Free Flight, Free Speech

The Boeing software fix P12.1 makes the following changes:

Among the notable changes to the MAX flight controls:

The plane’s Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, or MCAS, automated flight control system, will now receive data from both “angle of attack” sensors, instead of just one.

If those disagree by more than 5.5 degrees, the MCAS system will be disabled and will not push the nose of the plane lower.

Boeing will be adding an indicator to the flight control display so pilots are aware of when the angle of attack sensors disagree.

There will also be enhanced training required for all 737 pilots so they are more fully aware of how the MCAS system works and how to disable it if they encounter an issue.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/27/boeing-unveils-737-max-fixes-says-planes-are-safer.html

hopefully this is not just shy of correcting the issue, or issues. It reads as a bare minimun to implement, for sure.
Also hoping that Boeing will recover its name from this turbulence.

IH-COL

IAHM-COL wrote:hopefully this is not just shy of correcting the issue, or issues. It reads as a bare minimun to implement, for sure.
Also hoping that Boeing will recover its name from this turbulence.

IH-COL

There's prbably more to this but you're right, it does read like the bare minimum. Also a lot of the videos out there and bring spread around (seen some from my friends) are showing that the *engines* are the cause of this, but we all know they aren't exactly. The relocation of the engine changes the CoG of the plane, but the real fault lies in the implementation to counter that CoG change just because of the characteristics change. And it looks like it was the kind of thing they added in as a 'quick fix' without completely thinking it through. The fault therefore really lies on the team who are tasked with designing this system, and the people who approve of it.

From what I hear it was modified late in the certification and owing to paperwork error the revised version never got reviewed by the FAA (or rather, Boeing - but that's another matter)... but that may not be right. The original still was bad as it did not cross-check sensors but had much less authority. I'm not certain if this is true or not.

Ok. Based on that last guy, the MCAS will get largely attenuated, so the pitch alteration by it is minimal. That with, taken input redundancy starts sounding better; at least to me.