- Aug 3, 2004
Sorry, but your general understanding of the situation is flawed, at best.i normally wouldn’t respond to these comments and was about to ignore it. With that being said, my comments never did any of these things.
My points were clear. If an MCAS issue was affecting the jets, system could have been permanently disabled and pilots could have hand flown these planes with stringent flight training procedures. Different aircraft designs have different flight characteristics and pilots are trained specifically to equipment types they are certified for. And if this was true why issue a software fix instead of permanently disabling the system and making sure pilots can fly the jets.
Before the groundings, and after the two crashes I saw all movements of 737 Max planes and on takeoff which is where both crashes happened, no Max in the sky of all of them flying had any deviations caused by a failed MCAS system as relayed by any ads-b, radar, air traffic control data and so on and so forth. A failed trim control would have showed the plane making inappropriate maneuvers which would have been seen. Data is publicly available from multiple sources including Flightaware, Flightradar24 and others who retrieve data from multiple methods. The groundings were initiated from the federal government.
I attest to the fact that I would have myself flown on the Max without issue before the groundings on American Airlines for instance and never thought the planes should have been grounded and if if it was not grounded I still would have flown on the Max. I would never have flown on Ethiopian or Lion Air which are not the same quality as other airlines and also are in nations which have poor, well not sure exactly how to say or put this but poorly developed militaries and aviation systems as they can lose control of a jet like the 737 Max easily.
Data on all the air communications and flight data recording units on all Max flown flights would have told the true story. NY Times is full of trash and since when does an honorable news organization put an article behind a paywall. I have caught them in so many lies over the years and I do not pay for any of their content.
First, if it was as simple as turning off MCAS, then MCAS would never have been developed in the first place. You need to research why MCAS was implemented on the 737MAX. It was to address certain control issues at high angles of attack, and without the fix, the 737MAX either couldn’t have been certified at all, or at best, couldn’t have been certified as a simple derivative (from a pilot training perspective) of the 737NG. The whole point was to allow 737NG pilots to switch to the max with a simple iPad training course. If they required significant additional pilot training, Boeing would be on the hook for millions of dollars in compensation to airlines (Southwest reportedly would be owed $1 million per plane if the 737MAX required simulator training). As it turns out, Boeing botched it in such a way that they’re still going to owe millions in compensation, but that’s not something they saw coming ahead of time.
Second, just because you saw a handful of planes flying just fine doesn’t mean that MCAS doesn’t have a problem. The issue with MCAS is that the angle of attack sensor providing MCAS with data failed. MCAS had no crosscheck with the other sensor. All of the planes you watched so diligently on Flightradar24 had working AOA sensors, hence no MCAS issue. The planes that crashed had a sensor failure.
As for articles behind paywalls, well, that would be virtually all newspapers these days. Back in the day, the “paywall” was buying the physical paper. Now, it’s the digital equivalent.
You’re also contradicting yourself in saying the 737MAX is an incredible airplane, and then calling it a bust at the same time. Further, saying that Boeing should scrap the MAX and refresh the 737-700/800/900, well, what the heck do you think the MAX is, if not a refresh of the NG series?