3 ms·

Getting into the region of flight where MCAS operates by design on a commercial flight is already embarrassingly sloppy flying. The number of sick bags required

Getting into the region of flight where MCAS operates by design on a commercial flight is already embarrassingly sloppy flying. The number of sick bags required on the flight would be a fair proxy. Unless we are talking about the number of times MCAS activated outside of its design criteria but didn't result in a crash. For example, as is presumed to have happened on the flight before the Lion air accident.

jacquesm 6y ago
> Unless we are talking about the number of times MCAS activated outside of its design criteria but didn't result in a crash. Yes, that was what I had in mind. You can bet that on every plane that did not have the secondary input to the MCAS system this happened. Two crashes are the very ugly tip of a much larger iceberg and the FAA has a vested interest in keeping that iceberg submerged.
linuxftw 6y ago
> Getting into the region of flight where MCAS operates by design on a commercial flight is already embarrassingly sloppy flying. You assume. If we had the data, we'd know how often the 737 MAX, which has different flight characteristics than other aircraft, was actually in those conditions.
- VBprogrammer 6y ago
  In the same way in which one assumes pigs don't fly. You seem to be in the belief that 737 Max aircraft are uniquely predisposed to being hand flown around the sky on the edge of the stall while in the clean configuration and are expecting evidence of the contrary to be provided to you.
  - linuxftw 6y ago
    > expecting evidence of the contrary to be provided to you. I'm expecting evidence to confirm the assumptions of the system. I'm assuming any and all available data would be gathered and analyzed. I assume the MCAS system from top to bottom is riddled with bugs and flaws, designed by committee rather than engineers. There's no reason to trust any line of reasoning from Boeing on this matter, they've already demonstrated their incompetence and are not trustworthy. You seem to not want the FAA to verify the claims of the system with data. I don't know why that would be undesirable. Even if they only confirm what is being stated about MCAS activation, that data would be valuable and demonstrate that the FAA has at least the competence to gather the data. Publishing the raw data along with their conclusions would allow the public to verify their competence at drawing conclusions.

jacquesm 6y ago

> Unless we are talking about the number of times MCAS activated outside of its design criteria but didn't result in a crash. Yes, that was what I had in mind. You can bet that on every plane that did not have the secondary input to the MCAS system this happened. Two crashes are the very ugly tip of a much larger iceberg and the FAA has a vested interest in keeping that iceberg submerged.

linuxftw 6y ago

> Getting into the region of flight where MCAS operates by design on a commercial flight is already embarrassingly sloppy flying. You assume. If we had the data, we'd know how often the 737 MAX, which has different flight characteristics than other aircraft, was actually in those conditions.

VBprogrammer 6y ago
In the same way in which one assumes pigs don't fly. You seem to be in the belief that 737 Max aircraft are uniquely predisposed to being hand flown around the sky on the edge of the stall while in the clean configuration and are expecting evidence of the contrary to be provided to you.
- linuxftw 6y ago
  > expecting evidence of the contrary to be provided to you. I'm expecting evidence to confirm the assumptions of the system. I'm assuming any and all available data would be gathered and analyzed. I assume the MCAS system from top to bottom is riddled with bugs and flaws, designed by committee rather than engineers. There's no reason to trust any line of reasoning from Boeing on this matter, they've already demonstrated their incompetence and are not trustworthy. You seem to not want the FAA to verify the claims of the system with data. I don't know why that would be undesirable. Even if they only confirm what is being stated about MCAS activation, that data would be valuable and demonstrate that the FAA has at least the competence to gather the data. Publishing the raw data along with their conclusions would allow the public to verify their competence at drawing conclusions.