Re:My Letter to the Editor of New York Times Magazine
by PuffinBlue on Monday October 14, 2019 @09:02AM
(#21247776)
I addressed this in another comment more fully as the discussion evolved away from the use of the terms stable Vs unstable.
Re:My Letter to the Editor of New York Times Magazine
by nemetroid on Monday October 14, 2019 @10:28AM
(#21248626)
In a different comment, you wrote:
> The 737 can be flown just fine without MCAS turned on as it has absolutely nothing to do with making the aircraft stable.
which suggests that MCAS would not have been necessary for certification, if the MAX was being certified as a completely new aircraft type.
Re:My Letter to the Editor of New York Times Magazine
by FabHK on Monday October 14, 2019 @01:42PM
(#21250811)
An aircraft might be stable and able to be flown just fine, yet not pass certification requirements.
https://leehamnews.com/2019/02/15/bjorns-corner-pitch-stabil...
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4286602-boeing-737-max-misc...
> If test pilots from the OEM and subsequently from the FAA/EASA consider the feel in pitch for a part of the envelope above a certain rating, the aircraft will not pass Certification. It needs augmentation for this part of the flight envelope.
> The aircraft OEM is asked to propose fixes to the pitch characteristics of the aircraft so it can be judged acceptable for use by a minimum standard (Re. training and proficiency) pilot. This was the reason behind the MCAS pitch argumentation for the 737 MAX.