My answer to that is: Has the MCAS "patch" been tested in real time on a real aircraft or on a simulator?

Whichever, the FAA are 'deferring to blame' NASA:

FAA will move first to approve the Boeing 737 MAX to fly again, possibly within weeks

... Separately, a technical advisory board consisting of FAA and NASA specialists who are not working directly on the project will independently review the FAA’s certification of the MCAS fix and “if they find something they want us to look closer at, we’ll do it,”...


As is usual, no specific detail...

I still have my own niggling concern as to whether the Boeing 737 MAX can be safely flown for an MCAS failure even for MCAS getting immediately switched off or otherwise failing 'benignly'. MCAS was added for a big reason, apparently for the very strong reason of avoiding an uncontrollable stall caused by the retrofitted new bigger awkwardly placed engines...


All in our only one world,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

I still have my own niggling concern as to whether the Boeing 737 MAX can be safely flown for an MCAS failure even for MCAS getting immediately switched off or otherwise failing 'benignly'. MCAS was added for a big reason, apparently for the very strong reason of avoiding an uncontrollable stall caused by the retrofitted new bigger awkwardly placed engines...

On that, your not alone.

Runaway Stabilizer!! How to stop MCAS.
It's not that easy! https://youtu.be/xixM_cwSLcQ?t=1006
This has not being communicated to the pilots very well.
The Eritrian airliner didn't even have the MCAS system installed in their flight sim. It's an optional (read high cost) feature. Instead Boeing think it's a great idea to let pilots take a one hour crash course on their iPad!
Boeing 737MAX, LionAir Update!! - MCAS? https://youtu.be/zfQW0upkVus?t=257

Instead Boeing think it's a great idea to let pilots take a one hour crash course on their iPad!

Yes. Speaks volumes to the different level of pilot training and certification between various governments. How some places don't have a crash a day, I don't know.

Instead Boeing think it's a great idea to let pilots take a one hour crash course on their iPad!

Yes. Speaks volumes to the different level of pilot training and certification between various governments. How some places don't have a crash a day, I don't know.

Yes there are different level of pilot training and certification between various governments. And why is that? Could profit be a problem?

Instead Boeing think it's a great idea to let pilots take a one hour crash course on their iPad!

Yes. Speaks volumes to the different level of pilot training and certification between various governments. How some places don't have a crash a day, I don't know.

Despite your xenophobia or USA-is-superior complex, in this case, that is all irrelevant in any case.

The simple fact is that Boeing deliberately tried to keep secret from the pilots about any differences for the different flight characteristics between the older 737s and the new 737 MAX series so as to avoid Type certification costs. That appears to have killed people.


All in our only one falsely costs-cutting world,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Instead Boeing think it's a great idea to let pilots take a one hour crash course on their iPad!

Yes. Speaks volumes to the different level of pilot training and certification between various governments. How some places don't have a crash a day, I don't know.

But in the case of Ethiopian Airways, they are regarded as being one of the better airlines, probably the best in Africa and who have a 737 simululator. Why did their plane crash?

You have to ask why wasn't the Ethipoean flight simulator MCAS capable?
Is it because Ethiopian Airways were not told, or were they told general 737 training was sufficient and MCAS could be covered in an hour on an ipad?

We know there was a AoA sensor failure in the crashes, and presumably one of the most likely times of failure could be from a bird strike when the aircraft is less than 8,000 ft* above a hard surface. Had anybody considered that scenario or run it through a simulated flight test before these tragedies?
* the height lost when experienced US pilots successfully recovered from an AoA discrepancy in a simulator.

Instead Boeing think it's a great idea to let pilots take a one hour crash course on their iPad!

Yes. Speaks volumes to the different level of pilot training and certification between various governments. How some places don't have a crash a day, I don't know.

But in the case of Ethiopian Airways, they are regarded as being one of the better airlines, probably the best in Africa and who have a 737 simululator. Why did their plane crash?

You have to ask why wasn't the Ethipoean flight simulator MCAS capable?

Cash? https://www.reuters.com/article/ethiopia-airlines/ethiopian-airlines-net-profit-up-in-fy-2017-18-ce0-idUSL5N1V12A2 But rememebr they are state owned, so profits mean less taxes the government has to impose.

Is it because Ethiopian Airways were not told, or were they told general 737 training was sufficient and MCAS could be covered in an hour on an ipad?

We know there was a AoA sensor failure in the crashes, and presumably one of the most likely times of failure could be from a bird strike when the aircraft is less than 8,000 ft* above a hard surface. Had anybody considered that scenario or run it through a simulated flight test before these tragedies?
* the height lost when experienced US pilots successfully recovered from an AoA discrepancy in a simulator.

Question: Did that simulator have the correct MCAS simulation code?

This whole thing sounds a lot like people in different parts of Boeing we working off different documents from version 0.95, 0,96 and 0.98 while they were delivering version 1.01. That may be by accident and not design. Still negligence. Still a very important lesson, that the documentation is as important as the code and it can't be left to later or it won't match what is going out the door!

Question: Did that simulator have the correct MCAS simulation code?

My understanding is that:

ALL simulators deliberately had NO (none, zero, zilch) code to simulate MCAS... Boeing provided no MCAS details.

Supposedly, the message from Boeing was that there was no need to know about MCAS. All details were withheld from the pilots and their simulators...

... All for Boeing Marketing to avoid needing to advertise the costs of pilot training for Type certification to move to the new 737 MAX?...


All in our only one world,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Boeing (Shareholders), FAA (No shareholders), Airlines (Shareholders). Just wondering how many large envelopes were slipped into back pockets.

ML1 wrote:

me wrote:

Question: Did that simulator have the correct MCAS simulation code?

My understanding is that:

ALL simulators deliberately had NO (none, zero, zilch) code to simulate MCAS... Boeing provided no MCAS details.

Nick 666 wrote:

We know there was a AoA sensor failure in the crashes, and presumably one of the most likely times of failure could be from a bird strike when the aircraft is less than 8,000 ft* above a hard surface. Had anybody considered that scenario or run it through a simulated flight test before these tragedies?
* the height lost when experienced US pilots successfully recovered from an AoA discrepancy in a simulator.

Understand my question. If there weren't any simulators that had MCAS then the statement about 8000 feet is false.

ML1 wrote:

me wrote:

Question: Did that simulator have the correct MCAS simulation code?

My understanding is that:

ALL simulators deliberately had NO (none, zero, zilch) code to simulate MCAS... Boeing provided no MCAS details.

Nick 666 wrote:

We know there was a AoA sensor failure in the crashes, and presumably one of the most likely times of failure could be from a bird strike when the aircraft is less than 8,000 ft* above a hard surface. Had anybody considered that scenario or run it through a simulated flight test before these tragedies?
* the height lost when experienced US pilots successfully recovered from an AoA discrepancy in a simulator.

Understand my question. If there weren't any simulators that had MCAS then the statement about 8000 feet is false.

See from earlier:

Could US pilots have saved the 737 MAX8 ? - Prof Simon


Also note:

Boeing admits 737 Max sims didn't accurately reproduce what flying without MCAS was like

Turning off trim control software in training wouldn't give realistic results – report


Very interesting will be the detail for what Boeing did actually provide for the sims for the 737 MAX variant...

Note that last article is very suggestive that a failure of MCAS was never programmed into the simulator and so that then also suggests that only the intended positive effect of MCAS was included. Note further that the pilots were never informed that MCAS even existed...


All in our only one world,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Gary, as often I like your posts, on this issue, I really cannot understand your stance of shifting the blame from Boeing. Regardless of how culpable the FAA & Airlines are in this matter - Boeing f***ed up big time. The result - 2 aircraft suffered the loss of ALL passengers & flight crews.
Taking another favourite stance of yours - Fiduciary Duty is well understood by many, even the lower classes understand it. FD does not excuse ignoring safety issues.

Gary, as often I like your posts, on this issue, I really cannot understand your stance of shifting the blame from Boeing. Regardless of how culpable the FAA & Airlines are in this matter - Boeing f***ed up big time. The result - 2 aircraft suffered the loss of ALL passengers & flight crews.
Taking another favourite stance of yours - Fiduciary Duty is well understood by many, even the lower classes understand it. FD does not excuse ignoring safety issues.

Boeing admits it 'fell short' on safety alert for 737

Boeing boss Dennis Muilenburg said a mistake had been made in the software for a cockpit warning light called an "angle-of-attack (AOA) disagree alert".
He said: "We clearly fell short and the implementation of this angle-of-attack disagree alert was a mistake, right, we did not implement it properly."
In an interview with Norah O'Donnell of CBS News he said Boeing was now fixing the problem.
The alert could have notified pilots and maintenance crews that there was a problem early in the flight.

Mr Muilenburg also admitted in the CBS interview that the company knew that the alert system was not active on all 737 Max jets in 2017 and yet did not tell the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for 13 months.

He said: "Our communication on that was not what it should have been."

Earlier in the day, Mr Muilenburg had told shareholders Boeing aimed to ramp up its long-term production rate of the 737 Max to 57 a month after cutting monthly output to 42 planes in response to the groundings.

Hmm....

Could US pilots have saved the 737 MAX8 ? - Prof Simon

http://www.open.ac.uk/people/sh2 wrote:

Simon is a Senior Lecturer in Computing. He is Founder and Director of the Music Computing Lab,

So a music professor is an expert in aeronautics. Okay, if you say so.

My question still stands. Was the simulator which was used to show the 8000 foot drop before recovery fully MCAS responsive, or was it yet another Boeing defective simulator? I believe Martin is telling us it also was defective. If defective, then any results are the same garbage that was fed into it.

Gary, as often I like your posts, on this issue, I really cannot understand your stance of shifting the blame from Boeing. Regardless of how culpable the FAA & Airlines are in this matter - Boeing f***ed up big time. The result - 2 aircraft suffered the loss of ALL passengers & flight crews.
Taking another favourite stance of yours - Fiduciary Duty is well understood by many, even the lower classes understand it. FD does not excuse ignoring safety issues.

Ford Pinto. Read about it. Understand it. Then realize it was the direct result of the FD. Pinto issue was a bean counter made a bad guess on future costs.

There is another company none of you are willing to mention. Goodrich, now UTC Aerospace Systems*. They build AoA sensors. If an AoA sensor hadn't failed, would we even be talking about MCAS?

MCAS is a case of software not realizing it is being fed garbage input. Garbage In Garbage Out. The fixes are to make MCAS not continue Garbage Output when fed Garbage Input.

None of this says if MCAS isn't necessary or if the outputs aren't correct when it is fed correct inputs. I have heard nothing to suggest it isn't necessary or that it doesn't function correctly with working AoA sensors.

Not including everything as standard equipment is the marketing department. Airlines not buying the entire equipment package is their FD problem.

There is more people blame here than you can shake a stick at, but that doesn't fix the plane. Fixing the plane is two parts. 1) Find out how to prevent AoA sensors putting out bad data and build them so they don't. 2) Change software so it senses garbage input and doesn't use it.

Sorry if I have a laser focus on the engineering problem. But consider if either 1 or 2 had been in place, no accident. They are the two weakest links in the very long chain of events. They are the links that FAA and other aviation regulators can force to be fixed. Also realize no matter what and how much other training aircrews might have received, humans are subject to err and while we expect them to be able to respond to anything, sometimes they panic and make things worse rather than better.



*I know they build them for 737's but I don't know if their's was on the crashed aircraft or if they were from a second supplier.

Could US pilots have saved the 737 MAX8 ? - Prof Simon

http://www.open.ac.uk/people/sh2 wrote:

Simon is a Senior Lecturer in Computing. He is Founder and Director of the Music Computing Lab,

So a music professor is an expert in aeronautics. Okay, if you say so.

My question still stands. Was the simulator which was used to show the 8000 foot drop before recovery fully MCAS responsive, or was it yet another Boeing defective simulator? I believe Martin is telling us it also was defective. If defective, then any results are the same garbage that was fed into it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19902068

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-29/long-before-crash-ethiopian-air-pilot-warned-bosses-of-dangers

One comment on the US pilots' report - was that 10k ft AGL or 10k ft ASL?
This is very important because Addis Abba's airport is at about 7.5k ft ASL, and there will be a difference in the way the plane controls at 14k ft ASL compared to 7k ft ASL......

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

One comment on the US pilots' report - was that 10k ft AGL or 10k ft ASL?
This is very important because Addis Abba's airport is at about 7.5k ft ASL, and there will be a difference in the way the plane controls at 14k ft ASL compared to 7k ft ASL......

I would guess ASL as it would be unusual for US airlines and pilots to have African experience and without looking it up might not realise that several international airports are at about 5,000 ft or above.
Jo'burg, Asmara and Addis to my personal knowledge.