4 ms·
You seem to be conflating ideas. jaywalk said it best with: > It simply handles differently than pre-MAX 737s in certain scenarios It handles differently tha
by dan_quixote 6y ago
You seem to be conflating ideas. jaywalk said it best with:
> It simply handles differently than pre-MAX 737s in certain scenarios
It handles differently than previous 737s due to airframe changes (namely engine position). MCAS was meant to "correct" this for the purpose of skipping re-certification. The airframe isn't fundamentally flawed, the process of certifying it this round was flawed. Which caused Boeing engineers to implement a flawed MCAS system.
- FabHK 6y agoI believe this to be a myth. MCAS is not "just" so that it feels like the old 737. Without MCAS, it would not be certifiable. See for example here: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/73132/did-boeing-need-mcas-because-the-737-max-didn-t-meet-faa-longitudinal-stability https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/73132/did-boein...
- bcrl 6y agoThat statement is incorrect. It would be perfectly certifiable with additional pilot training. The killer feature was the theory that MCAS would allow airlines to get away without additional training. Practice proved to be quite different, as is so often the case.
- FabHK 6y agoDo you have an authoritative reference for that, stating unambiguously that the plane without MCAS would fulfil all the regulatory requirements for manoeuvring stability in terms of stick force curve slope, for example during a wind-up turn? (I agree, FWIW, that the plane would by flyable, easily in nearly all flight regimes, and carefully in some flight regimes, without MCAS. But that is not the issue at hand.)