4 ms·
That's kind of a simplistic view, isn't it? By that logic you should remove the pilots, crew and passengers since they add a negative effect (weight) to the pla
by 0xffff2 8y ago
That's kind of a simplistic view, isn't it? By that logic you should remove the pilots, crew and passengers since they add a negative effect (weight) to the plane.
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoIn medical instruments, we preferred to eliminate a failure mode rather than mitigate it (when possible). That's not the same as saying "just don't build the device".
- 0xffff2 8y agoPreferred how strongly? Eliminating the failure mode in this case means designing a whole new wing from scratch, which is nearly the same amount of work as designing a whole new plane from scratch. So Boeing's alternatives (while maintaining the same efficiency) were to completely replace the 737, or fix the issue in software. The latter option is obviously vastly less expensive. If you're confidence in the software fix is high, it's probably a reasonably choice. In hindsight Boeing's confidence may have been misplaced.
- salawat 8y agoIt depends on your optimization points. No people moved=no business transacted. Regardless, I don't find the poster's logic to be unreasonable. However, Boeing was additionally constrained by available engine hardware. It's just a whole Charlie Foxtrot of a situation.
- 0xffff2 8y agoThat's exactly my point. The statement "if you add something to a system that introduces a negative effect, you remove that something" is borderline nonsensical in any kind of realistic engineering environment.
- qrbLPHiKpiux 8y agoIf I may elaborate my thoughts: any kind of engineering - I did not want to "catch-all" everything. How's this - "if you introduce a negative effect that can yield a catastrophic consequence..." Remove it, or mitigate it? I say remove it, and charge more for the flight fare. If people want more leg room, then pay for it.