You must log in or register to comment.

N8CCRG t1_j5wkfiu wrote

I'm guessing the people confused by the headline aren't familiar with the history of this controversy.

Anyway, I recommend everyone watch the Netflix documentary about this called Downfall. The execs responsible for those deaths should be in prison, and instead they were given billion dollar bonuses because they tricked the investors and the stocks went up.

Edit: Typing skills


adreamofhodor t1_j5wpqlp wrote

I know the history of the controversy, and it’s still a terrible headline. Don’t lead with the phrase “737 Max Crashes” if you don’t want people to be confused.


N8CCRG t1_j5wz7pi wrote

British news writes headlines differently than US news does I've found. They 100% assume you have been following this story for every second of every day. On topics I am ignorant of I am often super confused, but I found this headline clear when read as a whole.


TrainOfThought6 t1_j60s1fq wrote

Even then. You don't need to be unfamiliar with it to take "737 Max crashes" as an event instead of a topic. Bad headline.


sherm39 t1_j5w685q wrote

When I see a headline like this, I don't click on the publication for about a week. They know fuckin well what they're doing.


WonderBre4d t1_j5wcjni wrote

I don't get the other commenters..they are going to court to enter a plea of guilty or not.


GoArray t1_j5wdh90 wrote

The headline leaves open the possibility of yet another crash.


WonderBre4d t1_j5wey32 wrote

You'd have spell it out for me.

It appears to be fine. The article goes in depth on a lot of things.


dern_the_hermit t1_j5whw3y wrote

Literally the first thing a person reads is "737 Max crashes".

Given the issue of 737 Max's... y'know... crashing, structuring the headline to lead with that creates the impression that there's been yet another crash involving a 737 Max, instead of this merely being about crashes that already occurred.


WonderBre4d t1_j5wihb9 wrote


I took what you said way too literally. I read it as a crashed happened today, not as if it could happen again.

I struggle with it not phrasing as "crashed" or "previously crashed."

Sometimes I think I'm slightly autistic or obtuse.


AccomplishedMeow t1_j5wwbt4 wrote

It would be like your doctor saying

>You have cancer; That’s your zodiac sign

Or your mom calling you saying

>Dad died: when he realized you didn’t take out the trash yet


arcosapphire t1_j5wqqt8 wrote

Right now I'm just amazed that I didn't get misled by the I expected it to be exactly what was meant. Then I looked at the thread and was like, oh shit, yeah, that totally could mean the other thing. I wonder why I didn't read it that way at first.


tristan957 t1_j5xmgro wrote

Why is the FAA not being investigated for their role in this? They signed off on whatever fraud Boeing may or may not have committed.


5AlarmFirefly t1_j5zn5ic wrote

The original MCAS system was supposed to be very rarely used with several backup sensors. After it was approved by FAA, Boeing changed the design, allowing the system to run at almost all times and making it rely on a sole sensor (which is absolutely bonkers engineering). They intentionally hid the changes from the FAA certifiers so they wouldn't have to retrain pilots. In fact, they specifically requested that the MCAS system be removed from training manuals, so 737 pilots didn't even know about it till it started making headlines.

There was a branch of the FAA that did know about the changes, but they didn't require Boeing to rerun their safety tests on the new system. However, they also weren't the certifying branch.


tristan957 t1_j5znmi2 wrote

Appreciate the explanation. So this was more of a procedural issue in that one branch can't tell the other branch to recertify the plane?


5AlarmFirefly t1_j5zoby3 wrote

Well, the one branch absolutely should have required the new safety tests, and maybe they assumed Boeing had informed the other branch of the changes? But never trust giant corporations to self-regulate I think is the takeaway message. Boeing is overwhelmingly responsible for the crashes. They even continued to hide the issues with MCAS after the first crash.


gazagda t1_j5zchh0 wrote

Not exactly, they just let the "fox run the hen house" type scenario