Was the Green Movement partly responsible for jet crashes

Post Reply New Topic

Was the Green Movement partly responsible for 2 disastrous crashes of Boeing 737 Max aircraft?

Air travel, which accounts for 2 percent of global emissions, has become the great bogeyman for climate alarmists, sparking a backlash against airlines.

Punitive eco-taxes, aviation regulations, activist investors, green NGOs and climate-aware passengers conspire to force airlines and manufacturers to lower CO2 emissions by using less fuel, which accounts for 99 percent of aviation’s carbon footprint.

No one has said it explicitly yet, but this relentless pressure to reduce emissions appears to have been a significant factor in the disastrous safety failures of the Boeing 737 MAX aircraft, which resulted in two fatal crashes in the past year, claiming 346 lives.

The warning from Boeing’s catastrophes is that climate ideology can have fatal consequences.

The 737 MAX was trumpeted as “Boeing’s game changer.” It reduced emissions by 14 percent and Boeing raced it into production to compete with a climate-friendly new offering from Airbus.

But in order to achieve its green goal, Boeing had to use much bigger engines that didn’t fit in the usual position under the wing of the repurposed, 53-year-old 737 design.

The engines had to be moved forward and hoisted higher.

As a result, the aerodynamics changed, and the planes had a tendency to pitch up and potentially stall on takeoff. Boeing’s solution to this hardware defect was an imperfect software bandage that would automatically correct the pitch. In both crashes, preliminary investigations found this software kicked in even when the plane wasn’t stalling, with lethal consequences.

The decarbonization imperative for Boeing was clear. Carriers like United, which has vowed to become “the most environmentally conscious airline in the world,” rushed to buy the 737 MAX. So did American Airlines, whose CEO boasted, “We’re much more environmentally friendly than United Airlines right now because we’ve invested in more fuel-efficient aircraft.”

This was the priority driving Boeing. Its 2018 report “Build Something Cleaner” featured the 737 MAX on the cover and boasted that the plane will “emit 305,040 fewer tons of CO2 and save more than 215 million pounds of fuel per year, which translates into more than $112 million in cost savings.”

We need to know if safety considerations at Boeing took a back seat to producing a climate-friendly plane. There are implications for other companies.

After all, as Bernie Sanders says, “You cannot go too far on the issue of climate change. The future of the planet is at stake.”

If you believe the world is going to end in 11 years, the deaths of a few poor air travelers is a small price to pay for appeasing the climate gods.

Source: Eco madness may be reason for disastrous Boeing 737 MAX safety issues

The crashes were caused by malfunctioning attitude sensors and poor pilot training.

For Sanders to assign blame for political reasons is disingenuous.

Faults with the plane's design have been linked to both crashes.

There are nine things that contributed to this accident," Indonesian air accident investigator Nurcahyo Utomo told reporters at a news conference.

As Boeing's chief executive Dennis Muilenburg has repeatedly stated, there was a chain of events. But at the heart of that chain was MCAS - a control system that the pilots didn't know about, and which was vulnerable to a single sensor failure.

Boeing - and regulators - allowed the system to be designed in this way and didn't change it after the Lion Air crash, leading to a further disaster. And that means that while the report clearly points to serious failures by a parts supplier and by the airline itself, it is Boeing that will bear the greatest share of responsibility.

Source: Boeing 737 Max Lion Air crash caused by series of failures

Sounds like complete nonsense to me.