3 ms·

>There is nothing wrong with the MAX's performance characteristics. The aircraft itself is perfectly safe to fly How do we know? because the FAA approval is no

>There is nothing wrong with the MAX's performance characteristics. The aircraft itself is perfectly safe to fly How do we know? because the FAA approval is not ensuring me that there are not any other problematic systems where Beoing self approved the corner cuts they made. IMO a full re-approval is needed with a trust worthy institution is needed before you can claim that the airplane is "perfectly safe"

cmurf 8y ago
FAR 25, perhaps specifically 25.171-25.181 related to stability but there are separate sections on stall behavior, controllability, maneuverability, performance, etc. Those things must be demonstrated to get an airworthiness certificate under that part. Is this FAR all encompassing of that which makes an airplane safe or not? Because we have an airplane that was so certified, and yet we have two crashes that directly contradict their safety (hence they're grounded). I'm less concerned that these planes are somehow, without computers, not complying with FAR 25. I'm more concerned that Boeing (and FAA) will accept a software only fix, and continue to avoid a type certificate for this derivative model aircraft, and thus avoid any additional training for pilots. Basically, I expect Boeing will take the full hit, i.e. the software was flawed and now it is fixed, so that airlines won't be dinged for any on-going training requirement. Thus far the market isn't significantly dinging Boeing's value. Today's price is the same as it was in September of last year before either accident happened. The market is effectively saying those accidents don't matter that much, cost wise. Unless more information comes out that suggests there was wrong doing by either Boeing or the FAA. That could change the whole calculus.
- simion314 8y ago
  I am not optimistic either, if the crashes happened in US then I am sure things would have been different.

cmurf 8y ago

FAR 25, perhaps specifically 25.171-25.181 related to stability but there are separate sections on stall behavior, controllability, maneuverability, performance, etc. Those things must be demonstrated to get an airworthiness certificate under that part. Is this FAR all encompassing of that which makes an airplane safe or not? Because we have an airplane that was so certified, and yet we have two crashes that directly contradict their safety (hence they're grounded). I'm less concerned that these planes are somehow, without computers, not complying with FAR 25. I'm more concerned that Boeing (and FAA) will accept a software only fix, and continue to avoid a type certificate for this derivative model aircraft, and thus avoid any additional training for pilots. Basically, I expect Boeing will take the full hit, i.e. the software was flawed and now it is fixed, so that airlines won't be dinged for any on-going training requirement. Thus far the market isn't significantly dinging Boeing's value. Today's price is the same as it was in September of last year before either accident happened. The market is effectively saying those accidents don't matter that much, cost wise. Unless more information comes out that suggests there was wrong doing by either Boeing or the FAA. That could change the whole calculus.

simion314 8y ago
I am not optimistic either, if the crashes happened in US then I am sure things would have been different.