Boeing withdraws bid for safety exemption for Boeing 737 MAX 7

Post by hughesjj » Tue, Jan 30, 2024, 6:40 AM UTC

wokwokwok wrote: post #32

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They did not acknowledge and admit wrong doing. Of course not. Wouldn't it just open them up to legal liability and additional lawsuits if they admitted wrong doing? It seems like saying "we have updated our plan and will now focus on an engineered solution" is exactly the kind of language I would expect from a large corporation that has made such visible failures as to be very vulnerable to lawsuits. I am not even…

...mm... but they didnt say "we have updated our plan and will now focus on an engineered solution". That's not even a paraphrase of what they said. They said: > we are confident that the proposed time-limited exemption for that system follows established FAA processes When we know that: 1) The established FAA processes resulted in a variation of this aircraft that crashed. 2) The established FAA processes resulted i…

Post by ZaoLahma » Tue, Jan 30, 2024, 6:45 AM UTC

Animats wrote: post #35

The trouble is, Boeing hasn't built a new single-aisle transport since the 757, which first flew in 1982. There was supposed to be a 797 by now, but it keeps slipping into the far future. So they're still cranking out 737 variants, a 1960s design. This is pathetic. Boeing could end up losing out to the COMAC C919, which, although years late, is finally flying a few routes.

Post by juanani » Tue, Jan 30, 2024, 6:49 AM UTC

avalys wrote: post #34

KennyBlanken wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, because an electrical appliance catching on fire is never deadly? What a bunch of hysterical hand-wringing. They just needed to a program a timer on the heater circuit and/or add sensors; the engines are already incredibly instrumented so this wouldn't be hard to do. "Cannot fail in ways that render the plane inoperable" is precisely why there should not be a system that if forgotten about by the pilots past ~1…

There’s no indication that the catastrophic failure you’re speculating about here is actually likely to occur - and plenty of evidence that it’s not.

Post by anon-sre-srm » Tue, Jan 30, 2024, 6:57 AM UTC

ngcc_hk wrote: post #26

mulmen wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like they are learning their lesson. Fix the actual problem instead of relying on regulatory capture. This is all a sad, ugly mess. A glimmer of hope does give me a warm fuzzy feeling actually.

Regulatory capture … At least they do not handle the people involved, the media or anybody who raise there is a problem … there is still some hope in non-chinese system.

Post by consp » Tue, Jan 30, 2024, 6:58 AM UTC

ZaoLahma wrote: post #43

Animats wrote: post #35

The trouble is, Boeing hasn't built a new single-aisle transport since the 757, which first flew in 1982. There was supposed to be a 797 by now, but it keeps slipping into the far future. So they're still cranking out 737 variants, a 1960s design. This is pathetic. Boeing could end up losing out to the COMAC C919, which, although years late, is finally flying a few routes.

Why is it troublesome? As someone with very limited knowledge in aircraft development, I'm genuinely curious about what more modern designs would bring to the table compared to the modern 737s, which I assume are heavily updated versions of the original 1960s design?