posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 11:58 PM
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
I don't know what they have or don't have so I can't say if this warrants grounding entire fleets, but as I mentioned earlier in the thread, with
every company or regulatory agency that chose to ground them, the harder it became to keep them in the air. Not because those companies/agencies/the
media know more or better than Boeing/carriers still flying/FAA, but because it becomes a legal and optics liability. This quickly became the "right"
answer, not based on information available, but because it became a potential liability.
I imagine if it's related to the Lion Air case, it will be a problem in regards to pilot training. That doesn't perhaps alleviate responsibility from
Boeing fully -- if you have a product with an unusal quirk that might adversely affect safety, you have a responsibility to stress those quirks to
customers and to not trust the customer is competent enough to find it. It's worth noting, howeve, neither of the incidents occurred in the US,
Canada, or Australia where pilot requirements are more stringent. Boeing addressed this very specifically after the first incident-- so the onus after
that is on the operators.
If it turns out these incidents do have the same cause, we're going to find that Boeing already addressed this is announcements to operators of the
type, and those announcements were not properly addressed at the level of the carriers involved. It would be difficult to assign much blame to Boeing
in the light (though, perhaps, less so in the first instance, as I noted above Boeing does have a responsibility to effectively communicate
potentially adverse conditions as a result of the FCS). I don't fly anything as large as the B737, but even I became aware of MCAS issues after the
first incident and the work-arounds -- how could pilots and operators of the types fail to take notice?
ETA: you've since added "... doesn't look very good on the FAA" in a comment, which ties in nicely above. Just because it doesn't look good does not
make the decision correct on the merits -- but I agree, and mentioned earlier, it becomes a liability as more groundings were ordered
edit on 14-3-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)