Old Jun 28, 19, 10:54 pm
Moderator: American AAdvantage, TAP, Mexico, Technical Support and Feedback, and The Suggestion Box
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NorCal - SMF area
Programs: AA LT Plat; HH LT Diamond, Maître-plongeur des Muccis
Posts: 61,420
IMO, they merely worked to design specs set by Boeing engineers. The design specs themselves were flawed. To wit, MCAS software that used a single angle of attack indicator, instead of using signals from both and processing them through a comparator. Ask any pilot which is preferable and why.

Add the “extras” - such as the angle of attack sensors disagree warning, sold to WN, without disclosing the feature was not operable unless they also purchased the angle of attack indication in the primary flight display.

Not to mention the US Air Force twice stopped accepting Being 767-200ER based KC-46 tanker because loose parts and tools left behind were being found in various spaces on delivery. After initial aircraft were found to have out of spec wiring problems requiring about a quarter of a billion dollars in wiring redesign.

Did I mention “lithium batteries”, or the North Charleston Dreamliner production facility alleged safety issues?

In the end the MAX will have a long and safe life. At the cost of nearly 350 lives, billions of dollars in cost to airlines and to Boeing, and a huge loss of confidence in Boeing’s vaunted aircraft design capabilities. Great cost savings there, guys! As I’ve said before, IMO Boeing needs a quantum corporate culture change and Muilenburg, as the guy with the desk where the buck stops, should go, a body of Boeing and customer people should be formed to make reform recommendations. If the Board lets this go by, they’ll be ignoring their fiduciary duties.
JDiver is offline