In the case with the MAX, investing billions wasn't really the issue as evidenced by the fact that they sunk nearly 25 billion fixing the problem. Boeing g could have spent this money developing a swank new plane for that dough. The issue was timing. They needed to get a new aircraft out the door sooner than later to catch up with and compete with Airbus's latest A320neo variant....which was much further ahead in development at the time. People will put Boeing's motivation to "profit over safety"; but the reality is they had nothing to answer to Airbus... and were caught flat-footed. The MAX was a rush to production answer to compete. That said it's a solid airframe. They really screwed the pooch with the flawed MCAS design. They made really, really, really bad decisons rushing this aircraft to market.

(Written on 09/01/2021)(Permalink)

The size and placement of the LEAP engines had absolutely nothing to do with either crash. The crashes had everything to do with MCAS design and faulty AOA sensors/vanes. MCAS was not designed to correct a poor aerodynamic design or aerodynamic "instability". It was designed to mimic the feel of the NG variants though every aspect of the performance envelop. Did engine size/power, and placement changed the MAX's handling characteristics compared to the NG variant? Yes. Did this mean the aircraft is/was "unstable"? No. Boeing failed horribly with the decision to implement MCAS. They would've been better off leaving the MAX as is, getting it certified with a new type rating, and absorbing the cost to train the pilots and document accordingly. This would have cost them a few billion dollars over the life of the program. Instead MCAS cost them $25-30 billion.

(Written on 07/12/2020)(Permalink)

John Macaulay, of course there's the matter of the 40-50 million passengers that flew on the MAX prior to the grounding who didn't regret flying it..present company included a dozen times or so. The thing is your argument can be made regardless of the mode of transportation. Travel carries risk. It could be our time next....or not. With the MAX, and the level of scrutiny it has undergone, I'm fairly confident that the risk to fly on this aircraft will be no greater than any other. The souls lost with the two crashes is extremely tragic. I think of them and their families often.

(Written on 05/12/2020)(Permalink)

And your evidence to this is........?

(Written on 16/10/2020)(Permalink)

The bigger point to make is that modern aircraft change air 3-4 times a minute...scrubbed through HEPA or ULPA filter banks. Their efficiency 99.98% at .03 mocron for HEPA and .02 for ULPA. So, aerosols containing COVID-19 are rapidly and frequently scrubbed from the cabin air. That's why cabin crews haven't been dropping like flies...and why you don't hear airftraft as superspreader "events".

(Written on 16/10/2020)(Permalink)

Smart flyers don't mindlessly listen to the rhetoric of people with an axe to grind either.

(Written on 14/08/2020)(Permalink)

I still use FSX, with serial port stick and rudder pedals. I purchased an adapter some time back. I've since added a 3ed party weather generator, and 3rd party A/C. The 32 bit architecture can make things a bit cumbersome on a 64 bit machine(memory access issues mostly), but it still works with a bit of massaging. However, I am excited about MS's first update in 14 years! It'll be nic to operate a FS with architecture built around modern hardware! Hell...If I have to go out and buy a new set of rudder pedals and stick...I'll do it.

(Written on 17/07/2020)(Permalink)

Maximilian Steinhauser, VW sells nearly 400,000 new cars in the US each year. And that's just VW. Then we have Honda, Nissan, Toyota, Mercedes Benz, BMW, Hyundai, Kia,Suburu, and Fiat. That's a very diverse offering of vehicles not of US origin. This does not sounding like protectionism to me...and clearly, you know not what you say.

(Written on 04/07/2020)(Permalink)

Chris Habig, calling out the design age of the 737 airframe as it compares to more modern aircraft redundancies is a false narrative. You can argue about the design limitations of its undercarriage certainly. You can argue that the MAX still ulitlizes hydro-mechanical flight controls. But, neither of these factors are age related; they are and were conscious design choices. Boeing designed the undercarriage for ease of access for smaller airports lacking larger ramp equipment. With the MAX, they could've easily incorporated an all fly by wire flight control equipment. They chose to keep the bulk of the existing hydro-mechanical gear for cost control measures. As for redundancies, all aircraft flying today have multiple redundancies with their flight control systems..as does the MAX. The fact that Beoing failed to have any redundancy with respect to MCAS and the AOA vanes, is a colossal blunder, and not an age related design limitation. PS, the A320 series design dates to the late

(Written on 17/04/2020)(Permalink)

Steven Austin, agreed. Aircraft design has always been a compromise with cost, acceptable risk, and safety. This thought process is nothing new. Humans cannot make a perfect machine. Whether traveling by trains, planes, or automobiles, their will always be risk.

(Written on 10/04/2020)(Permalink)