No, not with the information we have now. Despite the frequent complaints about the product, United is not a third world operator. It's not like the Ethiopian MAX crash was some incredible anomaly; it was the third 737 Ethiopian has crashed
in the last decade, from a fleet of only 30 or so 737 aircraft.
United has good training and pilots who will
fly the airplane.
Originally Posted by
BF263533
There were these statements on the internet:
“... as the nacelle is ahead of the CofG this causes a pitch-up effect which could in ..”
“Specifically, the new 737 MAX showed a tendency to pitch up”
“MCAS was a band-aid to fix the pitch up problem caused by the relocated and heavier new engines”
It would seem to me that if the heavier engine's nacelle is ahead of the Center of Gravity that the plane should pitch down, not up?
Much confusion about this from media who doesn't understand the first thing about aircraft design, much less any details. The high-AoA behavior is aerodynamic from the lift off the nacelle (which is ahead of the CG). The location of the engine isn't moving in flight, so there's no associated CG shift in flight.
Originally Posted by
dmurphynj
It actually is fairly straightforward.
The single-input is a huge engineering mistake - that needs to be corrected. The fix is basically done; just has to be qualified. That'll reduce the rate of occurrence to more acceptable levels.
Both I and all the various certification authorities around the world disagree with your opinion here; a DAL C system doesn't need redundant sensor inputs on every sensor. The single input at a time AoA has been standard for years on a variety of systems, including the stick shaker. It's a pilot training issue that the pilots are not recognizing runaway pitch trim and following the runaway pitch trim procedure.