3 ms·
Yeah, the regulatory capture is almost as disturbing as the initial incompetence. Personally I’ve opted for an Airbus option every chance I’ve had since the sec
by TechBro8615 4y ago
Yeah, the regulatory capture is almost as disturbing as the initial incompetence. Personally I’ve opted for an Airbus option every chance I’ve had since the second 737-MAX incident, and have paid more for it on a few occasions.
- landemva 4y agoSame here and I intend to never get on a MAX. The MAX design should have gone through a new type certification process when the engine mounts were changed so the big fans could sort-of fit under the wings without scrapping the runway. It's regulatory fraud to not do the proper type certification. Looking at factories which assemble an unsafe design is theater to distract the public.
- grepfru_it 4y agoThe mounts alone would not have caused that, see the 747 as an example of an aircraft that can support different pylons based on one of the three different type of engines used without recertification. What requires recertification is the change in handling specifications (forward mounted engines changes the center of gravity, larger engines which change performance envelope) My understanding is that there is mandatory training for MAX pilots that airlines must track, but it does not require a new type certification. The latter is likely due to regulatory capture, southwest has the largest fleet of 737s and did not want to recertify their pilots[0] [0] https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/legal-filing-reveals-southwest-airlines-proposed-a-ploy-to-deceive-faa-on-boeing-737-max/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/legal...