4 ms·
Why, were talking about a fatal error in one small system on a huge and complex aircraft which is 90% the same as the previous iteration of this aircraft. We c
by kayfox 7y ago
Why, were talking about a fatal error in one small system on a huge and complex aircraft which is 90% the same as the previous iteration of this aircraft.
We can fix these things.
We should not be approaching engineering problems with emotional reactions to crashes. The airline industry is so incredibly safe because each crash is analyzed, the problems identified and solved. If two crashes mean we should scrap it, does that mean we just stop flying because every major aircraft type has had serious incidents.
No, we fix the problems and keep flying. You don't get better at something by giving up the first time you make a mistake.
- adrr 7y agoSomeone did the stats around the max 8. 300 lives lost in 3 years of operation and 400 planes in the sky. It is actually quite dangerous to fly and much more dangerous than driving when you compare by travel time and not distance. In comparison, A320 Neo and 787 have no hull losses and there's more of those planes in the sky than the maxes. 787s have been flying for almost 10 years.
- _ph_ 7y agoBoth losses were caused by the same faulty system, MCAS. I don't understand how can one make predictions about the safety of the plane with a fixed MCAS from the MCAS related crashes.
- tachion 7y agoBecause it's safer thing to do, when people lives are at risk. If it would be having some milk spilled or popcorn burnt, no one would try to make those overly precautious predictions. Also, because the plane has a bad track record, so it brought the scrutiny on itself.
- the-pigeon 7y agoMy understanding is not that at all. From what I've read the engines that were the whole point of the plan just didn't work physics wise because they were too big for the 737 frame that their required placement moved the center of gravity to a bad spot. Instead of scraping the idea as they should've they did a software fix. You can't solve a bad aircraft design with software. You can patch it but it leaves you open to all sorts of issues. Issues we've now clearly seen have killed people. Issues that people have claimed were known about (how would the engineers not know?) but were sweep under the rug in the name of profits. When people knowingly endanger other's lives in the name of profits they should face a trial and be judged.