Some readable history here: https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/2/18...error-mcas-faa
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Ethiopian Airlines plane crash
Collapse
X
-
That's one hell of an article, thanks for posting it, ursus. It's not so much the on-the-fly software changes that are the problem, it's the change of purpose of MCAS from being a behind the scenes assistant to the pilots into a more general purpose stall prevention system. Couple into that Boeing's attitude to secrecy, even internally it seems such that one set of employees doesn't understand what some of their colleagues are doing, plus a thoroughly bad design implementation followed by a lack of proper testing, you end up with an aeroplane that's downright dangerous to fly when something as simple as a single sensor goes wrong. Also telling in the Boeing not understanding what they've created department is the disparity in the timescales between the predicted release of the software fix in the immediate aftermath of the Ethiopian Airlines tragedy and the reality.
Comment
-
I do wonder if Boeing's increased focus on the military side of their business has been at least part of the reason things have gone so wrong with the 737 Max. The over-reliance on tech, secrecy and lack of co-oordination are all characteristic of defence procurement over here.
Comment
-
Originally posted by WOM View Post
They'll solve the technical issue and, for the benefit of nervous passengers, the name of the plane will quietly change in a few months.
Comment
-
That's assuming it will ever fly again.
The FAA found more stuff wrong with the plane just recently. It was suggested on Dutch teletext that this latest problem requires not a computer software update, but a computer hardware change.
Comment
-
At what stage will Boeing dump this Aircraft. There is only so much discounting and US government inducements/bullying they can do. Any sane Airliner would buy the A320Neo. Also, whilst this drags on, attention may start to switch to the design and engineering on their other aircraft. If people start to investigate the 787 and uncover dodgy stuff, then the company is toast.
Comment
-
- Aug 2008
- 25426
- The zero meridian
- Swansea, Gaziantepspor and the Zeugma Franchise
- Bahlsen Choco Leibniz Dark
Turkish Airlines are threatening to sue Boeing over the grounding of planes, I'm surprised companies have been so patient in public about this.
Apart from Boeing and Airbus are there any other real alternatives for companies or is it a duopoly?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Antepli Ejderha View PostTurkish Airlines are threatening to sue Boeing over the grounding of planes, I'm surprised companies have been so patient in public about this.
Apart from Boeing and Airbus are there any other real alternatives for companies or is it a duopoly?
- Likes 1
Comment
-
[URL="https://twitter.com/cnbcnow/status/1209113159015059457?s=21"]https://twitter.com/cnbcnow/status/1209113159015059457[/URL]
TG is right. Embraer don't do long range, wide body aircraft.
The smallest 737 Max carries more passengers than anything that they have ever made.
Comment
-
As we know, thee main reason that the 737 Max is the Frankenstein aircraft that it is, is due to Boeing keeping it compatible with old models of 737, so that pilots don't have to retrain. Thus saving money for the likes of Southwest and Ryanair, who have an entirely 737 fleet.
I read somewhere that if Boeing had instead released a totally new 737, the pilot retraining costs would have been 13,000 dollars per pilot. Which is fuck all. FFS. This reminds me of the Deepwater Horizon thing, which could have been avoided if Dubya and Dick Cheney hadn't done away with regulations mandating a $100k auto shut-off valve.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ursus arctos View Post[URL="https://twitter.com/cnbcnow/status/1209113159015059457?s=21"]https://twitter.com/cnbcnow/status/1209113159015059457[/URL]
TG is right. Embraer don't do long range, wide body aircraft.
The smallest 737 Max carries more passengers than anything that they have ever made.
Comment
Comment