3 ms·
On what basis? They're trying to fix a fundamental aerodynamic design failure with a software patch. The entire physical design if the airplane is flawed, and t
by vikramkr 7y ago
On what basis? They're trying to fix a fundamental aerodynamic design failure with a software patch. The entire physical design if the airplane is flawed, and they arent rebuilding the entire fleet, just pushing another software patch.
- guilhermetk 7y agoNo OP so I can't comment on his source, but I heard the exact same statement from a maintenance engineer who works on Boeing aircrafts for over 30 years (https://www.linkedin.com/in/joselitosousa https://www.linkedin.com/in/joselitosousa). He also owns a youtube channel on which he discuss mainly aviation (pt/br) (https://www.youtube.com/avioesemusicas https://www.youtube.com/avioesemusicas)
- gbersac 7y agoits youtube is in spanish. Sad.
- MaxBarraclough 7y agoA downside of there being so many threads on this fiasco is that many of the same points get made each time. I'll post the usual counterpoint: this isn't a new. The F-16 for instance is also famously unstable, and cannot be flown without computer assistance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon#Negative_stability_and_fly-by-wire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting...
- brokenmachine 7y agoGeneral Dynamics never claimed the F-16 was just a slightly modified Cessna in order to avoid having to retrain pilots and have it safety tested, however.
- brokenmachine 7y agoAs I understand it, the 737 itself is not flawed, but when you add huge new engines that need to be much further forward just so they don't hit the ground, that's what makes it unstable. The whole problem was that they were trying to pass off an airplane that now has very different handling characteristics as a 737, in order to avoid retraining and proper safety testing.