pangolin

For once we agree.

METO Guido

When the steering wheel in your car curves it left as you make a right turn, see how quickly the errors compound. One of the crews appeared to have trapped the error only to let it out again with ghastly results. Has the way pilots train to operate their tech run behind industry's effort to automate that role? Many different opinions & answers. In this country at least, mine is no.

F4E Mx

Boeing might be able to retrofit the MAX 8 with the telescoping landing gear being developed for the MAX 10, reposition the engines back to their 'normal' position with the pylons being developed for the MAX 10, and just scrap the MCAS. (The MAX 10 does not have MCAS).

Firefighter

I’d have to agree. Judging by the comments on here.

rickair7777

They might not be able to afford a 3+ year break in production while they R&D and certify that, plus the retrofit costs of all the MAX 8's already in service.

F4E Mx

Boeing can't afford another accident that has the MCAS suspect at all. The landing gear would be the pacing item on retrofitting the MAX 8. Not sure how long it would take. The flight tests, once they reposition the engines, should not be any more extensive than for the MAX 10, which Boeing also intends to certify as a revision to the original 1967 certificate. I think most industry-watchers would conclude that the original MAX 8 configuration was a serious mistake and that error was compounded by another serious mistake, the MCAS system.

Mesabah

Finally the media is catching on to the real issues. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...hour-engineers

My engineering friends over at Boeing warned about this issue over a year ago. Everyone who knows anything, or lied to the FAA about it has been removed from the company.

rickair7777

If the MCAS concept was adequate for it's purpose (certification tweak to control forces), then the MCAS implementation can be fixed. Probably software or worst case computer hardware. Orders of magnitude cheaper than re-doing engine pylons and landing gear.

If MCAS concept was unsuitable for it's purpose, then they have a bog problem. But it doesn't like that's the case so far.

METO Guido

Do you know what you're agreeing to? This is no place to judge anyone.

The hocus pocus commanding flight controls & motors got to work. Or default. Every time.

Firefighter

I certainly am not a pilot. But I don’t believe I need to be one to tell who’s right from wrong in this situation. Judging by the responses, some individuals definitely know what they’re talking about, you can tell they know their way around a 737, and it shows. They’re basically arguing with someone who’s either bringing way too much emotion into it, using scenarios that didn’t happen. What I do understand, is that Boeing specifically said to not put the switches back for remainder of flight. And the pilots went against that procedure. Im sure Boeing will be blamed for some things in the final report, but I can assume the pilots will too. And if it is, it’s clear to me that the aircraft was in fact, flyable throughout the entire fiasco. But unfortunately the pilots made some errors. I feel bad for all involved as well as understanding the amount of pressure the pilots may have had, but in the end we simply cannot allow such pilots to fly. I sure would not board my flight if I knew beforehand that the pilots weren’t good under pressure. Perhaps there is a flaw with the training, that airlines are responsible for. Maybe many Airlines take advantage of the auto pilot system. Then again, both accidents did occur in two third world countries who are known for not regulating much. I sure won’t be flying with Ethiopia Air, and I definitely won’t be flying with Lion Air.