261–270 of 290 posts
Don’t care. Show me real movement on the corporate mindset. The plane is a STEM engineer fixable issue. The corporate mess that pushed this across flying clearance is not. I’ll aim to fly airbus until Boeing understands that difference and fixes the root cause.
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?
The aircraft didn't crash because of oversized engines. It crashed because MCAS was poorly implemented. A properly implemented MCAS system and there is no problem with the aircraft.
Where can I find info about the differences and improvements in terms of aerodynamics, structures, materials and systems?
For example,
Does the Max have a composite wing box?
What percentage of the Max is composite, compared to the NG?
Do the wings use the same airfoil section?
Have they been re-lofted, re-twisted?
Are there any changes to the high life devices?
Have there been any changes to the materials, gauge, design for the fuselage?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe they had an order in place already, but I bet they've negotiated a big discount on it now. I think people will fly on the MAX (or 737-8 as it's going to be badged) after a year or two assuming there are no more accidents. Cheaper long haul flights is too tempting. Though I don't think I'd like to be stuck in a Ryanair plane with the temperature notched all the way up so the passengers buy drinks for longer…
> Though I don't think I'd like to be stuck in a Ryanair plane with the temperature notched all the way up so the passengers buy drinks for longer than 1/2hrs. I've never noticed that, and it doesn't really make sense as it costs fuel to heat up the cabin. Are you making that up?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably but now that the public is aware of a physical flaw covered up by a control mechanism the physical flaw needs to be fixed. 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.
The engines being too low is not a physical flaw, and was not the cause of these crashes. The control mechanism caused the crashes, and control mechanisms can be fixed relatively easily.
The control mechanism existed to cover up a physical flaw then proceeded to be the cause of crashes itself.
If a control mechanism can easily be fixed... What was the exact fix? Literally tell me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably but now that the public is aware of a physical flaw covered up by a control mechanism the physical flaw needs to be fixed. 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.
The locations of the engine did not cause the crash.
The locations of the engine and a plane flown without mcas will also cause the plane to crash.
The technical debt transferred over to the control mechanism and now all the engineers and people who worked on and funded the plane are responsible for killing over 300 people. These are peoples lives at stake. Fix the technical debt. Saying the control mechanism crashed the plane and just fixing that is like saying you didn't put enough duct tape over the real problem.
Don't Cover it up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> All 737 have an obsolescent fuselage design. It could not be certified given modern regulation and relies on being grandfathered for new production. [citation needed] It was never said that it was an unsafe design.
[google it]
I never claimed it was unsafe. I argued with the claim that, due to the additional scrutiny the 737 was now somehow 'far safer than other models.' It is not and no amount of additional scrutiny will change that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Do you disagree with the 565 independent pilots and aviation experts who signed off on the Max in Europe alone? 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…
No, I do not disagree with any conclusion that the 737, including the MAX, is safe to operate. I disagree with the characterization that, as a result of recent scrutiny, the 737 is now 'far safer than other models.' It is not and no amount of additional scrutiny, and no signoffs by any number of pilots in any nation will change that.
> 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.
I don't disagree with any of this.
> Honest question: if this isn't enough for you, what is? All other planes have been scrutinized far less.
It's plenty for me. I would happily fly on an 737 MAX. However, I do question whether some count of hours of scrutiny (or whatever you mean by 'far less') is a good proxy for safety. Things that operate safely tend not require so much scrutiny.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Flying is much safer then driving, but that a statement based on real statistics. However, a large number of people have an irrational fear of flying vs driving. That’s the point.
Flying is safer than driving on average . But a lot of bad can hide in averages. Boeing delivered 387 Max 8 aircraft to their customers before they were grounded in 2019. Two were destroyed, killing everyone aboard. That's half a percent of the aircraft they delivered destroyed within two years. That's obviously much worse that most other aircraft, and far worse than any car currently for sale. You wouldn't buy a car…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Boeing planes are super safe from millions of flighthours and the learnings and failures from before. Which you use to build off of.
in mission critical systems, build from scratches are rarely the case because any hiccups are disastrous. It's why banks still run on mainframes despite trying (quite desperately) to get away from that.