3 ms·

A best it's reactionary as we simply don't have enough data. The FAA said it will review once the crash investigation has been completed. Sometimes clustering

A best it's reactionary as we simply don't have enough data. The FAA said it will review once the crash investigation has been completed. Sometimes clustering occurs, such as Maylasian airlines being shot down and lost in an ocean and never found. We didn't ground the whole airline.

Gibbon1 8y ago
That's my take, accidents at the edges of the safe flight envelope are concerning but don't imply the aircraft is unsafe in general. Two losses during ordinary weather, operations, and daytime is extremely concerning.
cjbprime 8y ago
It sounds like you're going for a "innocent until proven guilty" approach to the Max's airworthiness, if I'm understanding your comment correctly. That seems opposite to the culture of air safety, where planes are certified airworthy because the data prove them to be so. I don't think the data prove airworthiness of the Max anymore.
- woofcat 8y ago
  However no data that originally certified it as airworthy has changed. All we have is two incidents, one of which we have no information about. For all we know it was a hijacking, or a drunk pilot. Absurd ideas, however in my mind without any evidence it is equally likely. They have the CVR and I'm sure very shortly we'll know for sure. If it turns out to be MCAS then we can ground the fleet, the extra day of delay doesn't seem like the highest risk factor.
  - cjbprime 8y ago
    That's not really true. MCAS can not be argued to meet https://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part25-672-FAR.shtml https://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part25-672-FAR.shtml, so it's not airworthy. The FAA's allowed them to continue flying anyway while they disclose the problem and workarounds, and deploy a fix which is now very delayed. That's a much more questionable decision now that another flight with similar characteristics has crashed.

3 ms·

A best it's reactionary as we simply don't have enough data. The FAA said it will review once the crash investigation has been completed. Sometimes clustering

by woofcat 8y ago

Gibbon1 8y ago
That's my take, accidents at the edges of the safe flight envelope are concerning but don't imply the aircraft is unsafe in general. Two losses during ordinary weather, operations, and daytime is extremely concerning.
cjbprime 8y ago
It sounds like you're going for a "innocent until proven guilty" approach to the Max's airworthiness, if I'm understanding your comment correctly. That seems opposite to the culture of air safety, where planes are certified airworthy because the data prove them to be so. I don't think the data prove airworthiness of the Max anymore.
- woofcat 8y ago
  However no data that originally certified it as airworthy has changed. All we have is two incidents, one of which we have no information about. For all we know it was a hijacking, or a drunk pilot. Absurd ideas, however in my mind without any evidence it is equally likely. They have the CVR and I'm sure very shortly we'll know for sure. If it turns out to be MCAS then we can ground the fleet, the extra day of delay doesn't seem like the highest risk factor.
  - cjbprime 8y ago
    That's not really true. MCAS can not be argued to meet https://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part25-672-FAR.shtml https://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part25-672-FAR.shtml, so it's not airworthy. The FAA's allowed them to continue flying anyway while they disclose the problem and workarounds, and deploy a fix which is now very delayed. That's a much more questionable decision now that another flight with similar characteristics has crashed.