Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report

Post by gdubs » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 3:02 AM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #122

foobar1962 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it’s not as safe as previous 737s. The new engine and its position on the wing has changed the whole balance of the aircraft. Like putting a very big engine in a small car: it’s a different car.

It's a different car, but still arguably a safer one. Every part in the 737 MAX is either the same or newer and improved over the previous 737 series. While they should have gone through far more scrutiny in the certification process, the 737 MAX, viewed holistically, is a newer, more modern aircraft that will be safer than older aircraft once the kinks are fixed.

Post by bitreality » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 3:13 AM UTC

ndespres wrote: post #55

I know better than to read between the lines on a press release like this, but can't help but notice that it falls far short of accepting responsibility for the problem. He admits that MCAS "activated in response to erroneous angle of attack information" but doesn't admit that this alone directly resulted in the crashes. Rather, he implies that this sets off a chain of events which the pilots are unable to deal with…

Post by msbarnett » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 3:23 AM UTC

treis wrote: post #151

msbarnett wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At 05:40:44, the Captain called out three times “Pull-up” and the First-Officer acknowledged. > At 05:41:30, the Captain requested the First-Officer to pitch up with him and the First-Officer acknowledged. > At 05:43:04, the Captain asked the First Officer to pitch up together and said that pitch is not enough. Take a look at the chart of control column position deflections. They're jolting around like crazy at +10…

Data for "Column forces were incredibly high" would be the force on the column that the pilots experienced. Column position deflection isn't that. Column position deflection data is data that the column position was changing rapidly. Concluding that column position was changing rapidly due to "incredibly high" forces as opposed to say unpredictable forces is speculation.

Post by bilbo0s » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 3:26 AM UTC

bitreality wrote: post #154

ndespres wrote: post #55

I know better than to read between the lines on a press release like this, but can't help but notice that it falls far short of accepting responsibility for the problem. He admits that MCAS "activated in response to erroneous angle of attack information" but doesn't admit that this alone directly resulted in the crashes. Rather, he implies that this sets off a chain of events which the pilots are unable to deal with…

With the way litigation works, corporations will never admit blame for anything, since it greatly increases their legal risk. It's unfortunate, but their responsibilities lie with their shareholders, not the people who lost their lives on their planes.

Post by caconym_ » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 3:32 AM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #122

foobar1962 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it’s not as safe as previous 737s. The new engine and its position on the wing has changed the whole balance of the aircraft. Like putting a very big engine in a small car: it’s a different car.

It's a different car, but still arguably a safer one. Every part in the 737 MAX is either the same or newer and improved over the previous 737 series. While they should have gone through far more scrutiny in the certification process, the 737 MAX, viewed holistically, is a newer, more modern aircraft that will be safer than older aircraft once the kinks are fixed.