32 Comments

  1. There is a flaw in the aircraft. Two aircrafts of the same type crashing within 5 months of each other is not a coincidence. Boeing should go above and beyond to save its brand and renew trust with customers.

  2. Boeing pursuit of profits over human lives declaring the aircraft is safe knowing full well it isn't. The running dog FAA echoing the same. The US govt should create a body to regulate air worthiness. Was there political influence to cover up? the persident admits Boeing is his favourite company.

  3. The American aviation community, that includes the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, considered, worldwide, without any doubt the gold standard in calculating air travel safety, however, with Americas seemingly initial reluctance to ground the Boeing 737 Max, after most of the international aviation community did, and based on previously stated reluctance, and this American Presidents chumminess ties with big business, and would continue to fly them, before reversing that decision, made it quite easy for the rumor to take flight placing safety behind corporate profits. Not even trusting America to conduct the black box investigation, as per usual, is sending that chore on to Paris instead. In business as in a question of public safety it has always been wise to be ahead of the game and by controlling the narrative…if not, all trust may be lost, never being able to gain the upper hand again…

  4. It seems strange to me, why would a programmer (an university trained engineer) base the functioning of an air speed measurement (gives often false readings, and fails often) and not assume fals readings when the results can be life threatening? I mean, in a safety envirement this should be standard?
    I can imagine a cheap programmer with almost no education in safety design making these kind of mistakes, but working in aviation?
    I think boeing is cheaping out on programming!

  5. *🌐*14/03/2019*🌐
    ✨ ✨💎✨✨

    Grupo1⃣1⃣0⃣
    💰COM A DOAÇÃO ÚNICA DE 5,00 VOCÊ GANHA SOMADOS
    R$1295,00‼
    ✅PIC PAY, mercado pago, CAIXA etc.
    ✅Garantia de Recebimento, logo na primeira fase já recebe o que doou de volta.
    ✅Dinheiro direto em conta bancária
    🤑*Ganhos por fases:*
    Fase 1: (RECEBE DE VOLTA O VALOR DA DOAÇÃO) + 5,00
    Fase 2: (ganhos de 90,00 reais)
    Fase 3: (ganhos de 1200,00 reais)
    ⬇ENTRE PELO LINK E SE NÃO SE INTERESSAR PODE SAIR NA HORA QUE QUISER
    https://chat.whatsapp.com/LNhpL1IR3IAEk6zFzJFLgN

  6. fixing an aerodynamic problem with software could work for military aircraft but should not be tolerated for civilian passenger aircraft. change the engine or ground it permanently.

  7. "The number of deaths per passenger-mile on commercial airlines in the United States between 2000 and 2010 was about 0.2 deaths per 10 billion passenger-miles. For driving, the rate was 150 per 10 billion vehicle-miles for 2000: 750 times higher per mile than for flying in a commercial airplane."

  8. Why isn't anyone talking about what caused the nose go up in the first place? (Definitely not because of the placement of the engines..) In stead, everyone only talk about the software issue…

  9. key learning from all this is how BA was able to sweep past risks/liabilities under the rug given they are in bed with FAA. Self policing is not right…. need to consider breaking up BA, along with Apple, AMZN and others…

  10. To complete for $ with airbus and instead of redesigning, they erroneously dislocate the engines in a way that sometimes pitches the nose up, so they created a computer system that pich crash the nose down to mitigate for it, in hope that the pilots act by dissengaging it! But they didn't tell the pilots! And the new fixes will apply on April but until then Boeing thinks the plane should still be flying!! Am I getting this right?

  11. Look into the history of the A320. It’s cockpit and autopilot are poorly designed and Boeing is taking their cues for past incidents caused by Airbus. Now they both dodge responsibility instead of fixing their designs, software, and general human factors problems. It saves money but costs lives… not as bad as the criminally negligent DC-10, but still criminal.

  12. They lengthened the fuselage which changed the center of gravity. This leads to a nose-up attitude in some configurations. And that nose-up problem required the automation to push the nose down. Unfortunately, it's an unstable aircraft. And the MCAS system is able (obviously) able to override pilot's input. And that is always a bad thing.

  13. What are you doing Nyt? There are reports in US alone plane temdency to nosedive and can be override by deactivate auto pilot.

    In the lion air and Ethiopia crash, the mcas did not fix the plane position, but they have faulty sensor that a perfectly good position suddenly nosediving.

    There are problems in the software, that's why Boeing planning to release patch in the April after lion air crash.

    What is this? This is not a news, this is PR for Boeing despite their ignorance killing hundreds of people. Disgusting.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*