1. Disagree. It is entirely reasonable to design solutions around a problem. It is like saying that we should only have 56k internet because that will make it more difficult for pedophiles to share videos.
2. Disagree, rememeber, when designing anything, you do not have hindsight. You have to choose what features are needed and what are not.
3. That is being a luddite. I wager most modern airlines would be dangerous to fly without all those "fancy" algorithms. The vast majority of plane crashes have been due to human error on the part of the pilot
4. Every part of the plane is needed to fly. The MCAS thing would likely be part of the documentation.
5. That is where you are correct. Boing should have reacted faster.
You saying that you wouldn't fly on a 737 max is simply illogical given the risks you quite happily take for everything else you do.
One of the more hidden causes of these accidents is the regulations imo. Boing wanted to upgrade their planes to be more efficient, whilst keeping costs down. Seeing how re-certifying a new airframe is probably astronomically expensive, they did the logical thing and pushed the limit on an existing airframe.
Something to think about, if the regulations were not there, Boing would have simply designed a new frame for said engines that wouldn't have had the aerodynamic issues.
It is a catch 22.
We have a similar problem with software and the FDA. It is an absolute PITA to get a piece of software certificated by the FDA, thus the regulations very strongly encourage people to use existing software instead of innovating to something better.
I don't get those arguments at all. Tbh you're sounding like a Boeing public representative.
1. It is nothing like deliberately slowing the internet to make it less usable for criminal activity. Boeing had the option of developing an airframe suited to the new larger engines but opted to take the cheaper and quicker route of using an existing airframe not suited to the engines. They would have been acutely aware of the fact that without special software, the plane is not stable. That is a horrific impact on the safety of the Max plane.
2. Hindsight is irrelevant. A 'feature' that prevents a single faulty indicator from wreaking havoc on the crucial MCAS is not an optional extra. It's a critical component of the aircraft.
3. A very concerning defence of Boeing given how tenuous the argument is. We are not talking about general operating environments, inherent risk and all that. We are comparing the safety of one plane against the general level of safety of its competitors. I think it's insanity to assume that buyers of the Max planes wouldn't want to know that the airframe is uniquely unstable without MCAS for a commercial aircraft. Competing options from Airbus are not using airframes ill-suited to the engines. This has nothing to do with pilot error being the likeliest cause of a crash and everything to do with the fact that every reasonable measure has not been taken regarding safety.
4. An absolute non-starter of an argument. Boeing changed something fundamental to the safety of a member of the 737 family. MCAS can bring down and has already brought down planes when malfunctioning or incorrectly interacted with. I'm sorry but it is nothing less than criminal negligence to not make the importance of MCAS training updates abundantly clear to all airlines. Large, capitalised, bold red text on the first page of all Max documentation should have highlighted the importance of the MCAS.
5. And it's a critical point too. Boeing could have cost more hundreds of people their lives through their deceptive commentary and denials regarding safety. There should be serious consequences for their lack of responsibility.
=====
There's nothing illogical about wanting to fly on the safest planes. The fact that all modes of transport have inherent risk is irrelevant. I wouldn't buy a car with a poor safety rating either. It's about competing options and unnecessary risk.
The only entity that the Max airframe was logical for was Boeing's profitability. They didn't want Airbus to lap up all the orders for that market segment while they spent years catching up. This is not an acceptable excuse for a compromise on safety that has now cost 346 lives.
346 dead people because Boeing did not want to spend the necessary time and expense developing an aircraft safely. There is no getting around the simple fact that all those people would be alive if not for Boeing and the compromises they took with the safety of their Max planes.
I'm sure there are plenty of issues regarding regulations and oversight, but those are a separate issue. They don't excuse anything Boeing has done. And whether or not Airbus is guilty of unsafe practices is also a separate issue.
