Originally Posted by
Cows getting bigger
Trying to add a bit of balance here, there are clearly polarised views regarding Boeing vs. a few pilots. Surely professional aviators, certainly those operating a $100M aircraft, realise that they are a layer in the system? What would you prefer, no changes to the technical side and continued reliance on pilot skills/airmanship, or perhaps a more comprehensive review and upgrade of the entire system (note, pilots are part of the system)? To bang-on about a lack of basic airmanship sort of misses the point and reminds me of the 1980s Air Force I joined. Things have moved on. If it were my train set(s), I would:
Start designing the 737 replacement
Bin the MCAS 'kludge' and put in a system that is far more comprehensive and capable.
Ensure people are trained properly (a joint manufacturer, regulator and operator responsibility)
Communicate.
We all have positives to offer here and that should be a good thing about aviation. Unfortunately, money drives the world; the open & honest environment we require will always be influenced by the bean-counters and lawyers.
As an engineer, I would say that MCAS was not a money issue, it was a management/corruption issue.
In an ideal world, the regulator and the manufacturer, FAA and Boeing would have sat down for a discussion of how to solve the issue MCAS addresses, stated requirements, a proposed solution, and a validation path to ensure the adequacy of the solution. Because MCAS is ABOUT EXTENDING AN EXISTING TYPE CERTIFICATE.
In the corrupt world which has set in, the FAA said nudge nudge wink wink "just make a fig leaf to cover that patch", Boeing designed a fig leaf, flight tested it and found it inadequate, quickly modded it and shipped it. No dialogue and honest verification took place.
Now the FAA, and thus the US government is involved in covering up the process inadequacy "in the name of competing with Airbus".
What a joke. Don't congressmen and women have families who fly on US-made airframes?
Edmund