Originally Posted by
bman1002
Not only that, but what about the 777X folding wingtips? Makes you wonder if the same (or any) care was taken to certify that. I don't believe United has any on order, but from my understanding, not all customers have been identified.
If it's a new Boeing, I'm not going.
I am not letting Boeing off the hook, but the certification process for the 777X should be very different than for the MAX, where Boeing tried to sneak an airplane with very different handling and systems under an existing certification. I assume Boeing will have to do a full training program to fly the 777X, if not, then that is a big problem IMHO.
Originally Posted by
amtrakusa
i wonder if there are similar systems in the new versions of A320? folks, there are bunch of things people don't know about. don't think Boeing is unique in any of these.
The neo program did not make any fundamental changes to the air-frame in the same way that Boeing did for the MAX. They basically just added new engines and did some clean up and weight reduction. The sharklets and some of the clean up was already on late model ceo models. My understanding is that the actual plane flies exactly like a sharklet (out since about 2010) equipped A320/321. The first round of changes (to the ceo, with sharklets) over time reduced the fuel burn by about 5%, then adding the new turbo-fan engines (making it the neo) allowed a further 10% reduction in fuel burn.
Boeing OTOH had to put new front landing gear, changed the tail, and moved the engines up and forward, all of which changes the aerodynamics and as such how the plane flies. The MCAS system was designed to mask these changes in how the plane flew. Airbus did not have to do something like this.
Originally Posted by
IADFlyer123
The blame here seems to be solely on Boeing's shoulders. They originally submitted FAA cert docs that mentioned the MCAS system could only manipulate the tail by 0.6 degrees. They then realized that 0.6 was not sufficient and decided to reprogram it allow for a 2.5 degree manipulation without letting the FAA know (atleast that is what the article implies). So the FAA certified the plane on an assumption that MCAS would move the plane by +/- 0.6 degrees and in reality was doing +/- 2.5 degrees. That is half the total movement and in flight terms a lot! Yes the FAA didn't double check, but looks like Boeing manipulated - maybe just like VW did with the emissions scandals to fool the inspectors and the inspection.
Article Source -
https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...ion-air-crash/
In fairness, I don't think that the FAA would have done anything different if told it was 2.5 degrees, given the degree of regulatory capture that Boeing has, but the lawyers (and congress) will have a field day with this.
What I think that this shows is how much different that the MAX is from the NG. They needed a full 2.5 degrees.