3 ms·
I absolutely accept this, in a world were deep technical explanations aren't exactly in fashion, it's the only explanation which fits the available evidence. Ho
by VBprogrammer 5y ago
I absolutely accept this, in a world were deep technical explanations aren't exactly in fashion, it's the only explanation which fits the available evidence. However, it also runs contrary to the official / media friendly version of what Boeing say happened.
I wish we had a good source, the best I've found is the 737 technical site, I wish it was available in an official report.
- salawat 5y agoIt actually was if I recall. https://www.faa.gov/foia/electronic_reading_room/boeing_reading_room/media/737_RTS_Summary.pdf https://www.faa.gov/foia/electronic_reading_room/boeing_read... Page 10: >The 737 MAX was designed to handle and feel the same to the pilot as the 737 NG. Without the MCAS function, in some small areas of the flight envelope — such as approaching a stall and during higher g-force maneuvering — the new engines contribute to the control column feeling lighter in the 737 MAX than the regulations allow. These are not areas of the flight envelope in which the airplane normally operates. However, FAA regulations - specifically 14 CFR 25.143, 25.201, 25.203, 25.251, and 25.255 - still require the control column to have a higher pull-force feel in these flight regimes than would exist on the 737 MAX without the added stability from the STS and MCAS function.
- VBprogrammer 5y agoGood find! Interestingly I remember that being a relatively well accepted explanation here before the Ethiopian crash which is before that was published. Though I'm sure similar wording appeared elsewhere.