> how can one wake up in the morning and seek for a safety exemption regarding
It's because planes with this same issue are currently flying and it's an easily managed issue (i.e. don't use it when certain conditions happen).
Boeing was hoping to add another model to the list of planes currently grandfathered in, but decided not to do that and instead fix it, and then back-port the fix to the currently flying planes.
> So why fly on a 737MAX when any other plane out there is safer?
Well no one can fly one right now as they are all grounded. However, once they get approval for a fix from all countries, the airplanes get updated with said fix, and the pilots get whatever training required for the fix and thus can start flying again, why not fly them? Presumably, that failure type should never happen again and its record seems fine outside of this 1 problem.
> Boeing wants FAA to exempt MAX 7 from safety rules to get it in the air
I bet they do and the FAA should rightly tell them to fuck off if they're not willing to go through the formal procedure to get their proven-dangerous planes back into commercial aviation.
> We are talking about an industry that consistently chooses safety above all else, regardless of profits and minor inconveniences. And for some reason that just doesn't seem to be the case here.
Or maybe it is the case here. We all seem to think it's obvious Boeing should ground this plane and yet they aren't. I hope Boeing aren't idiots and are making their decisions based on engineering factors we don't have.
> IMO it is proven that Boeing does not care about your safety, they just asked for an exception for a safety requirement, putting the passanger safety responsibility on pilots training and memory because fixing the issue the proper way would cost time and money and that is more important then safety
That's a rather uncharitable take on what they are asking for which is a temporary reprieve over a pretty minor risk.
> Boeing states it is working on a "long-term solution" for the problem, which would be rolled out across the entire global Boeing 737 MAX fleet. The FAA confirmed this, stating that Boeing is looking at design changes.
> while we are confident that the proposed time-limited exemption for that system follows established FAA processes to ensure safe operation, we will instead incorporate an engineering solution that will be completed during the certification process.
Emphasis mine.
Boeing literally said they won’t seek an exemption and will instead engineer a solution.
It should haven't been flown in the first place, as it breaks the rule of having a full-authority control system dependent on a single non-redundant sensor.
Boeing got approval for a limited-authority control system, and then modified it to be full-authority without redoing the paperwork. They KNOWINGLY LIED on the type certification documentation. If they wouldn't have lied the aircraft wouldn't have gotten of the ground in the first place.
> Boeing does not actually have the authority to ground aircraft
They do, it's called an Airworthiness Directive and a manufacturer can ask for it and FAA will comply. Even if the FAA is un-operative due to a US government shutdown, they could've notified EASA, CAA, etc. to prevent a knowingly-faulty plane from flying. They CHOSE to cover it.
> the FAA does something that needlessly costs the airline
industry lots of money
Try to balance corporate greed vs safety, and it won't end well because lives of people some place far away don't have monetary value to FAA. Safety MUST be paramount in all aspects, trumping profit, because otherwise people will die.
> As has been pointed out several times already, this is not a Boeing problem. It affects practically every major aircraft manufacturer.
1) I never stated the radar issue was only Boeing’s “problem” previously, I stated it’s yet another example of a mess they are in which ultimately boils back to a “move fast and break things” attitude being a major cause (just in this case, it was more the FCC to blame for that attitude)
2) It ultimately is their problem to solve for the airframes they sold however, whether it was their fault or not.
> If anything, Boeing has been very proactive about identifying the affected equipment well before any accidents happen. This is precisely what they should be doing.
Link to the ADs from Boeing saying which models are susceptible? I hadn’t seen that
> airlines not wanting to bear the cost of training pilots to a new aircraft type.
This is a perfectly reasonable request by the airlines. Some airlines rely on the operational efficiency of a single aircraft type. It lets them interchange parts and people and not have to worry that the wrong airplane is in the wrong spot.
What is NOT reasonable was Boeing providing an aircraft that actually had MAJOR differences yet claiming it was the same.
And what makes it particularly stupid is no airline that relies on a single airplane type is going to switch from Boeing to Airbus because they would have to migrate their entire fleet en masse. So Boeing had plenty of time to certify the 737 MAX airframe properly.
> To be frank, if I worked at the FAA, I'd be kicking and screaming to resolve any level of concern raised by engineers in good faith before giving the go ahead.
I agree and I'd like to add that in my opinion the airplane now needs to actually be better than its competitors.
If it isn't and there is another accident (big or small, that might or might not involve deaths but which might even slightly be related to MCAS or other systems having similar design flaws) then I think that there would be again another (bigger?) round of repercussions: for the plane itself, for Boeing and for the FAA.
Saying this because I imagine that a negative event might become a final public and/or political confirmation that 1) the FAA & Boing cannot be trusted and that 2) the airplane has just too many flaws that need to be addressed.
Therefore, to avoid this, the plane must be absolutely rock-solid otherwise if anything happens people will immediately ask Boeing and especially FAA "why did you create/approve this thing - are you incompetent and/or stupid and/or unscrupulous?".
> It will probably be the best reviewed passenger plane software developed in America, if not the world once this is over.
The problem is that this is not actually a software problem. It’s an airplane design problem, and Boeing is trying to convince you that it’s just the software.
Even if the software is perfect, this plane remains a flying coffin until it is redesigned from scratch.
I don't think it's only Boeing airplanes where the autopilot will resist your attempts to override it with manual control inputs. If anything, I kinda expect that Airbus planes are even more opinionated about that type of behavior.
>because right now it looks like they cut some corners, the FAA let them, and families are mourning. Pilot error isn’t really the issue, it’s engineering, process, and training.
That doesn’t seem like engineering, process, nor training.
That looks like something connected to large scale corporate profit.
How did Boeing manage to gain self reporting to the FAA?
It's because planes with this same issue are currently flying and it's an easily managed issue (i.e. don't use it when certain conditions happen).
Boeing was hoping to add another model to the list of planes currently grandfathered in, but decided not to do that and instead fix it, and then back-port the fix to the currently flying planes.
reply