BrothelLife

In case you fly, are a pilot, are a safety engineer, work for the FAA or work for Boeing...
...here is some info that is shedding some intelligent analysis on the two crashes:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... nutes.html  (scroll down multiple times)

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... air-crash/

Update on the 737 Max situation:
https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?do ... e-20190329#

You know what the irony about this airplane is Mr T, Boeing never initially wanted to make the MAX. They wanted to start over with a new, clean sheet design, to compete against the A320 NEO. It was all of their customers that demanded they make an updated 737 model or they would go with Airbus for their replacement airplanes. Makes me wonder what would have happened if Boeing decided to stick with their original plan.

Yep.  The Boeing decision to make the 737 MAX "look like" the other 737s is showing to be a stretch.

When the Boeing 757 and 767 planes were being designed, Boeing insisted (to their subs) that both planes were to fly similar enough that the same crew training applied to both planes.  It was a cost and logistic benefit to the customers.

It looks like, in this case, the customer isn't always right.  But also Boeing allowing a design with a single point of failure (single angle of attack indicator (AOA) controlling the elevators) is Flight Safety No-No #1.

An interesting sidelight is that the engine supplier had a competitor that could have been used that was smaller in size.  Had Boeing switched engine suppliers, they would have not had to jack up the nose of the plane, nor shift the engines so far forward, affecting the A/C CG.

(Sorry for the inside baseball talk for you non-aviation folks.)

I would like to know what Fred T thinks of this