|
Originally Posted by TravellingMan
(Post 31034126)
Well, the FAA (and Boeing) did not help their case with their "expedited" approval of the 737MAX nor their reluctance to ground it after every other aviation authority in the world grounded it. FAA and Boeing brought it onto themselves this loss of credibility. Whether other aircraft manufacturers will also pay the price is to be seen. Maybe Embraer is now tainted with being associated with Boeing?
|
Originally Posted by fly18725
(Post 31034763)
Yeah, six years is pretty expedited.
|
Originally Posted by TravellingMan
(Post 31034792)
I am not going to spend time in regurgitating what this thread has already covered in great detail and quoted news reports on how the MAX was approved by FAA, which is a subject of various (including criminal) investigations. :rolleyes:
Facts matter. |
Originally Posted by TravellingMan
(Post 31034792)
is a subject of various (including criminal) investigations.
|
Originally Posted by jsloan
(Post 31035856)
The presence of an investigation proves nothing besides the fact that people remain eager to rush to judgement before the facts are known.
|
Originally Posted by jsloan
(Post 31035856)
The presence of an investigation proves nothing besides the fact that people remain eager to rush to judgement before the facts are known.
Given 350 people have died in 2 crashes that seem to have several similarities, I think the right thing is to ground the aircraft until the proper solutions can be implemented and tested - however little or much is needed. If updated software can fix it, fine. If more pilot training is required, fine. If it means the certification process needs to be more through to make sure everything is accounted for, fine. If it’s some combination of this and other things, fine. If it is found that the aircraft just isn’t safe enough as designed to meet the high standards that we have (and rightfully so), then we need to do the right thing and ground it permanently. Not rushing to judgement here and not suggesting the latter is the answer, but given the severity and similarities of these cases, something clearly needs to be done. Specifics need to be verified and the proper fixes need to be made. |
Originally Posted by emcampbe
(Post 31035993)
it proves their is evidence to suggest a reasonable possibility that things weren’t proper somewhere.
Originally Posted by emcampbe
(Post 31035993)
rather than rushing to judgement, a through and proper investigation is meant to accurately figure out what went wrong, so that these things won’t happen again.
Originally Posted by emcampbe
(Post 31035993)
I think the right thing is to ground the aircraft until the proper solutions can be implemented and tested
Originally Posted by emcampbe
(Post 31035993)
Specifics need to be verified and the proper fixes need to be made.
|
Originally Posted by jsloan
(Post 31035856)
The presence of an investigation proves nothing besides the fact that people remain eager to rush to judgement before the facts are known.
Originally Posted by EWR764
(Post 31035909)
Mostly why I've left the discussion!
Frankly all sides of this argument seem to have rushed to judgement before all the facts are known and anyone who isn’t convinced so far will not be by continuing the debate . I can see no better reason to have an investigation so we can truly find out what happened. |
Originally Posted by kilo
(Post 31036479)
I presume you haven’t left the discussion because of the ‘presence of an investigation’ but rather because of the ‘rush to judgement before the facts are known’ Frankly all sides of this argument seem to have rushed to judgement before all the facts are known and anyone who isn’t convinced so far will not be by continuing the debate . I can see no better reason to have an investigation so we can truly find out what happened. As I've said before, I generally disagree with the notion of criminal involvement in aircraft accident investigation, but still, such an investigation is not tantamount to evidence of criminal activity. |
Relaxed Static Stability (RSS)
In the FAA review process the issue that should be addressed - Is the Static Stability too relaxed on the 737 MAX because the much larger engines were placed too much forward & too high? With MCAS was Boeing using computers to adjust the stabilizer to “give the appearance of more longitudinal stability than the airplane actually has. “ ? The Boeing link claims:
“2 Flight Control Computers and Stability Augmentation The trend in the design of modern airplanes is to have less static longitudinal stability--frequently referred to as relaxed static stability (RSS)--to capture the benefit of improved fuel efficiency. …. flight control computers that adjust the elevator actuator positions to give the appearance of more longitudinal stability than the airplane actually has. In other words, computers absorb the extra workload caused by flying with RSS. ” https://www.boeing.com/commercial/ae...y/fo01txt.html |
Is the resulting static stability any lower than any other recently certified aircraft?
|
Originally Posted by mduell
(Post 31036664)
Is the resulting static stability any lower than any other recently certified aircraft?
|
Originally Posted by BF263533
(Post 31036615)
In the FAA review process the issue that should be addressed - Is the Static Stability too relaxed on the 737 MAX because the much larger engines were placed too much forward & too high? With MCAS was Boeing using computers to adjust the stabilizer to “give the appearance of more longitudinal stability than the airplane actually has. “ ? The Boeing link claims:
A new, clean-sheet design to replace the 737 likely would incorporate some form(s) of relaxed stability in order to improve efficiency. |
Originally Posted by Newman55
(Post 31022290)
Clickbait journalism works. NYT know this just as much as TMZ. True investigative work is expensive... |
Since the MAX are new they will remain in yellow globe livery for a long time. Making it easier for customers to identify. At least these first 14. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 3:07 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.