767333ER wrote:JetBuddy wrote:oschkosch wrote:New article in the NYT, doesn't look rather bright at all. Software package not delivered yet?
And even more messages which will have much more bad news?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/22/busi ... module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
In his few public appearances, Mr. Muilenburg’s attempts to offer a sincere apology for the accidents have been clumsy, prolonging Boeing’s reputational pain. His performance has left lawmakers irate.
But Boeing still faces serious hurdles. The company has not delivered a complete software package to the F.A.A. for approval.
“By the time April rolled around, Boeing was telling us next week, next month,” Gary Kelly, the chief executive of Southwest Airlines, said in an interview. “We were a week away, weeks away, three weeks away.”
The F.A.A. is aware of more potentially damaging messages from Boeing employees that the company has not turned over to the agency.
Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk
I highly recommend reading that article for everyone who's interested. It's like Boeing and regulators keep talking past each other.
One of the most damning parts is this:
"In August, regulators from Europe, Canada and Brazil flew to Seattle and joined F.A.A. officials for a meeting with Boeing. They were expecting to review reams of documentation describing the software update for the Max. Instead, the Boeing representatives offered a brief PowerPoint presentation, in line with what they had done in the past. The regulators left the meeting early."
And Boeing still hasn't delivered the software package to regulators for review. And we're soon at the end of the year.
Why is it that Boeing isn't done with their fix yet? Why is it they're not letting regulators fly the plane without MCAS? I'm starting to suspect that MCAS isn't only about keeping the stick force / feel linear. There's something else going on.
I just don’t get it at this point. If they started working on a fix supposedly after the JT crash over a year ago, how on earth is it not done yet if it’s as simple as they have claimed it is? What could they possibly be doing to the thing? I get that software fixes do take a long time to actually develop and also do take a long time to roll out, but this is over a year and the timeline is still up in the air.
My fear is that we in the general public may never find out what actually is going on. I feel this is far fetched, but I feel it as my fear.Nick1209 wrote:Fine. It was an overly strict requirement from the FAA that made MCAS come about. I’m 100% sure it could have flown without it, and would be flying today with 0 accidents.
If it hasn’t been tested under those conditions or it has and you don’t have access to the data, then you cannot say that and certainly not with 100% certainty. If it has been tested under those conditions, would the EASA need to test it again? The only thing 100% certain is that you’re judgment is illogical. Is the regulation overly strict, maybe, maybe not. I don’t pretend to know, but you do. You can’t say it’s too much if you don’t know how or why it got put there in the first place or don’t know what happens if they don’t have that regulation.
The MAX flying after the date of grounding is history that never existed (perhaps in an alternate timeline ); how do you know that, in that part of history that doesn’t exist, a 737 MAX doesn’t crash just by chance for a totally unrelated reason even maybe by no fault of its own. Well you don’t because that never existed in reality. You can’t make absolute certain statements about a reality that never existed unless you are and inter dimensional traveller. For that matter the MAX without MCAS hasn’t existed, but if it had, the timeline could also be very different. Even what a very influential person like a political leader has for breakfast could alter the course of the timeline depending on what they chose to eat (yeah, I watch too much Star Trek). We just can’t be 100% sure.
I pretend I know? Comical. What am I pretending to know? What certification test required MCAS? If so, I’m not pretending, it’s already been confirmed and most informed people know. Or is it the fact that I say the max wouldn’t have a problem flying? I’m 100% certain. That test was the only test that proved an aerodynamic nose up COULD happen with the new engine configuration. It wasn’t even enough to be a runaway pitch, but enough to not meet FAA longitudinal stability. It’s also good to note that it didn’t happen until an almost 90 degree bank. If any plane ends up at that angle, it’ll be the least of their worries.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk