Originally Posted by
dingy737
Question:
Why did Boeing give a FULL description of the NG’s , STS, in their FCOM but ONLY mention MCAS in the abbreviation section of the MAX FCOM.
A. Because a full description would highlight an unwanted flight characteristic forced onto a 1967 airframe, pushing it beyond the MAX. ( criminal)
B. It was considered better to cover up & hide this aerodynamic instability, which could open Pandora’s box and affect market $hare against the NEO. ( criminal)
C. Because their partner in crime the FAA, allowed them. ( criminal)
D. Because they thought their magic software would magically make their shoe horned design failure disappear.
E. All of the above.
The answer is always “ all of the above”.
I won't pretend to know the answer, but suggest one other possibility, supported by previous posts. Boeing needed to minimize the training load, as a selling point and commitment to its airline customers. The more that goes into the FCOM that is unique to the Max, the more pilot training must address it. It would seem that when assessing the need for FCOM documentation and training, Boeing (and FAA?) focused on how MCAS works when fully operational (no malfunctions), requiring no pilot response. Its function is to make the handling of the Max in pitch at high AoA so similar to the 737NG (not prevent stall as the media seem to be so hooked on).
I can't imagine that Boeing anticipated the combination of conditions the pilots encountered, or even the repeated MCAS trim actions that accumulated so much. If they had, I am confident they would have done something different with the either the Max design, the FCOM and/or the pilot training. Furthermore, I doubt Boeing anticipated notion that the MCAS would create such an adverse trim condition at higher speeds than normally encountered during the takeoff climb. The higher speeds the accident aircraft reached would have made manually correcting the trim practically impossible for the pilots to achieve (ref the Mentor video).