Impossible for C919 to be more advanced than either A320 or latest 737s. They both are made by manufacturers with decades of experience in airframe design and construction. I agree though that C919 will come close to both.
"... the latest 737s", better products from a very long time, very experienced maker, well, a logical thought process, the typical perception of the general populace until one reads info like this...entering the X factors, and especially when the giant player thought that the national aviation regulator (FAA) was already in its own grip... corrupt mentality prevails... hey, "complacency kills the cat"!
Some hardly told story on the product with the largest sales pie, the Boeing 737-MAX series and its MCAS…
The issue with the 737 MAX started when Boeing's biggest 737 customer, the Southwest Airlines (USA), wanted a newer more efficient airplane. Boeing killed off the 757 and began the MAX program. The customer wanted an airplane that
would NOT require any new training or a new type rating. Boeing claimed that the MAX was just an updated, more efficient version of it's venerable, proven, workhorse; the classic 737.
But the MAX was not just an updated version of a previously certified airframe.
The MAX had a new wing and new engines; changing the airframe's center of gravity and center of lift. Those characteristics changed the way the airplane flew.
So, to make it fly like the current 737-800; Boeing installed a new, secret, 'safety' system so-called the MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System). The MCAS was needed to make the airplane fly and feel like the current version of 737-800.
But it was so secret that Boeing chose not to tell anyone about it. They didn't include this extra feature in any maintenance manuals, they didn't include it in any training manuals, they didn't include it in any aircraft operating manuals. They especially didn't tell the pilots about it.
The airplane was successfully certified as a 737 and no new training was required. A win for Boeing and a win for its biggest 737 customer.
With the new flight characteristics the MAX might have a propensity to pitch up under certain flight conditions. To counteract this pitch-up (a term for a severe form of stall in an aircraft) moment, Boeing developed and installed the MCAS. The Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System is designed to push the nose or nudge the nose over during a critical pitch-up moment. It takes information from computers fed by information from the Angle of Attack vanes.
Apparently, the Lion Air crash was caused by faulty information fed to the MCAS. The MCAS pushed the nose over. This caught the pilots by surprise. The airplane was not behaving like they expected or like they were trained to expect.
In a effort to arrest this uncommanded, nose over moment, the pilot should be able to disconnect the autopilot and hand fly, manually fly the airplane using your pilotage skills. But, this new secret system was designed to operate in BOTH Auto-flight and manual-flight mode. So even when you are in manual flight mode, if the MCAS is getting false information, it will continue to push you nose over, push your nose down.
Runaway trim is something pilots are trained for. That is what Boeing would like to hide behind. That is what Boeing would like to use when it points to pilot's error. At least with the Lion Air flight, the passengers and crew were done in by an aircraft system that Boeing chose to keep secret.
And question to the FAA, if there is nothing wrong with the MAX, why has Boeing recently said there is a software update coming out soon. Air France 447, was scheduled to have it's defective pitot tubes replaced when its fatal last flight was scheduled to land in Paris. Just a little too late for 228 passengers and crew? Did the Boeing software update come too late for the 157 passengers and crew on Ethiopian Air 302?
Dig deep the news around the last fatal accident of the Ethiopian Air to find out more the less told stories.
https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/
