212 reactionsSign in to post a message.12 viewingTop Reactions

• Thomas2 days agoNeed to redesign the plane. Who in right mind would design an imbalanced plane that requires software to correct basic position ?ReplyReplies (29)11323

• trollmaster900019 hours ago". Its engines, more fuel-efficient and powerful than in prior models, were raised and moved forward on the fuselage, causing it to fly with a “nose up” tendency. To compensate, Boeing installed MCAS, which automatically adjusted the nose down when data from the AOA sensor deemed it necessary."
  
  This is a hack that shouldn't have been necessary. The plane should have been redesigned so it was aerodynamically stable and didn't require constant intervention to avoid a stall.ReplyReplies (4)408

• Bob2 days agoHave to agree with the position that a fault tolerant system should majority vote three inputs. Two in close agreement - without deviating from agreement can work safely as well - particularly if in combination with astute overwatch by a separate system (which cpuld be the pilot). A control system susceptible to a single point failure is far too risky (and never should have been allowed).ReplyReplies (7)448

• seemenotyesterdayfly this airplane with out or disabled AOA sensor. AI or fully automation is not a 100% guaranteed when people lives is in equation...ReplyReplies (1)23

• BradyesterdayRemove MCAS and let pilots fly the airplane like they're supposed to. Too much automation is creating pilots that don't know how to fly a commercial jetReplyReplies (5)477

• Ken7 hours ago"the lessons learned from these two tragic accidents must be fully incorporated into our training programs"?? The 1st incident could be argued as an "accident" but the Ethiopian Airlines crash was "no accident". The 2nd crash was "Corporate Murder" as although Boeing Execs are now claiming that their engineers knew of the issues one year before the Lion Air Crash and that they were not made aware, they cannot say that they were "not aware" of any issues after the Lion Air crash. The problem with Boeing is that they 1st look to blame the pilots and when that failed in the Lion Air Crash, they thentried that the pilots were not trained to carry out text book operations as per the Boeing Manuals, that didn't cover the issue that the pilots faced. Even after the Lion Air crash, they then tried to blame a "faulty sensor", to pass the buck onto the company that p[roduces the sensors. Although they announced a "software update" after the Lion Air crash, they did nothing about the sensors of which as they had blamed a "faulty sensor" then surely an instruction should have been made to all MAX 8 airlines to check and replace their sensors but Boeing did nothing. When the Ethiopian Airlines MAX 8 crashed, Boeing once again went for "pilot error", releasing false information and misleading information regarding the pilot's flying hours and experience but that was rubbished as both the Captain and the 1st Officer had 1,000s of flying hours and although not many flying hours with the MAX 8 that was down to the aircraft only recently being delivered and both pilots had been flying them almost daily since, without incident. Boeing CEO and any executive that has had any involvement in the MAX 8 issues, since the Lion Air crash should be put on trial for "negligible manslaughter (murder 2 in the US) or even murder as they were fully aware of the dangers and the high possibility of further incidents but chose to cut corners and ignore anything that would cost them more than $5 to put right. A software update is of no use to this aircraft and there will be more crashes if the MAX 8 is allowed to fly again. The reason being that the aircraft is "unstable". To cut corners and maximise profits, Boeing Execs decided to use an old 737 design and modify it by mounting the engines forward of their designed position thus distorting the balance of the aircraft, which causes the "nose up" scenario. To counter the "nose up" the system relies on twop sensors of which if they disagree with each other the system forces the nose down, towards the ground. Boeing only have two choices with the MAX 8s and that is to either remove the anti stall system (MCAS) completely and let the pilots fly the aircraft, as pilots once did and without problems or fit a 3rd sensor, as the Airbus has, so that the system cannot force the nose down unless two of the sensors send negative readings and at least two of the three sensors will always be in agreement with each other, at any one time. That is why Airbus has no issues with MCAS, because 1) it has three sensors, 2) the warning lights for the pilots come as standard safety features and 3) airlines that have bought the Airbus do not have to pay extra money to have safety features installed. I'm surprised that Boeing are not charging the airlines that want to have seat belts for the passengers.....LessReply92

• Tom16 hours agoI am not going to fly that plane no matter what. Can't trust what Boeing has been saying.ReplyReplies (3)398

• Maxcrusader2 days ago“This is one of those cases where it might be enough just to turn off this system, to turn it back into a slightly less sophisticated airplane if the systems aren't working, and the pilots can then take over and be pilots,” he said.
  
  That's a novelty is practicality but what about when it's pitch black outside and the pilots don't a reference point or horizon? How will they know if the plane is really about to stall? I'm not getting on that plane bud.ReplyReplies (7)2712

• Bill Payer23 hours agoso many people are missing the point, this aircraft is not aerodynamically compatible with previous versions of the 737 so should not have been certified as a 737 but boeing and the faa colluded that it could be certified allowing it to get into the air to compete with the airbus 320 neo. people will be going to jail over this.ReplyReplies (1)469

• Indian2 days agoR u kidding..the plane having a stalling tendency due to structural imbalances by introducing heavier engines, need to b corrected by pilots if MCAS fails during crucial take-off is safe or safety n engineering blunder..better redesign the body structure if you as company is that safety priority one..people should boycott this series of plane,then only they will do a fix in a professional n ethical way Instead of Band aid fix or entirely relying on pilot,it's not necessary all the pilots are super smart,easy is to redesign n remove this structural error!!!