4 ms·

> Lots of blame to go around here. Only if the faulty sensor was listed as "critical." Boeing didn't declare it as such and reported to nobody the way it was u

by acqq 8y ago

> Lots of blame to go around here. Only if the faulty sensor was listed as "critical." Boeing didn't declare it as such and reported to nobody the way it was used in the unreported MCAS. That the MCAS even exists and that a single faulty sensor was enough to mess with the flight erratically enough to confuse the pilots was somehow acknowledged by Boeing only after the first crash. It took the second crash for most observers to recognize that just blaming the pilot or maintenance won't keep the planes from not crashing.

icebraining 8y ago
Even if they didn't know about the MCAS, they still knew the plane had had an uncontrolled-dive problem from an unknown cause. How is it responsible to fly it without understanding the issue? Boeing is still fully culpable, but the airline should have debugged the issue before using the plane again.
- acqq 8y ago
  > How is it responsible to fly it without understanding the issue? There is not only "the issue" there are a lot of "issues" happening all the time. The problem is even knowing which are "too serious." That the single faulty sensor which didn't affect anything on the previous planes could mean the difference between the life and death was specifically not reported by Boeing. How it is responsible to certify the plane without properly analyzing the MCAS implementation? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/19/business/boeing-elaine-chao.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/19/business/boeing-elaine-ch... And how it is responsible to claim "everything is OK everywhere" after the two crashes? https://www.barrons.com/articles/faa-not-grounding-boeing-737-max-51552483639 https://www.barrons.com/articles/faa-not-grounding-boeing-73...
  - icebraining 8y ago
    > That the single faulty sensor which didn't affect anything on the previous planes could mean the difference between the life and death was specifically not reported by Boeing. We're not talking about a faulty sensor, we're talking about an uncontrolled dive. The airline is not at fault for not connecting the two, but that only means they had information of an uncontrolled dive from an unknown cause, and still flew the plane. > How it is responsible to certify the plane without properly analyzing the MCAS implementation? (...) And how it is responsible to claim "everything is OK everywhere" after the two crashes? It's not, but that's whataboutism. Boeing's neglect doesn't excuse the FAA, and the FAA's neglect doesn't excuse the airline.
    - jacobush 8y ago
      Didn't you get the memo? You pick a team and stick with, Apple or Google, Democrats or Republicans. Sorry, I'm getting jaded.

by acqq 8y ago

icebraining 8y ago

Even if they didn't know about the MCAS, they still knew the plane had had an uncontrolled-dive problem from an unknown cause. How is it responsible to fly it without understanding the issue? Boeing is still fully culpable, but the airline should have debugged the issue before using the plane again.

acqq 8y ago
> How is it responsible to fly it without understanding the issue? There is not only "the issue" there are a lot of "issues" happening all the time. The problem is even knowing which are "too serious." That the single faulty sensor which didn't affect anything on the previous planes could mean the difference between the life and death was specifically not reported by Boeing. How it is responsible to certify the plane without properly analyzing the MCAS implementation? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/19/business/boeing-elaine-chao.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/19/business/boeing-elaine-ch... And how it is responsible to claim "everything is OK everywhere" after the two crashes? https://www.barrons.com/articles/faa-not-grounding-boeing-737-max-51552483639 https://www.barrons.com/articles/faa-not-grounding-boeing-73...
- icebraining 8y ago
  > That the single faulty sensor which didn't affect anything on the previous planes could mean the difference between the life and death was specifically not reported by Boeing. We're not talking about a faulty sensor, we're talking about an uncontrolled dive. The airline is not at fault for not connecting the two, but that only means they had information of an uncontrolled dive from an unknown cause, and still flew the plane. > How it is responsible to certify the plane without properly analyzing the MCAS implementation? (...) And how it is responsible to claim "everything is OK everywhere" after the two crashes? It's not, but that's whataboutism. Boeing's neglect doesn't excuse the FAA, and the FAA's neglect doesn't excuse the airline.
  - jacobush 8y ago
    Didn't you get the memo? You pick a team and stick with, Apple or Google, Democrats or Republicans. Sorry, I'm getting jaded.