Quote:
Originally Posted by PlaneS
Forgive me for holding Boeing to the standard of notifying aircraft operators when they add a system to the aircraft that can have catastrophic consequences if it malfunctions.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlaneS
You really love putting words in my mouth don't you? 
Stating that an aircraft has been written up multiple times is a fact. You interpreting that as an "indictment" is on you. Take it for what it's worth, but don't blame me for your own misunderstanding.
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.
Today
