4 ms·
Are there any experts here who have read the report? If so I have two questions. 1) How qualified are the congressional investigators to evaluate technical de
by avsteele 6y ago
Are there any experts here who have read the report? If so I have two questions.
1) How qualified are the congressional investigators to evaluate technical decisions in the MCAS design?
2)Second point: Notably, the article is quite vague about the actual mistakes that where made. Is there any specific bad decisions it notes that would be errors without the benefit of hindsight?
- wil421 6y agoFor point 1 I don’t think it matters if they understand the technical design. As long as they understand the failures that led to a flawed design. Mostly likely the FAA trusting Boeing and a lot of managerial failures on Boeing due to management glossing over engineers and pilot feedback.
- salawat 6y agoI read the FAA's final report, and to be frank, I feel like many punches were pulled. There were mountains of evidence of a dysfunctional culture and cavalier attitude toward regulation at Boeing. Despite the punch pulling, there were also admissions that the plane (without the MCAS flight law) would not have passed certification requirements for carrying passengers, cementing a solid motive for regulatory obstruction and perception management. Mary a mention or touching on any of that in the report. It went to great lengths to show that the "process worked as followed" yet never addressed the issue that said process led to 346 deaths. It's frustrating, because I left the report with the feeling the conclusion was "Process is fine, people just need to follow it better" when the entire point of having a process is to take into account human capacity to err and designing it out. I think Representatives are basically applying their plank to the report. Which is bloody stupid, because they need to be reading between the lines and focusing on the problem, not whether their party leaders approve of their approach or output.