Originally Posted by
A0283
You have repeated this statement a number of times.
Certainly not saying you are right or wrong here (that would depend on how you define "FBW" and how you define a "FBW AIRCRAFT"). But we have to note that Boeing uses the term "FBW" in its own documentation for the MAX. And, in his Senate hearing testimony the acting Administrator of the US FAA uses the term "FBW" for the MAX.
There are at least 2 functions and solutions in the MAX that, depending on how you define it, could be ranked under FBW.
If you accept them as such, then we would have to make a distinction between aircraft with one or more 'FBW functions' and 'FBW aircraft'. For some this distinction might not be big, but for others this is big.
For the last group of people, definitions are extremely meaningful and therefore important. If you use another definition then you may be talking about very different 'things'.
For example - one way to look at it is - that the A320 came with a "FBW unless philosophy" (which implies a certain level of "automation", but also added a "glass cockpit" and "sidesticks", and embedded this in the philosophy of "how and where Airbus puts pilots in the loop" (which implies a certain level of "automation").
Between the 'iron' 737 and the 'fbw' 320 there is a large grey area. The 737MAX is somewhere in that grey area. The 2 accidents discussed here indicate to me that we all need clearer definitions. We need them first to understand eachother, and second to get to better solutions.
Good observation. The B737 is becoming a bastardised aircraft with fly by wire patches on a manual aircraft. Any other aircraft have a LAM? Landing Attitude Modifier? It’s fricken Frankenstein..
As a diehard Boeing fan, it’s too depressing