Conversation

Key part. They modified the 737 airframe to add bigger, more fuel-efficient engines to compete with Airbus. To make the handling characteristics the same, they added a "maneuvering characteristics augmentation system" so it would seem like the old 737 to pilots.
Image
3
5
But the MCAS did some automatic pitch correction that, it seems, would cause stall and crash if angle-of-attack data was wrong. And the sensor to warn the pilots of that AOA error was OPTIONAL?!?! 💀💀Lion Air didn't have it.
2
9
For those more familiar with software tech than airline, this is the equivalent of a "revert to classic UI" option in software. Except, the map-territory mismatches have different meanings. And on a plane, a glitch like that means crashes.
1
5
I assume the airframe and engine configuration is airworthy, so the problem is the "emulated UI" that tries to make the 737-MAX handle like the 737... via reshaping unstable dynamics. This is an awful design idea.
3
4
Replying to and
Totally Agree Aircraft is inherently unsafe, and trying to compensate via computer driven "control surfaces" rather than change wing design reeks of poor testing upfront Having the AOA Warning as "optional" must class a negligence
1
Replying to and
It’s not clear the aircraft is physically unsafe. The control emulation strategy seems bad. You can’t second guess at “change wing design” level without knowing a lot more. Raising the nose landing gear to accommodate a larger engine seems a reasonable physical design choice.
Replying to and
Article states 737 Max "with its nose pointed high in the air" a reference to its flying attitude Not its nose wheel as planes don't stall on the ground States the new larger engines generated their own lift. These combined increased nose angle (increased stall) QED Design
1