Preliminary conclusion MCAS misfired in Ethiopian's 737 max crash
1–10 of 145 posts
Re: Preliminary conclusion MCAS misfired in Ethiopian's 737 max crash
#2That's not very surprising to anyone who has been following along. The more interesting question is why they failed to identify the trim runaway condition, or if they did indeed identify it, why the procedure failed to correct it?
This is significantly different to the Lion air incident where you can easily give the pilots the benefit of the doubt because the failure mode hadn't been previously identified. The details of MCAS and the procedure to handle it was communicated to all operators months before this accident.
Re: Preliminary conclusion MCAS misfired in Ethiopian's 737 max crash
#3"Instead of relying on a single sensor indicating the angle of the plane’s nose, MCAS will rely on data from both of the plane’s sensors"
Why wouldn't you design it that way from the beginning? This isn't Boeing's first plane.
Re: Preliminary conclusion MCAS misfired in Ethiopian's 737 max crash
#4Paywalled, anyone have a workaround?
Re: Preliminary conclusion MCAS misfired in Ethiopian's 737 max crash
#5Paywalled, anyone have a workaround?
Not a workaround, but I think all important info is here: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/29/ethiopian-crash-boeing-737-m...
Re: Preliminary conclusion MCAS misfired in Ethiopian's 737 max crash
#6Paywalled, anyone have a workaround?
Different article: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47745191
Re: Preliminary conclusion MCAS misfired in Ethiopian's 737 max crash
#7"Instead of relying on a single sensor indicating the angle of the plane’s nose, MCAS will rely on data from both of the plane’s sensors" Why wouldn't you design it that way from the beginning? This isn't Boeing's first plane.
They did, but the redundancy was a premium add-on feature.
Re: Preliminary conclusion MCAS misfired in Ethiopian's 737 max crash
#8"Instead of relying on a single sensor indicating the angle of the plane’s nose, MCAS will rely on data from both of the plane’s sensors" Why wouldn't you design it that way from the beginning? This isn't Boeing's first plane.
They did, but the redundancy was a premium add-on feature.
No, the extra sensor was add-on feature. It still wasn't redundant for the MCAS, just an indicator for the pilots.
Re: Preliminary conclusion MCAS misfired in Ethiopian's 737 max crash
#9Paywalled, anyone have a workaround?
Simply search for the title on Google, and they’ll let you in based on that.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Investigators+Believe+Boeing...
Re: Preliminary conclusion MCAS misfired in Ethiopian's 737 max crash
#10"Instead of relying on a single sensor indicating the angle of the plane’s nose, MCAS will rely on data from both of the plane’s sensors" Why wouldn't you design it that way from the beginning? This isn't Boeing's first plane.
Because if you did that, you'd have to alert the pilots when the AoA sensors disagree and MCAS has been disabled. And you can't do that without training them on what that means, notably how the plane will now fly differently with what you might call "relaxed stability" at high angles of attack. And Boeing really really wanted to avoid retraining of pilots because apparently they had a contract with SouthWest that would cost then $1M per plane if retraining was required.