Gino Under wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 3:27 pm As I’m understanding it, a STAB TRIM RUNAWAY is not the same as an MCAS activation.
Anyone else reading the same info from the numerous reports coming up with the same conclusion?
Boeing is going to take a $$bath$$ for rushing this aircraft to market.
Gino Under
Read the actual Lion Air report as this is the crash everyone seems to be basing everything off on. No fault to Boeing or the 737 reported in the Initial report.
STAB TRIM RUNAWAY is not a specific procedure. It covers ALL instances that might cause the stab trim to not function properly, ie it’s not doing as commanded. For instance the MCAS commands nose down trim if it detects a stall. If you’re not stalling and you don’t want the down trim the stall protection is commanding you follow your SOPs of carrying out The STAB TRIM RUNAWAY emergency checklist.
If you see the trim keep reverting to nose down after you move it up, what do would you do?
Start pondering the aeronautical engineering of the systems of your aircraft or carry out your emergency drill?
It’s not our job to determine the cause of a system failure, it’s to fly the plane safely, Follow SOP, do the emergency drill, land safely, file a report, and let maintenance determine the cause.
So yes unwanted MCAS commanded trim during a false stall indication is in FACT stab trim runaway.
Seriously, this whole thing was already dealt with. They found no fault in the 737Max with the Lion air initial report. 0. Boeings share of the fix was to tell airlines to remind crews to follow STAB trim runway checklist if the stab trim, well runsaway, as is the case during a false stall indication. It’s not rocket science.
This is all based on the Official reports. So what numerous reports are you referring to?