FAA safety engineer goes public slamming its handling of Boeing 737 MAX

Seattle Times ^ | Mar 2021 | Dominic Gates

[HamiltonJay]

I also stated way back then that evidence would be found within Boeing itself that engineers would have raised this concern to management. (Single point of failure in this configuration), so claims of executive/management ignorance would not hold up.

This too has since been proven as well.

They KNEW.. someone, and most likely several someone’s at Boeing willfully and deliberately made the decision to put this plane in this configuration in the air with the public on board. At the very least those individuals should be facing direct charges personally. Yet to date it appears nothing will be done.

[Capt. Tom]

Don’t know a lot about cars do you? Front brakes are 80% of your braking power so yes, you definitely need them.

True enough. So instead of having only back brakes make it only having front brakes in my example.

So who needs rear wheel brakes, the front wheel brakes could be made to safety stop the vehicle, rear wheel brakes are a safety feature, something they should have added in to the Max with a second flight trim indicator IMHO. -Tom

[PapaBear3625]

But the people at the FAA (and this goes back to long before Trump) aren’t my kids, so they entrusted certification to people who could have higher priorities (i.e., stock price) and it finally came home to roost, once the management team was in place that put safety last.

Government regulatory agencies are inevitably captured by the industry they are supposed to regulate.

Boeing will pay a price for their slipshod safety. Government agencies rarely do. I would be happier to ride in a spaceship designed and operated by Musk's team, than by the people who brought us the Challenger and Columbia disasters.

[Blurb2350]

About those huge engines . . . I read awhile back, about the time of those notorious crashes, that in effect the body of the 737 Max was based on an earlier model, but with huge new, more-efficient engines. But when the engines were mounted to the wings there was too little clearance when taxiing. Oops! Rather than go to the trouble of changing things around to accommodate the engines, they simply scooted the engines in closer to the fuselage, which made controlling the plane much trickier, nevermind the software programming. Even to a layman this seems unnecessarily risky.

[BobL]

“Boeing will pay a price for their slipshod safety. Government agencies rarely do. I would be happier to ride in a spaceship designed and operated by Musk’s team, than by the people who brought us the Challenger and Columbia disasters.”

Boeing is paying a huge price for their idiocy...and the government will always overreact. It is really a no-win...

[DiogenesLamp]

How does it feel? Not so much fun when the insults come the other way is it?

Insults slide off me like water off of a duck's back. I'm not so insecure in my opinion of myself that I should care about a juvenile tactic like someone insulting me.

I also noticed that you didn't answer my point. Insult me if you like, but if you are involved in a discussion, you should also engage in some actual debate of your ideas.