91–100 of 164 posts
What kind of long term implications could this have for the Aerospace industry in the US? Will we see some fundamental changes in safety oversight, or design, for these aircraft? Is this a "back to the drawing-board" moment for Boeing and the 737?
Like the Toyota unintended acceleration issue we need third parties to look at the flight control software and engineering decisions taken for the MAX line and give a an independent report. Certainly not the FAA who delegated their oversight to Boeing. 346 people died because of their ineptitude.
Toyota never had an “unintended acceleration issue”—that was purely human error. A Toyota engine can’t overpower its brakes, unless there was gross negligence in the care of the brakes, i.e., they were totally inoperative. Just to make sure we’re clear on the braking thing: if you were to accelerate a Toyota sedan (any of them) to 70mph, then stomp on the brakes while holding the accelerator to the floor, the car wil…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is unlikely. The A320neo family currently has an order backlog of over 6000. The only airline I know that is actually pursuing cancellation is Garuda. Given that the A320neo family is really the only competitor to the 737MAX family airlines don't really have anywhere else to go. I also doubt customers will really vote with their feet given that the number one factor when booking a ticket is price. If some people…
> I also doubt customers will really vote with their feet Agreed. As the article points out: "Passengers eventually returned to flying the 787 and to other airplanes that were grounded: the McDonnell Douglas DC-10, the Douglas DC-6, the Lockheed Constellation and even the de Havilland Comet."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's incredibly dangerous to propose changes to the FAA That is an incredibly ironic thing to say, because these deaths are a result of changes to the FAA, specifically, the delegation of the FAA's regulatory authority to the company being regulated. That this would not end well was easily foreseeable because it's such a blatant conflict of interest.
Literally not true, but okay...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I won’t fly one unless it has 3 angle of attack sensors. Since that can’t be easily found out, I’ll avoid them.
The problem is not the missing extra angle of attack sensor, but incompetence at every step. If I understood correctly, MCAS trimmed it so much that the pilots were unable to bring it back manually. This sounds like Boeing engineers didn’t even put a limit on the maximum trimming that MCAS can do, not even to the maximum theoretical limit for the plane/engines.
Not only that, MCAS controlled an electric motor which turned the trim wheel and which could apply more torque than a human turning it manually. The only way to disable MCAS was to cut power to that motor. MCAS pointed the aircraft at the ground, and it was impossible to trim the aircraft to achieve level flight again.
Mind, MCAS was supposed to be a crutch to fly at the edges of the flight envelope, something that a regular pilot would never encounter because under normal conditions pilots wouldn't find themselves in a regime where MCAS would be activated. That was the idea, instead we had two hull losses within 6 months!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do these airplane manufacturers all have such massive order backlogs? Is it that difficult to scale production?
Yes. Take a look at the issues Boeing had with the 787 production or even just the distance which both Airbus and Boeing ship giant pieces of airplane.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I won’t fly one unless it has 3 angle of attack sensors. Since that can’t be easily found out, I’ll avoid them.
No 737 has 3 AoA vanes, and it’s extremely unlikely they’ll ever change the design to accommodate that. Every MAX will have an indicator to show if they disagree though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That just means FAA wasn't the only inept organization.
Blaming EASA/FAA/Boing etc feels good, but calling them inept becase they are not perfect is overstating things. Looking back it seems like an obviously bad call, but that’s hindsight bias.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which part isn’t true?
The fact that my comment is ironic...
I was using the word in this sense:
"Irony: a literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character's words or actions are clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character."