I had a coworker who had a saying: "How come there's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over?".
Res the plane, it appears the MAX as is, is almost a good safe plane. It does not need to be re-certified "from the ground up". The MCAS was done poorly. In particular the plane under certain circumstances (failed AofA) could do things that apparently set off several alarm systems - at that point the pilot may be confronted by multiple possible problems. There is another saying, sometimes you want to help a person who is becoming dysfunctional, but "which screw do you tighten first?"
It really makes no difference whether Boeing, friends of Boeing, the FAA and even Trump insists that the 737 MAX is not in need of full re-certification. The confidence internationally has been shattered, to the point where EASA will conduct their own, full certification regardless. That will take time. The MAX will not fly over Europe until EASA are confident the plane is safe. Any MAX meant to operate in Europe will with certainty have to have the 2nd AOA sensor retrofitted together with disagree light.
No quick fix. Who will pay for that upgrade? Will all ~ 4500 MAX yet to be delivered suffer severely in profitability because Boeing will have to give away what used to cost 100 grand? Quantify that cost...
I still don't get why ANYBODY would accept workarounds to reduce risks that don't need to be risks in the first place on a better designed plane?
What am I missing here?
MACS was hidden by Boeing? Their fault not ours. They hid if for a reason.
Why would we now accept MACS as being a risk we would ever want to have to risk failing on a plane again? Now we know all about it and it's out in the open?
Other than 350 planes that need it to fly again and 4650 planes on order that need it?
Why does the world of passenger flights need to accept planes that need MACS to fly safely?
How does that improve the safety of planes to us the passengers? Reducing crashes is about keeping risks to the bare minimum. It's not about introducing new risks to have to deal with. Even a minute extra risk pro ratad out over the huge number of flights these planes will take leads to 1000s of deaths over time
Unacceptable to add in that new risk we don't need
It's just a fudge for an inherently unsafe plane by design?
Someone explain to me a valid reason why we allow planes that aren't stable to be designed and approved in the first place? Now we know about the need for MACS simply don't accept it as an extra risk to add to a plane. Design a plane that doesn't need it. End of.
I've read today that the decision to use 737 max rather than to design a new plane saved Boeing 4 years ..
Max took 6 years rather than a new plane design would take 10 years
Sorry boeing you made the wrong call. The world of airline safety doesn't need to suffer as a early of your short term decision.
One of the most expensive decisions in airline history. No doubt in fact the most expensive decision but safety should be paramount now.
Someone tell me what I am missing?
Last edited by Interested
on Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.