If the suspicion is true, that all this is caused by software that causes the nose to dip in error, then the scariest thing is that the pilots can't seem to override it. Surely you'd think there would be some manual means of switching this thing off?
I wonder how many passengers unsuspectingly flew 737 Max since the Lion Air crash ?
The 737 max had to have MCAS fitted to meet regulation because of engine size and location in relation to centre of gravity. It would be possible for a pilot to get the aircraft into a high angle of attack situation (near the stall) and not have elevator authority to push the nose down. When aircraft have unstable characteristics like this, they have systems fitted to prevent dangerous situations.Originally Posted by Man of Kent
Another more simple example...if you fly in an aircraft with a high-T tail, they have “stick pushers” fitted to prevent deep stalling...a situation you’d never want to find yourself as you are then flying in a brick!
MCAS can be switched off - its not active, for example, with any stage of flap or with the autopilot selected. It can also be switched off by turning off both electric trim switches. Unfortunately, prior to the Lion Air crash, I believe Boeing didn’t even let operators know it existed. In addition to this, they designed a system that had a single point of failure...one angle of attack sensor. Not great. Since the Lion Air crash, operators should know about MCAS and actions in the event of unwanted MCAS input (trim runaway). The stage of flight that the Ethiopian jet crashed in is eerily similar to Lion Air though.
AvE has just made a video talking about this (Patreon only at the moment), and he came to similar conclusions.
Here's a web page I found that describes the problem with the MCAS system: https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-s...ion-air-crash/
A lot of knowledgeable guys on an aircraft forum I browse feel the evidence released so far suggests this was an explosion, quite possibly lithium-ion batteries in the cargo catching fire.
I would suggest from looking at the pictures of the crash site that the aircraft flew into the ground rather than broke up in mid air (explosion)
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
I'd say you were 'bang on' with that analysis. An in-flight explosion, at almost any height, would have spread the wreckage far wider.
https://twitter.com/BoeingAirplanes/...406528/photo/1
Boeing have done the right thing eventually.
The suggestion is a localised fire/detonation lead to loss of avionic control. No question the aircraft went nose down hard into the ground rather than broke up when airborne.
Boeing should take the "e" out of its name!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47562727
At last!!!
Nah. It'll be the MCAS issue that Lionair had. There are reports all over the web that the type is prone to pitch down when the sensors get mixed up. Many pilots saying they've had to intervene.
Boeing have built a new aircraft but 'grandfathered' the approvals. It's appears quite naughty!
i find myself reluctant to fly anywhere with any airline as i get older, watch now I will be run over by a bus :-)
Same here, I know it’s a ‘safe’ form of transport apparently but nobody usually walks away if anything goes wrong.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
There is a manual override. The problem is that relatively low airspeed and height it is very easy to stall..................Not a lot of thinking time.
and if the pilots unaware of this 'feature' because it isn't covered in the manual or training provided for this aircraft, would he naturally look to other cause/solutions first in what little time was available.
Last edited by Passenger; 14th March 2019 at 12:21.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote