This was long overdue. A terrible amount of damage done to the company starting with the deaths of all those Boeing MAX passengers in those two crashes.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
all the way to his accountant to count the moneySomeone's head has gotta roll.
What I don’t understand is why they can’t just disable MCAS and certify the airplane without it.
The 737 has flown for fifty years without that kind of automation so it’s clearly not required for flight, to me anyway.
Because they put oversized engines on the plane to get the fuel efficiency. Oversized in terms of height.
Then because the ground clearance on this plane is low for terminals they had to move the engines forward. They are way ahead of the wing.
Because the engines are forward, under high acceleration the nose goes up which will cause a stall.
Ldn
This, they basically have a design flaw that they tried to computer program out as the billions of dollars spent on the new 737 design over the past decade that they couldn't just throw away and start from scratch again. Surprised that the flaw was not caught way earlier in the design process and suspect that this was known many, many years ago but nobody wanted to scrap the work that they had done up until that time so it just kept going and going.
Really a tragedy in of itself that this occurred.Remember when people were trying to make it the pilots' fault?
Remember when people were trying to make it the pilots' fault?
They didn't need to be trained - that is why there was MCAS. As far as poor maintenance both were brand new aircraft. Perhaps bad equipment, or improperly installed equipment, but not poor maintenance.Insufficient pilot training and poor aircraft maintenance is what exposed the MCAS limitations to begin with.
I thought it was all the dead passengersInsufficient pilot training and poor aircraft maintenance is what exposed the MCAS limitations to begin with.
But, MCAS was changed from it's original design and that is where the problems began leading to two aircraft falling out of the sky shortly after takeoff. There was no training for the updated MCAS and there should have been. It's a really big problem for Boeing.Insufficient pilot training and poor aircraft maintenance is what exposed the MCAS limitations to begin with.
They didn't need to be trained - that is why there was MCAS. As far as poor maintenance both were brand new aircraft. Perhaps bad equipment, or improperly installed equipment, but not poor maintenance.
What I don’t understand is why they can’t just disable MCAS and certify the airplane without it.
The 737 has flown for fifty years without that kind of automation so it’s clearly not required for flight, to me anyway.
Kinda like Ford calling all of their pickups "F Series" when an F-350 has nothing in common with an F-150 past sheetmetalBecause for all intents and purposes, the 737MAX is a different airframe than the 737-800 and it’s predecessors... curioys as to why Boeing chose to retain the 737 naming standard
They didn't need to be trained - that is why there was MCAS. As far as poor maintenance both were brand new aircraft. Perhaps bad equipment, or improperly installed equipment, but not poor maintenance.
Yeah, that always turns out to be the case.i guarantee that there were risk meetings held where this 'flaw' was discussed and eventualy somebody in upper management made the decision to ignore it as the cost of not ignoring it was going to be hundreds of millions of dollars. Zero chance that a bunch of Boeing engineers just 'missed' this flaw.
Good explanation, yours along with others. I didn’t know the airframe was changed so much.Because for all intents and purposes, the 737MAX is a different airframe than the 737-800 and it’s predecessors... curioys as to why Boeing chose to retain the 737 naming standard
0This was long overdue. A terrible amount of damage done to the company starting with the deaths of all those Boeing MAX passengers in those two crashes.
F stands for Ford. The number denotes weight capacity. 150, 1500 pounds, 250 2500 pounds. Of course the bigger trucks are built on a stronger platform.Kinda like Ford calling all of their pickups "F Series" when an F-350 has nothing in common with an F-150 past sheetmetal
Yep, and that was the result of Boeing migrating to the new age model of letting the financial types be the ultimate decision makers. Didn't work so well for Boeing. I think it was New York Magazine that had an interesting article on this subject.i guarantee that there were risk meetings held where this 'flaw' was discussed and eventualy somebody in upper management made the decision to ignore it as the cost of not ignoring it was going to be hundreds of millions of dollars. Zero chance that a bunch of Boeing engineers just 'missed' this flaw.
I know all that- but that's not why they call them "F Series"F stands for Ford. The number denotes weight capacity. 150, 1500 pounds, 250 2500 pounds. Of course the bigger trucks are built on a stronger platform.
Yep, and that was the result of Boeing migrating to the new age model of letting the financial types be the ultimate decision makers. Didn't work so well for Boeing. I think it was New York Magazine that had an interesting article on this subject.
Collateral damage. If you’re a sociopath, you don’t give a shit about others. Upper management certainly won’t be in those planesYeah, that always turns out to be the case.
Pretty amazing they rely on a single sensor. The safety mantra for decades has been redundancy, redundancy, redundancy. Always, but always, have a backup systemThe MCAS system was originally intended to read input from two sensors, but in its final version it was programmed to read only one sensor. When that one sensor failed the pilots, who had no idea the MCAS system existed, lost control of the planes.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...-max-system-gained-power-and-lost-safeguards/
F stands for Ford. The number denotes weight capacity. 150, 1500 pounds, 250 2500 pounds. Of course the bigger trucks are built on a stronger platform.
I'm well aware what the gross weight limits are. I have owned F Series trucks for many years. My statement was what the numbers stood for. Never said they were the gross weight loads.Those payload-to-model designations have not existed for ages
2019 F150’s can be spec’d anywhere from 1,200 - 2,300 lb based on what boxes one checks
F-250 spec has payload > 4,200 lbs
F-350 specs out btw 4,300 all the way up to 7,600 lbs
...Nothing like sharing information that is just plain wrong
I'm well aware what the gross weight limits are. I have owned F Series trucks for many years. My statement was what the numbers stood for. Never said they were the gross weight loads.
Good grief. I know exactly what the truck weighs and exact how much weight i can load on it because it's on the tag on the door jamb. That's provided i have the proper license.Those are payload numbers, not GVWR
You may have owned one for many years, but that doesn’t mean you read your owner’s manual
Good grief. I know exactly what the truck weighs and exact how much weight i can load on it because it's on the tag on the door jamb. That's provided i have the proper license.