131–140 of 290 posts
Why do these articles say so little about how Boeing fixed the problem? People are more likely to fly on these if they know what's different from the ones that crashed.
Patch notes: - bug fixes and general improvements
Why do these articles say so little about how Boeing fixed the problem? People are more likely to fly on these if they know what's different from the ones that crashed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Maybe they should have bit the bullet and fully redesigned the 737 That's EXACTLY what they didn't want to do. Airbus was able to do the 320Neo without a redesign. They essentially slapped new engines on it and made tiny adjustments. Boom, fuel savings. Boeing wanted to do the same. Their design didn't accommodate the bigger, more efficient engines they wanted. So they created a workaround. Redesigning essentially…
You're not wrong but with the crashes an actual redesign is needed.
Curious, I never want to fly in one of these. How can one achieve that in a realistic way? Let's say airline changes plane after I booked, then I wouldnt get a refund. Is there a solution to this?
The best plan would be to avoid airlines that own the plane, but that will be impractical for most. Even then you might be re-routed onto another airline or third party plane.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they didn't solve the physics problems created by the engine position The engine position, in itself, isn't terribly unusual; the 757 and 767 both have engines in similar forward positions on the wings and have a similar pitch up moment due to the engines at high angles of attack. So do a number of Airbus models. Designing flight controls to deal with this issue is not new and has been well tested. The particular i…
Does the 737 MAX now require pilot retraining? Or did they make some other sort of adjustment?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As with software, restarting from scratch can introduce many, many bugs. Boeing planes are super safe from millions of flighthours and the learnings and failures from before. The older aircraft annealed into a state of safety and reliability from known-ness. "fully redesigning," introduces a lot more risk.
>Boeing planes are super safe from millions of flighthours and the learnings and failures from before. Which you use to build off of.
It's why banks still run on mainframes despite trying (quite desperately) to get away from that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're not wrong but with the crashes an actual redesign is needed.
The crashes wouldn't have happened with a better implementation of the same design.
I'm not even clear what that fix boeing used to cover up this problem. The article didn't specify, that is a red flag.
I recently had the frivolous idea of creating a flight search engine for flights that DID NOT use the 737 Max. Any actual interest in this?
No, it is an irrational human fear. Hold one, humans are dumb so yes, it will be a money maker playing on that fear!
Think about the fact that you're flying what is essentially a management designed plane. No reasonable engineer would chose to build this plane.
Why do these articles say so little about how Boeing fixed the problem? People are more likely to fly on these if they know what's different from the ones that crashed.
Because they are journalists and have no idea how airplanes work or how engineering is done.
Why do these articles say so little about how Boeing fixed the problem? People are more likely to fly on these if they know what's different from the ones that crashed.