Ethiopian Airlines 737 Max crashes killing 157

[Bobby_Batronic 1994]

There’s too many conflicting stories and reports written by people who have absolutley no idea what they’re talking about to say with confidence that the Ethiopian crew acted in accordance with emergency procedures. I’m pretty sure Boeing doesn’t advocate restoring the electric stab trim once you’ve cut it out, and I’ve seen several mentions of the FO perhaps trimming in the wrong direction. 

In other words, best to wait for the official report, because CNN sure as shit doesn’t have the first clue about the subject matter, and many outlets are trying to beat others to the punch with findings while dumbing down the information for general consumption. 

Edited April 4, 2019 by Bobby_Batronic

[mulletpelini 5211]

Can't tell you how many times in life I thought I had trim figured out.  It never ends.

[RPM 26321]

1 hour ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

In other words, best to wait for the official report, because CNN sure as shit doesn’t have the first clue about the subject matter

Wait just a dog gone second. Are you seriously trying to tell me this man isn't the world's preeminent aviation analyst?

[JimmyJames 12271]

Yeah. It’s the reporters own opinions about what happened in those articles, not what they’re being told by investigators. 

Sorry but in my uninformed opinion blaming the pilots for this mess is bullshit, unless planes are supposed to nosedive shortly after take off. But I suppose we can all wait for the official report before assigning blame. 

[PilotsError 2287]

Thank you.

[Hanrahan 1306]

Yeah. It’s the reporters own opinions about what happened in those articles, not what they’re being told by investigators. 
Sorry but in my uninformed opinion blaming the pilots for this mess is bullshit, unless planes are supposed to nosedive shortly after take off. But I suppose we can all wait for the official report before assigning blame. 

You are the target audience for this type of journalism.

[Hanrahan 1306]

Yeah. It’s the reporters own opinions about what happened in those articles, not what they’re being told by investigators. 
Sorry but in my uninformed opinion blaming the pilots for this mess is bullshit, unless planes are supposed to nosedive shortly after take off. But I suppose we can all wait for the official report before assigning blame. 

You are the target audience for this type of journalism.

[Wally Fairway 5549]

17 hours ago, RPM said:

This is all on the beancounters heads. Save money on certifying a new airframe, computer tweak the flight controls to counteract the unstable modified airframe, charge extra for warning indicators, don't implement training they promised. Look at all the money we saved!

Again with the bean counters - this was a marketing driven shitstorm, because Airbus was gaining orders and Boeing didn't want to wait the additional years to certify a new airframe. Bean counters can suck (I oughta know), but they don't control engineering decisions or marketing problems or choosing engine design or flight software, sure as shit though someone screwed the pooch and the cost is human lives and billions of dollars. Some where along the way someone said fuckit, flyit and never cared to put it through all the paces with and without add-on accessories, warning lights, and training. I'm sure that was some old dude in a green eyeshade, in a back office balancing the checkbook.

I'm flying SW next month, and it looks like it won't be on any Max aircraft, I would do it if they put them back in the air but this "fix" will bet reviewed by everyone and then 50x the training originally given.

[Your Mom 4806]

 They simply cannot be correct when they say they followed the procedure and also turned the stab trim switches back on.   If they initially turned the switches off then they have followed PART of the procedure. If they then turned them back on they have deviated from the procedure.  Black and white, plain and simple.  If those switches came back on the procedure was not followed. 

 You don’t get to claim you followed the procedure if you did part of it and then deviated from the rest of it. 

[DaysOff 7951]

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737max/737-max-software-updates.page

[Chad Fuck 17681]

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeings-emergency-procedure-for-737-max-may-have-failed-on-ethiopian-flight/

More grist for the mill.  Seattle Times usually has pretty decent aerospace reporting.  They've been around it a while.

[Dahobbs 17534]

1 hour ago, Your Mom said:

 They simply cannot be correct when they say they followed the procedure and also turned the stab trim switches back on.   If they initially turned the switches off then they have followed PART of the procedure. If they then turned them back on they have deviated from the procedure.  Black and white, plain and simple.  If those switches came back on the procedure was not followed. 

 You don’t get to claim you followed the procedure if you did part of it and then deviated from the rest of it. 

The question is why did they turn it back on? As I posted earlier, Boeing actually recommended adjusting trimming electronically before flipping the switches off precisely because it isn't physically easy or quick to adjust trim using the manual wheel. If the pilots were struggling to adjust manually, they may have flipped the switches on to try exactly what Boeing suggested. But Boeing also knew  that the electric trim controls didn't always work in certain conditions, meaning that precisely when you needed to the speed of the electric trim the most (nose down dive at take off), you may be stuck using the slow and difficult manual wheel. 

[ShaggyBevo RIP 3868]

1 hour ago, Wally Fairway said:

Again with the bean counters - this was a marketing driven shitstorm, because Airbus was gaining orders and Boeing didn't want to wait the additional years to certify a new airframe. Bean counters can suck (I oughta know), but they don't control engineering decisions or marketing problems or choosing engine design or flight software, sure as shit though someone screwed the pooch and the cost is human lives and billions of dollars. Some where along the way someone said fuckit, flyit and never cared to put it through all the paces with and without add-on accessories, warning lights, and training. I'm sure that was some old dude in a green eyeshade, in a back office balancing the checkbook.

I'm flying SW next month, and it looks like it won't be on any Max aircraft, I would do it if they put them back in the air but this "fix" will bet reviewed by everyone and then 50x the training originally given.

You do know that we mean this was a money/profits now decision and not that the actual bean counters controlled it. My father was a Boeing bean counter in the 60s.

Latest story is the engineers were ordered to make sure there were no changes from the previous generation that would require flight simulator training time.

Edited April 4, 2019 by ShaggyBevo RIP

[ShaggyBevo RIP 3868]

On 3/12/2019 at 11:18 PM, 4th and 5 said:

My brother flies for AA, he says it is pilot error, won’t hesitate to fly the MAX. 

It will be interesting to see if the general public feels the same way in an era where they can see what plane a flight is on, in seconds, from their keyboard.   

Edited April 4, 2019 by ShaggyBevo RIP

[Trey3216 15346]

32 minutes ago, ShaggyBevo RIP said:

It will be interesting to see if the general public feels the same way in an era where they can see what plane a flight is on, in seconds, from their keyboard.   

The general public typically knows they're flying on a plane that has wings and a few engines.  

Edited April 4, 2019 by Trey3216

[ShaggyBevo RIP 3868]

50 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

The general public typically knows they're flying on a plane that has wings and a few engines.  

Most business travelers I know use seat guru.

[Bobby_Batronic 1994]

4 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

Yeah. It’s the reporters own opinions about what happened in those articles, not what they’re being told by investigators. 

Sorry but in my uninformed opinion blaming the pilots for this mess is bullshit, unless planes are supposed to nosedive shortly after take off. But I suppose we can all wait for the official report before assigning blame. 

Yes, because reporters always post the unbiased truth, never rush to press with a sensationalist headline and always understand the subject matter they are covering. 

Don’t be a rube. 

Saying “they followed the procedure” when they clearly didn’t follow the procedure is a half truth as Your Mom detailed. It’s like saying you don’t understand why a car went into a ditch after changing a flat tire. I mean you changed the tire. You put the flat back on, but initially you did the right thing by taking it off. 

[Pasken 1309]

13 hours ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

There’s too many conflicting stories and reports written by people who have absolutley no idea what they’re talking about to say with confidence that the Ethiopian crew acted in accordance with emergency procedures. I’m pretty sure Boeing doesn’t advocate restoring the electric stab trim once you’ve cut it out, and I’ve seen several mentions of the FO perhaps trimming in the wrong direction. 

In other words, best to wait for the official report, because CNN sure as shit doesn’t have the first clue about the subject matter, and many outlets are trying to beat others to the punch with findings while dumbing down the information for general consumption. 

If this turns out to be the case then it should be a vindication for Boeing and really illustrates the fact on why there is so much automation in planes.  We can't even trust ourselves to turn a knob in the right direction. 

 

Is anyone watching the current season of Air Disasters? One of the most recent episodes had the first officer try to abort a landing because he sensed something was wrong and the pilot physically stopped him and then they crashed in a mountain about 10 seconds later. 

[Bobby_Batronic 1994]

Just now, Pasken said:

If this turns out to be the case then it should be a vindication for Boeing and really illustrates the fact on why there is so much automation in planes.  We can't even trust ourselves to turn a knob in the right direction. 

 

Is anyone watching the current season of Air Disasters? One of the most recent episodes had the first officer try to abort a landing because he sensed something was wrong and the pilot physically stopped him and then they crashed in a mountain about 10 seconds later. 

If one pilot says “Go around” then you go around and talk about it later. 

[DaysOff 7951]

Get paid by the minute. Go around for the lulz.

[Huckleberry 32860]

Yes, because reporters always post the unbiased truth, never rush to press with a sensationalist headline and always understand the subject matter they are covering. 
Don’t be a rube. 
Saying “they followed the procedure” when they clearly didn’t follow the procedure is a half truth as Your Mom detailed. It’s like saying you don’t understand why a car went into a ditch after changing a flat tire. I mean you changed the tire. You put the flat back on, but initially you did the right thing by taking it off. 

Eh, no. It would be like if steering assist erroneously detected a non- existent obstacle, started yanking your car hard right toward the edge of a cliff, you turned it off but weren't strong enough to turn the steering wheel back because the steering assist and power steering were linked and either both on or both off, so then you turned it back on hoping you could then overpower the steering assist and force the wheel back. Then you died because an engineering feature that was not strictly necessary in the first place activated when it shouldn't have and created a deadly situation.

[JimmyJames 12271]

30 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

55 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

Yes, because reporters always post the unbiased truth, never rush to press with a sensationalist headline and always understand the subject matter they are covering. 
Don’t be a rube. 
Saying “they followed the procedure” when they clearly didn’t follow the procedure is a half truth as Your Mom detailed. It’s like saying you don’t understand why a car went into a ditch after changing a flat tire. I mean you changed the tire. You put the flat back on, but initially you did the right thing by taking it off. 

Read more  

Eh, no. It would be like if steering assist erroneously detected a non- existent obstacle, started yanking your car hard right toward the edge of a cliff, you turned it off but weren't strong enough to turn the steering wheel back because the steering assist and power steering were linked and either both on or both off, so then you turned it back on hoping you could then overpower the steering assist and force the wheel back. Then you died because an engineering feature that was not strictly necessary in the first place activated when it shouldn't have and created a deadly situation.

Exactly. I’m sure all the God pilots in here would have figured exactly the whole thing out in the 45 seconds it took to crash to the ground because the system in the plane obviously fucked up. 

Sounds like a good system to me. Just make sure every single pilot has 10000 hours under his belt and we’re good. 

[C-Man 27227]

1 hour ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

Yes, because reporters always post the unbiased truth, never rush to press with a sensationalist headline and always understand the subject matter they are covering. 

Don’t be a rube. 

Saying “they followed the procedure” when they clearly didn’t follow the procedure is a half truth as Your Mom detailed. It’s like saying you don’t understand why a car went into a ditch after changing a flat tire. I mean you changed the tire. You put the flat back on, but initially you did the right thing by taking it off. 

I can see arguments on both sides. What if the procedure is faulty? There are reports that the Ethiopia Air pilots started the correct procedure and the plane wasn't doing what it was supposed to. (I admit there's a LOT of conflicting info out there at the moment.)

[HouTex 1867]

Meanwhile, Boeing stock continues its rebound.  Up over 2% so far today.

[Bobby_Batronic 1994]

36 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Exactly. I’m sure all the God pilots in here would have figured exactly the whole thing out in the 45 seconds it took to crash to the ground because the system in the plane obviously fucked up. 

Sounds like a good system to me. Just make sure every single pilot has 10000 hours under his belt and we’re good. 

 On one is pretending to be a God pilot. What you do have is a number of pilots type rated in the 737 questioning out loud why certain obvious things to anyone who knows the plane were ignored. 

[Bobby_Batronic 1994]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

1 hour ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

Yes, because reporters always post the unbiased truth, never rush to press with a sensationalist headline and always understand the subject matter they are covering. 
Don’t be a rube. 
Saying “they followed the procedure” when they clearly didn’t follow the procedure is a half truth as Your Mom detailed. It’s like saying you don’t understand why a car went into a ditch after changing a flat tire. I mean you changed the tire. You put the flat back on, but initially you did the right thing by taking it off. 

Read more  

Eh, no. It would be like if steering assist erroneously detected a non- existent obstacle, started yanking your car hard right toward the edge of a cliff, you turned it off but weren't strong enough to turn the steering wheel back because the steering assist and power steering were linked and either both on or both off, so then you turned it back on hoping you could then overpower the steering assist and force the wheel back. Then you died because an engineering feature that was not strictly necessary in the first place activated when it shouldn't have and created a deadly situation.

Nope. If you turn the stab back on it’s to use the electric trim to get the air loads down so that it’s easy to use the manual trim. The other way to get the airload down?  SLOW DOWN. 

Remember, MCAS is inactive with electric trim switch movement. Or with the flaps extended. Or with the autopilot on. 

[Hanrahan 1306]

This thread has the feel of a pro se litigant adamantly arguing the law.

[Dahobbs 17534]

8 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

Nope. If you turn the stab back on it’s to use the electric trim to get the air loads down so that it’s easy to use the manual trim. The other way to get the airload down?  SLOW DOWN. 

Remember, MCAS is inactive with electric trim switch movement. Or with the flaps extended. Or with the autopilot on. 

I assume slowing down isn't trivial when in a nose down dive? And doesn't MCAS re-activate soon after electric trim movement? Any comments on the issue where electric trim simply doesn't work in certain conditions?

[gsoda3 3261]

are you guys really arguing with professional pilots on how to fly a plane?

[Huckleberry 32860]

41 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

Nope. If you turn the stab back on it’s to use the electric trim to get the air loads down so that it’s easy to use the manual trim. The other way to get the airload down?  SLOW DOWN. 

Remember, MCAS is inactive with electric trim switch movement. Or with the flaps extended. Or with the autopilot on. 

Are you saying that a pilot who is fighting an airplane that is incorrectly but actively trying to prevent a (false) stall situation should slow the aircraft down? With less than a minute to save the lives of everyone on board the pilot is supposed to trust that the malfunctioning automated systems are suddenly going to correctly interpret flight conditions with respect to stall? 

You and Your Mom aren't recognizing that if that report is true (big if) then the pilots followed the procedure and then bailed on the procedure when it wasn't working. That doesn't mean they didn't follow it, that means they followed it, determined it was not going to prevent their deaths, then aborted the procedure accordingly and tried something else. It certainly seems plausible they shouldn't have aborted it, but trying something with a limited time for success and then abandoning it when it's not working fast enough isn't the same thing as not trying it. That's why I stand by my analogy as better than yours. Maybe with 30 seconds before you careen off the cliff you have time to overpower the steering wheel without power steering. Maybe it will take you 25 seconds to do so and everyone who has read the manual should know this. But if a driver has 30 seconds until their death and the emergency procedure has not started working AT ALL 10 seconds into it then the vast majority of human beings are going to move on to their next effort.

15 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

are you guys really arguing with professional pilots on how to fly a plane?

No, we're arguing with professional pilots that the engineers bear at least some responsibility for this situation. Maybe you should ask them why they're arguing with an engineer about that.

(In case it's not clear, I think both appeals to authority are equally vacuous with respect to this conversation. The pilots are explaining why the pilots should have done better and the engineers are explaining why the engineers should have done better.)

Edited April 4, 2019 by Huckleberry

[Bobby_Batronic 1994]

13 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Are you saying that a pilot who is fighting an airplane that is incorrectly but actively trying to prevent a (false) stall situation should slow the aircraft down? With less than a minute to save the lives of everyone on board the pilot is supposed to trust that the malfunctioning automated systems are suddenly going to correctly interpret flight conditions with respect to stall? 

You and Your Mom aren't recognizing that if that report is true (big if) then the pilots followed the procedure and then bailed on the procedure when it wasn't working. That doesn't mean they didn't follow it, that means they followed it, determined it was not going to prevent their deaths, then aborted the procedure accordingly and tried something else. It certainly seems plausible they shouldn't have aborted it, but trying something with a limited time for success and then abandoning it when it's not working fast enough isn't the same thing as not trying it. That's why I stand by my analogy as better than yours. Maybe with 30 seconds before you careen off the cliff you have time to overpower the steering wheel without power steering. Maybe it will take you 25 seconds to do so and everyone who has read the manual should know this. But if a driver has 30 seconds until their death and the emergency procedure has not started working AT ALL 10 seconds into it then the vast majority of human beings are going to move on to their next effort.

No, we're arguing with professional pilots that the engineers bear at least some responsibility for this situation. Maybe you should ask them why they're arguing with an engineer about that.

I don’t have time to get into it as I’m about to trust a bunch of flight computers, but I have said several times, in this thread, in reply to you in fact that there was a chain or errors and that engineering was certainly involved. 

Just as pilot error was involved. Have to go.  

 

[XYZ 2154]

24 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

are you guys really arguing with professional pilots on how to fly a plane?

Yes they are.

[Dahobbs 17534]

58 minutes ago, XYZ said:

Yes they are.

No one is arguing about how to fly the plane. We are discussing responsibility, including to what extent engineering/design decisions contributed to the accident. Questions about how to fly the plane arise because the answers help us understand the implications of the design decisions and their relationship with the accidents. I appreciate Bobby's (and other's) contributions in providing that context. 

Given the available data, I'm very comfortable concluding that Boeing messed up big time. I'm less comfortable concluding that the pilots also fucked up, mainly (1) because there is at least some indication that they didn't and (2) it appears that any pilot error was greatly magnified by the stupidity of Boeing's design and its failure to properly advise airlines and pilots of all the features and changes. Could better pilots have saved either of these planes? Maybe? A couple of experienced European pilots posted a video recently (taken down at request of their airline) that showed them running a mock up of the Ethiopian crash in a simulator wherein, under the conditions at the time, it would have been impossible to prevent the crash by following Boeing's guidance. They were simply physically unable to move the wheel any substantial amount in the time available before impact. Maybe better pilots recognizes the situation more quickly and stops it before MCAS moves the stabilizer too much for them counter. But it is certain the whole situation is avoided if Boeing did any number of things different:

(1) Didn't have a single sensor failure point for MCAS;

(2) Didn't give MCAS unlimited authority on the stabilizer;

(3) Didn't mislead the FAA and others about point (2);

(4) Properly notified pilots of all the changes in MCAS from prior 737s;

(5) Realized any of the above after Lion Air crash and gave more complete guidance or suggested grounding the aircraft until a fix was available;

Better pilots may have saved lives. Better engineering (and by better, I mean not completely stupid) definitely would have. 

Edited April 4, 2019 by Dahobbs

[Your Mom 4806]

There's not a pilot on this board who hasn't conceded that the MCAS design is fucked up.  That doesn't remove the pilots' responsibility to run the procedure correctly and thoroughly.   

imgur

[Brisketexan 105139]

10 minutes ago, Your Mom said:

There's not a pilot on this board who hasn't conceded that the MCAS design is fucked up.  That doesn't remove the pilots' responsibility to run the procedure correctly and thoroughly.   

 

 

Sure, both are likely in play.

But there seems to be a repeated drumbeat about how most good pilots could handle this.  I'd rather not have a known flight control issue that 75%, or 95%, of commercial pilots can handle.  Because 25% or 5% of pilots at the bottom end of the scale still account for a crapload of passenger miles.  AND, based on the scenario the euro pilot posted online, the percentage of pilots who could have handled this particular crisis may well leave a good percentage of actual, trained pilots who CAN'T handle it.  That's a big-time design problem.

[Dahobbs 17534]

15 minutes ago, Your Mom said:

There's not a pilot on this board who hasn't conceded that the MCAS design is fucked up.  That doesn't remove the pilots' responsibility to run the procedure correctly and thoroughly.   

 

 

Sure, but now there is at least some evidence that the Boeing procedure isn't adequate. That is why I can comfortable conclude Boeing fucked up, but can't yet conclude the pilot fucked up. That part is still up in the air (phrasing?), for me at least. 

Edited April 4, 2019 by Dahobbs

[Deej 76791]

2 hours ago, gsoda3 said:

are you guys really arguing with professional pilots on how to fly a plane?

Surly gonna Surly. 

[tucker 238]

18 minutes ago, Deej said:

Surly gonna Surly. 

but would it land / take-off on a treadmill? 

[Trey3216 15346]

12 minutes ago, tucker said:

but would it land / take-off on a treadmill? 

[JimmyJames 12271]

44 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Sure, both are likely in play.

But there seems to be a repeated drumbeat about how most good pilots could handle this.  I'd rather not have a known flight control issue that 75%, or 95%, of commercial pilots can handle.  Because 25% or 5% of pilots at the bottom end of the scale still account for a crapload of passenger miles.  AND, based on the scenario the euro pilot posted online, the percentage of pilots who could have handled this particular crisis may well leave a good percentage of actual, trained pilots who CAN'T handle it.  That's a big-time design problem.

Exactly. What I’m having a problem with is multiple posters in this thread blaming the pilots, then when someone points to something that blames Boeing, the retort becomes “we need to wait until the investigation is completed.” It’s hypocritical as shit and annoying. 

I personally am neither a pilot or an airplane engineer, but I have a brain, common sense, and an opinion. And that opinion is that Boeing majorly fucked up this design. And my evidence?

Hundreds of people dead in a six month period and an entire fleet of very expensive airplanes grounded costing companies billions of dollars. 

Hell that might be worth an internet post here or there. 

 

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

Or even better, “you’re not a pilot.”

[bschoolprof 6254]

25 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Exactly. What I’m having a problem with is multiple posters in this thread blaming the pilots, then when someone points to something that blames Boeing, the retort becomes “we need to wait until the investigation is completed.” It’s hypocritical as shit and annoying. 

I personally am neither a pilot or an airplane engineer, but I have a brain, common sense, and an opinion. And that opinion is that Boeing majorly fucked up this design. And my evidence?

Hundreds of people dead in a six month period and an entire fleet of very expensive airplanes grounded costing companies billions of dollars. 

Hell that might be worth an internet post here or there. 

 

 

do you even pilot, bro?

[happyfunball 481]

Someone mentioned self driving cars earlier

[JimmyJames 12271]

16 minutes ago, bschoolprof said:

do you even pilot, bro?

Back in the early 80s as a kid I got to go up and sit in the cockpit for a little while we were up in the air.

Thanks a lot Bin Ladin. 

[ShaggyBevo RIP 3868]

5 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Back in the early 80s as a kid I got to go up and sit in the cockpit for a little while we were up in the air.

Thanks a lot Bin Ladin. 

Did the pilot ask you about gladiators and Turkish prisons?

[Dbeasy 15051]

As a former engineer who designed small aircraft, what concerned me is the fact that the stability point of the 737 was moved as a result of the larger engines being placed forward. This creates a less stable flying model and makes it more difficult for pilots to control the plane. The new 737 flies differently than the previous model.

They tried to fix the instability with software control, but as we’ve all seen, it introduces the possibility of more pilot errors. If you’ve ever been in flight simulators under different flight conditions (wind, airspeed, flap settings, thrust levels, etc) you know that it is a fine line between being able to control the plane and stalling it right into the ground.

[Wally Fairway 5549]

17 minutes ago, ShaggyBevo RIP said:

Did the pilot ask you about gladiators and Turkish prisons?

Have you ever seen a grown man naked?

[Deej 76791]

Did you tell Kareem your dad doesn't think he works hard enough on defense?

[retread 2951]

Tell your old man to drag Walton and Lanier up and down the court for 48 minutes!

 

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Maybe better pilots recognizes the situation more quickly and stops it before MCAS moves the stabilizer too much for them counter. But it is certain the whole situation is avoided if Boeing did any number of things different: 

Seems like this may be a big determiner of whether you can recover or not. If you're relying on the manual trim wheel, it sounds like you better start cranking very early on. It apparently takes a lot of turns to move the stab, and, in certain nose down conditions, it can be difficult to turn at all. Also sounds like the electric trim on the yoke loses effectiveness the steeper the nose starts dipping (maybe doesn't nose up fast enough to overcome MCAS).

Edited April 4, 2019 by retread

[XYZ 2154]

1 hour ago, Dbeasy said:

As a former engineer who designed small aircraft, what concerned me is the fact that the stability point of the 737 was moved as a result of the larger engines being placed forward. This creates a less stable flying model and makes it more difficult for pilots to control the plane. The new 737 flies differently than the previous model.

They tried to fix the instability with software control, but as we’ve all seen, it introduces the possibility of more pilot errors. If you’ve ever been in flight simulators under different flight conditions (wind, airspeed, flap settings, thrust levels, etc) you know that it is a fine line between being able to control the plane and stalling it right into the ground.

The poster Your Mom already explained that in the 737 MAX the nose tends to point up a tiny bit more than on the old 737 and it’s barely noticeable.