EASA reportedly approve recertification:
https://aeronewsx.com/boeing-737-max-ge ... -approval/
Oldfart wrote:Surely the initial cause of this accident was not MCAS, but the crews failure to retard the thrust levers from TOGA power after take off, until they crashed. Obviously distracted by the erroneous stick shaker at lift off. But really basic airmanship should have kicked in.
Continuous Take Off power, and a light weight aircraft (short sector) is always going to end in tears.
If you pull the power off in a high speed 737 which is already trying to tent-peg itself, which way do you think the nose is going to want to go?
A4 Pacific wrote:..IAG (the owner of BA) signed a letter of intent for 200 Max in the aftermath of their grounding. Presumably when prices were at rock bottom! All presuming BA survive in any recognisable Formosa course!
Paul_Sengupta wrote:Oldfart wrote:Continuous Take Off power, and a light weight aircraft (short sector) is always going to end in tears.
Why? Won't (shouldn't?) it just result in a faster climb rate?
I don't care if the FAA, EASA and the CAA clear it to fly, I will not be getting on a 737 Max. This whole episode has exposed serious failings and I do not have faith in the reworking of these aircraft, Boeing or the FAA.
Oldfart wrote:One accident doesn't damn a whole marque.
mikehallam wrote:There have been some horrid 747 accidents, and not pilot error but poor detail design. E.g. baggage doors blow out consequences, Japan and others.
mikehallam wrote:There have been some horrid 747 accidents, and not pilot error but poor detail design.
E.g. baggage doors blow out consequences, Japan and others.