|
|
|
|
|
|
by abadpoli
900 days ago
|
|
|
There’s no “two wrongs” here, per the FAA. There was one wrong (the issue) and then that issue is mitigated by a procedure (the issue is righted, at least partially). Even if you disagree with this mitigation, every time a new MAX 8 rolls off the production line and enters service, the problem grows larger. Why is this okay, but not with the same for a MAX 7? Again: either the mitigation is effective enough for MAX variants, or it’s not. I see no reason the two variants should be treated differently here. |
|
|
No it is not. Here, you are doing just the normalization of deviance I'm talking about.
An airplane is parts, and an airplane is a system. Just because you use part X in system 1 doesn't mean a mitigation strategy for part X works the same in system 2. For example system 2 (or the MAX 7 in this case) could also have an addition dysfunction in cold weather that by itself is low risk, but when coupled with this procedure now represent a significantly higher risk of loss of aircraft event.
This is the the kind of problem that shows up in new/changed systems when accepting risk from previous systems at their previously measured outcomes.