HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » FAA chief faces questions... » Reply #1

Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2019, 06:42 PM

1. There should be a Feynman type investigation

Like there was for the challenger disaster. Donít presume where there is and isnít fault.

Did the design decision to add the larger engines to the existing frame make it fundamentally flawed? That is was it reasonable to try to fix the instability with the new software feature?

How did the business decision to not require new training for this model impact the pilotís ability to know whether the mcas system was actively pitching down or the ability to disengage the system permanently?

How did the FAA pushing certification back to the vendor contribute to the failures?

I read that having mcas pitch down due to angle of attack made the sensor fall into a more critical category which required redundancy. What is that full story? Sorry im too lazy to google that right now.

Likewise I read that the original design limited elevator movement but that was increased during flight testing to increase stability. Was that change properly reviewed and approved?

The testing, certification and approvals missed the problem. What changes to those processes were made for the fix? Are there other fixes not in the first delivery?

The FAA was almost if not last in saying there was a problem. Why did other countries decide to ground the plane first?

I am not in the aviation industry but those are the questions I would like an independent auditor to answer.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 1 replies Author Time Post
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin May 2019 OP
LineNew Reply There should be a Feynman type investigation
Midnightwalk May 2019 #1
Please login to view edit histories.