4 ms·

I agree, in my eyes it is debate between "the plane is not safe to fly by anyone" and "the plane is safe to fly with additional training, when given" If the

I agree, in my eyes it is debate between "the plane is not safe to fly by anyone" and "the plane is safe to fly with additional training, when given" If the 737 MAX planes remain in the air in the USA, Boeing and US Govt are de facto saying "third world pilots clearly just don't understand how to fly our planes". If they ground the planes, they de facto admit there is an actual safety issue.

vorpalhex 8y ago
-
- a1369209993 8y ago
  Actually, "de facto" is in contrast to "de jure", meaning "in law" or more generally "officially". If they leave the planes in the air, then whatever the offical reason, they are de facto asserting that there is no (significant) problem. (Grounding them on the other hand could just be considered a excess of caution, so at most it asserts "We aren't sure there isn't a problem.".[0]) 0: Which action, if either, is definitive might differ if the stakes weren't inconvenience vs death, or if the FAA openly didn't care.
Someone1234 8y ago
> "the plane is safe to fly with additional training, when given" If that is ultimately the conclusion, then it still gives the FAA and EASA a black eye, since they allowed the aircraft update without additional training for MCAS. Best case scenario for Boeing is that the Ethiopian Airlines crash turns out to be something else. If it is MCAS related Boeing, the FAA, and EASA amongst others that green-lit the update without training have a lot to answer for.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
outworlder 8y ago
> "the plane is safe to fly with additional training, when given" Here's the thing. The additional training is not strictly necessary. The same procedures pilots are already trained for in previous models should have saved the aircraft. Unless investigations turn up a new problem. Of course, one could argue that, by disclosure changes to the system, that the pilots would be able to react faster. But that's not really for us to decide.
- DuskStar 8y ago
  It feels to me like Air France Flight 447 [0] - there was a flight computer behavior that the pilots didn't know about, but nonetheless following normal procedures would have prevented the crash. (For AF 447 that would have been "point the nose down to recover from a stall", for Lion Air 610 it was "check the trim wheel - you know, that thing that moves right by your knee - if pitch control is abnormal") Unfortunately, as we add more and more safety systems to planes people seem to be forgetting how to compensate for when the systems fail... 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447

vorpalhex 8y ago

a1369209993 8y ago
Actually, "de facto" is in contrast to "de jure", meaning "in law" or more generally "officially". If they leave the planes in the air, then whatever the offical reason, they are de facto asserting that there is no (significant) problem. (Grounding them on the other hand could just be considered a excess of caution, so at most it asserts "We aren't sure there isn't a problem.".[0]) 0: Which action, if either, is definitive might differ if the stakes weren't inconvenience vs death, or if the FAA openly didn't care.

Someone1234 8y ago

> "the plane is safe to fly with additional training, when given" If that is ultimately the conclusion, then it still gives the FAA and EASA a black eye, since they allowed the aircraft update without additional training for MCAS. Best case scenario for Boeing is that the Ethiopian Airlines crash turns out to be something else. If it is MCAS related Boeing, the FAA, and EASA amongst others that green-lit the update without training have a lot to answer for.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

outworlder 8y ago

> "the plane is safe to fly with additional training, when given" Here's the thing. The additional training is not strictly necessary. The same procedures pilots are already trained for in previous models should have saved the aircraft. Unless investigations turn up a new problem. Of course, one could argue that, by disclosure changes to the system, that the pilots would be able to react faster. But that's not really for us to decide.

DuskStar 8y ago
It feels to me like Air France Flight 447 [0] - there was a flight computer behavior that the pilots didn't know about, but nonetheless following normal procedures would have prevented the crash. (For AF 447 that would have been "point the nose down to recover from a stall", for Lion Air 610 it was "check the trim wheel - you know, that thing that moves right by your knee - if pitch control is abnormal") Unfortunately, as we add more and more safety systems to planes people seem to be forgetting how to compensate for when the systems fail... 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447