View Single Post
Old 16th Nov 2018, 05:11
  #1297 (permalink)  
Rated De
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Originally Posted by Concours77 View Post

That’s changes to Pitch done and dusted. If the manual did not include something as tricky as sole source AoA data FAIL, what else is missing? Are there new issues as regards OEI? Roll problems? ETOPS? Will I fly to Hawaii on MAX? Yaw damping? What manner of control issues are different? MCAS is not so much about erroneous data recovery as it is about the whole picture.

What else is new and exciting? What other issues are too complex in failure to overwhelm the average pilot such that they need not to know and train for them?

Iceberg. Tip of....?
The regulatory approval process is interesting. A threshold of differences are permitted before a new type (and associated cost) is 'badged'
Thus it is in the interest of the manufacturer, the airlines and the regulator to keep the changes to a minimum.
So it may be the case that this was 'forgotten' or considered sufficiently similar not to warrant inclusion or simply part of the permitted differences.

What ought be readily apparent now, is that this system is substantially different and it would appear increasingly the case that it changes handling characteristics. That the pilot ought never see it in normal operation, it is of concern that when 'it does make itself known' that the pilots may have not even been aware what 'it did'

It is approaching the time where the FAA may be forced to require operators to train the pilots.
Clearly to date the intent of the manufacturer, airline customers and the regulator has to not impact the commercial return.
Are we approaching a point whereby pilots refuse to operate the aircraft until a differences course inclusive of this (be it simulator or ground modules) is completed.
Will it be the pilots and their organised labour representatives that do what the regulator ought conceivably do?
This ought concern all aviation professionals.
Rated De is offline