I'm guessing it's because under 12.1 because MCAS would only fire once - if the Pilot get's the AOA high enough again close to a stall the controls will get a little light.
And if that is okay and allowed to stand why is it even needed in the first place?
That is pretty weird, it’s either needed or not right? I had heard that there was the potential to allow one MCAS application per high AoA event.
I've been saying for months the MAX could be a lot safer overall without MCAS.
That’s totally illogical from a safety perspective though. If the solution to the handling issue is more dangerous than the handling characteristic that doesn’t mean we should accept the handling characteristic, it means you need a different solution.
If my solution so stop someone burning themselves on a hot pipe at work is to have a pit bull that rips your arm off of you get too close does not mean that we should remove the pit bull and just accept that people can burn themselves.
Maybe just some more recurrent stall training is needed (and it is now in the US I believe as their sims are required to be able to replicate stalls).
FBW hasn't been the magic bullet to prevent stalls that develop into fatal crashes - this would be a Worldwide Global Pilot Training Issue.
There are no magic bullets, there are reasonable improvements hat add to the safety of the system, FBW being one of them.
It's one of the most important aspects of Primary training and should be taught incessantly throughout a Pilots career.
Controls get light - it happens especially in turbulence - as a Pilot you can't just rely on the feel of the controls - you have to continuously monitor your flight path on your instruments or by outside visual reference ( if available) constantly as in every few seconds - like under 3.
I wasn’t aware of the controls going light in turbulence. The reason why the control ‘feel’ is so important is because the human body is much better at force based proprioception than displacement proprioception.
Sorry Morrisond I feel I’m picking on you, I’m not, you just being up interesting points that I can look up and answer to on my phone.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No worries at all.
The big question is does the MAX have handling issues that aren't that benign.
we know that the handling is not benign enough to pass the regulatory hurdles, if we can ignore this regulation because it’s difficult to pass then that’s a whole different can of worms being opened!
If it does then the best solution is probably to put a bullet into it. [/quote]
I disagree, implementation of MCAS in a more robust way is ok.
If not and the controls just get lighter than allowed (and reportedly it was only when the MAX was really light and loaded close to the AFT COG limit) it should not be materially less safe without MCAS.
My brain doesn’t appear to functioning today but as far as I can make out the phenomenon that MCAS is trying to rectify is that’s the engines produce a nonlinear shift of the centre of lift forward that the the normal shift of the centre lift rearwards due to the effect of the elevators. I can’t grok how the CoG alters this purely aerodynamic phenomenon.
However I would be very surprised if it does have certain issues that make a stall unrecoverable.
Likewise, that would be very extreme.
Yes the Nacelle's generate more lift - but once lift is lost the heavier more forward placement of the engines should make stall recovery easier as it would pull the nose down.
The aircraft is still stable, I don’t think the MAX has a particularly forward CoG due to the engines. As far as I know there was some movement of internal hardware to balance the engine move.
Flying through air is not like driving on Asphalt - on calm days it is but on Crappy days you really can't go by feel.
You can (and do)go on force based proprioception for controls.
So Pilots are taught to never rely upon the feel and to rely upon their instruments. That is especially true in Instrument conditions where there is no outside visibility.
I think there is some confusion about the forces that are being talked about. You are right in that one shouldn’t rely on sensing acceleration forces for determining aircraft position/loading/ direction of gravity etc. But control forces absolutely are used in conjunction with feedback from outside reference and or instruments. The pilot references a particular or multiple instruments and uses an increase or decrease in force on relevant controls to reduce the error to the target position on the instruments. This is a broadly subconscious process which is why it’s so important to understand from a control perspective.
The human mind will totally trick you into thinking the plane is doing one thing when it is doing something completely opposite.
I don't have an example from flying but I have a great personal story from Snowmobiling.
One time I was out on my lake in Blizzard conditions. I had to cross an open part of the lake (no islands but lots of ice so I wasn't worried about about going swimming) that was only about 2km across and I had done it 1,000 times. So I started off and held the handlebars what I thought was straight - it should have only taken 2-3 minutes to cross - 2-3 minutes later I ended up exactly where I started - I did a big loop.
I then did it again and ignored my instincts and held the handlebar to what I though was the left. I crossed successfully and ended up exactly where I wanted to on the opposite shore in a straight line from where I started.
During my flying training (just a lowly PPL here) my instructor demonstrated this to me by flying in to a cloud and asked me to just look out of the window, I noticed nothing through my senses until we shot out of the bottom of the cloud, I’d say we were vertical but it wasn’t that extreme.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk