The FAA reviewed a software glitch in the Boeing 737 Max and decided it's fine. Not great. Not concerning. Fine. The glitch affects procedures during certain landings, which is exactly when you want software to work correctly, but the agency says it's not a flight-safety issue. They've redefined flight-safety to exclude the part where the plane touches the ground.
Boeing built a plane so cursed it got grounded worldwide for twenty months after two crashes killed 346 people. Fixed all the problems. Definitely got everything. Then someone found another software bug, this one related to landing procedures, and Boeing said don't worry about it. The FAA agreed. What are the odds they're wrong twice?
Retail traders saw this headline and immediately checked if BA calls were on sale. They reasoned that if the FAA says it's not a safety issue, it must be bullish. These are the same people who bought Tesla at $900 because Elon posted a meme. They will die poor and confused, wondering why the market didn't respect their conviction.
The 737 Max has had more software patches than Windows Vista. Each time Boeing says they fixed it for real this time, and each time another glitch appears like a dark passenger they can't shake. But this one's different because the FAA reviewed it on a Monday, which is when federal agencies do their most thorough work, right after checking their fantasy football lineups.
Certain landings. That's the phrase doing all the work here. Which landings? The FAA won't say. Could be crosswind landings. Could be icy runways. Could be any landing where the software decides to take a quick nap. But it's definitely not a safety issue, assuming you define safety as something other than whether the plane lands correctly.
The FAA's logic is bulletproof: if we say it's not a problem, then legally speaking, it's not a problem until it becomes a problem.
Photo by David Syphers on Unsplash
Leave a Comment