Originally Posted by
WillowRun 6-3
I've never visited the country known as . . . .
(i) prior post seemed to argue Sen. Cruz was responsible for the court filing, as compared to arguing that Cruz's remarks as referenced in the filing, were incorrect. The misreading occurred on my end.
(ii) I anticipate your "wrong party" assertion would prompt lively discussion even from venerable defense counsel, not only the gun-slingers. That is, the manufacturer takes a given customer's host country's civil aviation sector as a whole as the manufacturer finds it.
(iii) it turns out, to some extent reading between lines, that your advocacy about "matters involving Ethiopia" (lacking a better phrase at this time) may not be intended to be read or interpreted as a broad exoneration of Boeing with regard to the entire set of 737 MAX debacles. As it happens, I detest the word "narrative" but I'll use it: ..... the part of the overall set of debacles with this aircraft which in your view must include and account for the narrative you relate about matters involving Ethiopia, that part of the overall debacles stands on its own. Not as a reason to minimize or even disengage from any other 737 MAX failing by Boeing that has come to light. (I hesitate to "buy" that narrative but I cannot refute it, either, so.....)
(Iv) nonetheless, having said all that, I think the record of Boeing's dishonesty after the Lion Air accident speaks adequately for itself. Boeing, which agreed to the DPA, wasn't charged with a crime relating to or involving its post-Lion Air acts and omissions. Perhaps your view is that corruption or similar malfeasance in the matters involving Ethiopia is so significant that the crash victims' families' legal offensive against the DPA should be thrown aside. But the statutory provisions in question, .... I'll just say, I would disagree.
Hey, thanks for waiving off snark and so on, & for tolerating some from my end.
It's difficult to argue with somebody, who considers the abnormally to be normal. Mech Eng does have the viewpoint, that the cacophony in a B737, once just a single item goes wrong, is normal and all and every pilot should be able to handle the situation as if the cause of the cacophony is "known" right away, as if a big light goes on with the exact failure indication. And, since such a light doesn't exist in the B737 cockpit, blame the countries circumstances, that the pilots don't understand the cause of the cacophony, within a couple of seconds (which is the time, one has with the MCAS type run-away). On top of that, that the official Boeing MCAS "resolution" simply doesn't cover the situation AND does not work, when not applied within a few seconds after the happening. Yeah.....
With the YT example of the trim-runaway: This is just a different situation. A trim-runaway "keeps running", as in the YT. The MCAS run-away just stops, whenever the pilot does do a manual trim, to sneaky restart again, after a couple of seconds. Looks a little similar, though completely different at the overall functional level.
As said, it's difficult discussing with Mech Eng, when non-relevant aspects are promoted to "the cause of the ....".