Is safety an optional extra?

[kingandy2nd]

According to Boeing it is!

Doomed Boeing planes lacked two optional safety features

"Boeing reportedly sold the 737 Max planes that crashed in Indonesia and Ethiopia without two safety features that the US aircraft manufacturer offers airlines for an additional cost."

And it may not just be Boeing either...

"It is up to airlines to decide whether to pay for upgrades to a standard plane – a practice that is common among aircraft manufacturers and allows them to charge extra, often for aesthetic features relating to seating or lighting, but for other features relevant to the operation of planes, too.

Regulators do not require airlines to buy optional extras, and many low-cost carriers opt not to."

And if the regulators are turning a blind eye to safety 'optional extras', then it's just yet another case of 'profit before people'...

If proven to be the cause in these crashes, Boeing should be taken to the cleaners!

Think you’re being a bit sensenatonalist here.

Obviously it’s terrible what’s happened with these crashes, but from a couple of news reports I’d read there was a suggestion that it was a new anti-stall safety feature that may have caused the accidents. If so, the liability clearly is with Boeing.

Returning to your point of ‘profits before people’ - All planes, cars, etc will have to meet minimum safety standards set by regulators.

There is no reason why customers can or can’t choose to buy additional safety features above the minimum level.

My Renault kangoo van had stability control as an optional extra when sold new (2011). Makes my van safer, but doesn’t make others inherently unsafe and Renault liable if someone puts it into a ditch through bad driving.

Bicycles aren’t sold with helmets...

 

[noseall]

Bicycles aren’t sold with helmets...

A lot are bought by helmets, particularly those who think it is their right to ride two abreast.

 

[Brigade77]

A lot are bought by helmets, particularly those who think it is their right to ride two abreast.

They do this because it is actually a benefit to motorists.

You're just too stoopid to work it out ain'tcha

 

[kingandy2nd]

A lot are bought by helmets, particularly those who think it is their right to ride two abreast.

Agree - usually the MAMILs.

I love cycling, mostly mountain biking.

In the summer I sometimes ride the 6 miles to work and it does my head in the number of cyclist that flout the rules of the road (jumping red lights, riding on pavements, etc).

 

[noseall]

They do this because it is actually a benefit to motorists

They do it for one reason and that is to have a nice face to face chat whilst weaving about and slowing all the traffic behind.

Selfish helmets.

 

[SirGalahad]

Think you’re being a bit sensenatonalist here.

Obviously it’s terrible what’s happened with these crashes, but from a couple of news reports I’d read there was a suggestion that it was a new anti-stall safety feature that may have caused the accidents. If so, the liability clearly is with Boeing.

Returning to your point of ‘profits before people’ - All planes, cars, etc will have to meet minimum safety standards set by regulators.

There is no reason why customers can or can’t choose to buy additional safety features above the minimum level.

My Renault kangoo van had stability control as an optional extra when sold new (2011). Makes my van safer, but doesn’t make others inherently unsafe and Renault liable if someone puts it into a ditch through bad driving.

Bicycles aren’t sold with helmets...

In this case it looks like the regulator is also responsible. They let Boeing self certify a great deal of their plane because due to cuts the regulator didnt have the resources to do so.

In the US the right wing media like Fox and the Republcan party has demonised regulators and regulations so standards are either cut (look at their poor food standards) or not enforced properly likely in this case.

 

[ellal]

Think you’re being a bit sensenatonalist here.

You've totally missed the point, and your 'analogies' are irrelevant...

Manufacturer supplies aircraft that has a basic operating fault.
(why else would Boeing be working on a software upgrade?)

'Optional extras' are available that would override basic operating fault.
(some of which are now suddenly to become standard equipment)

Regulator doesn't require 'optional extras' that would override basic operating fault to be purchased.
(some of which are now suddenly to become standard equipment)

And then throw in the lack of pilot training relating to the basic operating fault.

That's not being sensationalist!

But hey, maybe you'd like to explain your condoning of the inadequate 'safety' regime to the families of the hundreds of victims?

An interesting take on the situation

 

[kingandy2nd]

You've totally missed the point, and your 'analogies' are irrelevant...

Manufacturer supplies aircraft that has a basic operating fault.
(why else would Boeing be working on a software upgrade?)

'Optional extras' are available that would override basic operating fault.
(some of which are now suddenly to become standard equipment)

Regulator doesn't require 'optional extras' that would override basic operating fault to be purchased.
(some of which are now suddenly to become standard equipment)

And then throw in the lack of pilot training relating to the basic operating fault.

That's not being sensationalist!

But hey, maybe you'd like to explain your condoning of the inadequate 'safety' regime to the families of the hundreds of victims?

An interesting take on the situation

No, I haven’t missed the point at all and arguing reductio ad absurdum does not support your case.

Where is your evidence of a basic operating fault? Let alone an operating fault that you have to buy an optional extra to override?

Where am I condoning anything other than the right for any customer to purchase enhancements to safety features?

Then to throw in comments about the victim’s families is quite frankly disgusting and you should be ashamed of trying to use them as an emotional tool to try and get your point across.

So back to your original question - is safety an optional extra? Yes, it can be providing minimum safety requirements are met in the base product.

 

[ellal]

No, I haven’t missed the point at all and arguing reductio ad absurdum does not support your case.

Where is your evidence of a basic operating fault? Let alone an operating fault that you have to buy an optional extra to override?

Where am I condoning anything other than the right for any customer to purchase enhancements to safety features?

Then to throw in comments about the victim’s families is quite frankly disgusting and you should be ashamed of trying to use them as an emotional tool to try and get your point across.

So back to your original question - is safety an optional extra? Yes, it can be providing minimum safety requirements are met in the base product.

You sure don't like your ignorance being shown up, do you

But hey, you carry on trying to find your way out of that wet paper bag of yours



I particularly like your bit about "Where am I condoning anything other than the right for any customer to purchase enhancements to safety features?"

What you are actually condoning is the right for the manufacturer/regulator/purchaser to decide whether their planes might fall out of the sky or not and the risks thereof!

And the actual 'customer' is of course oblivious to all this until it's too late...

As confucius say - may all your future flights be 'max' ones

So back to your original question - is safety an optional extra? Yes, it can be providing minimum safety requirements are met in the base product.

In this case it appears the 'base product' and 'minimum safety requirements' are mutually exclusive!

 

[Brigade77]

Does anybody here actually understand what is meant by "SAFETY" ???

Do you understand the differences between a patent & a latent defect ?

Do you understand the meaning of the phrase "fail safe" ???

 

[transam]

Apparently just before the first crash the pilots were reading the manual trying to find out how to override this new (?) safety system ?

 

[SirGalahad]

Apparently just before the first crash the pilots were reading the manual trying to find out how to override this new (?) safety system ?

MCAS is not a safety system it is part of the flight software just like auto pilot is not a flight safety system.

MCAS was poorly written and implemented - using the data from only one AOA sensor and never tested with erroneous data.

 

[SirGalahad]

So back to your original question - is safety an optional extra? Yes, it can be providing minimum safety requirements are met in the base product.

I am bit confused about the question and your response. Read the below excerpt, what is safe and what is the legal requirement?

Boeing charges extra, for example, for a backup fire extinguisher in the cargo hold. Past incidents have shown that a single extinguishing system may not be enough to put out flames that spread rapidly through the plane. Regulators in Japan require airlines there to install backup fire extinguishing systems, but the F.A.A. does not.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/21/business/boeing-safety-features-charge.html

 

[transam]

Then they should have used 3 sensors that work on a voting system set up

 

[SirGalahad]

Then they should have used 3 sensors that work on a voting system set up

It's still patching up the problem of an aircraft that has aerodynamic and design problems. Each plane has it's own quirks due to its design, handling etc but to fly one that you know has an aerodynamic instability well I hope your training covers every eventuality.

You have to understand this is a cludge of an aircraft design, it is not fly by wire unlike the far more advanced A320 which has 3 AOA sensors.