3 ms·

Your safety first rhetoric doesn’t hold up against any sort of practicality. Should the 777 have been grounded immediately when Asiana crashed? What about the 7

Your safety first rhetoric doesn’t hold up against any sort of practicality. Should the 777 have been grounded immediately when Asiana crashed? What about the 777 after Malaysia or its second which we still don’t know the cause of? the right thing was done after the second crash (and eventually by the FAA after it’s arm was twisted enough) but to say it should’ve been immediately grounded is missing the picture entirely.

akie 7y ago
> and eventually by the FAA after it’s arm was twisted enough There's a big part of the problem.
markdown 7y ago
> Your safety first rhetoric doesn’t hold up against any sort of practicality. Wow. I don't know how to respond to that. People who thought like you kept the planes in the air and the result was the completely preventable deaths of so many more. > Should the 777 have been grounded immediately when Asiana crashed? What about the 777 after Malaysia or its second which we still don’t know the cause of? Nope. Those aircraft have a very long history of safe flight, completely unlike a 737 MAX. The FAA isn't made up of laymen watching the news to find out about the planes. They knew before the first MAX took flight that it had been heavily modified to make bigger engines on an airframe that wasn't designed to support it. It knew about the MCAS hacks that were implemented to make sure the plane fought the pilots under certain circumstances. They knew that pilots hadn't been taught about MCAS. The moment the first plane went down and they got a look at the planes behaviour before it crashed, they would have suspected the cause. Yet they did nothing. They did the bidding of Boeing to ensure they'd have jobs when their stint with govt was over. It's the revolving door. Regulatory capture. Utter corruption leading to completely avoidable mass deaths.

akie 7y ago

> and eventually by the FAA after it’s arm was twisted enough There's a big part of the problem.

markdown 7y ago

> Your safety first rhetoric doesn’t hold up against any sort of practicality. Wow. I don't know how to respond to that. People who thought like you kept the planes in the air and the result was the completely preventable deaths of so many more. > Should the 777 have been grounded immediately when Asiana crashed? What about the 777 after Malaysia or its second which we still don’t know the cause of? Nope. Those aircraft have a very long history of safe flight, completely unlike a 737 MAX. The FAA isn't made up of laymen watching the news to find out about the planes. They knew before the first MAX took flight that it had been heavily modified to make bigger engines on an airframe that wasn't designed to support it. It knew about the MCAS hacks that were implemented to make sure the plane fought the pilots under certain circumstances. They knew that pilots hadn't been taught about MCAS. The moment the first plane went down and they got a look at the planes behaviour before it crashed, they would have suspected the cause. Yet they did nothing. They did the bidding of Boeing to ensure they'd have jobs when their stint with govt was over. It's the revolving door. Regulatory capture. Utter corruption leading to completely avoidable mass deaths.