Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
User avatar
By Dave W
#1702463
Ah, but none of those are accident causes. Taking the single door example, should we be grounding all Pipers because things changed since they were designed and built, and that characteristic is unmodifiable?

We could, but there goes a hefty percentage of the World-wide training fleet.
User avatar
By kanga
#1702464
Bill McCarthy wrote:As they have been grounded for so long - how many pilots have gone “out of date” on type and need requalification ?


ah, but Boeing promised their customers that anyone with a Type Rating on an older 737 would be able to fly the Max with only a brief on a tablet .. :roll:
#1702469
I've just read the article cited earlier: https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/how-the-boeing-737-max-disaster-looks-to-a-software-developer
It really is worth a read from start to end.

A couple of quotes from it:
Like someone with narcissistic personality disorder, MCAS gaslights the pilots. And it turns out badly for everyone.
“Raise the nose, HAL.”
“I’m sorry, Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that.”


Further down:
Pitch changes with power changes are common in aircraft. Even my little Cessna pitches up a bit when power is applied. Pilots train for this problem and are used to it. Nevertheless, there are limits to what safety regulators will allow and to what pilots will put up with.

Pitch changes with increasing angle of attack, however, are quite another thing. An airplane approaching an aerodynamic stall cannot, under any circumstances, have a tendency to go further into the stall. This is called “dynamic instability,” and the only airplanes that exhibit that characteristic—fighter jets—are also fitted with ejection seats.


Finally:
Boeing produced a dynamically unstable airframe, the 737 Max. That is big strike No. 1.
Boeing then tried to mask the 737’s dynamic instability with a software system. Big strike No. 2.
Finally, the software relied on systems known for their propensity to fail (angle-of-attack indicators) and did not appear to include even rudimentary provisions to cross-check the outputs of the angle-of-attack sensor against other sensors, or even the other angle-of-attack sensor. Big strike No. 3.


OC619
User avatar
By neilmurg
#1702598
There are more balanced, accurate and less dramatised/judgemental explanations available than that article IMO. Like Juan Brown on Youtube that I referenced above. The Seattle Times stuff is technically good with good sources but the journalistic imperative adds a plot with drama, pathos and tragedy which is compelling but presumptuous and inaccurate. I also got suckered into a subscription I forgot to cancel...
  • 1
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19