10 ms·

“You’ve got to understand that our commitment to safety is as great as yours,” Mr. Sinnett [Boeing Exec] said in the meeting. “The worst thing that can ever hap

“You’ve got to understand that our commitment to safety is as great as yours,” Mr. Sinnett [Boeing Exec] said in the meeting. “The worst thing that can ever happen is a tragedy like this, and the even worse thing would be another one.” But yet, even after the second crash Boeing still insisted they continue to fly the plane. It's like they pre-determined their decision and any evidence or additional crashes be damned. I don't want to have too much hindsight though - if the AA pilots union really didn't want to fly the plane, presumably the union could have chosen not to fly the plane (I think it's in most pilots contracts?). In fact, even after Ethiopian crash, American pilots continued to fly the plane. Though part of this may have been because they didn't have the full amount of information Boeing did.

mevile 7y ago
It's just words. Actions speak louder than words. Their actions fly in the face of all the nice sounding things they say, and report after report fly in the face of all of Boeing's denials and claims of safety. Boeing has gone into liability defensive mode at the expense of the lives of passengers, the safety of air travel, and America's credibility in aerospace engineering. Boeing is either going to face a major reckoning that they may not survive or maybe we'll have more deaths from accidents due to their negligent behavior. I'm basing all this on the many reports about what is going on around the 737 MAX aircraft published in the WSJ and the New York Times. It hasn't been pretty. I don't think that plane should ever fly again as engineered. It seems to require software to address problems with the large engine and the plane's form that other jets do not have. If a software patch can make the aircraft safe, then a bug can make it unsafe. Does the FAA validate all the aircraft software patches Boeing issues?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Robotbeat 7y ago
  Boeing will definitely survive. It is a behemoth, both for export capital and for defense. Too big to fail. Also, lots of planes require software to be safe to fly. It’s just the way things are nowadays.
- ReGenGen 7y ago
  Other airliners w/ large turbofans have a pitch-up under climb/thrust characteristics. (like B777) We don't know if 737 MAX's pitch-up stall handling characteristics are really bad -or- just different from older 737's. MCAS was put in place to allow the MAX to be type certified w/ other 737's so 737 pilots could fly the 737 MAX and vice versa. (Airline pilots can only hold 1 type certification at a time.)
  - acqq 7y ago
    > MCAS was put in place to allow the MAX to be type certified w/ other 737's But the expected behavior which MCAS was to provide was not something invented only for "other 737's." Whichever plane would behave as the MAX behaves without MCAS turned on would also be rejected from certification. Only Boeing being silent about MCAS is the effect of the goal of "avoiding re-certification." > We don't know I can't agree to that. Based on the above, I think it is obvious that we do know: 737 MAX without any MCAS-like help is dangerous to fly according to the security expectations which weren't specially invented for 737 MAX.
    - lmm 7y ago
      > But the expected behavior which MCAS was to provide was not something invented only for "other 737's." Whichever plane would behave as the MAX behaves without MCAS turned on would also be rejected from certification. No, it would have been a perfectly certifiable plane with a particular set of handling characteristics (including 777-like pitch-up). It just wouldn't be a 737, and would require its own type certificate. No-one's suggesting that large turbofan aircraft with pitch-up behaviour are inherently unsafe when flown by pilots appropriately trained and certified for them - otherwise the 777 would be grounded.
      - acqq 7y ago
        > No-one's suggesting that large turbofan aircraft with pitch-up behaviour are inherently unsafe It is as long it keeps 737 MAX body and engines and doesn’t have something like MCAS I.e. Inherently unsafe under conditions under which MCAS was supposed to turn on when properly functioning. The certification requirements are the result of the clear safety goals not something invented “just so.”
- mschuster91 7y ago
  It's not unsafe per se, the MCAS software is only required to avoid (expensive) new type rating and training for pilots.
  - chipsa 7y ago
    MCAS is required for the 737 Max to be certified at all. To remove the requirement for MCAS would require enough changes to the aircraft to make it not a 737.
- lagadu 7y ago
  Boeing is a strategic asset for the US government, of course they're going to survive.
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    Could you explain what you mean here, please?
    - michaelt 7y ago
      Boeing make a bunch of military aircraft, drones and missiles [1]. The US government might want to buy those in the future, so wants Boeing to stay in business. Hence, the government is unlikely to deal Boeing a killing blow. [1] http://www.boeing.com/defense/#/products-services http://www.boeing.com/defense/#/products-services
      - lagadu 7y ago
        Even when it comes to commercial aviation, the US wouldn't want to depend exclusively on foreign designed airplanes where they have far less influence.
bitexploder 7y ago
Fight Club math. It must have been cheaper to keep operating and pushing their narrative.
forgotmypw3 7y ago
From my understanding, they were also flying different planes, which had redundant backup circuits for the sensors, an optional feature with a price.
ulfw 7y ago
The most despicable thing besides all these that Boeing did was to start blaming the pilots, trying to use xenophobia and blaming it on 'third world' pilots first [1] though it was clear even from the start that there is nothing any pilot could have done so close to the ground [2]. That was disgusting and has me lose the last bit of sympathy I've had left for The Boeing Company. [1] https://www.inc.com/peter-economy/boeing-ceo-puts-partial-blame-on-pilots-of-crashed-737-max-aircraft-for-not-completely-following-procedures.html https://www.inc.com/peter-economy/boeing-ceo-puts-partial-bl... [2] https://www.ft.com/content/db8a09b8-56aa-11e9-a3db-1fe89bedc16e https://www.ft.com/content/db8a09b8-56aa-11e9-a3db-1fe89bedc...
- sokoloff 7y ago
  This was not just Boeing and was common across wide swaths of professional pilots. Based on conversations with pilots I know and trust and who flew with non-US, non-major-Western European (and Australia) carriers, I’m deeply skeptical of many foreign operators and their realized safety record does not match the US/AU/major EU air carriers. The second crash may have been avoided by timely application of the NNC procedure for runaway stab trim, right?
  - inflatableDodo 7y ago
    >This was not just Boeing and was common across wide swaths of professional pilots. One of these two groups was in posession of a rather importantly wider set of information than the other.
  - ReGenGen 7y ago
    The 2nd crash would have been prevented by Boeing listening to the American Airlines pilots’ union call to ground the MAX after the 1st crash. You can't put this one on foreign pilots, when American pilots called for grounding the MAX.
    - hitekker 7y ago
      Yeah, first paragraph of the GP was agreeable. Then the second one veered abruptly into weird corporate apologism. "Man if only those "other" victims weren't so dumb, then my favorite company wouldn't have to suffer bad PR!"
village-idiot 7y ago
The person who’s most committed to a plane’s safe operation is almost always going to be the person who dies if something goes wrong. That’s just kind of how human psychology works.

mevile 7y ago

It's just words. Actions speak louder than words. Their actions fly in the face of all the nice sounding things they say, and report after report fly in the face of all of Boeing's denials and claims of safety. Boeing has gone into liability defensive mode at the expense of the lives of passengers, the safety of air travel, and America's credibility in aerospace engineering. Boeing is either going to face a major reckoning that they may not survive or maybe we'll have more deaths from accidents due to their negligent behavior. I'm basing all this on the many reports about what is going on around the 737 MAX aircraft published in the WSJ and the New York Times. It hasn't been pretty. I don't think that plane should ever fly again as engineered. It seems to require software to address problems with the large engine and the plane's form that other jets do not have. If a software patch can make the aircraft safe, then a bug can make it unsafe. Does the FAA validate all the aircraft software patches Boeing issues?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Robotbeat 7y ago
Boeing will definitely survive. It is a behemoth, both for export capital and for defense. Too big to fail. Also, lots of planes require software to be safe to fly. It’s just the way things are nowadays.
ReGenGen 7y ago
Other airliners w/ large turbofans have a pitch-up under climb/thrust characteristics. (like B777) We don't know if 737 MAX's pitch-up stall handling characteristics are really bad -or- just different from older 737's. MCAS was put in place to allow the MAX to be type certified w/ other 737's so 737 pilots could fly the 737 MAX and vice versa. (Airline pilots can only hold 1 type certification at a time.)
- acqq 7y ago
  > MCAS was put in place to allow the MAX to be type certified w/ other 737's But the expected behavior which MCAS was to provide was not something invented only for "other 737's." Whichever plane would behave as the MAX behaves without MCAS turned on would also be rejected from certification. Only Boeing being silent about MCAS is the effect of the goal of "avoiding re-certification." > We don't know I can't agree to that. Based on the above, I think it is obvious that we do know: 737 MAX without any MCAS-like help is dangerous to fly according to the security expectations which weren't specially invented for 737 MAX.
  - lmm 7y ago
    > But the expected behavior which MCAS was to provide was not something invented only for "other 737's." Whichever plane would behave as the MAX behaves without MCAS turned on would also be rejected from certification. No, it would have been a perfectly certifiable plane with a particular set of handling characteristics (including 777-like pitch-up). It just wouldn't be a 737, and would require its own type certificate. No-one's suggesting that large turbofan aircraft with pitch-up behaviour are inherently unsafe when flown by pilots appropriately trained and certified for them - otherwise the 777 would be grounded.
    - acqq 7y ago
      > No-one's suggesting that large turbofan aircraft with pitch-up behaviour are inherently unsafe It is as long it keeps 737 MAX body and engines and doesn’t have something like MCAS I.e. Inherently unsafe under conditions under which MCAS was supposed to turn on when properly functioning. The certification requirements are the result of the clear safety goals not something invented “just so.”
mschuster91 7y ago
It's not unsafe per se, the MCAS software is only required to avoid (expensive) new type rating and training for pilots.
- chipsa 7y ago
  MCAS is required for the 737 Max to be certified at all. To remove the requirement for MCAS would require enough changes to the aircraft to make it not a 737.
lagadu 7y ago
Boeing is a strategic asset for the US government, of course they're going to survive.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  Could you explain what you mean here, please?
  - michaelt 7y ago
    Boeing make a bunch of military aircraft, drones and missiles [1]. The US government might want to buy those in the future, so wants Boeing to stay in business. Hence, the government is unlikely to deal Boeing a killing blow. [1] http://www.boeing.com/defense/#/products-services http://www.boeing.com/defense/#/products-services
    - lagadu 7y ago
      Even when it comes to commercial aviation, the US wouldn't want to depend exclusively on foreign designed airplanes where they have far less influence.

bitexploder 7y ago

Fight Club math. It must have been cheaper to keep operating and pushing their narrative.

forgotmypw3 7y ago

From my understanding, they were also flying different planes, which had redundant backup circuits for the sensors, an optional feature with a price.

ulfw 7y ago

The most despicable thing besides all these that Boeing did was to start blaming the pilots, trying to use xenophobia and blaming it on 'third world' pilots first [1] though it was clear even from the start that there is nothing any pilot could have done so close to the ground [2]. That was disgusting and has me lose the last bit of sympathy I've had left for The Boeing Company. [1] https://www.inc.com/peter-economy/boeing-ceo-puts-partial-blame-on-pilots-of-crashed-737-max-aircraft-for-not-completely-following-procedures.html https://www.inc.com/peter-economy/boeing-ceo-puts-partial-bl... [2] https://www.ft.com/content/db8a09b8-56aa-11e9-a3db-1fe89bedc16e https://www.ft.com/content/db8a09b8-56aa-11e9-a3db-1fe89bedc...

sokoloff 7y ago
This was not just Boeing and was common across wide swaths of professional pilots. Based on conversations with pilots I know and trust and who flew with non-US, non-major-Western European (and Australia) carriers, I’m deeply skeptical of many foreign operators and their realized safety record does not match the US/AU/major EU air carriers. The second crash may have been avoided by timely application of the NNC procedure for runaway stab trim, right?
- inflatableDodo 7y ago
  >This was not just Boeing and was common across wide swaths of professional pilots. One of these two groups was in posession of a rather importantly wider set of information than the other.
- ReGenGen 7y ago
  The 2nd crash would have been prevented by Boeing listening to the American Airlines pilots’ union call to ground the MAX after the 1st crash. You can't put this one on foreign pilots, when American pilots called for grounding the MAX.
  - hitekker 7y ago
    Yeah, first paragraph of the GP was agreeable. Then the second one veered abruptly into weird corporate apologism. "Man if only those "other" victims weren't so dumb, then my favorite company wouldn't have to suffer bad PR!"

village-idiot 7y ago

The person who’s most committed to a plane’s safe operation is almost always going to be the person who dies if something goes wrong. That’s just kind of how human psychology works.