3 ms·

While this is true (the MCAS being at fault), it was compounded by incorrect and/or absent reporting of what the MCAS system was doing. One of the indicators wa

by Alupis 7y ago

While this is true (the MCAS being at fault), it was compounded by incorrect and/or absent reporting of what the MCAS system was doing. One of the indicators was tied to an optional set of features on accident (spaghetti code?), which caused budget airlines that didn't purchase the optional features to not show pilots when there was a problem with MCAS. That coupled with lack of training of how to react to exactly that scenario, and we have the events that transpired. All of which is fixable one way or another.

empath75 7y ago
If it’s fixable, why isn’t it fixed? Why are they stopping production? It’s been a year.
- Alupis 7y ago
  Because rushing a fix into production and then having another airline crash would be far more severe than the current situation. So it makes sense to step back, and fix things the right way before you reintroduce the system back into the market.
- jdsully 7y ago
  Once the second crash happened there was extra oversight and other issues that were signed off on during the design phase were once again put in question. Its no longer just MCAS being modified but what happens when the two flight computers disagree. So to answer your question there are now multiple issues at play and they are effectively redesigning the flight computer system as a whole. This is not a quick fix.
henryfjordan 7y ago
You can fix the issues that have been found in the MCAS, sure. You can do more training, rewrite the code, introduce more tests/checks, etc... But what you cannot do is change the fact that the MCAS is necessary. The plane is always and forever going to be off-balanced and require an active system to account for that. Active systems will fail. Maybe they can fix it such that the failure rate is negligible, but I doubt it.
- Alupis 7y ago
  All Airbus airliners (the only other serious airline manufacturer in the world) are fully fly-by-wire and require computers and sensors to even get off the ground, let alone maintain level flight. Unstable flight profiles are not foreign in aircraft, and requiring computer systems to maintain stable flight is nothing new. The problem is entirely how this specific system was implemented... and that can be fixed.
  - addicted44 7y ago
    The fact that Airbus are fly by wire doesn't mean they are "unstable". They might be, but fly by wire does not imply that. For the record, I don't believe Airbus plans are unstable in the way the MAX is, whose instability, from what I understand, came about because they were trying to fit larger engines on the original 737 frame (to prevent pilot retraining), and so had to move the wings higher.
    - johannes1234321 7y ago
      In some avionics podcast A380 pilots described that that huge beast is a quite good glider. This makes sense since you want to reduce fuel usage and just enjoy smooth sailing. Something like an F-16 however is less stable and requires constant adjustment of flaps etc. there dynamic properties of air to air dogfight are more important.
  - henryfjordan 7y ago
    I'm not saying unstable planes cannot be built, just that I don't trust a company that's already had 2 planes go down to get it right. A quick google search seemed to imply most unstable airframes were military or experimental, not commercial. Unstable airframes are not appropriate for commercial airliners unless you can point to a good reason. "We don't want to train pilots" is a bad reason. The FAA should have pushed back very hard on this point. Personally I think the flaws in the 737-MAX design process were so deep that it would be safest to just scrap the plane. It's not that the issues cannot be fixed, but rather that we'd be better off starting over from scratch knowing that good design principles will be followed the whole time.

by Alupis 7y ago

empath75 7y ago

If it’s fixable, why isn’t it fixed? Why are they stopping production? It’s been a year.

Alupis 7y ago
Because rushing a fix into production and then having another airline crash would be far more severe than the current situation. So it makes sense to step back, and fix things the right way before you reintroduce the system back into the market.
jdsully 7y ago
Once the second crash happened there was extra oversight and other issues that were signed off on during the design phase were once again put in question. Its no longer just MCAS being modified but what happens when the two flight computers disagree. So to answer your question there are now multiple issues at play and they are effectively redesigning the flight computer system as a whole. This is not a quick fix.

henryfjordan 7y ago

You can fix the issues that have been found in the MCAS, sure. You can do more training, rewrite the code, introduce more tests/checks, etc... But what you cannot do is change the fact that the MCAS is necessary. The plane is always and forever going to be off-balanced and require an active system to account for that. Active systems will fail. Maybe they can fix it such that the failure rate is negligible, but I doubt it.

Alupis 7y ago
All Airbus airliners (the only other serious airline manufacturer in the world) are fully fly-by-wire and require computers and sensors to even get off the ground, let alone maintain level flight. Unstable flight profiles are not foreign in aircraft, and requiring computer systems to maintain stable flight is nothing new. The problem is entirely how this specific system was implemented... and that can be fixed.
- addicted44 7y ago
  The fact that Airbus are fly by wire doesn't mean they are "unstable". They might be, but fly by wire does not imply that. For the record, I don't believe Airbus plans are unstable in the way the MAX is, whose instability, from what I understand, came about because they were trying to fit larger engines on the original 737 frame (to prevent pilot retraining), and so had to move the wings higher.
  - johannes1234321 7y ago
    In some avionics podcast A380 pilots described that that huge beast is a quite good glider. This makes sense since you want to reduce fuel usage and just enjoy smooth sailing. Something like an F-16 however is less stable and requires constant adjustment of flaps etc. there dynamic properties of air to air dogfight are more important.
- henryfjordan 7y ago
  I'm not saying unstable planes cannot be built, just that I don't trust a company that's already had 2 planes go down to get it right. A quick google search seemed to imply most unstable airframes were military or experimental, not commercial. Unstable airframes are not appropriate for commercial airliners unless you can point to a good reason. "We don't want to train pilots" is a bad reason. The FAA should have pushed back very hard on this point. Personally I think the flaws in the 737-MAX design process were so deep that it would be safest to just scrap the plane. It's not that the issues cannot be fixed, but rather that we'd be better off starting over from scratch knowing that good design principles will be followed the whole time.