Boeing withdraws bid for safety exemption for Boeing 737 MAX 7

Post by froh » Tue, Jan 30, 2024, 11:45 AM UTC

hooby wrote: post #87

ZaoLahma wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Engines got a lot larger over time, more fuel efficient, more reliable, etc. On a 737 those engines cannot be placed in an ideal position, because that would mean they'd clip into the ground. The engines are being put above and I think in front of (might be wrong there) where they should be for maximal flight stability. The original 737 was self-correcting - meaning that if for example the aircraft stalled, the resul…

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jan 30, 2024, 11:46 AM UTC

mrjin wrote: post #86

jsjohnst wrote: post #7

> Boeing said late on Monday "while we are confident that the proposed time-limited exemption for that system follows established FAA processes to ensure safe operation, we will instead incorporate an engineering solution that will be completed during the certification process." Anybody else get the exact opposite of a warm fuzzy feeling about the specific wording choice used by Boeing there?

Whether Boeing has confidence no longer matters, what matters is whether we have confidence and the answer is NOOOOOOOOOOO.

Post by Retric » Tue, Jan 30, 2024, 11:54 AM UTC

mulmen wrote: post #106

wokwokwok wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...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…

> while we are confident that the proposed time-limited exemption for that system follows established FAA processes to ensure safe operation, we will instead incorporate an engineering solution that will be completed during the certification process. Emphasis mine. Boeing literally said they won’t seek an exemption and will instead engineer a solution.

Post by danielbln » Tue, Jan 30, 2024, 12:06 PM UTC

mmusson wrote: post #109

The 737 design is like an axe that had its head and handle changed a few times. Is it still the same axe?

Post by pixelfarmer » Tue, Jan 30, 2024, 12:09 PM UTC

sugarkjube wrote: post #69

ramesh31 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The DeHavilland Comet was the first practical civil jet airliner ever produced. It literally invented the systems that were onboard. The 737 is a 60 year old design with a stellar safety record up to this point. It's not comparable at all. The only reason those planes fell apart is rotten management.

> The 737 is a 60 year old design with a stellar safety record It isn't. Or at least the max isn't. It's a big change from the original 737, a change that makes the type IMHO unairworthy beyond repair. But that is not even the biggest issue, its the fact that boeing thinks they should withold essential information (such as the existence of an MCAS) from the pilots, who ultimaltely bear the responsibility of the safet…