3 ms·
> the range is double, so that 737's can fly globe-spanning international routes now (this is game-changing) And the price for that was the 737 Max, which cann
by dreamcompiler 7y ago
> the range is double, so that 737's can fly globe-spanning international routes now (this is game-changing)
And the price for that was the 737 Max, which cannot be made to fly safely but at least it only barely sips fuel when it crashes. Thank goodness it was designed by bean-counters rather than engineers.
This reminds me of a line from Snow Crash describing kids' pajamas, which can either be flameproof or non-toxic but never both at the same time.
- _-___________-_ 7y ago> cannot be made to fly safely I doubt that very much. If the 737 MAX never flies again, it will be because of the same much-increased aversion to risk in modern society that the article describes, not because the design cannot be made safe.
- bawolff 7y agoIsn't it the opposite? Boeing cut corners with the 737 MAX. As a result bad things happened. If boeing had an appropriate aversion to risk they would be in a better place. Instead they took reckless risks and now they are screwed.
- redis_mlc 7y agoI wasn't referring to the 737 Max. Anyway it has a sensor system problem, not an engine problem.
- signaturefish 7y ago737-Max's problem started in the engines, from an informed outsider's perspective (it was an attempt to graft an engine with too large a nacelle to an aging airframe design). The sensor failure precipitated the crash, but it was not the only thing at fault.
- imtringued 7y agoThe 737 max crash was caused by software whose only purpose is exploiting loop holes in a law so that they do not have to recertify pilots for the new plane. The 737 Max can be flown safely without the compliance software but then nobody would have a license to fly the aircraft.