This story keeps getting worse and I was already shocked and stunned beyond belief. - Boeing recycles 737 airframe moving the engines. This seems largely about

This story keeps getting worse and I was already shocked and stunned beyond belief. - Boeing recycles 737 airframe moving the engines. This seems largely about reducing costs, decreasing time-to-market and (importantly) maintaining a common type rating. - To compensate for the engines moving, which could cause the nose to dip, they add a software solution (MCAS) that could dip the nose without really telling any pilots or airlines. Worse, it's based on a single input (well, one of two but it only listens to one at a type), this being the AoA sensor. - Blaming pilots for the Lion Air disaster. Whatever the truth, that's certainly premature. - Boeing refusing the ground the aircraft after the second crash. - The FAA apparently complicit in this until it finally capitulates to the inevitable and grounds the plane after Europe and several others already have. - The hubris of not wanting to appear wrong or like they're capitulating to public pressure, Boeing sticks to their guns til the better end. - An AoA sensor upgrade as an option for what is arguably a critical system. What's also fascinating is all the Boeing apologists who have come out of the woodwork (eg [1]). I've seen comments about how the airlines "demanded" the 737 MAX. There might be a demand for a low-cost narrow body passenger jet and I'm sure that's the reason the 737 MAX was developed. Anecdotally, it seems to be terrible for passengers (eg [2]), which would certainly be compatible with the idea that this is a low-cost solution. It's also worth mentioning the rudder issues of the 737 that was posted here a few days ago [3]. I honestly don't understand how Boeing's management can be so reckless with the hard-earned reputation for safety. They've done so much damage to their brand with this that if it wasn't for the fact that hundreds of people have died here, Airbus would be laughing all the way to the bank (or at least it would take the edge off the giant A380 boondoggle). As much as pilot error has been a significant cause of air disasters (eg experienced pilots pulling the plane up to cause a stall as in the Air France crash), you get a sense of how hard it would be to fully automate piloting a plane. What I find disturbing is how hard overriding automated systems seems to be. When a plane's automated systems fails, shouldn't a pilot be able to easily take full manual control? I would've thought so. You see examples of this like Qantas Flight 72 [4]. And flying a plane is in some ways a much simpler problem than driving a car. You takeoff, you fly a predetermined route and you land. There are some adjustments for weather and other factors and occasionally you have to turn around or deviate and make a landing. I'm obviously oversimplifying here but cars seem to have so many more corner cases here. People seem to think autonomous cars are right around the corner. I'm not so sure. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19389791 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19389791 [2] https://thepointsguy.com/2017/11/first-look-aa-boeing-737-max-8/ https://thepointsguy.com/2017/11/first-look-aa-boeing-737-ma... [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19385980 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19385980 [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72