3 ms·

What's the problem with the airframe? The #1 problem with the airframe is that it is not identical to the original 737 airframe. Therefore it shouldn't have be

by tremon 7y ago

What's the problem with the airframe? The #1 problem with the airframe is that it is not identical to the original 737 airframe. Therefore it shouldn't have been certified as a 737, and it should have required pilot training. Boeing has been using software to emulate a 737 airframe to avoid the pilot training costs. This approach itself is fraught with problems, and I hope the FAA puts a hard stop to these non-solutions.

magduf 7y ago
I'd like to see the European and Chinese aviation authorities put a hard stop to these non-solutions if the FAA doesn't. At this point, I don't think the FAA is at all trustworthy; they've proven themselves untrustworthy with the way they handled the certification of this turkey and how they were literally the last aviation authority in the world to ground the plane.
cmurf 7y ago
The 757 and 767 do not have identical airframes, they share a type certificate. The Airbus 320 and 340 do not have identical airframes, they share a type certificate. I think you do not understand type certification. The 737 MAX airframe is substantially more like a 737 NG airframe, than a 757 is to a 767. Etc. It sounds like you have a problem with how airplanes are type certified, not a problem with the airframe.
- tremon 7y ago
  Rather, I have a problem with airplanes falling out of the sky because pilots don't understand what they're flying, and airplane manufacturers trying to obfuscate their machinery. The details of how and why are secondary to that.
  - cmurf 7y ago
    I think literally everyone has a problem with airplanes falling out of the sky. Anyone saying otherwise is perhaps a comedian. So I still have to insist you work harder to refine your complaint. The complaint is legitimate, but it's also ordinary. To contribute to the conversation you have to bring something a little bit more than just the ordinary. Indeed, it might very well be questionable that the 757 and 767 have the same type rating. But then, even though they have the same type rating they do still have difference training. Is iPad difference training really adequate? Who evaluated this? Were there contrary opinions?

by tremon 7y ago

magduf 7y ago

I'd like to see the European and Chinese aviation authorities put a hard stop to these non-solutions if the FAA doesn't. At this point, I don't think the FAA is at all trustworthy; they've proven themselves untrustworthy with the way they handled the certification of this turkey and how they were literally the last aviation authority in the world to ground the plane.

cmurf 7y ago

The 757 and 767 do not have identical airframes, they share a type certificate. The Airbus 320 and 340 do not have identical airframes, they share a type certificate. I think you do not understand type certification. The 737 MAX airframe is substantially more like a 737 NG airframe, than a 757 is to a 767. Etc. It sounds like you have a problem with how airplanes are type certified, not a problem with the airframe.

tremon 7y ago
Rather, I have a problem with airplanes falling out of the sky because pilots don't understand what they're flying, and airplane manufacturers trying to obfuscate their machinery. The details of how and why are secondary to that.
- cmurf 7y ago
  I think literally everyone has a problem with airplanes falling out of the sky. Anyone saying otherwise is perhaps a comedian. So I still have to insist you work harder to refine your complaint. The complaint is legitimate, but it's also ordinary. To contribute to the conversation you have to bring something a little bit more than just the ordinary. Indeed, it might very well be questionable that the 757 and 767 have the same type rating. But then, even though they have the same type rating they do still have difference training. Is iPad difference training really adequate? Who evaluated this? Were there contrary opinions?