originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Willtell
In this one case it appears that they didn't. The system is only a real issue if you're flying by hand, and have either a runaway stabilizer or bad
AoA data. Normally pilots are climbing out on autopilot, and a runaway stabilizer situation is so rare it's not funny. The AoA system is normally
pretty bulletproof. The system was put into the operations and flight manual, but wasn't taught directly to the pilots during transition training.
Part 1
Iâve been researching this for the last few days, and I think the situation is a bit more complicated than I originally thought when I suggested
that the crashes might have been simple departure stalls. Itâs possible thereâs a kind of stabilizer runaway involved, although not the usual
one.
First, some background for general information. I âm pretty sure Zaph knows this, but others on this thread may not. When the 737 was first
designed in the 1960s it was intended for operation out of relatively unimproved airports. That required the fuselage to be located relatively low to
the ground so that passengers could enter and exit without need for jetways and so that cargo could be loaded by hand. The first generation was
powered by relatively small diameter turbojets, so ground clearance on the engines was not a problem. In later generations, after they introduced the
CFM56 turbofans, they had to put the engine nacelles on pylons out in front of the wing and also flatten them a little on the bottom to maintain
ground clearance. On the 737 MAX series, they went to the bigger and longer LEAP-1 engines which had to be moved even higher and further forward.
Static weight balance is not intrinsically a problem with this because it is possible to move other mass elements rearward to maintain the aircraft
center of mass at the ideal point for stability (forward of the 25% of the wing Mean Aerodynamic Chord position.
The problem is that the front of a turbofan nacelle is basically a circular airfoil; that means that when the nacelle has some angle of attack
(AOA)--either positive or negative--it becomes a lifting body (up or down). At low wing AOA typical of high speed cruise flight, the incidence angle
of the nacelle is chosen to put it at or near zero lift condition. At high AOA typical of the initial climb after takeoff, the nacelle generates
significant amounts of lift, along with the wing. Since the center of lift of the nacelle is ahead of the wing, that moves the overall center of lift
forward and closer to the center of mass (CM) of the aircraft. Moving the center of lift closer to the CM reduces the pitch stability of the
aircraft. In other words, going to the bigger engine nacelles made the pitch stability of the aircraft worse especially during the initial takeoff
climb. I think the AOA sensor input to the flight computer was introduced on the MAX series in order to compensate for the reduced intrinsic
stability of the aircraft by trying to make sure that the AOA never exceeds some critical level (which, of course, is most likely to occur just after
takeoff).
I read a discussion on a pilotâs blogsite about how the system works on the 737 MAX. When the autopilot (AP) is engaged and the flight computer
decides that the AOA is too high, the fast control loop in the computer first uses the elevator to pitch the nose down. It does that by applying a
force to the control yoke, causing the yoke to physically move forward. The pilot can counteract the AP by manually applying an opposite force
greater than about 25 pounds, and pull the yoke back. However, if the elevator stays deflected for more than a short time in what the AP considers is
the wrong direction, a slow loop in the controller will move the stabilizer in the direction required to regain its desired state (i.e., nose down),
using the trim wheel. If the AOA sensor keeps wanting to force the nose down, and the pilot keeps pulling the nose up with the elevator, the
stabilizer trim will eventually get to a point where the elevator has reached its maximum deflection and the pilot can no longer counteract the
stabilizer with the elevator. At that point, the AP would have won the fight with the human pilot and the aircraft would keep descending unless the
pilot did something else. The obvious âsomething elseâ to do is to turn off the AP. However, if you turn off the AP and do nothing else, the
aircraft immediately goes into the MCAS mode. In the MCAS mode, the flight computer still tries to lower the nose if it thinks the AOA is too high,
but it does that by controlling the stabilizer only, since it no longer has authority over the elevator. The pilot would experience this as the
forward pressure on the yoke being removedâ the control yoke would no longer be âfightingâ the pilot.
However, the stabilizer would still be in the position it was in when the AP was switched offâpresumably in a definite nose down conditionâand the
pilot would still not have enough control authority with the elevator to overcome that condition. And the flight computer could keep driving the
stabilizer to a still deeper nose down condition, if it thought the AOA was still too high. The only way for the pilot to get out of that situation
would be to disengage the automatic trim control and manually spin the trim wheel back to a more nose up position, where the elevator would become
effective again.