4 ms·

Nothing was fixed. MCAS simply disables itself if it hits any number of problems. The FAA and the nor the NTSB released any data or appeared to inquire if ope

Nothing was fixed. MCAS simply disables itself if it hits any number of problems. The FAA and the nor the NTSB released any data or appeared to inquire if operating the MAX without the MCAS enabled is safe. They made vague statements like "MCAS only operates in rare flight conditions" without any quantification of "rare." We don't know if a single plane has successfully taken off or landed with MCAS disabled. The real problem that was never addressed is the FAA's complete lack of competence when it comes to certifying the safeness of flight control systems. The same incompetent group of people that approved the planes in the first place are still in charge.

tzs 6y ago
> We don't know if a single plane has successfully taken off or landed with MCAS disabled. Almost all of them have. MCAS is only enabled when flaps are up.
kayfox 6y ago
Its not legal for the MAX to be flown without MCAS. It corrects a control force issue that must be corrected for it to obtain an airworthiness certificate. Cite: FARs §25.173, §25.175.
- linuxftw 6y ago
  "Force control issue" is Boeing-speak for "anti-stall." If you're holding the stick back, increase thrust, backwards pressure on stick needed to lift nose reduces, you stall and die. What we don't know is how often MCAS actually operated on flights, so we don't know how necessary this component really is. All we know is that Boeing claims it's 'rare' and the FAA did not challenge them on this statement. Unless you have the data, you're repeating their talking points.
  - kayfox 6y ago
    Engine thrust related nose up forces would be less on the MAX as the engines are closer to the CG and CL. What is being compensated for is the change of the center of lift as the AoA changes because of where the engine nacelle is and how big it is. Also, the data that you are expecting the FAA to report on was not being collected by the FAA. You will also note the FAA did not provide any data on how frequently the TOGO switch is used in the Atlas Air investigation, because just like MCAS it is a system that may be activated on normal flights.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
na85 6y ago
>The real problem that was never addressed is the FAA's complete lack of competence when it comes to certifying the safeness of flight control systems. The same incompetent group of people that approved the planes in the first place are still in charge. Your belligerent tone is probably what's netting you the downvotes but this portion is more or less true. The FAA has clearly demonstrated they cannot competently evaluate systems like MCAS, whether because of a lack of technical expertise or because of too little staffpower, or some other institutional reason. I suspect a mix of both; as we saw from the crashes the interplay between MCAS and the rest of the aircraft has subtleties that were obviously not considered.
- linuxftw 6y ago
  You would think the FAA would thoroughly test and vet the procedure of 'flying plane without MCAS' because now MCAS will be disabled, possibly intermittently, possibly at unexpected times. Thus, where is the data from existing flights showing just how 'rare' activation really is. It seems like the FAA avoided the question of "is the plane safe without MCAS" entirely.

tzs 6y ago

> We don't know if a single plane has successfully taken off or landed with MCAS disabled. Almost all of them have. MCAS is only enabled when flaps are up.

kayfox 6y ago

Its not legal for the MAX to be flown without MCAS. It corrects a control force issue that must be corrected for it to obtain an airworthiness certificate. Cite: FARs §25.173, §25.175.

linuxftw 6y ago
"Force control issue" is Boeing-speak for "anti-stall." If you're holding the stick back, increase thrust, backwards pressure on stick needed to lift nose reduces, you stall and die. What we don't know is how often MCAS actually operated on flights, so we don't know how necessary this component really is. All we know is that Boeing claims it's 'rare' and the FAA did not challenge them on this statement. Unless you have the data, you're repeating their talking points.
- kayfox 6y ago
  Engine thrust related nose up forces would be less on the MAX as the engines are closer to the CG and CL. What is being compensated for is the change of the center of lift as the AoA changes because of where the engine nacelle is and how big it is. Also, the data that you are expecting the FAA to report on was not being collected by the FAA. You will also note the FAA did not provide any data on how frequently the TOGO switch is used in the Atlas Air investigation, because just like MCAS it is a system that may be activated on normal flights.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

na85 6y ago

>The real problem that was never addressed is the FAA's complete lack of competence when it comes to certifying the safeness of flight control systems. The same incompetent group of people that approved the planes in the first place are still in charge. Your belligerent tone is probably what's netting you the downvotes but this portion is more or less true. The FAA has clearly demonstrated they cannot competently evaluate systems like MCAS, whether because of a lack of technical expertise or because of too little staffpower, or some other institutional reason. I suspect a mix of both; as we saw from the crashes the interplay between MCAS and the rest of the aircraft has subtleties that were obviously not considered.

linuxftw 6y ago
You would think the FAA would thoroughly test and vet the procedure of 'flying plane without MCAS' because now MCAS will be disabled, possibly intermittently, possibly at unexpected times. Thus, where is the data from existing flights showing just how 'rare' activation really is. It seems like the FAA avoided the question of "is the plane safe without MCAS" entirely.