3 ms·
Boeing's main argument seems to be that, even if the pilot forgets, the overall risk isn't worth the remediation: In its petition to the FAA, Boeing argues the
by wolverine876 3y ago
Boeing's main argument seems to be that, even if the pilot forgets, the overall risk isn't worth the remediation:
In its petition to the FAA, Boeing argues the breakup of the engine nacelle is “extremely improbable” and that an exemption will not reduce safety.
“The 737 MAX has been in service since 2017 and has accumulated over 6.5 million flight hours. In that time, there have been no reported cases of parts departing aircraft due to overheating of the engine nacelle inlet structure,” the filing states.
- jbverschoor 3y agoWho forgot to file the reports?
- falserum 3y agoMail from pacific ocean floor is slow or it’s a separate case?
- WesolyKubeczek 3y ago> “extremely improbable” Read: happens at least twice a week
- dtgriscom 3y ago> no reported cases of parts departing aircraft due to... Wow, that's a great phrase. "No reported cases" is a serious weasel-phrase, and "parts departing aircraft" is much easier to take than "things falling off planes."
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- notatoad 3y ago"no reported cases" is a lot less of a weasel-phrase in an industry that has mandatory reporting of these things.
- pi-e-sigma 3y agoNo, it's not because it doesn't define who it would be reported to. So it could be not reported to FAA, or Boing, or a person responsible for this specific design or anybody really, perfectly shedding any responsibility whatsoever.
- tim333 3y agoA bit more info from a pilot on r/aviation >I fly the MAX. That switch is left on all the time by accident. If it was a catastrophic issue we certainly would already know. https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/18z8mk6/737_max_deicing_hazard/kghdn6f/ https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/18z8mk6/737_max_d... which I guess is reassuring in a way.