Originally Posted by
meleagertoo
If there were any of that present this thread would be very short indeed.
I'd sooner rely on industry experts and regulators than a bunch of self-appointed ex-spurt passengers who deem their wildly irrational fantasies on risk assessment and aircraft design superior to that of real experts.
Sorry to burden the thread with unnecessary complications like common sense or reality...
I'd sooner rely on 'industry regulators and experts'. But when the regulator appears to be in bed with the manufacturer that isn't really an option, is it? I think it is called 'regulatory capture' in the jargon. Thinking about the 737:
- Have they sorted the issues with the nacelle design post the un-contained engine failure on Southwest? I don't think so.
- Will they fix the anti ice on the composite nacelle before the Max 10 is certified? I don't think so.
- Have they implemented the changes required by EASA as a condition of letting the Max back into the air? I don't think so.
- Missing / loose bolts in the rudder control system.....
- Missing / loose bolts holding in a 6' x 3' 'door'
I am waiting with some interest to see how EASA react when they are asked to certify the Max 10. But not holding my breath.
Your comment on 'self-appointed ex-spurt passengers who deem their wildly irrational fantasies on risk assessment and aircraft design superior to that of real experts' says (I would suggest) more about you than us. At the time of the second crash the hull loss rate for the Max was 1 for every 80,000 flights, compared to 1 for every 5 million for the 737 fleet as a whole. I will fly the Max if I have to, but not if I don't: not because I believe 1 in 80,000 is an unacceptable risk to take, but because I have a wildly irrational fantasy that if people don't buy broken products manufacturers might notice and produce better ones.
By the way, the definition of an expert: 'ex means out of date, and a spurt is a drip under pressure'.