“And managed by monkeys”
Funny how BBC left that part out.
I’m always amazed at what people put in corporate emails. Those comments never go away. They can be brought back.
My advise to every young rookie coming into my Dept is: “This computer isn’t yours. This email account isn’t yours. Everything you write can be reviewed. Watch your words.”
Any yet it’s amazing how quickly they forget.
I’ve been thinking that the plane was designed by people with H1B visas from China. Who has a greater interest in seeing Boeing fail?
Yep, this Max business is going to be a millstone around Boeing’s neck for many years. Shortly after those two crashes I read a short description of how the plane was designed. It’s essentially the existing 737 but with larger, heavier engines. Because of their size and weight, the engines had to be mounted at a different location on the wings, causing a significant weight shift. The software then had to be kludged to compensate. And then there was matter of insufficient training . . .
I’m betting they are all woke, multicultural and diverse clowns and monkeys.
No no no’...just make it as cheap as possible!
Maybe they should install chaff and flare launchers on all jets.
The 737 Max was designed in a rush job to eliminate competition from the new at the time slightly superior Bombardier C series jets. It worked since the C series development was slow and sales were poor largely due to the more readily available 737 Max which Boeing pushed hard. Bombardier eventually sold the C series to Airbus due to all this. Boeing won the battle but it may have cost them far more than they realized.
“Boeing rejected pilots being trained on simulators, which would have led to higher costs for its customers, making its aircraft less attractive.”
This is not new. It’s been known from early in this debacle. Boeing wanted to avoid the Max becoming an entirely new type of aircraft that would have made it noncompetitive.
The FAA said, however, that the messages do not raise new safety concerns although “the tone and content of some of the language contained in the documents is disappointing”.
Boeing said the communications “do not reflect the company we are and need to be, and they are completely unacceptable”.
In short they are blaming the messenger and will coverup their liability in causing nearly 400 dead.
Considering the enormity of the errors in the engineering of the MCAS system then I would say that we already knew this.
Now we know that there were those wise voices in the darkness that were crying out for sanity. But nobody would listen to them.
I will quietly wait for the apologies from the people here who told me I was wrong when I told them point blank BOEING engaged in criminal malfeasance to get this plane certified.
I told them there was no way the model of this plane involved in these crashes could have gotten certified as air worthy without Boeing lying, directly, or by intentional omission, to the FAA.
I said there was no doubt in my mind you would find engineers and others raise concerns and that management would ignore them or override them.
There are people in Boeing who should be facing 350+ counts of second degree murder charges.. and others who should be facing RICO and othe conspiracy charges. The fact no one... no one.. has been frog marched out of Boeing’s offices is a travesty.
I know the apologies will never come, but I will wait quietly.
It bears mention that the BBC is every bit as far left as Pravda and they have a vested interest in the decline and fall of all things American.
So consider the source.
They already have and will pay much, much more but
try not to think of it as "Boeing" but roughly 100K citizens working
for an American company and thousands of affiliates and stockholders
all paying that heavy price.
Here is what I think is the definitive research into the entire sordid affair by Juan Brown
Juan is a highly experienced 777 pilot with many qualifications both military and civilian.
I first heard of him from the Oroville Dam Emergency Spillway Failure
You check out his entire in depth analysis here
it's lengthy enough so a layman can understand but not overly detailed and boring.
If you only want the readers digest version this part (2:40) is where Juan
clearly explains the purpose of MCAS and (at 3:38) states that
"The new Boeing 737 Max IS an inherently stable design"
He goes on to explain that with MCAS disabled
even seasoned 737 pilots couldn't tell the difference.
7