1/ $BA Why "normal" expert network due diligence is failing to help people understand the true nature of the problem:
There are 3 related, but distinct issues that require different professional backgrounds. No one expert seems to be able to speak intelligently to all 3...
There are 3 related, but distinct issues that require different professional backgrounds. No one expert seems to be able to speak intelligently to all 3...
2/ the three variables at play that have led to the current problem are:
a) Aerodynamic issues around lift/stall and center of gravity
b) Fuel efficiency - critical to compete with A320neo
c) Software design
Yes, as any expert can tell you, aerodynamics need not be the issue...
a) Aerodynamic issues around lift/stall and center of gravity
b) Fuel efficiency - critical to compete with A320neo
c) Software design
Yes, as any expert can tell you, aerodynamics need not be the issue...
3/ because the plane can be adjusted in any number of ways (moving fins around, flaps, wing adjustments, etc).. BUT - those changes can impact fuel efficiency... so Boeing kept the design unstable to preserve efficiency. Knowing that the result meant an aircraft that...
4/ would be harder to fly, more dangerous, and increase pilot response time / cockpit load during emergency, they created software (MCAS) to handle this. Yes, the MCAS implementation was failed and wrong and caused the two crashes by pushing the nose down...
5/ So the Boeing aero engineers win a pass here, because the planes didn't crash because of stall issues. But, if it were so simple, why did Boeing create MCAS in the first place? Because the natural tendency of that aircraft during flight, and human response to control it...
6/ would eliminate most of the fuel efficiency gains the MAX needs to compete with A320neo. So software *has* to be used - humans aren't good enough with current physical design (pls correct me if im wrong, here - but this is consistent w/my research). But disable the software..
7/ And now, the plane becomes less fuel efficient and can be prone to enter attitudes that are difficult and unnatural to correct - adding time and complexity at precisely the wrong time. All of the above lead to one conclusion: its simply a more dangerous aircraft.
