[BorRagnarok]

I still don't trust the FAA at all. They've been sourcing out their own work to Boeing since the 787 Dreamliner [0]. That's seven years ago. I don't think this will make them change their practices. The 787 fiasco certainly didn't.

Personally I'd be happiest if the world just scrapped all the Max-es. Just scrap 'em, let Boeing go out of business, it's what they deserve now, they shouldn't exist anymore as a company. There are enough businesses that happily create planes without putting profit before people.

It's really too bad that there's no footage of either of the crashes, because if people could see what happened they would never fly one of those things again. That's why people don't fly zeppelins anymore. Not because of what people said or read, but because they saw. The Max deserves the same.

Do you want to fly in a plane which was created using the deaths of over 300 people to finalize the design?

[0] The Boeing 787: Broken Dreams, Al Jazeera Investigations, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvkEpstd9os

[moftz]

It's not footage but that angle of attack is absolutely nuts. I don't think my brain would have been able to process that kind of image out my window if I was a passenger on that plane.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIunpQQpzs0

[83]

I think you mean angle of descent. Angle of attack is the angle of airflow with respect to the wing.

[Rooster61]

Not to mention the AoA data was suspect, at least from one of the sensors. That's what caused the chain of errors leading to the MCAS nosediving the plane.

[nolok]

It's especially important, while seeing that sequence starting around 5:20, both the crazy scary angle and the speed of it, to remember the way people defended Boeing and said the pilots could have dealt with it using arguments along the lines of "if they took a step back and though rationally" or "if they read the full procedure manual they have access to" or "if they connected the dots and realized it was similar to other system X".

Those people, pilots included, were thrown to the grounds.

[BorRagnarok]

Thanks. That's genuinely scary.

[lysp]

> I still don't trust the FAA at all. They've been sourcing out their own work to Boeing since the 787 Dreamliner

I don't think the main issue is outsourcing the engineering work out.

The bigger thing is they were outsourcing their management and reporting to Boeing as well. That meant rather than independent overview, Boeing managers were able to pressure shortcuts and cost cutting and could threaten engineers jobs who didn't toe the line.

[BorRagnarok]

The biggest problem is not Boeing sourcing out its work, it's the FAA sourcing out its design certification work to Boeing. Boeing now designs the planes, and certifies them for safe design. That's what's nuts. In the documentary I posted above that problem was already identified, and that was seven years ago. Nothing has changed, Boeing still certifies its own planes and the FAA just signs off on them.

[navigatesol]

>because if people could see what happened they would never fly one of those things again.

They might not anyway.

As it is, people are irrationally afraid of flying. Plane crashes are a fetishized "nightmare scenario". Multiple crashes linked to the same plane (or company) will, likely, have terrible business consequences.

[BurnGpuBurn]

Well we can hope, can't we? As long as no exec at all is going to go to jail for this, I say let Boeing die. It's the least we can still do for those 300+ victims and their families.

[alexis_fr]

« Let them die, or at least never use them for passenger travel anymore » is what they said for McDonnell Douglas (DC-9, DC-10 and MD-11 must represent half of Air Crash Investigation episodes), the company lost a lot of value.

So Boeing bought it.

[tomp]

> There are enough businesses that happily create planes without putting profit before people.

Are there? Besides Boeing and Airbus, which other company makes safe (or not, in case of Boeing) passenger planes? AFAIK it's a duopoly.

[ahartmetz]

Embraer and Bombardier, possibly Sukhoi and Comac. But they don't make large, long range ones.

[AnimalMuppet]

Does Sukhoi have a better safety record than Boeing?

[BurnGpuBurn]

Maybe there will be others that are happy to give it a go. Maybe it's best to have a monopoly, and forever get rid of rushing planes to market to beat the competition. Maybe in aviation, that would be a good thing, who knows.