201–210 of 290 posts
Do they still have the oversized new engines on an old frame design requiring software aid (MCAS) to mitigate problems at high angles of attack?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doing that would mean acting in bad faith (obviously) but also breaking WTO Rules, i.e. international law, which can come with a big price tag if your caught (potentially unlikely in such a scenario and depends on the WTO being accepted by the US, which is also not very likely). That is on top of being sued by Boeing in Court for wrongfully denying the recertification. So I'm not sure whether that would really be a c…
Well there was the whole 300% tax on Bombardier debacle, boeing got them punished without even having a competing aircraft! https://money.cnn.com/2017/10/06/news/companies/boeing-bomba...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The alternative is obvious - corporate manslaughter charges, aimed at management that knew plane was unsafe and pushed on regardless. > " collateral damage so cost of that outweighs the benefits" Do we have a system a justice or do we not? You seem to suggest some people are above the law. Let's see, could that possibly lead to corruption and abuse of power?
> The alternative is obvious - corporate manslaughter charges, aimed at management that knew plane was unsafe and pushed on regardless. And the obvious defense to that is that the FAA certified the plane. Then what?
Some will want to avoid flying this aircraft model. Here are some variants > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX#Variants And here are some operators > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_operators
Maybe they should have bit the bullet and fully redesigned the 737. Presumably future engines will be bigger still, will they just tack them onto this old design as well? At the end of the day this is just a software fix.
This is a 20 year old question. A new single or small twin isle would cost $10-20B and take 8 years to develop and certify on the optimistic side. Given they're still bleeding on the 787, the 777X may be cancelled, KC-46 fiasco, Airbus competition, they have to go with what they have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems utterly counter-productive, considering the Max is now the most scrutinized plane in history. It's probably far safer now than other models.
FWIW, I don't see any pilots or aviation experts saying this. I think it's actually still poorly designed -- I don't think they added a third AoA sensor and used a quorum on them, as Airbus does given their own link of AoA to an automatic flight control.
No other plane in the history of aviation has had this level of scrutiny.
[1] https://www.airlineratings.com/news/boeing-737-max-safe-fly-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems utterly counter-productive, considering the Max is now the most scrutinized plane in history. It's probably far safer now than other models.
> It's probably far safer now than other models. All 737 have an obsolescent fuselage design. It could not be certified given modern regulation and relies on being grandfathered for new production. The consequence is the fuselage can shatter on crash landings or runway overruns whereas more modern designs will hold together and protect passengers. The relatively minor training, hardware and software revisions of 737…
It's the most scrutinized plane in aviation history, and has been vetted by multiple regulatory bodies and received thousands of test flights since fixes were made.
Honest question: if this isn't enough for you, what is? All other planes have been scrutinized far less. The bar for the Max to return was much much higher.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That kind of sociopathic behavior is natural outcome of business culture that is solely about maximizing shareholder value. I'm not sure what can be done to fix it.
>I'm not sure what can be done to fix it. Regulations which require engineers or their union representatives to sit on the corporate board of directors. (Such as in the deplorable communist countries Germany, Austria, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, France and Denmark.)
There's even precedence in the US for this approach: in the legal profession, only lawyers are permitted to own or to manage a law firm.
Chances are, these will be safe. Because one more crash even remotely related, would spell complete doom for Boeing. No recovering that one, ever.
The DC-10 recovered. It was grounded, returned to service, crashed again. Eventually, it became safe. And eventually the public forgot about the issues. The bigger problem is that you have a company that decided that a single sensor driving a safety-critical system was sufficient, even though they have two (and even that is not enough, such systems should have three). For a new system that was introduced and not expl…