Boeing admits flaw in 737 Max flight simulator

[Dave Therhino]

Originally Posted by abdunbar

Worse, I doubt that those test point were ever even flown in the actual aircraft. I suspect that at some point they said that they had tested recoverability at a high enough speed with enough nose down trim and called it a day.

similar to demonstrated cross wind capability that becomes the cross wind limit. It is the limit because they had no incentive to go higher and risk an airframe.

I know it's a thread drift, but just to clarify: The Boeing AFMs state the level of crosswind for which landings were actually demonstrated. I don't believe it is stated as, or intended to be, a hard limit. The level to which they demonstrate it is typically driven by customer contract and sometimes is limited by the conditions they can find during the test program. An exception to this not being a limit exists in the case of a few airplane/engine combinations where there is, for takeoff, an engine crosswind limit due to fan blade stress.

[MechEngr]

MCAS has nothing to do with acting like previous 737s. It is entirely to meet a linearity requirement between control force and aircraft response for pitch. The MAX would have not been approved had it been the only plane from Boeing, but had a non-linear response.
(fixed typo 7377->737)

[ARealTimTuffy]

Originally Posted by MechEngr

MCAS has nothing to do with acting like previous 737s. It is entirely to meet a linearity requirement between control force and aircraft response for pitch. The MAX would have not been approved had it been the only plane from Boeing, but had a non-linear response.
(fixed typo 7377->737)

According to the testimony yesterday and today, as well as other information, it is both. Linear gradient stick force and provide pilots consistent feel between NG and MAX models.

[MechEngr]

Originally Posted by ARealTimTuffy

According to the testimony yesterday and today, as well as other information, it is both. Linear gradient stick force and provide pilots consistent feel between NG and MAX models.

Since the NG was linearization compliant, it is a default that the MAX would handle the same since it met the same requirement. MCAS was intended to not expose a new behavior to pilots to avoid new training, What I know is that it could not be certified to fly without MCAS**, but it could be certified if the feel was different, just as a new type. I'd say the higher control on the ability to sell the plane is that it is basically certifiable. The ability to sell this plane model is predicated on it being certifiable; it is just more marketable if it's not a new type. Since cert >> marketable, and since linearization does both, then linearization is the overriding factor and handling is a fallout.

If the FAA had grandfathered non-linear response and MCAS was created to enforce that non-linear response, then that would be different.

I just don't expect that the stick-force gradient is identical in all corners of the MAX envelope to the NG; but I do expect that it is sufficiently linear to meet the CFR.

**Not MCAS specifically, but Boeing had to deal with the lift-curve behavior somehow so some change was going to be required and MCAS could produce that change.

[Grebe]

And now we have the Hogans Heros Sgt Shultz meme - I see nutting i know nutting ( I'm just the CEO )
From Seattle times re today dog and pony show.... a few extracts

.... Committee members noted that Boeing had an economic motive to downplay MCAS and omit information about it: to cut costs to Boeing’s airline customers, who were demanding no changes from the previous model so that pilots could transition to the MAX without simulator training.

Muilenburg acknowledged that when Southwest Airlines signed a launch order for up to 280 MAXs, Boeing promised the carrier a $1 million rebate per airplane if simulator training were required.

But he insisted that “we don’t make training decisions based on economics.” The panel members were not convinced.

Riiiight but then we get this real face plant

...During the hearing, DeFazio asked Muilenburg about Boeing’s push to move some Lion Air crash lawsuits to Indonesian courts.

When the CEO said he wasn’t aware of those court motions, DeFazio was incredulous.

“Seriously? You don’t know that as a fact?” he asked. “You’re telling me that you don’t know your legal strategy in regards to Indonesia?...

Cheaper to settle- no discovery- great legal defense- goes with the meme of third world pilots being the problem - not quite like buying manhatten with a few beads ...but close

And of course we have

“It’s the purposeful concealment that bothers so many of us, with an obvious financial drive behind it,” said Rep. Colin Allred, D-Texas.

Muilenburg was blasted for taking home $30 million last year, and for providing pay incentives to managers to meet cost and schedule targets.

“You are driving profit,” said Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif. “You sure as heck aren’t driving for safety.”

Who Me ?? Transition to " Who’s on first, What’s on second, I Don’t Know’s on third. ..."