2 ms·
>Sure you can say the plane was structurally fine, but this is semantics, they created a plane that was unstable because it was cheaper. In the aerospace indus
by na85 7y ago
>Sure you can say the plane was structurally fine, but this is semantics, they created a plane that was unstable because it was cheaper.
In the aerospace industry, semantics matter. "Structurally deficient" implies that the aircraft structure itself (i.e. the spars, ribs, load-bearing skin, etc.) is unsafe. This is not accurate, and neither is it accurate to say the MAX is "unstable". These are terms of art with precise engineering meanings.
Precision in language matters, and to dismiss it as "semantics" pre-empts any meaningful discussion of the issue at hand. It's like saying float vs char is "semantics". Those differences matter.
- codingslave 7y agoYes it is accurate. The plane crashed twice. They put engines on top of the plane that weren't made for the body.
- na85 7y agoIt did crash twice, but not because it is structurally unsound. And not because it is unstable. edit: Also, when you say the engines were put "on top of the plane" it makes me question if you've ever actually seen a MAX 8.
- TylerE 7y agoYou should stop posting about issues that you are completely clueless about. I'd point out where you're wrong, but in short: everything.
- sokoloff 7y agoWell, the plane did crash twice. Everything else seems wrong though.