[tjohns]

They already are. Are you implying otherwise?

The entire aviation community has been aware of this issue and the manufacturers have been working on it.

It's not an exaggeration to say these things take time. "Move fast and break things" doesn't work well with aircraft.

[jsjohnst]

> "Move fast and break things" doesn't work well with aircraft.

Sure, but that didn’t seem to stop faulty lithium batteries on the 787 or MCAS on the 737-MAX. If only Boeing would learn the lesson, maybe we wouldn’t have these messes.

[tjohns]

As has been pointed out several times already, this is not a Boeing problem. It affects practically every major aircraft manufacturer.

If anything, Boeing has been very proactive about identifying the affected equipment well before any accidents happen. This is precisely what they should be doing.

[jsjohnst]

> As has been pointed out several times already, this is not a Boeing problem. It affects practically every major aircraft manufacturer.

1) I never stated the radar issue was only Boeing’s “problem” previously, I stated it’s yet another example of a mess they are in which ultimately boils back to a “move fast and break things” attitude being a major cause (just in this case, it was more the FCC to blame for that attitude)

2) It ultimately is their problem to solve for the airframes they sold however, whether it was their fault or not.

> If anything, Boeing has been very proactive about identifying the affected equipment well before any accidents happen. This is precisely what they should be doing.

Link to the ADs from Boeing saying which models are susceptible? I hadn’t seen that

[tjohns]

Here's the relevant ADs for Boeing...

AD 2022-03-05: https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf...

AD 2022-03-20: https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf...

AD 2022-04-05: https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf...