4 ms·

That may be the perception, yes, and many people will go along with that. I disagree. My view is that it is too early for a strong view to be taken either way,

That may be the perception, yes, and many people will go along with that. I disagree. My view is that it is too early for a strong view to be taken either way, therefore differing views are likely to be taken, and I don't think either side is stupid for doing so. If the FAA come out in a couple of days time and say that they want to ground the aircraft too, I also won't think they are losing face. It simply is a process of giving out the best advice available at the time, and revising it when more information is available. Sometimes a person/organisation picks a decision at random, with too little information. The ones that get it right are praised, and people think that they are better than the ones that got it wrong. However, if it truly was picked at random with too little information, then no one side is better than the other, regardless of which one "won".

La1n 8y ago
I wouldn't say it was picked at random when there is little information available. It seems to me like an application of the precautionary principle. In this case there is a plausible risk that the problem extents to other 737 MAX airplanes, and thus to prevent harm it's better to block the use until there is certainty about the situation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
- paulmd 8y ago
  It's likely a (deliberate) training fault on the part of Boeing here. The new engines+nacelles change the handling characteristics of the aircraft and add a substantial pitch-up characteristic. Boeing wanted to brand this as a drop-in replacement for your existing 737 fleet requiring no additional re-training beyond normal ongoing certifications, so they added new systems to address this flight characteristic, and neglected to document this in their flight manuals or any of their training materials. The system activated erroneously in-flight and the pilots could not cancel a system they did not know existed. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/u-s-pilots-flying-737-max-werent-told-about-new-automatic-systems-change-linked-to-lion-air-crash/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/u-s-p... https://outline.com/t78kad https://outline.com/t78kad https://youtu.be/zfQW0upkVus?t=220 https://youtu.be/zfQW0upkVus?t=220 There are other contributing factors here, there are apparently multiple failure conditions that can activate this system without appropriate degrees of redundancy (which is a design fault and will probably be rectified at some point), but the primary cause here is that Boeing suppressed information about this system's existence in an attempt to make their new aircraft more attractive compared to Airbus's alternatives. The aircraft itself is not faulty in the sense that it cannot be controlled when these failure conditions occur. Boeing was negligent in its training and marketing of these aircraft.
SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
I can't believe how many comments I've had to wade through to find the one person in these threads talking any sense. This isn't an "us vs them" situation. Different countries and organisations have different approaches, procedures, and decision making processes in place when dealing with these things. Nobody has to be "right" or "wrong". It's a complicated situation with incomplete information and no right answer.

La1n 8y ago

I wouldn't say it was picked at random when there is little information available. It seems to me like an application of the precautionary principle. In this case there is a plausible risk that the problem extents to other 737 MAX airplanes, and thus to prevent harm it's better to block the use until there is certainty about the situation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

paulmd 8y ago
It's likely a (deliberate) training fault on the part of Boeing here. The new engines+nacelles change the handling characteristics of the aircraft and add a substantial pitch-up characteristic. Boeing wanted to brand this as a drop-in replacement for your existing 737 fleet requiring no additional re-training beyond normal ongoing certifications, so they added new systems to address this flight characteristic, and neglected to document this in their flight manuals or any of their training materials. The system activated erroneously in-flight and the pilots could not cancel a system they did not know existed. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/u-s-pilots-flying-737-max-werent-told-about-new-automatic-systems-change-linked-to-lion-air-crash/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/u-s-p... https://outline.com/t78kad https://outline.com/t78kad https://youtu.be/zfQW0upkVus?t=220 https://youtu.be/zfQW0upkVus?t=220 There are other contributing factors here, there are apparently multiple failure conditions that can activate this system without appropriate degrees of redundancy (which is a design fault and will probably be rectified at some point), but the primary cause here is that Boeing suppressed information about this system's existence in an attempt to make their new aircraft more attractive compared to Airbus's alternatives. The aircraft itself is not faulty in the sense that it cannot be controlled when these failure conditions occur. Boeing was negligent in its training and marketing of these aircraft.

SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago

I can't believe how many comments I've had to wade through to find the one person in these threads talking any sense. This isn't an "us vs them" situation. Different countries and organisations have different approaches, procedures, and decision making processes in place when dealing with these things. Nobody has to be "right" or "wrong". It's a complicated situation with incomplete information and no right answer.