- A review by a U.S. Federal Aviation Administration panel into Boeing Co’s grounded 737 MAX aircraft found a planned software update and training revisions to be “operationally suitable,” the agency said Tuesday, an important milestone in getting the planes back in the air.
Boeing has been announced a planned software update on the 737 MAX to prevent erroneous data from triggering an anti-stall system known as MCAS that is under scrutiny following the two disastrous nose-down crashes. Despite the stock rebound, investors were advised on Tuesday by the proxy firms Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis to press the company to vote for a shareholder proposal to split the role of chairman and chief executive.
Glass Lewis also recommended investors vote to remove from the board the head of Boeing’s audit committee, Lawrence Kellner. Kellner is the former chair and chief executive of Continental Airlines.
Source: Tech Daily Report (techdailyreport.net)
Can hardware defects be repaired by software updating?
Weasel words?
“Operationally suitable”, not exactly a ringing endorsement. How about ‘safe for flight’? No? just “operationally suitable”? I think l’ll wait for an Airbus thanks!
don't want to fly with this plane ever
Does anyone knows if as a passenger is legal to refuse a flight that was planned in an XXX aircraft and suddently the airline replaces it by a 737MAX?
Uhhh.. you first, please!
...and it comes from the same agency that certified it worthy at the start. Airbus should be asked to certify instead (lol) and never FAA again. It doesn't have the expertise.
Won’t fly on one.
Mr Max carries medicine in his pocket all the time ... to be taken hurriedly when he feels unstable ....
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I think Boeing are going to lose orders and those that care will refuse to fly on a Max. I think the Max is finished but it'll take a while to die. Unlike those who have already perished thanks to corporate greed.
Danger returns to the sky...737MAX
Exceptionalism is such a fraud
350 people died, when it reach 737 people`s than Boeing think it`s suitable.
In other news! Cheap flights available. Any takers?
Operationally suitable for Boeing, the MCAS is still there an suppose to be a risk. The mechanical sensor MCAS outside the plane are the main reason. A bird strike can put it out of focus.
What does that even mean?
They can fu*k right of if they ever think I am gonna get on one of them, I'm not some guinea pig.
Never getting on one of these tin cans, and believe i am not alone in that thought
Boeing 737 FIXED !
The 737 MAX: It's not just good... it's good enough!
...смешно.....комиссия не закончила работу....а виноватой уже назначили ....ПО?...может вы закончите заниматься очковтирательством..
You first!
Nothing says security like a freshly patched software. Wonder how the test flights went?
And reliable? 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️ b737max
All the Boeing executives should make a round-trip trans Pacific flight on one of 737-Max first And because we are people of science, I believe in atleast 3 readings before calling an experiment successful. So they need to do 3 round trips. After that I’ll consider the plane safe
I can make a mistake tweeting Boeing can't make mistakes Fix it now
L o l
Who wants to fly on “suitable” equipment...
goodluck
The BoeingAirplanes 737 MAX is one plane I will get a ticket to take. I will get right off and chalk the money I paid as a loss to save life.
Did let your engineer write the press release. Though suitable is a 'suitable' word to use - it sure doesn't axude confidence!
Confidence instilling...
Suitable?
= won't kill you and all other passengers
Personally speaking, my life is worth more then a just ok patch.
Not exactly a glowing endorsement.
Who wants to be first to try it out? Anyone? Anyone?
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: CNBC - 🏆 12. / 72 Read more »
Source: Reuters - 🏆 2. / 97 Read more »
Source: Reuters - 🏆 2. / 97 Read more »
Source: Reuters - 🏆 2. / 97 Read more »
Source: Reuters - 🏆 2. / 97 Read more »
Source: Reuters - 🏆 2. / 97 Read more »
Source: washingtonpost - 🏆 95. / 72 Read more »
Source: WSJ - 🏆 98. / 63 Read more »