Reply to post: Re: "... anti-stall – sorry, plane pedants hate it when we call it that..."

Deadly 737 Max jets no longer a Boeing concern – for now: Production suspended after biz runs out of parking space

JimC

Re: "... anti-stall – sorry, plane pedants hate it when we call it that..."

Its more complicated than that. MCAS was put in because without it the planes had some extremely nasty handling characteristics that are absolutely prohibited, and rightly so, as Electronics R us says above. That wasn't unreasonable, I very much doubt that its the only plane that has similar fixes in software, and as far as anyone can tell that part of it was OK. It wasn't anti stall, it was to prohibit getting in a situation where it would be difficult to avoid stalling. If my understanding is correct it was perfectly reasonable.

But, and this seems to be where it has gone wrong, once they had that system in place they then extended it into another part of the flight envelope to deal with another more minor handling issue, and the scope in which it would come into play was greatly extended, and that's where everything went wrong.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR WEEKLY TECH NEWSLETTER

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020