I don't mind flying on a well-tested 777 (i.e. one that's been in service for years). It's a great design from before Boeing really went down the shitter, and is probably the backbone of most carrier's long-haul intercontinental fleets today.
But there's no way I'd fly as an astronaut on Starliner. I have very little confidence it won't have a catastrophic failure, considering how Boeing's been doing things lately.
787 is also a well tested safe design which was designed after those nasty MBAs took over. 11 years and counting without a hull loss gives me confidence flying across the ocean on one of them.
> The autopilot, being engaged, pitched the plane downwards to return to 37,000 feet (11,278 m).
That was the strong negative G maneuver that broke the ceiling by crashing people into it. There was a second strong acceleration when it returned to the desired altitude. My reading of this is that most of the injuries were due to the autopilot’s reaction to the turbulence. Otherwise, it just would have been an unexpected increase to about 1.4 G followed by the cabin pitching around.
For the other one, why is the seat capable of interfering with controls? (Also, that doesn’t match the pilot’s story, which was that the screens cycled off and on, unless the seat can press the “reboot plane” button).
The seat switch was accidentally jammed into the “seat forward” position which led to the pilot (who was strapped in) being physically forced into the controls, leading to a significant pitch down.
But there's no way I'd fly as an astronaut on Starliner. I have very little confidence it won't have a catastrophic failure, considering how Boeing's been doing things lately.