331–340 of 579 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, but as integrator, Boeing is still responsible for ensuring the quality of the final product.
And, importantly, it's entirely consistent to hold off on blaming any singular party until the investigation is complete, while simultaneously not wanting to personally fly on a 737 Max!
A lot of people don't realize that the fuselage of this plane isn't even made by Boeing, it's made by Spirit AeroSystems which also makes components for Airbus. We don't really know who to blame here until the investigation concludes.
> Spirit AeroSystems which also makes components for Airbus True, but the main Spirit Aerosystems factories making Airbus components are in the UK, except for "central section panels" of the A350, which are made in the USA. The British factories used to be BAE and Bombardier factories, so it's very possible for there to be different working methods, culture etc. https://www.spiritaero.com/company/programs/
Are you less safe on a 737 MAX than driving to the airport in a car? Genuinely curious, I’m trying to understand if this whole saga is statistically significant.
The MAX is far safer than driving at this point.
Given that every affected 737 MAX has been grounded for inspection already, this seems a bit hyperbolic. If you are still worried about some hitherto unknown new problem from Boeing, it could just as likely come from any of their airframes.
Eh... not sure about that. The 737 Max is quite new, and this is catastrophic/near-catastrophic problem 2 in a couple of years. One could be forgiven for being more suspicious of this family than their others.
Like, maybe these were the only two problems, and everything else is a perfect as could be, but at this point it's not ridiculous to be concerned that it's just a shoddy product.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The industry is littered with defunct companies that couldn't financially afford to spend ten+ years bringing a new design to market. It took nearly 14 years to bring the 787 to market, what company can afford a timeline like that? This is more the norm than the exception. Innovation is massively stifled in aviation. > That is more of an argument for stricter requirements around automobiles and that entire industry t…
" Innovation is massively stifled in aviation." Flying is also a pretty mature technology by now. We've done it for more than 100 years and the physics is well understood. Massive leaps in capabilities are unlikely, much like no one will develop a pistol with a 2 mile range or a coffee machine that produces an espresso in a blink of an eye. What you can do is add more sensors and software, but the increasing complexi…
Really bad UI. Clicking on the placeholder text in the textbox doesn't do anything. I thought it was broken until I just starting clicking randomly and found that clicking outside the placeholder text works.
Predictably it's a React site, using some widget library (MUI) that is going out of it's way to provide a text input that is inferior to what's built in to any modern browser. Great!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But virtually no one really is avoiding it over that, they're avoiding because of the multitude of various faults and issue over the entire MAX line that makes it highly unlikely that there isn't something else coming.
This submission isn't on the front page because of incidents 4-5 years ago. It is on the front page because of the news this week.
The difference between this website existing for MAX and not for others is the repetition of issues though, to the point that now more people have had enough.
When the glass spills, the last drop might be the trigger for the glass finally spilling but it's the accumulation of water that's the issue, not just that one final drop.
A lot of people don't realize that the fuselage of this plane isn't even made by Boeing, it's made by Spirit AeroSystems which also makes components for Airbus. We don't really know who to blame here until the investigation concludes.
If my brand new Honda's door fell off when I'm on the highway, I'm not blaming the door manufacturer I'm blaming Honda
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> safety is getting worse, not better or even staying the same The only death in US major commercial aviation in ages was when a woman was partially sucked out of a window in 2018 when an engine failed and blew apart, breaking the window open. Before that, we have the Asiana flight which crashed after landing short at SFO, striking the undercarriage on the edge of the floating platform and cartwheeling. Everyone surv…
Why are you limiting events to the US? A max 9 crashing in the eastern hemisphere is still a max 9...
I'll address the elephant in the room and say that I don't think it's coincidence that the two airframe losses in the MAX 9 were with Indonesian and Ethiopian carriers and not American or European ones, despite American and European carriers having received—as far as I can tell—the bulk of the deliveries of this airframe and at least a plurality (if not majority) of hours in use (if someone else can find good data on this I'd be grateful). I suspect that more resources put toward pilot training played a meaningful difference here. For example, the first officer of the Ethiopian flight had less than 200 hours of flight experience. This would be completely unacceptable for a U.S. major.
I want to be clear that I am not saying that it's the pilots' fault, but that the swiss-cheese model relies on multiple overlapping failures. The additional resources spent on training, maintenance, operations, and CRM at American and European airlines in general ensures fewer overlaps and thus fewer incidents.