Originally Posted by
Adlerdriver
I'm not defending Boeings approach to putting MCAS on the Max and blowing off proper communication.
But, it's not accurate to say they added a system that can fail catastrophically. They didn't. That's my the point. MCAS has no more potential for "catastrophic consequences" than the basic stab trim system or autopilot control on a 737-200 in 1967. Any of those systems can malfunction and the results of an IMPROPERLY handled malfunction would be the same. Boeing's not going to add "If the failure is determined to be MCAS, then blah, blah, blah........ to the Runaway Stabilizer procedures because it doesn't matter. The symptoms and solution of some kind of MCAS failure are basically the same as any other stab related malfunction. A pilot wouldn't need to know why his aircraft was pitching down uncommanded - just that it is and there are long established, proven procedures that he's supposed to follow.
Yes, and after you stated that "fact", you connected that fact to the crash which you have been implying and even outright saying was caused by MCAS.
I think you need to look up the word "indictment" because you seem to be making my use of it much more than it means in this case.
All I'm saying is that multiple write ups on a trim system over multiple flights followed by what appears to be a trim related crash looks a lot worse for that airline's maintenance practices than the aircraft manufacturer.
I certainly hope any max operator now is ready on the cutoff switches as the flaps cycle up. But sitting in their seats the lion air guys seem to have been presented with an indicated airspeed problem that then would look like a stall. At least it did to the MCAS. They didn’t have a runaway trim problem, they had an airplane that took control away from the pilots in a mistaken effort to assist them, as it was designed to do.