Boeing cites risks in design of newest Airbus jet
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: It used to be an island...
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing complaining about another airplane when they're trying to use the finest 1960s safety design in the alerting systems in the most recent 737 Max designs is more than a little dishonest and ungraceful.
Cobbler, stand by your last!
Cobbler, stand by your last!
And Boeing's comments about protection for the RCT are both perfectly legitimate and, it would appear, are shared by the FAA (if not by EASA).
I agree that Boeing have every right to comment on other companies designs but the fact that they are trying to force through a 60 year old design of a less safe system for the Max 700 and 100 is disingenuous to say the least.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,552
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On an anecdotal remark, I flew (and still do) some single engine aircraft where the fuel tank is located between the engine and the cockpit , and even one where part of the tank was between my legs.
All certified by EASA and we alll wonder how it can be determined a "safe" design . ., Agreed they do not carry 200 pax but as the old saying goes, ,when there is a will, there always is a way.

See the quote (much) earlier in the now-merged thread about EASA's concerns, which are primarily to do with resistance to penetration of the fuselage and tank by an external pool fire, rather than impact from a hard or belly landing.