A potential risk was discovered during simulator tests last week.

"Boeing said in a securities filing late on Wednesday that the FAA has asked it to address through software changes a specific flight condition not covered in the company's already-unveiled software changes."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/faa...nh3r-aW7iwrlJc

Boeing is running out of room to park planes, they have turned to using car parking lots around their facility to park aircraft.

https://simpleflying.com/boeing-staff-car-park/

This is what happens when you abandon rigorous checking and set procedures.
You develop flawed designs that fail the scrutiny of serious investigation.
It's like a rotten onion, peel away one mouldy layer and there'll be another one hidden beneath... and some moulds kill you.

So their solution has already been found to be flawed. Wow

Wouldn't you think, after all the problems, they would make absolutely sure they got the solution right??

On the contrary, for the test pilots this is a success; they've been intentionally trying to crash it on simulators to test the software upgrades and finally found an instance when it still takes an extended period of time to recover from a dive. Now Boeing will have to determine the cause and rectify it. The whole purpose of grounding the airplanes was to do exactly this, so these guys can deal with it instead of someone driving a couple of hundred people on a commercial flight.

My point is that Boeing should have discovered that before it got to the FAA.

You mean before the 2 passenger planes crashed? I just assumed we all knew that.

It appears that tests, made in a simulator, posed several scenarios that might invoke an MCAS malfunction and indeed at least one did.
The fact that such scenarios were under test by pilots exemplifies the lack of understanding by the MCAS programmers as to possible scenarios available.
If a pilot can ask the question 'What if?" we are tempted to ask why the programmers didn't.
What price an as-new MAX these days? Might be some on Craigslist shortly, just buyer collects.

No I mean before they put forward their software solution following the crashes I would have thought they would test it in all possible ways to destruction before handing it off to the FAA. They obviously did not, which yet again calls into question their competence and quality control.

Very comprehensive article! Thanks for posting it, Xpat. Even our tiny local airline (Cayman Airways) has one of them (or it may be two) parked somewhere, waiting patiently for the all-clear.

British Airways is buying 200 of them, despite having to wait.

Is that because of Brexit and they don't want to buy Airbus just to piss off the EU?

IAG is the one who placed the order, they own BA and several other airlines and the 200 ordered wont all be going to BA.

Also seems IAG feels they are too reliant on Airbus and want to diversify their fleet a bit.

"Walsh noted that there had been "concern" within the airline group for some time that it was becoming too reliant on the European airframer.

"That's unhealthy," says Walsh."

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...aptive-459324/

Forget what Walsh says, it's all about profit and the price of the airplane. IAG will have squeezed Boeing 'until the pips squeeked' to borrow a phrase from Denis Healey.
Current thinking is that the MAX won't fly before late 2019 and it's still building 40 a month to be parked somewhere .... and ... it never rains... https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/boe...leak-1.5193550 .... but it pours ... https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/federal-prosecutors-issue-subpoena-for-boeing-787-dreamliner-records/

Yes indeed. It's your second link that's the heavyweight. Wow! Where will they draw the line?