4 ms·

Since Boeing has taken the path of seeing what they can get away with the only appropriate response from the regulators is not to allow them the slightest devia

Since Boeing has taken the path of seeing what they can get away with the only appropriate response from the regulators is not to allow them the slightest deviation. If the 737 Maxes can't be adequately fixed then send them back, refund the purchase price.

pdonis 7y ago
It's not enough to just regulate this on the 737 MAX. This wiring is the same on every single 737, of any model, that is in service. That includes airplanes that have been flying for decades with no incidents. Do you want to ground them all?
- Zenbit_UX 7y ago
  You're point is addressed already in the article when they stated that the original 737s were grandfathered in before the new regulation came into effect. So no, they've successfully gotten away with it on older models but I do agree with the GP that regulatory agencies need to set a firm precedent to deter other manufacturers from playi g fast and loose with the rules.
  - pdonis 7y ago
    > the original 737s were grandfathered in before the new regulation came into effect Yes, I know that. Presumably the same would apply to other aircraft models certified before 2009 (when the new wiring regulation was issued) that might have the same problem (as I posted elsewhere in this discussion, it's quite possible that other aircraft types certified before 2009 have the same problem--we don't know because nobody has looked). However, if we're willing to not do anything to all those planes, even though we now know they have a potential issue, then we can't just insist on doing something to 737 MAX planes either, since the cost-benefit calculation in both cases is the same: we have a bunch of planes already in service, we now know there's an issue with them, do we fix it or not? > regulatory agencies need to set a firm precedent to deter other manufacturers from playing fast and loose with the rules For any 737 MAX aircraft that have not yet flown, I would agree with you. However, tearing apart aircraft that have already been flown to fix this issue might cause more problems than it solves. The teardown would be extensive and any repair that extensive risks introducing some other issue that didn't exist before and which could cause problems in the future. That makes it a different cost-benefit calculation. I certainly agree that Boeing should not be the ones making that calculation. It would be nice if the FAA didn't either, but had some other agency such as the NTSB do the root cause analysis to estimate the relative risk of doing the repair on already flown planes vs. not doing it.
- pinkfoot 7y ago
  The space shuttle also flew for along time without problems. Until … it didn’t.
  - pdonis 7y ago
    > The space shuttle also flew for along time without problems. No, it didn't. There were plenty of problems prior to the flight that lost the Challenger, and plenty of problems prior to the flight that lost Columbia. NASA management just refused to pay attention to the engineers that were telling them there were problems.
    - rbanffy 7y ago
      In fact, it's quite a miracle only two were lost. I was absolutely shocked that only after the Columbia accident the underside of the craft was inspected in orbit. It shocks me that in more than a hundred flights, nobody in NASA management had enough curiosity to force someone to look for significant tile damage made during the ascent. Learning how to build and fly things in air and space is pretty much the agency's job description.

pdonis 7y ago

It's not enough to just regulate this on the 737 MAX. This wiring is the same on every single 737, of any model, that is in service. That includes airplanes that have been flying for decades with no incidents. Do you want to ground them all?

Zenbit_UX 7y ago
You're point is addressed already in the article when they stated that the original 737s were grandfathered in before the new regulation came into effect. So no, they've successfully gotten away with it on older models but I do agree with the GP that regulatory agencies need to set a firm precedent to deter other manufacturers from playi g fast and loose with the rules.
- pdonis 7y ago
  > the original 737s were grandfathered in before the new regulation came into effect Yes, I know that. Presumably the same would apply to other aircraft models certified before 2009 (when the new wiring regulation was issued) that might have the same problem (as I posted elsewhere in this discussion, it's quite possible that other aircraft types certified before 2009 have the same problem--we don't know because nobody has looked). However, if we're willing to not do anything to all those planes, even though we now know they have a potential issue, then we can't just insist on doing something to 737 MAX planes either, since the cost-benefit calculation in both cases is the same: we have a bunch of planes already in service, we now know there's an issue with them, do we fix it or not? > regulatory agencies need to set a firm precedent to deter other manufacturers from playing fast and loose with the rules For any 737 MAX aircraft that have not yet flown, I would agree with you. However, tearing apart aircraft that have already been flown to fix this issue might cause more problems than it solves. The teardown would be extensive and any repair that extensive risks introducing some other issue that didn't exist before and which could cause problems in the future. That makes it a different cost-benefit calculation. I certainly agree that Boeing should not be the ones making that calculation. It would be nice if the FAA didn't either, but had some other agency such as the NTSB do the root cause analysis to estimate the relative risk of doing the repair on already flown planes vs. not doing it.
pinkfoot 7y ago
The space shuttle also flew for along time without problems. Until … it didn’t.
- pdonis 7y ago
  > The space shuttle also flew for along time without problems. No, it didn't. There were plenty of problems prior to the flight that lost the Challenger, and plenty of problems prior to the flight that lost Columbia. NASA management just refused to pay attention to the engineers that were telling them there were problems.
  - rbanffy 7y ago
    In fact, it's quite a miracle only two were lost. I was absolutely shocked that only after the Columbia accident the underside of the craft was inspected in orbit. It shocks me that in more than a hundred flights, nobody in NASA management had enough curiosity to force someone to look for significant tile damage made during the ascent. Learning how to build and fly things in air and space is pretty much the agency's job description.