I’d like to “ask the pilot” what the procedure is for a defective Angle of Attack measuring system. I was flying at U of I institute of Aviation when one of my campus professors was designing his own A of A instrument with a little bit of help from me back then. Best way to operate an aircraft in my opinion is using A of A v airspeed, but that’s not the subject here I suppose.

Huh? The 737 was never grounded. An AD was issued to replace the rudder pcu’s. Operators were given 3 years to accomplish this, and pilots were trained on the recovery procedure on the interim.

There are airworthiness directives issued all the time. They range from what the layman would consider mundane to serious. I’d leave the heavy lifting on these matters to the professionals that maintain and fly the planes.

For those of you looking for a more technical explanation of this... I would highly recommend looking at the extensive forum on flight 610 over on a.net.

There is nothing that would concern me about getting on a MAX. This system is also in place on the old NG -8/900 models as well, but admittedly it’s “stronger” on the new MAXs (in Lehman’s terms). Boeing just issued a statement that basically says “follow the procedure” in the event of AOA instrument problems.

Runaway trim is a perfectly normal training scenario most pilots have practiced dozens of times. Until I see the NTSB or the FAA directly blame the MAX, I don’t see how that should change whether you get on one. This bulletin says nothing other than a reminder of how the systems work, and what procedure to follow.

that is an extremely dramatic way of saying the FAA now requires you to put the 3 printed pages Boeing Issued at the front of your flight manuals. Those 3 pages are simply a reminder on procedure that is included later in the manual...

Ok you got me there, like many others I can’t even fit in the lav :D