WPIAeroGuy wrote:XRAYretired wrote:WPIAeroGuy wrote:
What do you want Boeing to do? Put out a press release saying "Hey sorry we built a deathtrap, guess we'll put a few billion into the 797 instead?". You're not even being reasonable. MCAS in its initial implementation was poorly designed. No one here will argue that. You (and others) keep saying the MAX was 'badly designed' because it had certain undesirable characteristics. Well guess what, every freaking airplane flying has undesirable characteristics that are the result of a compromise in some part of the design. Is every airplane with vortex generators, stall strips, or wing fences a bad design because they required modifications to improve stall characteristics?
It's clear how many people posting have never held a real engineering position. An engineers job is not to make the best performing product ever. It's to produce a product that meets the design goals while minimizing cost. Did you expect Boeing to get to flight testing of the MAX, notice a non-linearity in the pitch controls, and just say "well that design didn't work, let's start from scratch?" They know they screwed up MCAS. Unless there is evidence that there was knowledge that safety would be compromised with the initial MCAS implementation (and no, the fact that something could be made safer does not mean it was unsafe to begin with) then I will not condemn Boeing. I will expect them to be responsible financially for any and all reparations to the victims families, the airlines with grounded MAXes, and anyone else affected.
It was unsafe to begin with. Knowingly, or unknowingly - negligent. (40yrs Deign, Development and Manufacture Aerospace and Defence) In my opinion. System design should not have got through step 1, In my opinion.
What do you mean 'to begin with?' The extent of the high AoA pitching moment change wasn't known until flight testing. The MCAS implementation was bad, but that doesn't mean a 737 that needs (a more robust version of) MCAS is a bad design.
You talk about people on here not knowing anything engineering. Then you have the audacity to describe a more robust version of MCAS as not a bad design?
It's not even worthy of being called a design. Engineers at Boeing made mistakes early on and had to create a bandage for their failed design. Now their bandage has disastrously failed twice you claim the new version is not going to be a bad design. Design is the wrong word - it's a more robust bandage they are trying to create