justin_o_guy2 wrote on 05/18/19 at 02:04:29:BTW, the aircraft as configured is safe, it has proven its airworthiness, its the sneaking circumventing of policies and procedures
There are dead people who went nose first into the ground because the air speed indicator was wrong, kicking in the stall prevention device, so, unless you have different information to explain why they crashed, I'm not even gonna entertain the notion that the cheap model is safe. Some have different systems.
I think you read more into that than intended.....
I was talking strictly the planes structure/airframe, NOT, the software they used to cover up their devious short cutting the procedures to test and document the engine relocation.....
WHICH I know nothing about whatsoever, it just a red flag that this "remodel" wasn't proven by the standard modifications procedures of flight testing.
To
me it seems all the previous models never had a issue with this technology and installations, readily overridden and disabled without having to get up and out of the pilot seat, why they put in new software to serve the same purpose, and a remote breaker to disable it....I don't know, but I think it was a group think working within the perimeters of what upper management told them they could do for a "just in case" the weight shift forward
might be a issue in some situations....
Example, heavy laden aircraft, taking off into adverse weather conditions, etc, where getting good lift and short runways make for pulling back on your
joystick too much, a temptation to get the hell up and outta there.....?????
I don't know, just "rumors"from shop talk.....????
Jog, that plane, the 737, spent way more time in the air in its serviceable life, than on the ground, do you realize that might mean 6 cycles a day stress on it....?
That is proof right there she is a worthy and proven design.