The fact that aeronautics decisions are being made by politicians instead of engineers is frightening.

The only "knot-tying" I see is by the conspiracy theorists, who are simultaneously holding that (a) Boeing is too cheap to care about safety but (b) invested in an expensive system in order to make the plane easier to fly, and (a) the FAA is inept and corrupt but (b) Boeing only built this system in order to satisfy regulators so that they wouldn't demand a new type certificate. Oh, and (a) the FAA is in the pocket of Boeing but (b) all international regulatory agencies operate independently of Boeing's state-owned competition.

Because the MCAS is not intended to activate during a normal flight profile, the changes are unlikely to matter on any given flight. That said, I assume that Boeing is hoping that pilots who detect the plane trimming nose-down due to an MCAS activation will realize that their angle of attack was too steep and compensate appropriately. Personally, I would be much more comfortable if they keep the MCAS in place without the modifications (except to reject conflicting AoA data, which seems sensible), as I worry that the response to the plane suddenly nosing down is going to be to attempt to pull it back up. Unfortunately, that is not a politically viable option, so you're left with a company trying to build a safe plane while under attack by people who learned everything they know about aviation from the New York Times.

Free of taint?

There are 346 people dead on a new aircraft. It was a Boeing plane certified by the FAA which by the accounts I read the FAA delegated the certification to Boeing.

You better believe there is a taint and it smells rotten.

Boeing is awarded many of the US military contracts and files objections when Airbus wins the occassional contract so Boeing is also sponsored by the US government and i believe there is a US government funded program to help foreign companies finance buying Boeing planes. So Boeing may not be state owned but it is certainly state sponsored.

Boeing even apologised for getting it wrong. I have been surprised that more senior management have not lost their jobs and people continue to defend Boeing on this plane and the (in)action/decisions made by Boeing.

It's the same people who proudly buy American cars when foreign built ones offer better value. Or, indeed, the same people who buy the argument that UA, AA and DL management arguing for foreign competition to be eradicated from international routes is somehow fair and good for the consumer.

??? Disrespectful?

Taking action on something we do not fully understand that resulted in the loss of 346 souls is entirely the correct course of action to ensure the safety of many others.

The inaction after the loss of the first set of lost lives resulted in the deaths that may have been preventable if action had been taken sooner. I am sure the pax on the ET flight (and their loved ones) wished something had been done sooner.

Exactly how many people need to die in a new aircraft before taking action is appropriate?

I for one am glad United is not currently flying these planes (737 MAX). I am reading the comments by the technical folks and pilots on this thread and I am still not sure what the exact problem is and how it gets fixed, but I am cynical enough to want a non-US agency to be okay with the aircraft before I fly in it. I am hoping United takes the same approach to the 737MAX.

There have been a number of recent posts commenting on the motivation of other posters.
As a reminder
WineCountryUA
UA coModerator

While 346 people is unfortunate I believe in putting this in proper perspective. It's not like 30,000 total passengers flew the Max jet. When it was grounded, 8600 flights per week and over 1,000,000 passengers per week. It's not like the planes were constantly falling out of the sky.

And 90 people dead on an old aircraft.

There are two teams (one for each crash) working on determining the cause(s), hopefully communicating with each other.

If previous crashes are any indication, there will be MULTIPLE factors that led to the crashes, but trying to understand what the problem is until the official reports are published is not productive IMHO.

Sure, we can speculate, but none of us here have the black boxes or other information that the investigation teams are privy to.

Happy to. But the reality is that Boeing, the FAA and other regulators are doing what's right because of the outcome of the accidents. Without 350 people dead, you'd still have these planes in the air. @:-)

I don’t think you’re right and I think your continued use of deaths as a key talking point is disgusting as it cheapens the entire safety culture of the industry.

When there are repeated technical issues, the OEMs issue ADs and the regulators have, at least once in recent history, grounded an airplane. Nothing in history shows there needs to be loss of life to act.

We'll agree to disagree. I think you diminish the loss of life, especially when we had a first crash, then a slow play on the part of Boeing, then a second crash.

"Tombstone mentality" has been used for decades to describe a culture that focuses more on dollars than ultimate safety. And in 2019, we should expect safety to be not at six sigma levels, but seven sigma or higher. Air travel is the safest form of travel in the world; that in no way means we can ever ease off the ideas of how it can be made safer still.

BTW, as recently as 2009, it took loss of life for regulators to act. See Colgan Air 3407.

Boeing relied on single sensor for 737 Max that had been flagged 216 times to FAA
 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/30/polit...faa/index.html

"Another source familiar with the 737 MAX testing said the failure of an AOA sensor was not flight tested, but rather "analyzed in the design and certification" of the aircraft, and it was determined trained pilots would have been able to handle the failure."

You have to wonder what other critical aspects were not flight tested or that should be included in sim training. Does the large engine nacelle lift create unanticipated characteristics when you have additional thrust applied with one engine out?