4 ms·

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

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.

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.