4 ms·
> We know because hundreds of people died in the airframe. Since both crashes were caused by malfunctioning software, this doesn't tell you anything about the
by rrss 7y ago
> We know because hundreds of people died in the airframe.
Since both crashes were caused by malfunctioning software, this doesn't tell you anything about the fundamental soundness of the airframe.
> We know the MCAS was a workaround to an aerodynamics problem
MCAS was a workaround to make the plane handle more like a 737. The existing handling was fine by itself (not 'fundamentally flawed'), it just didn't match the 737.
> How do you argue what they did and are continuing to do is just in this situation?
I don't see where I did that. I just don't think there is any evidence that the airframe is actually fundamentally unsafe.
- bronson 7y agoThe software is a fundamental part of the airframe. You can’t separate the two and still have an airplane rated for flight.
- rrss 7y ago> Keep talking about the software. Make it about the software, so no one knows the airframe is fundamentally flawed. It's pretty clear that the author of the comment I originally responded to was not considering software.
- bronson 7y agoTheir point was about the way Boeing is trying (and mostly succeeding) in steering media coverage about the MAX-8. (If Boeing keeps discussion on the micro issues, maybe they won't have to publicly address a macro problem). Their comment doesn't take a position on whether software is a fundamental part of the airframe or not. Yours does.