This is very misleading. The actual content says that they knew the mount could fail, but didn’t think it was a flight-safety risk…probably because there would still be two other good engines. It took 55 years (1970->2025) for aviation enthusiasts and pilots (presumably also Boeing) to realize that a wing engine failing also had an appreciable chance of taking out the tail engine. And that ISN’T what happened with AA191 in 1979: in that crash, the engine damaged the wing and hydraulics, not the tail engine. So they fixed that problem four decades ago.
I’m all for raking the McDonell-Douglass culture that destroyed Boeing over the coals, but that doesn’t seem to be the situation here.
They also knew of the flaw that forced an uncommanded pitch down and pushed with so much force a human could barely pull it back at all, let alone recover a suddenly nose diving plane against it.
2 Comments
MyEdgyAlt@sh.itjust.works · 10 pts · 227d
This is very misleading. The actual content says that they knew the mount could fail, but didn’t think it was a flight-safety risk…probably because there would still be two other good engines. It took 55 years (1970->2025) for aviation enthusiasts and pilots (presumably also Boeing) to realize that a wing engine failing also had an appreciable chance of taking out the tail engine. And that ISN’T what happened with AA191 in 1979: in that crash, the engine damaged the wing and hydraulics, not the tail engine. So they fixed that problem four decades ago.
I’m all for raking the McDonell-Douglass culture that destroyed Boeing over the coals, but that doesn’t seem to be the situation here.
MotoAsh@piefed.social · 2 pts · 227d
They also knew of the flaw that forced an uncommanded pitch down and pushed with so much force a human could barely pull it back at all, let alone recover a suddenly nose diving plane against it.