from the use of the terms stable Vs unstable.
- nemetroid 7y agoIn a different comment, you wrote: > The 737 can be flown just fine without MCAS turned on as it has absolutely nothing to do with making the aircraft stable. which suggests that MCAS would not have been necessary for certification, if the MAX was being certified as a completely new aircraft type.
- FabHK 7y agoAn aircraft might be stable and able to be flown just fine, yet not pass certification requirements.
- ppod 7y agoAs noted above, stable has a precise definition in this context, and in that context the Max is stable.
- nemetroid 7y agoYes, I acknowledge this in the second sentence of my comment.