From what I know the FAA certification process isn't that much different than other first-world country certification processes, I would be surprised if the Euros and FAA didn't rely just as much on Airbus for certification as they do Boeing.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
NEWS 737MAX
- Thread starter ChuckMK23
- Start date
From what I know the FAA certification process isn't that much different than other first-world country certification processes, I would be surprised if the Euros and FAA didn't rely just as much on Airbus for certification as they do Boeing.
It is being reported that the Capt of the mishap Ethiopian 737 did not train on a MAX simulator. Thought I'd address that.
Since the MAX is certified on the same original (1960s ?) 737 certificate, to be qualified on the plane you only need what is called "differences" training. And that doesn't require any sim flying. AA doesn't even own a MAX simulator, something the union has been bitching about.
In this case, the symptoms of the assumed failure are exactly like ordinary runaway trim. The procedure to follow is the same regardless of the failure, treat the symptom presented. That procedure does not differ from -300 to -800 to MAX 8. So, a non MAX simulator is not required to effectively train for the eventuality of a MCAS failure.
The press will make the lack of MAX sim training a critical training failure. But in the case of the apparent MCAS failures presented, it would not have mattered.
Since the MAX is certified on the same original (1960s ?) 737 certificate, to be qualified on the plane you only need what is called "differences" training. And that doesn't require any sim flying. AA doesn't even own a MAX simulator, something the union has been bitching about.
In this case, the symptoms of the assumed failure are exactly like ordinary runaway trim. The procedure to follow is the same regardless of the failure, treat the symptom presented. That procedure does not differ from -300 to -800 to MAX 8. So, a non MAX simulator is not required to effectively train for the eventuality of a MCAS failure.
The press will make the lack of MAX sim training a critical training failure. But in the case of the apparent MCAS failures presented, it would not have mattered.
The symptoms aren’t the same as runaway trim. Supposedly MCAS trim inputs can be countered with opposite trim inputs from the yoke. And it goes in cycles of ten seconds at a specific rate. Not sure if it’s a slower rate than runaway trim.
A lot of people seem to be focusing on the lack of MAX sims. I’m not sure a sim would have changed anything if Boeing wasn’t aware of this type of failure in the first place, so it probably wouldn’t have been something accomplished in sim training.
I have been on leave since these incidents, though I did have differences training. I didnt hear about the 10 second runs. I can see that being confusing, but still, trim fucking up, shut it off. Also, been off awhile so remind me, can't you overpower trim runaway with yoke switch if it is the slow autopilot trim, or is that old MD80 stuff surfacing in my brain? Is the MCAS trim the fast trim the auto trim and yoke switches use?
It trims .27 degrees per second up to 2.5 degrees, 9.26 seconds at a time. Then it waits I believe 5 seconds before starting again. I’m not sure about the floorboard switch to kill trim with opposite control column. I’ve heard people mention it in other Boeing’s.
I agree that the stab trim cutout switches are the solution, but it’s not as simple as a pure runaway trim scenario to diagnose. Combine with constant stick shaker on rotation, likely thinking they had unreliable airspeed, and shock factor I see how these mishaps happened. A heavy nose with constant stick shaker could be confused for an actual stall.
Last edited:
Optional vs. required: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/21/business/boeing-safety-features-charge.html
I have heard nothing about stick shaker activation. The intermittent nature of the forward trim might be confusing if you hadn't seen it before, but really, trim doing something it isn't supposed to do, cut out. No need to know how it was engineered. If we have an engine fire we fight the fire. Doesn't matter whether it is caused by turbine failure, fuel leak or whatever. I don't sit there and go, " hum what the hell caused this".
I’m basing the stick shaker on what happened on the flight before the Lion Air crash. Obviously I don’t know that’s what happened the next morning or with Ethiopian, but it’s a decent chance
Since Boeing didn't provide pilots with any documentation of the MCAS, what makes anybody so sure they would have provides those details to anybody would-be builders of any of the nonexistent Max sims before all this went down? It flies like a next gen, just keep the next gen's flight model with a few small tweaks for weight...
Cheap f*cks...
Almost everything on a Transport Category jet is redundant, much triple redundant. Hard to believe this got approved without redundancy required.
Because sim manufacturers are not pilots. Sims must be certified just like the aircraft. If the MAX sim mimics the excessive pitch on take off then you would have the MCAS logic installed as well.
I think every major in the US with MAX’s chose the same option