3 ms·

No, that's the point. All 737 MAX planes were supposed to have an angle of attack disagree annunciator. Boeing thought all 737 MAX planes were sold with a wor

No, that's the point. All 737 MAX planes were supposed to have an angle of attack disagree annunciator. Boeing thought all 737 MAX planes were sold with a working angle of attack annunciator. Turns out only some of them had working warnings. Boeing discovered that the annunciator would only work under certain configurations but decided that this wasn't serious enough to notify airlines or the FAA. And then Lion Air crashed one of these managerial marvels.

PedroBatista 8y ago
Indeed, the 737 MAX is a dangerous bastardized old design but a managerial marvel.
- FabHK 8y ago
  - "We thought the 'AoA disagree' warning was functional in all jets we delivered, but turns out it works only if this other paid upgrade has been installed." - "We planned for, and certified, an MCAS operating within certain boundaries, but then delivered a plane that exceeds these limitations multiple times." - "To save money, we built a plane whose handling characteristics are so crappy that we could not certify it, unless we put in an extra system interfering with primary flight controls, but let's not tell anyone about it." - "We've added this powerful system interfering with primary flight controls, and it depends crucially on AoA data, which we receive from two sensors. Well, let's just pick one of them and ignore the other one. It'll be fine." Managerial marvel? I assume you're not sarcastic, so what do you mean?
  - PedroBatista 8y ago
    You assumed wrong, or at least half-wrong. It's a managerial "marvel" because they managed to certify and deliver that mutant flying turd adding billions to their bottom-line, earning their bonus while spending Boeing's good name and capitalize their decades-long "investment" on FAA. That's top-notch management right there...
    - FabHK 8y ago
      > You assumed wrong Glad to hear :-)
    - magduf 8y ago
      That's just typical management for American corporations these days. If you want a company you can really trust with human lives, you buy from a company that isn't run by Americans. Of course, that's no guarantee (see: VW Dieselgate), but American management these days is all about next-quarter profits over all else. Japanese-run companies are probably the most trustworthy ones; people there care more about the long term and personal honor. Too bad they don't make planes, but that's changing, as Mitsubishi is now getting back into the airplane business.
sundvor 8y ago
The more that comes out of this, the more my opinion solidifies that they just have no effing clue about what the heck they are doing. I'd expect building safe, efficient, high quality planes to be the answer. Whereas in their minds it's probably generate record profits by maximising ROI on past investments, protecting profit margin at all times having priority over things that might improve quality. Oh and with a complete spaghetti monster of responsibility layers. I just keep getting more and more disgusted they are getting away with manslaughter.
OJFord 8y ago
It is the point, because if the pilot doesn't know whether or not it's installed, then absence of warning does not imply absence of problem. If a pilot knows or believes it's installed, then they might discount a theory because the instrument appears to disagree.

PedroBatista 8y ago

Indeed, the 737 MAX is a dangerous bastardized old design but a managerial marvel.

FabHK 8y ago
- "We thought the 'AoA disagree' warning was functional in all jets we delivered, but turns out it works only if this other paid upgrade has been installed." - "We planned for, and certified, an MCAS operating within certain boundaries, but then delivered a plane that exceeds these limitations multiple times." - "To save money, we built a plane whose handling characteristics are so crappy that we could not certify it, unless we put in an extra system interfering with primary flight controls, but let's not tell anyone about it." - "We've added this powerful system interfering with primary flight controls, and it depends crucially on AoA data, which we receive from two sensors. Well, let's just pick one of them and ignore the other one. It'll be fine." Managerial marvel? I assume you're not sarcastic, so what do you mean?
- PedroBatista 8y ago
  You assumed wrong, or at least half-wrong. It's a managerial "marvel" because they managed to certify and deliver that mutant flying turd adding billions to their bottom-line, earning their bonus while spending Boeing's good name and capitalize their decades-long "investment" on FAA. That's top-notch management right there...
  - FabHK 8y ago
    > You assumed wrong Glad to hear :-)
  - magduf 8y ago
    That's just typical management for American corporations these days. If you want a company you can really trust with human lives, you buy from a company that isn't run by Americans. Of course, that's no guarantee (see: VW Dieselgate), but American management these days is all about next-quarter profits over all else. Japanese-run companies are probably the most trustworthy ones; people there care more about the long term and personal honor. Too bad they don't make planes, but that's changing, as Mitsubishi is now getting back into the airplane business.

sundvor 8y ago

The more that comes out of this, the more my opinion solidifies that they just have no effing clue about what the heck they are doing. I'd expect building safe, efficient, high quality planes to be the answer. Whereas in their minds it's probably generate record profits by maximising ROI on past investments, protecting profit margin at all times having priority over things that might improve quality. Oh and with a complete spaghetti monster of responsibility layers. I just keep getting more and more disgusted they are getting away with manslaughter.

OJFord 8y ago

It is the point, because if the pilot doesn't know whether or not it's installed, then absence of warning does not imply absence of problem. If a pilot knows or believes it's installed, then they might discount a theory because the instrument appears to disagree.