Comment by windexh8er | Hacker News Reader

Comment by windexh8er | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This. Given the failures, admissions and scrutiny the FAA is now under there should have been no option for Boeing to continue to band aid the airframe. Boeing should have been forced to pull the plane as "737" and recertify it as a new airframe from scratch. But why weren't they? My guess would be because Boeing would have to eat very large losses of dealing with customer lawsuits (bought an airframe that wasn't certified), would lose all future revenue as customers would cancel orders and buy airworthy competitor options, and Boeing would be forced to say they were wrong.

Regardless, this still seems like the right path (recertification). It seems the FAA is still being strong armed by Boeing. Why? Put these people in prison. Shut the 737 Max down. Make Boeing face the music. They need to fail to get the point, apparently.

Having designed the plane to be a "drop-in replacement" for a 737 and having failed at that, it seems like there's no path forward, neither more jury rigging nor certification as something else - because to make the thing like 737, they made it not like a contemporary aircraft (paper manuals is the big example).

Boeing have essentially painted themselves into a very costly corner. The FAA or congress could do a "certify it just for Boeing" action and the plane might even, maybe be safe then. But how many airline customers would want to fly in it?

The 737 is a reliable airplane, as experience has shown. The crashes were caused by malfunction of the MCAS system, which is getting fixed. If that is done, and of course the whole certification procedure which let MCAS be certified reviewed, there is no reason to assume the 737 MAX is less safe than any other 737.

Yes, a replacement of the 737 is more than overdue, but it is also 10 years away. A rushed new design could be way more dangerous than the known design of the 737.

I’m guessing doing all the things the right way would put Boeing out of business. US doesn’t want that.

Agree, using software to disguise poorly engineered design. Thanks guys.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com