4 ms·
I know the broader context is that Boeing has some fundamentally broken culture with regards to safety. Setting that aside I think it's perfectly reasonable to
by SilverBirch 3y ago
I know the broader context is that Boeing has some fundamentally broken culture with regards to safety. Setting that aside I think it's perfectly reasonable to have a system were you can say "Hey, we have this problem, it has this impact, it occurs in the following situations. We'll fix it, but in the meantime we want an exemption to keep flying and we'll restrict the use to the following situations where the issue cannot occur." As long as that process is rigorous, it's not actually a problem. The broader problem is Boeing can't be trusted.
It's like when you go to the doctor and say "My knee hurts the day after I play basket ball" - you know what he's going to tell you - stop playing basketball. Sometimes you can be safe by just... not doing a particular thing.
- lnxg33k1 3y agoAfaik they also thought that MCAS was so safe that the pilots didn’t even have to know about its existence
- ikekkdcjkfke 3y agoThe pilots must've been absolutely pissed discovering that the stick wasn't following their commands, and Boeing gaslighting by denying MCAS existed. That there even exists a condition where the stick/steering can ignore direct commands given is insane to me.