4 ms·

Yeah, that headline is atrocious. And quite a bit of the content of the article is about the 2018 law which is basically irrelevant to the flawed approval of t

• salawat 7y ago
  So, after having a clear demonstration that the industry is clearly unable to be trusted to put public safety above deadlines in a more stringent regulatory environment, we shouldn't give pause to the fact we just let slip even more rein? I mean, I get what you're saying, however, in programming there is a practice whereby on discovery of a bad implementation pattern, you start thinking of where else this pattern may have been used. That seems to be being demonstrated in this article.
  • dnautics 7y ago
    To an inexperienced reader it is highly confusing. I myself had to take pause and look up the date of FAA approval of the MAX.
    • mannykannot 7y ago
      To be fair, the title is accurate as written and raises a point that is relevant in its own right, especially as the FAA's approval of Boeing's response to the first crash was given under the new law. Furthermore, the article explicitly states that MCAS was initially approved under the old law. If one is going to speculate beyond what is explicitly stated in the title, part of that speculation might well include the thought that if the change occurred before MCAS was approved, the title would likely have said that instead.
    • hannibalhorn 7y ago
      Not to mention the NYT is paywalled, and I suspect some folks might jump to conclusions before jumping through the hoops to read the article... :-)