3 ms·

I'm surprised nobody is discussing this paragraph from the article: > The failure scenario was known previously and had been assessed in a safety analysis when

I'm surprised nobody is discussing this paragraph from the article: > The failure scenario was known previously and had been assessed in a safety analysis when the plane was certified before entering service in 2017. At that time, Boeing concluded that pilots could overcome the nose-down movement by performing a procedure to shut off the motor driving the stabilizer movement. This isn't a new fault. Boeing certified this as safe along with MCAS back when the aircraft first flew in 2017, using the same justifications ("pilots can overcome it"). They weren't going to fix it this time either, except test pilots ran across it in late-stage simulations monitored by the FAA and found it wasn't as easy to overcome as Boeing had been asserting in their cost-safety analysis (just like MCAS) and now the FAA are requiring a fix. Has Boeing learned anything from MCAS? The company has cultural problems vis-à-vis safety. I'm just glad the FAA are doing their job this time around.

linuxftw 7y ago
The FAA is only doing their job this time around because the rest of the entire planet, literally, was grounding the aircraft while the FAA baselessly stated the aircraft was safe. This is all stuff that should have been investigated after the first crash, not the second. Has Boeing learned anything? Of course not. There are no executives facing jail time, or even fines! They're shameless frauds that outsourced their critical systems to the lowest bidder with predictable results.
ricardobeat 7y ago
I’ve only recently started following the air industry more closely, but isn’t it ironic that Boeing, the one on the “direct control” side vs computerized systems from AirBus, is the one now suffering from software and automation failures? I wonder if it might be a consequence of being a late adopter, and rushing the development of systems they never had before.
- ulfw 7y ago
  The only reason Boeing is in the “direct control” business is because their best seller is from the 1960s and they don’t dare touch it. Their newer wide bodies 777 and 787 are fly-by-wire and in the latter case even fully electric to a fault.

linuxftw 7y ago

The FAA is only doing their job this time around because the rest of the entire planet, literally, was grounding the aircraft while the FAA baselessly stated the aircraft was safe. This is all stuff that should have been investigated after the first crash, not the second. Has Boeing learned anything? Of course not. There are no executives facing jail time, or even fines! They're shameless frauds that outsourced their critical systems to the lowest bidder with predictable results.

ricardobeat 7y ago

I’ve only recently started following the air industry more closely, but isn’t it ironic that Boeing, the one on the “direct control” side vs computerized systems from AirBus, is the one now suffering from software and automation failures? I wonder if it might be a consequence of being a late adopter, and rushing the development of systems they never had before.

ulfw 7y ago
The only reason Boeing is in the “direct control” business is because their best seller is from the 1960s and they don’t dare touch it. Their newer wide bodies 777 and 787 are fly-by-wire and in the latter case even fully electric to a fault.