Boeing suspends production of 737 Max

F..n bastards, the more I read the news about max the more I think how bad the whole story is. Essentially they put a bigger engine on smaller body not fit for it, and then used software to trick it to fly.

Perfect example they regulations are bad.
 
RedDuke said:
F..n bastards, the more I read the news about max the more I think how bad the whole story is. Essentially they put a bigger engine on smaller body not fit for it, and then used software to trick it to fly.

Perfect example they regulations are bad.
More...

There's nothing wrong with the engine. The problem is with the asshole software they put into the thing. They went so apeshit on safety auto-over-ride, they wrestled manual control out of the pilots' hands! Just dumb!
 
Our household takes about 30 international return flights a year, much more some years. We will not be flying on any airline that uses this aircraft in the future. I don't care how irrational that is. You get punished when you design a plane that kills everyone on board minutes after takeoff, twice, due to a covered up software problem. It is unacceptable.
 
RedDuke said:
Perfect example they regulations are bad.
More...

This statement is absurd on a level I'm not even sure you understand.

I couldn't imagine flight without FAA regulations. If you've ever actually tried to understand the complexity of just building an airplane to a specification you'd appreciate it. Regulation provides guidelines and tests to insure a consistent build quality across all planes capable of carrying passengers.

In a purely deregulated situation you'd have a number of complexities that would result in flight being absurdly dangerous or outright impossible:

  1. Lack of FAA certified ATC means ATC quality varies. A bad ATC operator can quite literally destroy a plane (and the people on it). Go on youtube and listen to ATC operators. They must pass strict regulatory testing to even get to talk on the radio, and even more to tell a plane what to do. A small mistake by either the pilot or the ATC generally grounds both of them for multiple months, or revokes their license immediately in more serious cases.
  2. Lack of FAA certified flight mechanics means flight mechanic quality varies. You drop your 747 off at Joes Aircraft 'N More and he leaves his car keys in your wing. Two flights later your wing blows off and sends you careening into the ground.
  3. Lack of consistent, repeatable, and mandatory flight testing on aircraft would be large variations in aircraft quality. Imagine if a company didn't do wing lift tests and the pilot's descent angle exceeds the angle capable of being deflected by the wings. Congratulations, your aircraft just turned into a very expensive lawn dart.
  4. Lack of equipment requirements in engineering could mean a company can (and lets be honest would) cut corners on safety equipment, multiple fail-safe systems, etc. Imagine unregulated code being placed onto a plane that has a crippling bug preventing pilots from controlling the plane.
  5. Lack of FAA certified runways and airports would be (at the very least) very expensive flyovers of an airport to gauge runway suitability to land. If you've ever sat in a cockpit of an airliner you can't really see the runway. You'd have to bank the plane, and good job 90 degree banking a plane and keeping your passengers in their seat and your airframe stable.
  6. Lack of FAA controlled airspace means someone builds a drone that gets sucked into the intake of a jet and sends it careening into the ground.

Regulations should be tougher after the MAX incident. In particular, developers should have to be certified under a program that demonstrates their competency in programming secure real-time systems. Boeing's software was outsourced to a $9/hr. engineer. If Boeing, the largest aerospace company, is willing to outsource their mission critical code to some bottom of the barrel dev house for their commercial work imagine what they are doing with military hardware! It would just get worse if there weren't regulations in place. You have to understand companies do not care about safety or quality anymore. The only thing that matters is money, and you have a golden parachute if you make too big of a mistake.
 
Last edited:
gaussian said:
This statement is absurd on a level I'm not even sure you understand.

I couldn't imagine flight without FAA regulations. If you've ever actually tried to understand the complexity of just building an airplane to a specification you'd appreciate it. Regulation provides guidelines and tests to insure a consistent build quality across all planes capable of carrying passengers.

In a purely deregulated situation you'd have a number of complexities that would result in flight being absurdly dangerous or outright impossible:

  1. Lack of FAA certified ATC means ATC quality varies. A bad ATC operator can quite literally destroy a plane (and the people on it). Go on youtube and listen to ATC operators. They must pass strict regulatory testing to even get to talk on the radio, and even more to tell a plane what to do. A small mistake by either the pilot or the ATC generally grounds both of them for multiple months, or revokes their license immediately in more serious cases.
  2. Lack of FAA certified flight mechanics means flight mechanic quality varies. You drop your 747 off at Joes Aircraft 'N More and he leaves his car keys in your wing. Two flights later your wing blows off and sends you careening into the ground.
  3. Lack of consistent, repeatable, and mandatory flight testing on aircraft would be large variations in aircraft quality. Imagine if a company didn't do wing lift tests and the pilot's descent angle exceeds the angle capable of being deflected by the wings. Congratulations, your aircraft just turned into a very expensive lawn dart.
  4. Lack of equipment requirements in engineering could mean a company can (and lets be honest would) cut corners on safety equipment, multiple fail-safe systems, etc. Imagine unregulated code being placed onto a plane that has a crippling bug preventing pilots from controlling the plane.
  5. Lack of FAA certified runways and airports would be (at the very least) very expensive flyovers of an airport to gauge runway suitability to land. If you've ever sat in a cockpit of an airliner you can't really see the runway. You'd have to bank the plane, and good job 90 degree banking a plane and keeping your passengers in their seat and your airframe stable.
  6. Lack of FAA controlled airspace means someone builds a drone that gets sucked into the intake of a jet and sends it careening into the ground.

Regulations should be tougher after the MAX incident. In particular, developers should have to be certified under a program that demonstrates their competency in programming secure real-time systems. Boeing's software was outsourced to a $9/hr. engineer. If Boeing, the largest aerospace company, is willing to outsource their mission critical code to some bottom of the barrel dev house for their commercial work imagine what they are doing with military hardware! It would just get worse if there weren't regulations in place. You have to understand companies do not care about safety or quality anymore. The only thing that matters is money, and you have a golden parachute if you make too big of a mistake.
More...

This was a sarcastic comment. Thought
It was clear based on my post. I meant to say that is exactly why we need regulations as corps will cut corners that will get people killed to make an extra bonus.
 
RedDuke said:
This was a sarcastic comment. Thought
It was clear based on my post. I meant to say that is exactly why we need regulations as corps will cut corners that will get people killed to make an extra bonus.
More...

Sarcasm doesn't travel well through text. My bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top