Hacker News Reader

Comment by ansible | Hacker News Reader

That position in the linked article is a bit extreme.

The situation can be easily and safely fixed in software, but it will cost a lot of money.

The MCAS system needs to step back to being an advisory-only system, just warning the pilots if it thinks a stall is immanent (and validate sensor inputs too). Then we will need to have extensive pilot training to deal with the different flight characteristics in the 737 MAX.

This means a new type rating, which costs time and money... which the MCAS system was created to avoid.

But yeah, the system as-is shouldn't be allowed to continue.

View on HN

> The MCAS system needs to step back to being an advisory-only system, just warning the pilots if it thinks a stall is immanent (and validate sensor inputs too). Then we will need to have extensive pilot training to deal with the different flight characteristics in the 737 MAX.

There is already a stall warning alarm on all modern planes and have been for decades.

I've only flown Cessnas (which all have stall warning horns), but from what I've read the intention of the MCAS is to reproduce the "stick feel" of an older 737 at high angles of attack and high thrust.

The MAX is not "fly-by-wire" it has mechanical cable linkages from the stick to the control surfaces, forces are transmitted in both directions which the pilot can literally feel as resistance to control inputs. Boeing inadvertently changed the feeling of the airplane's response to the pilot. An older 737 would present much more resistance to pulling the plane harder into a stall, the MAX has less resistance. MCAS was intended to provide artificial resistance.

> There is already a stall warning alarm on all modern planes and have been for decades.

Yes, which by intentional design doesn't cover every situation you would encounter with the 737 MAX... because they wanted to make it more similar to the 737 NG. Which, I think we can agree, was a mistake.

> That position in the linked article is a bit extreme.

This is written by Ralph Nader, taking the extreme position has been his MO since 1965. As far as I can tell he takes a very hard position, in order to try and move the needle of public sentiment.

Is he wrong?

You can fix Boeing's reckless greed and willful negligence with software!?

That's impressive.

Everyone keeps saying software is the problem, but the real problem is Boeing's willingness to prioritize profits over safety.

> You can fix Boeing's reckless greed and willful negligence with software!?

I can't, but Boeing can fix things with software and a lot of money. They need to do what they've been unwilling to do, which is go for a new type rating.

I also can't fix the current imbalance between profit and safety within Boeing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com