5 ms·

Chances are, these will be safe. Because one more crash even remotely related, would spell complete doom for Boeing. No recovering that one, ever.

by pcurve 6y ago

outworlder 6y ago
The DC-10 recovered. It was grounded, returned to service, crashed again. Eventually, it became safe. And eventually the public forgot about the issues. The bigger problem is that you have a company that decided that a single sensor driving a safety-critical system was sufficient, even though they have two (and even that is not enough, such systems should have three). For a new system that was introduced and not explained to pilots, because that was the goal. It even made the "AOA disagree" warning _an optional feature_. Or, more specifically, it made the AOA indicator an optional feature, and the AOA disagree feature was tied to that. They knew about it, but didn't inform anyone. Including the FAA. So now we trust that same company to make the plane safe. Why?
- adamredwoods 6y ago
  I never knew, thanks for the information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191
- foldr 6y ago
  To be fair, it makes sense that the AOA indicator/disagree features were optional since airliners generally don't have AOI indicators in the cockpit and airline pilots generally aren't trained to use AOA information. These features were targeted at airlines who have lots of ex-military pilots. Their potential safety significance is probably more obvious in retrospect.
canada_dry 6y ago
I believe the FAA should have insisted that the MAX get several hundred hours in the air - e.g. flying for courier companies over Christmas peak - BEFORE recertifying it for public use.
- dghlsakjg 6y ago
  Why would that be better than the hundreds of hours of flight testing that they have done since the plane was grounded? Everyday flights are as boring as possible on purpose, you do everything you can to keep the plane away from the limits. Flight testing inverts that. You run everything to the limit, and beyond, to see if it is possible for systems to fail.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    While that's true, the flight testing is done by skilled pilots, while courier flights could be done by some who's really scraping yhe barrel.
  - dingaling 6y ago
    > Everyday flights are as boring as possible on purpose But the frequency of flights increases the probability of an unusual or unforeseen event occurring, or tested events occurring but in combination. Just like beta testing. It's also how the Soviet regulators certified their aircraft, they required them to operate for a year or more on cargo and mail flights so that they were exposed to a wide range of environmental and operational scenarios. > Everyday flights are as boring as possible on purpose So were the commercial 737 Max flights, yet here we are.

Chances are, these will be safe. Because one more crash even remotely related, would spell complete doom for Boeing. No recovering that one, ever.

by pcurve 6y ago

Chances are, these will be safe. Because one more crash even remotely related, would spell complete doom for Boeing. No recovering that one, ever.

outworlder 6y ago

The DC-10 recovered. It was grounded, returned to service, crashed again. Eventually, it became safe. And eventually the public forgot about the issues. The bigger problem is that you have a company that decided that a single sensor driving a safety-critical system was sufficient, even though they have two (and even that is not enough, such systems should have three). For a new system that was introduced and not explained to pilots, because that was the goal. It even made the "AOA disagree" warning _an optional feature_. Or, more specifically, it made the AOA indicator an optional feature, and the AOA disagree feature was tied to that. They knew about it, but didn't inform anyone. Including the FAA. So now we trust that same company to make the plane safe. Why?

adamredwoods 6y ago
I never knew, thanks for the information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191
foldr 6y ago
To be fair, it makes sense that the AOA indicator/disagree features were optional since airliners generally don't have AOI indicators in the cockpit and airline pilots generally aren't trained to use AOA information. These features were targeted at airlines who have lots of ex-military pilots. Their potential safety significance is probably more obvious in retrospect.

canada_dry 6y ago

I believe the FAA should have insisted that the MAX get several hundred hours in the air - e.g. flying for courier companies over Christmas peak - BEFORE recertifying it for public use.

dghlsakjg 6y ago
Why would that be better than the hundreds of hours of flight testing that they have done since the plane was grounded? Everyday flights are as boring as possible on purpose, you do everything you can to keep the plane away from the limits. Flight testing inverts that. You run everything to the limit, and beyond, to see if it is possible for systems to fail.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  While that's true, the flight testing is done by skilled pilots, while courier flights could be done by some who's really scraping yhe barrel.
- dingaling 6y ago
  > Everyday flights are as boring as possible on purpose But the frequency of flights increases the probability of an unusual or unforeseen event occurring, or tested events occurring but in combination. Just like beta testing. It's also how the Soviet regulators certified their aircraft, they required them to operate for a year or more on cargo and mail flights so that they were exposed to a wide range of environmental and operational scenarios. > Everyday flights are as boring as possible on purpose So were the commercial 737 Max flights, yet here we are.