3 ms·
> The specifics of MCAS weren't out there because Boeing expected the pre-existing procedure to have been sufficient. This was argued by Boeing to the FAA, who
by rocqua 8y ago
> The specifics of MCAS weren't out there because Boeing expected the pre-existing procedure to have been sufficient.
This was argued by Boeing to the FAA, who accepted the reasoning.
It should be noted that, if it had been determined the pre-existing procedure wasn't sufficient, then all pilots on the 737 Max would've had to undergo re-training. This would have been expensive, and probably hurt adoption of the new airframe.
- tremon 8y agoall pilots on the 737 Max would've had to undergo re-training. This would have been expensive, and probably hurt adoption of the new airframe. Am I the only one hoping that in the end, the costs for Boeing will be more expensive than the global re-training would have been?
- magduf 8y agoIt's not the cost of the training; that would have been borne by the airlines, not Boeing, I think. The problem is that if this plane required extra training, this would have been an additional cost to the airlines, meaning they might not have bought the plane in the first place, and would have bought the competing plane from Airbus. Also, not only is it an additional cost, it means they would have had to have a different type-rating for this plane (a pilot rated for a regular 737 wouldn't be allowed to fly this version).
- js2 8y ago> This would have been expensive, and probably hurt adoption of the new airframe. What alternative did the airlines have though? The A320neo? Cause that would've required re-training too. Probably Boeing should've pushed back against the airlines: we've made you a more fuel efficient 737, but it's going to require re-training. Someone or someones may have thought: "MCAS is the only thing that requires retraining? Can't we fudge that?" And the thing is, it still seems like MCAS is a reasonable solution, if poorly implemented.