Originally Posted by
Bend alot
This is the response :-
This AD was prompted by analysis performed by the manufacturer showing that if an erroneously high single angle of attack (AOA) sensor input is received by the flight control system, there is a potential for repeated nose-down trim commands of the horizontal stabilizer. We are issuing this AD to address this potential resulting nose-down trim, which could cause the flight crew to have difficulty controlling the airplane, and lead to excessive nose-down attitude, significant altitude loss, and possible impact with terrain.
* Take out the standard/similar text of most AD's and it hardly reads as a critical thing that is of a very high priority.
Er well, that was part of the response. But I form my opinions independent of what the WSJ wants me to assume.
The point I made to catch21, which you have not answered with this red herring, was simple enough but let me put it another way to try and help you understand. There is nothing, not one thing, in that article that "does not add up" with the salient facts and chronology of this fiasco. After Lion Air the FAA assessment was done and the Emergency AD was issued. Your pointing out that it was insufficient is beyond yesterdays news. Since the day the MAX was grounded we had enough information to assume that Boeing and the FAA cocked up both the certification and response to Lion Air. Change the record mate it is so boring.