Based on online news reports and a couple of documentaries on the topic I’ve watched (Frontline, Netflix), the regulatory constraints mainly entailed having new airplane designs go through more extensive scrutiny, which would mean greater expenditures for the company.
In order to avoid this (and therefore stay competitive with Airbus), Boeing reported the MCAS program as merely a minor upgrade of the existing system, and subsequently failed to train pilots in its use properly.
If this is what you’re referring to, I feel like “mainly caused by regulatory contraints on design” is a reductive and slightly misleading take. Or is there some other information to support your claim?
I agree with your facts. We differ on judgement and/or labelling.
Regulations made the sounds engineering solution very costly, in both time and money, so Boeing was forced to do a complex error prone hacky solution to stay within the regulatory constraints.
Don't really know what "reductive" means here, but it's probably not good :)
What I meant by reductive is, I feel like laying the blame solely at the feet of regulators oversimplifies the issue. Someone might argue that better enforcement or additional regulation (one that would prevent Boeing from circumventing the law) could have prevented the disaster.
If I recall correctly, the Netflix documentary tends to blame capitalism, the free market, and other assorted boogeymen for creating the perverse incentives the company was forced to respond to.
I suspect that neither of the two views at the opposite side of the spectrum captures the full picture.
I didn't watch the documentary, but I read a fair amount of the coverage at the time.
I don't mind rephrasing "forced" to "incentivized", or believing that Boeing independently did shady and/or criminal things. It usually takes more than one factor to cause a rare disaster.
Based on online news reports and a couple of documentaries on the topic I’ve watched (Frontline, Netflix), the regulatory constraints mainly entailed having new airplane designs go through more extensive scrutiny, which would mean greater expenditures for the company.
In order to avoid this (and therefore stay competitive with Airbus), Boeing reported the MCAS program as merely a minor upgrade of the existing system, and subsequently failed to train pilots in its use properly.
If this is what you’re referring to, I feel like “mainly caused by regulatory contraints on design” is a reductive and slightly misleading take. Or is there some other information to support your claim?