We need a Boeing 737 Max with so that we can test the MCAS in the sim while the world tests it IRL.
I understand that the new software update only allows ONE very limited nose down per incident and will only activate with inputs from both AOA’s and will not engage if either AOA device disagrees with the other by more than 5.5 degrees. Sounds like a workable plan. Wonder why it took 2 years to do that ?
5 Likes
Well, MSFS is actually a 737MAX simulator right now!!
6 Likes
Boeing is not doing so well software wise recently, I don’t know if you are in the loop regarding the Boeing ST-100 Starliner? Also didn’t went so well… It takes time to recertify everything.
Worth remembering that MCAS is not an anti-stall program and that it has never activated on a US airliner. Both of hose statements are facts.
That is complete nonsense, friends of mine are flying for Ethiopian they have good safety standards. Lion-air has a history of trouble but they also improved their safety culture over the years. On top both planes were new so I doubt bad maintenance practices could have had anything to do with it. By the way both Ethiopian and Lion-air are IOSA certified.
Boeing screwed up, they have been grounded for over 2 years for a reason. It could have happend on any aircraft, also EU or US registered.
5 Likes
It is an established fact that Lion performed shoddy maintenance on the plane that crashed on the day of the accident. They did not perform the required test after replacing the AOA sensor, falsified maintenance records and lied to investigators. That is not an opinion, that is established fact.
I quickly went through the accident report and I can’t find anything regarding falsifying maintenance records so far, only that the repaired AOA installed wasn’t properly calibrated.
Whether its true or not, you can’t say that every third world airline is unsafe and you shouldn’t fly with them.
Fact is that a system in control of such a critical flight control surface relying on the input of only one sensor is a very bad idea. There is no redundancy in that and AOA sensors fail all the time, bad maintenance practices or not.
Be aware that on a big airliner there is only a tiny elevator mounted on a huge variable incidence horizontal stabilizer. A couple of seconds of nose down trim is enough to overpower the elevator, especially with flaps extended…
2 Likes
why don’t you start a wishlist for it.
i’d rather have one from asobo then wait for a long time by PMDG.
Disagree. Historically, aircraft provided as part of a simulator tend to be very limited in capability and operational systems. we have seen this again with the default Asobo hanger. It isn’t until the 3rd party developers get involved that the “INOP” labels start going away and we start to see subsystems modelled.
2 Likes
Before we even think about MCAS how about we get the SIM in shape first. From the SDK to Auto pilot to whaterever other core items are not great.
Once the above is fixed even if it’s to FSX standards then we can have an onslaught of add-ons.
2 Likes
That’s because the Indonesian safety board elected not to include it, preferring to put the entire blame on Boeing rather than with one of their country’s airlines and their aviation authority, which has let Lion get away with a putrid safety record for ages.
Also worth remembering is that if Lion had carried out the maintenance that day as prescribed by Boeing, that plane would not have crashed. Period.
Yeah well, I wasn’t there and neither were you, if it is not included in the final report its speculation. Truth is that the 737 MAX has been grounded for a reason, and not only by the FAA. Its not relevant whether Lion air has made mistakes or not, they have on multiple fronts, its in the report. The discussion is whether the Boeing 737 Max has been rightfully grounded to which the question is a definite yes.
3 Likes
I (or any member of my family for that matter) will not board that corporate greed machine when it’s reintroduced. I let others play the role of a lab rat (or monkey as per internal Boeing emails).
Well I am sure it is ok now to fly one considering both the FAA and EASA have gone through every inch of that aircraft with a fine-tooth comb.
The design is flawed, the engines don’t fit the frame hence the need for software boondogle. That plane should have never been designed in the first place. It’s like making an unstable bridge and adding some accutator to it. No civil engineering project would be allowed to proceed under such circumstances.
The only reason this was even undertaken was to save Boing money (not for the workers, no, it was the money for the banks and executives). No other civilian plane is designed on the basis of natural lack of balance to be attenuated by software. The fact that it’s considered ok to have something like this is mind boggling. The plane should be retired and never allowed to fly. Serve as a warning for any company that likes to play roulette with other people’s lives for the sole purpose of fattening executive wallets.
2 Likes
and the other crash?
2 Likes
A small note, the Boeing 737 does not have a lack of stability, the reason for the MCAS software is to make the Boeing 737 NG and Max have the same flight characteristics so pilots need minimal conversion training and using the same type rating. Without the MCAS software the aircraft would have flow just fine, but just a little different.
2 Likes
These topic is not the place to discuss the merits of a real world crash, nor is it an appropriate venue to assign blame for a crash.
Please stay on topic.
5 Likes
The Boeing 737MAX within MSFS would probably be the only plane which does directly have a AP which works like the REAL one…(Goes up if you want go down and goes down if you want to go up)… 
1 Like