Would the Boeing executives put their families on a 737MAX running the same version of the software that Ethiopian was running? Would they be willing to do this with a purposeful placed hypothetical AoA sensor that was known to manfunction quite often? Can that really be considered a safe plane?
Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report
41–50 of 347 posts
Re: Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report
#42It's now fairly obvious MCAS was at the root of those two crashes. But, did it save lives in other circumstances? Meaning, was there ever a case where the nose went up so much, because of the bigger motors and their different location on the wings, that the activation of MCAS prevented a stall? I'm surprised no one seems to talk about this. It's also surprising the MCAS was implemented at all, instead of an alarm. Ye…
The problem with dealing with a departure stall is they’re extremely deadly, happen faster than a person can react to, and are in general unrecoverable all because of the lack of altitude. If it was the case that you could easily deal with a departure stall in the 737-MAX then they would have seen no need to implement MCAS.
Even if you could recover without MCAS Boeing still wouldn’t have released a version without it as the recovery procedure have needed new training.
Let’s not forget MCAS only exists to protect Boeing’s profits by avoiding a new type certification.
Re: Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report
#43,,We remain confident in the fundamental safety of the 737 MAX.'' Am I irrational for not wanting to be on the first 1-2 years of flights on 737 MAX after it gets its software update?
Well, then I'm irrational too, because I won't set foot in a 737 MAX after this shitfest. The FAA also lost a lot of trust, for rubber-stamping this. The first accident was maybe understandable. We all know that shit happens. But Boeing has zero excuses for not immediately grounding the whole fleet after, and for putting out that useless recovery procedure which didn't work in this case. They let a deadly plane fly f…
>The FAA also lost a lot of trust, for rubber-stamping this.
I wonder if the European agency (don't remember the name) will stop trusting the FAA from now on and do their own tests. I'd thank them for that.
(According to what I read here, the European agency doesn't do exhaustive tests because they mostly trust whatever the FAA says; maybe that's false)
Re: Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report
#44It's now fairly obvious MCAS was at the root of those two crashes. But, did it save lives in other circumstances? Meaning, was there ever a case where the nose went up so much, because of the bigger motors and their different location on the wings, that the activation of MCAS prevented a stall? I'm surprised no one seems to talk about this. It's also surprising the MCAS was implemented at all, instead of an alarm. Ye…
You’re missing the point of why MCAS was implemented in the first place - for type certification & to avoid retraining. Essentially it was an emulation layer to make what is effectively a new plane behave like an old plane. And now 300+ people are dead.
BA dropped the ball - single sensor, and business shortcut to improve margins.
They are liable for the deaths. The real question now is what is a human life worth to a corporation? (i.e. payout).
Next Steps: + BA should be heavily fined. +scrutinize ties and lobbying with FAA. + Fire head of FAA, and teams involved in approving MCAS.
Re: Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report
#45"We regret the impact the grounding has had on our airline customers and their passengers." - I really hated this. As if they did the grounding for safety reason and regrets the cost. As if the passengers and clamoring for flying in 737-MAX.
There's obviously a lot of concern and outrage. But I wonder if Boeing's share price would have been higher than last year if the two crashes were in first world countries specially US.
Re: Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report
#46It's now fairly obvious MCAS was at the root of those two crashes. But, did it save lives in other circumstances? Meaning, was there ever a case where the nose went up so much, because of the bigger motors and their different location on the wings, that the activation of MCAS prevented a stall? I'm surprised no one seems to talk about this. It's also surprising the MCAS was implemented at all, instead of an alarm. Ye…
I guess you can't tell. You could see how often it operated but not know whether the pilots would have saved it. That said it's pretty unusual for professional pilots in an airliner to get into a stall situation.
[deleted]
Re: Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report
#47,,We remain confident in the fundamental safety of the 737 MAX.'' Am I irrational for not wanting to be on the first 1-2 years of flights on 737 MAX after it gets its software update?
It's actually very rational. No one can declare something complex like a plane or a version of Windows to be "safe" or "secure". Only the absence of incident for a long period of time is an indication that it is.
Re: Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report
#48It's now fairly obvious MCAS was at the root of those two crashes. But, did it save lives in other circumstances? Meaning, was there ever a case where the nose went up so much, because of the bigger motors and their different location on the wings, that the activation of MCAS prevented a stall? I'm surprised no one seems to talk about this. It's also surprising the MCAS was implemented at all, instead of an alarm. Ye…
> It's now fairly obvious MCAS was at the root of those two crashes. But, did it save lives in other circumstances? Let's say Boeing ships a new airliner, where in 1/1,000 flights, the wings fall off for no reason. Would you be asking the question of: "But did the wings save lives in other circumstances?" Of bloody course, they did. Doesn't mean that they should have ever shipped an aircraft, where the wings fall off…
> Nobody put a gun to their head, and made them redesign their plane.
The execs at Boeing probably felt the A320 was a gun to their head. The A320 was set to eat their lunch, and they made a decision that ultimately has resulted in 300+ deaths. Was it a malicious decision? I give them enough credit to say that they honestly believed they solved the problem with MCAS. Was it a malicious decision to lie about pilots not needing to re-train? I'm leaning towards yes.
Re: Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report
#49,,We remain confident in the fundamental safety of the 737 MAX.'' Am I irrational for not wanting to be on the first 1-2 years of flights on 737 MAX after it gets its software update?
He could put his safety where his mouth is and vow to only fly on the MAX for the next two years. That would be a much stronger vote of confidence than whatever words his PR firm came up with.
I thought it was company policy to make their engineers fly on the planes they built.
Re: Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
The integrity of engineering excellence should never be sacrificed for profit and/or conveniency in places where it involves human lives. Realistically and pragmatically speaking, you only ever get to have just one single shot at establishing and maintaining that kind of life/death level of trust. Fuck it up, and you're gone- quite literally, mind you. This is some Challenger O-ring type of shitshow. Accidents are on…
>The integrity of engineering excellence should never be sacrificed for profit and/or conveniency in places where it involves human lives. That's just unrealistic. Unless you want plane and car rides to cost as much as a trip to space, after all, since everything would need to be engineered to that level of quality.
Finish reading first, and then spend some time thinking before responding.
I said: "Accidents are one thing; incompetency or, worse yet, callous indifference is absolutely unacceptable."