• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

BOEING's BLACK-HEARTED MURDER MARKETING STRATEGY caused 737 MAX CRASHES! Exposed!

Ang4MohTrump

Alfrescian
Loyal
https://www.rt.com/news/454489-boeing-737-max-optional-extras/


Doomed Boeing 737 Max missing 2 key safety features that were sold as ‘optional extras’
Published time: 22 Mar, 2019 13:30
Get short URL
5c94d435dda4c8252e8b4662.jpg

File photo: © Pexels / Marina Hinic
  • 33




An alarming new report says that the two fatal Boeing 737 Max 8 crashes which killed almost 350 people were missing safety features which were sold as optional extras by the manufacturer, and not included as standard.
As entire fleets of the Boeing 737 Max 8 aircraft remain grounded across the globe amid investigations into safety practices at the airline giant, details have emerged about missing safety features, including additional sensors that would have operated as fail safes for the existing ones on board the aircraft and alerted the pilots to any potential issues.
The “angle of attack (AOA) disagree” light warns the pilot when the plane is about to stall based on factors such as the airflow and nose direction, but this does not come as standard when airlines purchase the aircraft.
Also on rt.com Captain of doomed Ethiopian airliner had ZERO hours of 737 MAX 8 simulator training – report
Another missing feature was the AOA indicator which gives pilots a visual representation of the airflow relative to the aircraft’s nose.
The Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) is designed to detect an imminent stall and adjust the plane’s stabilizers to pitch the nose forward to increase airspeed, thus preventing a stall. However, when this is improperly timed, it can be fatal.
To make matters worse, another anti-stall system that does come as standard on the Boeing 737 Max planes reportedly only used one sensor at a time despite having two. Had the additional sensors been fitted and in use, the pilots could potentially have overridden the MCAS and prevented the tragic loss of life.
In response to the tragedies involving Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 on March 10 and Lion Air Flight 610 five months earlier, Boeing will add the AOA disagree light as an update by the end of April, a source told the New York Times, and both sensors will operate by default. The AOA indicator will still be considered an optional extra, however.
Also on rt.com Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737 MAX 8 crash: Questions that remain unanswered
Boeing charges extra for things ranging from superficial things like leather seats to back-up fire extinguishers. Brazilian carrier Gol Airlines reportedly paid $6,700 extra for crew oxygen masks, and $11,900 for a weather radar system control panel.
Former Boeing engineers have reported that the company may have misled the Federal Aviation Authority about the efficacy of and risk associated with the MCAS, adding that Boeing didn’t have any external oversight for the aircraft’s safety certification.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
 

glockman

Old Fart
Asset
It is shocking to say the least. Boeing will be hurt bad by this, and they deserve it. They have been making aircraft for more a hundred years, they ought to have known better.
 

syed putra

Alfrescian
Loyal
It is shocking to say the least. Boeing will be hurt bad by this, and they deserve it. They have been making aircraft for more a hundred years, they ought to have known better.
They could have just lengthened the landing gear to accommodate bigger and heavier engines at the same location as previous models and retain all the controls.
 

Leongsam

High Order Twit / Low SES subject
Admin
Asset
SAFETY SOLD SEPARATELY, batteries not including. Pse read fine prints with magnifying glass to sign sales agreement!

Nothing wrong with adding safety features as optional extras. It's done in the automobile industry all the time.

Extra safety features means extra costs and it is only fair that the customer fork out a bit more money for the added peace of mind.
 

SeeFartLoong

Alfrescian
Loyal
Nothing wrong with adding safety features as optional extras. It's done in the automobile industry all the time.

Extra safety features means extra costs and it is only fair that the customer fork out a bit more money for the added peace of mind.


So basically you buy a plane from Boeing, it is one that will crash. If you want no crash got to buy safety option?
 

Shut Up you are Not MM

Alfrescian
Loyal
Chow Ang Moh Boeing now scared, and gave options FOC, but too late! All grounded and soon order cancellations and law suits coming!

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/crashes-b...reviously-sold-option-014053347--finance.html

After crashes, Boeing rolls out safety feature previously sold as option

Luc OLINGA
AFP News22 March 2019




fe65dcd0d8e70068c5789e46ffcd6f005170d75c.jpg

Boeing is struggling to cope with the fallout from two deadly crashes that have cast a spotlight on the safety certification process and shaken confidence in its 737 Max 8 model that is crucial to its future plans
Boeing's 737 MAX aircraft will be outfitted with a warning light for malfunctions in the anti-stall system suspected in October's fatal crash in Indonesia, an industry source told AFP Thursday, standardizing a feature previously sold as an optional extra.
The development comes as the manufacturer struggles to cope with the fallout from both the Indonesia crash and another in Ethiopia this month, which have cast a spotlight on the safety certification process and shaken confidence in a plane that is crucial to its future plans.
Known as a "disagree light," this safety feature will become standard and is among the modifications the company will present to US authorities and clients in the coming days, the source said on condition of anonymity.
Neither the Lion Air aircraft which crashed in Indonesia, nor the Ethiopian Airlines jet, had the feature, the source said. More than 300 people perished in the two cases.
American Airlines, which operates 24 737 MAX 8, had bought the option, anticipating potential malfunctions, a source close to the matter told AFP.
So too had Southwest Airlines, the plane's biggest customer, which also bought an additional "Primary Flight Display" option, according to a spokesperson.
Modifications are in the final stages but Boeing wants to be certain this meets the expectations of regulators and customers, the industry source said.
Neither Boeing nor the Federal Aviation Agency offered comment when contacted by AFP.
- 'Should be standard' -
But an industry expert, Scott Hamilton from Leeham Company, said the system should have already been included.
"Instrument disagree warnings should be standard and they are important for pilots to know when instruments disagree with each other," he said.
"Boeing made this an option because it could, and make money by selling it. Simple as that."
The warning light will be activated if sensors transmit incorrect data to the plane's Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), which is intended to detect and correct stalls by reducing the aircraft's pitch.
Preliminary results in the investigation into October's Lion Air crash in Indonesia indicate an "angle of attack" sensor, which feeds data to the MCAS, had malfunctioned.
But despite malfunctioning, the sensor continued transmitting data to the plane's onboard electronics, including the MCAS.
That system takes control of the aircraft, pointing its nose downward, even if the pilot resists, so long as the system is not deactivated, something the Lion Air crew did not know.
- Criminal investigation -
US and Ethiopian authorities have said this month's crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight ET302 near Addis Ababa bore "similarities" to last year's Lion Air crash.
The Ethiopian Airlines crash led to the global grounding of 737 MAX aircraft.
A criminal investigation is currently underway in the United States, with authorities reportedly scrutinizing how the plane received safety certification from US aviation regulators.
Senator Ted Cruz, the Texas Republican, called Wednesday for a hearing of the Commerce Subcommittee on Aviation and Space, for March 27, with three transportation officials, notably the acting head of the Federal Aviation Administration.
Cruz intends to hold a second hearing to question Boeing officials as well as pilots and others in the industry.
The investigations will likely zero in on the FAA's program of outsourcing its certification process to airplane manufacturers themselves.
The trend has accelerated due to budget cuts and the increasing volume of air travel, industry sources told AFP. In the case of the 737 MAX, Boeing expressed a case of urgency because of its medium-haul competition with the Airbus A320Neo that launched shortly before, the sources said.
Although it has suspended deliveries of the 737 MAX, Boeing has decided to continue production.




https://www.channelnewsasia.com/new...disclose-details-on-737-max-approval-11371762
US lawmaker urges FAA, Boeing employees to disclose details on 737 MAX approval

FILE PHOTO: Transportation and Infrastructure House Commitee member DeFazio, speaks at U.S. airline customer service hearing at the U.S. Capitol in Washington

23 Mar 2019 05:34AM (Updated: 23 Mar 2019 11:08AM)
Share this content


Bookmark


WASHINGTON: A US lawmaker on Friday (Mar 22) urged current or former Boeing and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) employees to come forward with any information about the certification programme for the 737 MAX, which has suffered two fatal crashes in five months.
Boeing and the FAA are under global regulatory scrutiny over software and training on the signature aircraft. Boeing risked losing a US$6 billion order for the jet on Friday, its first since the world's entire fleet was grounded last week.


Indonesian airline Garuda said it plans to scrap its order because some passengers are afraid to board the plane, although industry analysts said the deal was already in doubt.
In the United States, the chairman of the US House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Peter DeFazio urged people to use the committee's whistleblower web page.
"It is imperative we continue to ensure we have the highest level of safety for the travelling public," DeFazio said.
American Airlines pilots were preparing to test Boeing's planned software upgrade for an anti-stall system on MAX simulators this weekend, saying they want their own safety guarantees on the software fix.


The 737 MAX was Boeing's fastest selling jet before an Ethiopian Airlines crash near Addis Ababa on Mar 10, which followed a Lion Air crash in Indonesia on Oct 29.
READ: The nations, airlines grounding Boeing 737 MAX aircraft
READ: Ethiopian Airlines crash: Family of 6 among passengers who died
Ethiopian and French investigators have pointed to "clear similarities" between the two crashes, which killed 346 people, putting pressure on Boeing and US regulators to come up with an adequate fix. No direct link has been proven between the crashes but attention has focused on whether pilots had the correct information about the "angle of attack" at which the wing slices through the air.
Ethiopia has shared limited information with foreign investigators, Reuters reported on Thursday, and an industry source said Boeing had not yet received any black box and voice recorder data.
Meanwhile, US Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, on Friday raised concerns in a letter to the FAA about regulations that allow aircraft manufacturers to effectively self-certify the safety of their planes and "left the fox guarding the henhouse."
The FAA declined to comment.
The US Justice Department opened a separate investigation this week. The FBI has declined comment.
Garuda CEO Ari Askhara told Reuters on Friday: "Many passengers told us they were afraid to get on a MAX 8."
However, the airline had been reconsidering its order for 49 of the narrowbody jets before the Ethiopian crash, including potentially swapping some for widebody Boeing models.
Southeast Asia faces a glut of narrowbody aircraft like the 737 MAX and rival Airbus A320neo at a time of slowing global economic growth and high fuel costs.
"They have been re-looking at their fleet plan anyway so this is an opportunity to make some changes that otherwise may be difficult to do," CAPA Centre for Aviation Chief Analyst Brendan Sobie said.
Indonesia's Lion Air has also said it might cancel 737 MAX aircraft, though industry sources say it is also struggling to absorb the number of planes on order.
READ: What we know about Boeing 737 MAX crash and what comes next
RETROFITS
Boeing now plans to make compulsory a light to alert pilots when sensor readings of the angle of attack do not match - meaning at least one must be wrong -, according to two officials briefed on the matter.
Investigators suspect a faulty angle-of-attack reading led the doomed Lion Air jet's computer to believe it had stalled, prompting its anti-stall system, called MCAS, repeatedly to push the plane's nose down.


Norwegian Air played down the significance of the compulsory light, saying that, according to Boeing, it would not have been able to prevent erroneous signals that Lion Air pilots received before their new 737 MAX plane crashed in October.
Boeing must be cautious with how it characterises the safety alert, risking legal claims by saying it could have made a difference in the crash while not wanting to suggest that the retrofit is meaningless, legal experts said.
The Lion Air plane did not have the warning light installed, and Ethiopian Airlines did not immediately comment on whether its crashed plane had the alert.
But the Ethiopian carrier, whose reputation along with Boeing's is at stake, issued a statement on Friday emphasising the modernity of its safety and training systems, with more than US$500 million invested in infrastructure in the past five years.
READ: 'Will call you when I land,' texted Indian Ethiopia crash victim
The Ethiopian crash has set off one of the widest inquiries in aviation history and cast a shadow over the Boeing 737 MAX model intended to be a standard for decades.
Boeing did not comment on the plan to make the safety feature standard, but separately said it was moving quickly to make software changes and expected the upgrade to be approved by the FAA in coming weeks.
Experts said the change needs regulatory approval and could take weeks or months. Regulators in Europe and Canada have said they will conduct their own reviews of any new systems.
Boeing shares have fallen 14 per cent since the Ethiopian crash.
Source: Reuters/nh/aj





https://www.todayonline.com/world/d...ed-2-safety-features-company-sold-only-extras





Doomed Boeing jets lacked 2 safety features that company sold only as extras
20190322_boeing_737_nyt.jpg
THE NEW YORK TIMESIn the wake of the two deadly crashes involving the Boeing 737 Max series, the company will make one of two safety features, both originally sold as extras, standard as part of a fix to get the planes in the air again.
Published22 March, 2019
Updated 22 March, 2019
WASHINGTON — As the pilots of the doomed Boeing jets in Ethiopia and Indonesia fought to control their planes, they lacked two notable safety features in their cockpits.
One reason: Boeing charged extra for them.
For Boeing and other aircraft manufacturers, the practice of charging to upgrade a standard plane can be lucrative. Top airlines around the world must pay handsomely to have the jets they order fitted with customised add-ons.
Sometimes these optional features involve aesthetics or comfort, like premium seating, fancy lighting or extra bathrooms. But other features involve communication, navigation or safety systems, and are more fundamental to the plane’s operations.
Many airlines, especially low-cost carriers like Indonesia’s Lion Air, have opted not to buy them — and regulators don’t require them.
Now, in the wake of the two deadly crashes involving the same jet model, Boeing will make one of those safety features standard as part of a fix to get the planes in the air again.
It is not yet known what caused the crashes of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 on March 10 and Lion Air Flight 610 five months earlier, both after erratic takeoffs.
But investigators are looking at whether a new software system added to avoid stalls in Boeing’s 737 Max series may have been partly to blame.
Faulty data from sensors on the Lion Air plane may have caused the system, known as MCAS, to malfunction, authorities investigating that crash suspect.
Federal prosecutors are investigating the development of the Boeing 737 Max jet, according to a person briefed on the matter. As part of the federal investigation, the FBI is also supporting the Department of Transportation’s inspector general in its inquiry, said another person with knowledge of the matter.
The Justice Department said that it does not confirm or deny the existence of any investigations. Boeing declined to comment on the inquiry.
The jet’s software system takes readings from one of two vane-like devices called angle of attack sensors that determine how much the plane’s nose is pointing up or down relative to oncoming air.
When MCAS detects that the plane is pointing up at a dangerous angle, it can automatically push down the nose of the plane in an effort to prevent the plane from stalling.
Boeing’s optional safety features, in part, could have helped the pilots detect any erroneous readings. One of the optional upgrades, the angle of attack indicator, displays the readings of the two sensors. The other, called a disagree light, is activated if those sensors are at odds with one another.
Boeing will soon update the MCAS software, and will also make the disagree light standard on all new 737 Max planes, according to a person familiar with the changes, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they have not been made public.
Boeing started moving on the software fix and the equipment change before the crash in the Ethiopia.
The angle of attack indicator will remain an option that airlines can buy. Neither feature was mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration. All 737 Max jets have been grounded.
“They’re critical, and cost almost nothing for the airlines to install,” said Mr Bjorn Fehrm, an analyst at the aviation consultancy Leeham. “Boeing charges for them because it can. But they’re vital for safety.”
Earlier this week, Mr Dennis A. Muilenburg, Boeing’s chief executive, said the company was working to make the 737 Max safer.
“As part of our standard practice following any accident, we examine our aircraft design and operation, and when appropriate, institute product updates to further improve safety,” he said in a statement.
Add-on features can be big moneymakers for plane manufacturers.
In 2013, around the time Boeing was starting to market its 737 Max 8, an airline would expect to spend about US$800,000 (S$1.08 million) to US$2 million on various options for such a narrow-body aircraft, according to a report by Jackson Square Aviation, an aircraft leasing firm in San Francisco. That would be about 5 per cent of the plane’s final price.
Boeing charges extra, for example, for a backup fire extinguisher in the cargo hold. Past incidents have shown that a single extinguishing system may not be enough to put out flames that spread rapidly through the plane.
Regulators in Japan require airlines there to install backup fire extinguishing systems, but the FAA does not.
“There are so many things that should not be optional, and many airlines want the cheapest airplane you can get,” said Mr Mark H. Goodrich, an aviation lawyer and former engineering test pilot.
“And Boeing is able to say, ‘Hey, it was available.'”
But what Boeing doesn’t say, he added, is that it has become “a great profit centre” for the manufacturer.
Both Boeing and its airline customers have taken pains to keep these options, and prices, out of the public eye. Airlines frequently redact details of the features they opt to pay for — or exclude — from their filings with financial regulators.
Boeing declined to disclose the full menu of safety features it offers as options on the 737 Max, or how much they cost.
But one unredacted filing from 2003 for a previous version of the 737 shows that Gol Airlines, a Brazilian carrier, paid US$6,700 extra for oxygen masks for its crew, and US$11,900 for an advanced weather radar system control panel. Gol did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The three American airlines that bought the 737 Max each took a different approach to outfitting the cockpits.
American Airlines, which ordered 100 of the planes and has 24 in its fleet, bought both the angle of attack indicator and the disagree light, the company said.
Southwest Airlines, which ordered 280 of the planes and counts 36 in its fleet so far, had already purchased the disagree alert option, and it also installed an angle of attack indicator in a display mounted above the pilots’ heads.
After the Lion Air crash, Southwest said it would modify its 737 Max fleet to place the angle of attack indicator on the pilots’ main computer screens.
United Airlines, which ordered 137 of the planes and has received 14, did not select the indicators or the disagree light. A United spokesman said the airline does not include the features because its pilots use other data to fly the plane.
Boeing is making other changes to the MCAS software.
When it was rolled out, MCAS took readings from only one sensor on any given flight, leaving the system vulnerable to a single point of failure. One theory in the Lion Air crash is that MCAS was receiving faulty data from one of the sensors, prompting an unrecoverable nose dive.
In the software update that Boeing says is coming soon, MCAS will be modified to take readings from both sensors. If there is a meaningful disagreement between the readings, MCAS will be disabled.
Incorporating the disagree light and the angle of attack indicators on all planes would be a welcome move, safety experts said, and would alert pilots — as well as maintenance staff who service a plane after a problematic flight — to issues with the sensors.
The alert, especially, would bring attention to a sensor malfunction, and warn pilots they should prepare to shut down the MCAS if it activated erroneously, said Mr Peter Lemme, an avionics and satellite-communications consultant and former Boeing flight controls engineer.
“In the heat of the moment, it certainly would help,” he said. THE NEW YORK TIMES

Subscribe to our email newsletter to receive updates on the latest news.


By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TodayOnline newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.
 

Leongsam

High Order Twit / Low SES subject
Admin
Asset
So basically you buy a plane from Boeing, it is one that will crash. If you want no crash got to buy safety option?

The world is not made in black and white.

All planes can crash. No safety feature can make a plane 100% safe. What they do is reduce the probability so the more you add the less the probability.

Safety features cost money. The more you want the more you have to pay.
 

glockman

Old Fart
Asset
The world is not made in black and white.

All planes can crash. No safety feature can make a plane 100% safe. What they do is reduce the probability so the more you add the less the probability.

Safety features cost money. The more you want the more you have to pay.
I think you are incorrect to support payment for safety features. These are to be included on any aeroplane as a base model. Optional extras could be leather seats, better carpets, better toilet fittings, etc. Those things that have nothing to do with flight and safety. Hence, Boeing is a dick for offering essential safety features as payable options.
 

Leongsam

High Order Twit / Low SES subject
Admin
Asset
I think you are incorrect to support payment for safety features. These are to be included on any aeroplane as a base model. Optional extras could be leather seats, better carpets, better toilet fittings, etc. Those things that have nothing to do with flight and safety. Hence, Boeing is a dick for offering essential safety features as payable options.

It is not a matter of "supporting" or "not supporting".

If Boeing added ALL possible safety features to ALL the planes they built then they would be priced accordingly.

However there are many customers who cannot afford all the bells and whistles so they are quite happy to take a cheaper version without the complete range of safety add ons.

I did that when I bought my car. The top of the range model has radar vision that will brake for me if a crash is looming. I bought the model below that and saved $7000.

If I have a crash that could have been prevented then it is my fault for trying to save money. It is not the car manufacturers fault for not including this feature in base models.

If I end up being disabled as a result I would curse myself for putting $$$ ahead of safety. It would be ridiculous of me to blame the car company and it would also be ridiculous for me to expect the manufacturer to add the feature to ALL their models without charging for it. Businesses are not charities. They have to make money to stay relevant. If they don't they'll disappear.
 

glockman

Old Fart
Asset
It is not a matter of "supporting" or "not supporting".

If Boeing added ALL possible safety features to ALL the planes they built then they would be priced accordingly.

However there are many customers who cannot afford all the bells and whistles so they are quite happy to take a cheaper version without the complete range of safety add ons.

I did that when I bought my car. The top of the range model has radar vision that will brake for me if a crash is looming. I bought the model below that and saved $7000.

If I have a crash that could have been prevented then it is my fault for trying to save money. It is not the car manufacturers fault for not including this feature in base models.

If I end up being disabled as a result I would curse myself for putting $$$ ahead of safety. It would be ridiculous of me to blame the car company and it would also be ridiculous for me to expect the manufacturer to add the feature to ALL their models without charging for it. Businesses are not charities. They have to make money to stay relevant. If they don't they'll disappear.
It is your car, and it is your decision. So you live with the consequences. Besides, a car is a much more simpler piece of machinery as compared to an aircraft.

A plane carries hundreds of people who have no idea of whatever safety option is being compromised. As mere passengers, we assume the plane is 100% flight ready and all safety considerations have been taken care of. The plane manufacturer and the airlines owe it to passengers to ensure that.
 

Leongsam

High Order Twit / Low SES subject
Admin
Asset
It is your car, and it is your decision. So you live with the consequences. Besides, a car is a much more simpler piece of machinery as compared to an aircraft.

A plane carries hundreds of people who have no idea of whatever safety option is being compromised. As mere passengers, we assume the plane is 100% flight ready and all safety considerations have been taken care of. The plane manufacturer and the airlines owe it to passengers to ensure that.

The passengers do not decide but the airline does when it places the order from the aircraft manufacturer.

It is then up to the airline how they market their products when they sell the seats to the general public.

If they do not disclose the fact that they have skimped on safety you cannot blame Boeing you'd have to pin the responsibility on the airline.

Having said that you have to realise that flying nowadays is a lot safer than the trip to the airport. The number of accidents is very low and on a per kilometre basis is the safest form of travel available today.

We are so caught up with trying to eliminate ALL risk from our lives that it has reached the point of being absolutely ridiculous.
 

syed putra

Alfrescian
Loyal
This is tgh problem when companies do not hire indians as top executives. Best boeing start searching for one from mumbsi technical college or delhi businesses school.
 

winnipegjets

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Nothing wrong with adding safety features as optional extras. It's done in the automobile industry all the time.

Extra safety features means extra costs and it is only fair that the customer fork out a bit more money for the added peace of mind.

Not true for air travel.
 

winnipegjets

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
The passengers do not decide but the airline does when it places the order from the aircraft manufacturer.

It is then up to the airline how they market their products when they sell the seats to the general public.

If they do not disclose the fact that they have skimped on safety you cannot blame Boeing you'd have to pin the responsibility on the airline.

Having said that you have to realise that flying nowadays is a lot safer than the trip to the airport. The number of accidents is very low and on a per kilometre basis is the safest form of travel available today.

We are so caught up with trying to eliminate ALL risk from our lives that it has reached the point of being absolutely ridiculous.

Boeing put in the new features which was inherently problematic and then sell optional safety features to address those problems. How is that okay?
 

Leongsam

High Order Twit / Low SES subject
Admin
Asset
Boeing put in the new features which was inherently problematic and then sell optional safety features to address those problems. How is that okay?

If the new features were inherently problematic there would have been far more crashes.

From wiki :

After one year of service, 130 MAXs had been delivered to 28 customers, logging over 41,000 flights in 118,000 hours and flying over 6.5 million passengers. flydubai observed 15% more efficiency than the NG, more than the 14% promised, and dependability reached 99.4%. Long routes include 24 over 2,500 nmi (4,630 km), including a daily Aerolineas Argentinas service from Buenos Aires to Punta Cana over 3,252 nmi (6,023 km).[52]

2 crashes out of millions of km flown can hardly be described as an "inherent" problem.
 

winnipegjets

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
It is not a matter of "supporting" or "not supporting".

If Boeing added ALL possible safety features to ALL the planes they built then they would be priced accordingly.

However there are many customers who cannot afford all the bells and whistles so they are quite happy to take a cheaper version without the complete range of safety add ons.

I did that when I bought my car. The top of the range model has radar vision that will brake for me if a crash is looming. I bought the model below that and saved $7000.

If I have a crash that could have been prevented then it is my fault for trying to save money. It is not the car manufacturers fault for not including this feature in base models.

If I end up being disabled as a result I would curse myself for putting $$$ ahead of safety. It would be ridiculous of me to blame the car company and it would also be ridiculous for me to expect the manufacturer to add the feature to ALL their models without charging for it. Businesses are not charities. They have to make money to stay relevant. If they don't they'll disappear.

Well, you don't need that optional feature to drive properly. You just need to drive safely - keep a safe distance from the front vehicle - and stay alert.

In the case of Boeing, that optional safety feature would help pilot identify a problem which had set for automated correction. Now, that automated correction feature was flawed and planes without the optional safety feature would not be able to detect the problem. When Boeing put in a feature that takes actions which is normally done by the pilot and the pilot doesn't see that the feature has kicked in, that's is an issue.
 

winnipegjets

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
The world is not made in black and white.

All planes can crash. No safety feature can make a plane 100% safe. What they do is reduce the probability so the more you add the less the probability.

Safety features cost money. The more you want the more you have to pay.

The plane crashed because of error in the corrective function ...it should not have been triggered in both cases. If those planes had the optional safety indicators, the pilots would have known what was happening and thus be able to take the necessary actions. The pilots were operating in the blind.
 
Top