The DOT guy I heard suggested that the plane or its loading may need to be redesigned so as to move the center of mass forward, or possibly re-positioning the engines or engine thrust. Apparently, these big MAX engines really change the characteristics of the plane.

Originally, I thought that there was a problem with the some “anti-stall” software feature. But Barry is correct in that it is the MCAS that is connected to the problem. “Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation”? What the heck is that? My guess is that it is a software system that is intended to make a plane with shitty flying characteristics more “flyable” or at least moderately safe.

Factoid: Nearly all modern fighter jets will crash if they lose all computer systems, which is why they have several. The airframe is fundamentally unstable, and computer stabilizes it and makes it flyable. The combo of an unstable airframe with the computer creates a plane with superior performance. But for obvious reasons, all commercial and private planes are completely stable and flyable without computers. Except maybe the 737 Max8?

An example of an unstable aircraft and crash is Air Midwest 5481. It had three different problems but two were,

it was found that the aircraft was actually 580 pounds (264 kg) above its maximum allowable take-off weight with its center of gravity 5% to the rear of the allowable limit.

from Wikipedia

How tragic and terrible.

Boeing grounds entire crash aircraft fleet

1 hour ago

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47562727

If these reports are correct, the crashes were caused by a “safety feature” introduced by Boeing because of the heavier “cleaner” engines used in the new 737 “MAX” version.

Irony.

Key graphs:
“Both planes were fitted with the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) – an automated safety feature designed to prevent the plane from entering into a stall, or losing lift.

“Angle of attack sensors on the aircraft tell the MCAS to automatically point the nose of the plane down if it is in danger of going into a stall.

“This is done through horizontal stabilizers on the plane’s tail which are activated by the aircraft’s flight control computer.

“According to the flight data recorder, the pilots of Lion Air Flight 610 struggled to control the aircraft as the automated MCAS system repeatedly pushed the plane’s nose down following takeoff.

“The pilots of the Ethiopian Airlines plane reported similar difficulty before the aircraft plunged into the ground shortly after takeoff.

“A preliminary report on the Lion Air Flight 610 accident blamed it in part on a faulty angle of attack sensor that triggered the MCAS system and automatically forced the plane’s nose down.

I heard a retired commercial pilot who read those Aviation Safety Reporting System reports, and he said that he reversed his opinion towards a grounding, after reading them.

Then I heard some retired head or deputy head of the fed. Dept. of Transportation. He echoes Oldflyer’s comment a bit. Remember he’s a suit and may be talking out of a lack of aviation knowledge (or not).

He said Boeing “patched” an extra large (high bypass?) pair of engines on the old airframe to compete with the high fuel efficiency of Airbus’ new planes, and now the combo has more pitching moment under high thrust. He also vaguely suggested that the whole plane is just less stable, and that it really needs a redesign, rather than slapping new engines and mounting pylons onto the old structure.

All this mess with software and auto-pilot and anti-stall problems are really Boeing’s band-aid to fix these stability problems, according to him.

While the reporting of 5 safety-related issues with the Max 8 does sound bad, I wonder how it compares with reporting on other models? I doubt that there is any airplane ever made that *some* pilot or mechanic doesn’t see as having something that badly needs changing.

Which perhaps ought to make one wonder about some of the decisions that have been made by the aviation industry—particularly when a pilot, forced to take over in an emergency situation, is confronted with what appear to be counter-intuitive phenomena (when he/she has only a very short time to respond)…not to mention computer—and backup system—failure.

Air France #447, unfortunately, comes to mind.

(This should also be a red flag for self-driving vehicles.)

The question is, how many people is it “acceptable” to sacrifice on the altar of technological advancement; for technological “improvement”?

Regarding the current 737 model (via Instapundit):
https://www.dallasnews.com/business/airlines/2019/03/12/boeing-737-max-8-pilots-complained-feds-months-suspected-safety-flaw

That was the first thing that crossed my mind when Europe jumped on board. Knock Boeing’s stock down over 10% in a couple days and call into question one of their newer models in one fell swoop.

The only known correlation is that both accidents involved the B737-Max8; and both involved third world airlines. I doubt anyone in the public, political, or media sectors knows whether there was any further correlation.

There are so many unknowns, that calls to ground the airplane are specious at best. One wonders if they originated at Airbus.

Having participated in a number of aircraft accident investigations, I can say with certainty that the actual cause is frequently not even considered in the early stages.

https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/39039.html