Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report

Post by heisenbit » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 10:27 AM UTC

cm2187 wrote: post #53

ams6110 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this playing out in a couple of possible ways. One is that it ends up like the DC-10. Public confidence is lost, even though the problem is fixed. The aircraft end up going into freighter service. The other is that they make a convincing case that the problem is resolved. I don't know if that's possible given today's default hate for big corporations, we'll see. They've done it before with the 737 and the rudde…

In all fairness this plane is only a danger to its crew (and to regular commuters). Even without the software fix, the probability that you get into a crash in one of the few times in a year when you make a leg in this plane is still infinitesimal. For the crew that spends the whole year in there, different story.

Post by FabHK » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 10:33 AM UTC

ndespres wrote: post #55

I know better than to read between the lines on a press release like this, but can't help but notice that it falls far short of accepting responsibility for the problem. He admits that MCAS "activated in response to erroneous angle of attack information" but doesn't admit that this alone directly resulted in the crashes. Rather, he implies that this sets off a chain of events which the pilots are unable to deal with…

Post by FabHK » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 10:38 AM UTC

93s6oz wrote: post #43

781 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Post by tigershark » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 10:59 AM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #32

xiphias2 wrote: post #2

,,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?

I see this playing out in a couple of possible ways. One is that it ends up like the DC-10. Public confidence is lost, even though the problem is fixed. The aircraft end up going into freighter service. The other is that they make a convincing case that the problem is resolved. I don't know if that's possible given today's default hate for big corporations, we'll see. They've done it before with the 737 and the rudde…

Post by jayalpha » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 11:08 AM UTC

ptidhomme wrote: post #228

jayalpha wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The integrity of engineering excellence should never be sacrificed for profit and/or conveniency in places where it involves human lives." There is always a trade off, your statement is too bold for a world of limited resources. We can use engineering to make the roads safer. Spent a trillion USD on road safety will save lives for sure. But maybe it is spend better on cancer R&D efforts? The safest plane would be th…

I must say I disagree with this stance. It's not so much a matter of ressources than of specifically engineering excellence. There's plentiful examples of a much better product that was created with less ressources than the shitty existing competition (this must be commonplace for HN members). I'm convinced the safest plane is not the most expensive, it's the one designed through sound and clear-sighted engineering.