Blow the comment away, but my understanding is that MCAS is associated with /needed on take off and initial climb - to if it becomes unavailable at a later part of the flight then as it is not needed it doesn't impact the continuation decision. Obviously being a SLF I am probably miles off.Boac wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 9:19 amFinally the FAA have coughed up the requirements for the Max FCS after all the testing. https://www.faa.gov/news/media/attachme ... 8-3-20.pdf.
What puzzles me greatly is that it would appear that the 'isolation' of the MCAS system after a 'failure' still enables uninterupted continuation of the flight? If the dreaded MCAS was so essential to enable certification, why does removal of it from the FCS not constitute a 'land at nearest suitable'??
Page 13 of 36 says
" To assist the flightcrew in properly responding to such an occurrence, a non-normal checklist, called the Speed Trim Fail checklist, would be added to the AFM. This checklist would be used when the STS and MCAS functions are inoperative, and inform the flightcrew to continue normal operation. It would also note that the STS will not provide horizontal stabilizer trim inputs when the airplane deviates from its trimmed airspeed."
So, if it is 'carry on regardless', what was all the fuss about? If it is 'extra training required for crews' why could that not have been done at the beginning by the FAA?
The training issue might have something to do with the agreement Boeing has with Southwest (I seem to remember a considerable amount of money to be paid to Southwest if additional training was required for MAX). As the situation turns out this amount is miniscule in comparison to what Boeing has to pay to sort out that mess.