Originally Posted by
Skyward
Although “system” is part of the acronym, MCAS is not really a system. It’s a computer program that adjusts the flight control logic of the existing system. It’s already been “fixed” from what I understand. Now it just needs to be approved and implemented (tested, etc.). I can’t tell a lot of difference flying the MAX vs a 737-800NG honestly except for the displays. It’s just a little nicer. Running the Stab Runaway checklist should have solved the problem. Leaving the thrust levers at full thrust does not help, however.
At SWA, we were told about MCAS and how to deal with it after the Indonesia crash, btw (before Ethiopian). Was the crew of the second crash really dealing with a “ghost system”, or were they improperly trained?
I guess any additional sim training that comes from this will give us plenty of practice in running the Stab Runaway, watching our speed and turning the trim wheel....
I do agree with you though that they have pushed the 73 about as far as they can/should.
It was still a ghost system. Some operators got more inside intel than others. likely because the other accident hasn't gone final on the report.
I forsee lots and lots of training. It is what it is. Boeing may not like it, because they will end up paying for it all, and not the airlines.
But, I also hope that there are some serious changes to MCAS. A single AoA channel into the system that can fail and that can provide bad data is poor indeed. 2 channels, 2 AoA inputs should be SOP, not the exception.
This 737 did not need to be built. No real reason to. The 757 could have been upgraded and the line could have been opened. Boeing engineers need to go to work and start competing with Airbus. The 757 is the answer to a bigger and more capable air-frame in the 170 to 200 seat capacity range. power, legs, lift. great HDA capability, and shorter runway ability. Good capability in the 757 and great stopping ability.