Boeing 737 MAX

[MaxPete]

Yeah, I tend to agree. After years of working on Boeing's, I trust 'em. I'm still baffled as to why they never put some redundancy into the MCAS in the first place...

I have faith in Boeing engineers too - but I think that this is a prime example of what happens when bean-counters get control in a technology company.

As I understand it, the failure was technological (duhhhh...I mean yeah, the airplanes aren't supposed to dive into the ground right after takeoff ....are they?) but the root cause was a business decision to market the airplane with:

• too few AoA sensors;
• software with a few too many bugs left crawling around in it;
• a half-baked training program for the bus-drivers;
• and push it out the door before it was ready.

In other words - some dumb@ss nitwit in the C-suite tried to make a few extra bucks to beef-up his Christmas bonus and a few hundred innocent people paid the bill. Several car companies have fallen victim to the same ailment (c'mon down General Motors and Volkswagen....).

The b-school and marketing clowns should just stick to their spreadsheets and let the engineers do the thinking and decision-making when complicated stuff is involved and people's lives are at stake.

....IMO....

 

[jetmechmarty]

I haven’t paid that much attention because I don’t have anything to do with that airplane. But, it seems they’re using software to cover up poor aerodynamic design. And then, there was that remark between employees via company email about the airplane being “designed by clown.” It all adds up to no thanks.

 

[xjwmx]

I have faith in Boeing engineers too - but I think that this is a prime example of what happens when bean-counters get control in a technology company.

The head of Boeing at the time was an engineer. Regardless, the engineers have a responsibility to put their foot down if there's a problem. Bottoms up.

 

[MacMcMacmac]

Deleted. Mostly just repeated what Jim already said.

 

[MaxPete]

The head of Boeing at the time was an engineer. Regardless, the engineers have a responsibility to put their foot down if there's a problem. Bottoms up.

Uh huh.

 

[Boog]

Boeing can no longer sign off their own safety certifications now. That means an outside agency (in this case the FAA) must do it. I feel they have met their requirements. I will fly in one when it shows up at my gate.

 

[xjwmx]

The head of Boeing at the time was an engineer. Regardless, the engineers have a responsibility to put their foot down if there's a problem. Bottoms up.

Uh huh.

"Uh huh" what?

 

[MaxPete]

Boeing can no longer sign off their own safety certifications now. That means an outside agency (in this case the FAA) must do it. I feel they have met their requirements. I will fly in one when it shows up at my gate.

Yup - and frankly, no matter who the engineers are, there is an inherent issue with having anyone sign off on their own:

• safety certifications;
• critical calculations;
• software testing;
• course grades;
• expense account claims;
• etc.

Having another set of eyes and a different brain agree that something important really IS ok - is always a good idea.

 

[MaxPete]

"Uh huh" what?

Uh huh - what?

Nothing really.

I have had you on "ignore" for a long time now but I just happened to check-in to see what wisdom you have graced us all with on this Boeing 737 Max issue, and you did not disappoint in that you have once again blithered about a subject on which you know nothing while doing your best to stir the pot.

.....and so, back to "ignore" status.

Cheers,

Pete

 

[xjwmx]

^Please try to at least keep me on ignore successfully, because I've had enough or your nitwit and insulting comments directed at me lately.

 

[Ratranger]

I worked at Boeing until february. With the grounding 75% of the work was gone. I chose to leave before getting laid off.

Half the problem was they cheaped out by modifying the 737 again. It was faster and cheaper than getting a new design cleared for flight.

Now while I say that, both crashes involved 3rd world airlines. Lion air had provably bad maintenance and lack of pilot training. I didn't read much into the other crash. But while boeing had their part in it, so did the airlines and pilots. So yes, the aircraft needed some fixes that should have been completed before going into service, but pilot training and knowledge is also important on any plane.

I'm not planning on flying anywhere anytime soon, but I don't really care what I fly on. Most people would only know what they are on if they bothered to look at the safety card.

 

[650trader]

The thing about this is they still have the same liability limit on the cash they pay out if one crashes.
Everything is about the money. I have some idea about this biz as I am an Aircraft mechanic.
Too much electric only controls.

 

[xjwmx]

Now while I say that, both crashes involved 3rd world airlines. Lion air had provably bad maintenance and lack of pilot training. I didn't read much into the other crash. But while boeing had their part in it, so did the airlines and pilots.

The way I read it, the change was intended to be transparent, meaning nobody even needed to know it was there, so there was no pilot training to be had by any airline. One of the driving forces was if extra training was required they lost a million dollars per plane from the price.

I don't fault the greedy capitalists for that though, it's a failure to really engineer it to be transparent. To not have redundancy and a good software system, specifically. From what I read about it.

 

[fredintoon]

Boeing's 737Max has been released for pax service after the longest grounding in US history.
Is it safe now?
Would you fly on it?
Why?

View attachment 180034

Hi Jim.
what? Lock myself in a flying tube with poor air conditioning along with a crowd of potentially Covid-19 carrying strangers?
Not even if it's pilot had thousands of hours experience flying one and had a senior safety official seated next to them.

 

[xjwmx]

Recertification process accused of being tainted. It's not uncommon for bureaucrats to cut corners, especially when life and limb are at stake...
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N2J31MK

 

[Jim]

Recertification process accused of being tainted. It's not uncommon for bureaucrats to cut corners, especially when life and limb are at stake...
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N2J31MK

Well, if you read the Senate report, you could argue there wasn't anything "inappropriate" about the coaching. From the report:

The whistleblower alleges Boeing officials were present for the testing and encouraged the test pilots to “remember, get right on that pickle switch” immediately prior to the exercise, which they acknowledged. “Pickle switch”refers to the stabilizer trim control switches,which adjust the horizontal stabilizer via electrical controls, enabling the pilot to quickly counterthe MCAS action.

If the pilot recertification also includes that "coaching," I'd consider it entirely appropriate. If you believe (correctly) that this whole process is all about getting the line crews properly trained, one would expect the (line) trainer to also emphasize the need to "pickle" the runaway trim as fast as possible. If that point wasn't emphasized to the FAA pilot, it wouldn't be a very good test of the training, would it.

 

[xjwmx]

Does the Senate report explicitly say anything was "inappropriate"?

P.S. I guess whatever it says it isn't too bad or else doesn't carry much weight if it takes petitioning to shut it down.

 

[Jim]

Does the Senate report explicitly say anything was "inappropriate"?

Yes.

 

[Jan_P]

So why is there any coaching at all ???

But a lengthy Senate Commerce Committee report released on Friday found that Boeing officials “inappropriately coached” FAA test pilots during its recertification efforts.

As I understand it .. criticism exist about FAA s Impartiality as well as Competence.
" Dogs watching TV " . and now the signal is that these dogs needs some coaching to sign the X on the dotted line for approval.

I am surprised they cannot get it right .. If Boeing is allowed to interfere in that process.
Why not the pistol in the neck or the brown envelope with all the cash.

In my book .. it should be something like
Hand over the product you want approved in this the Max 8
Hand over the Documentation ..with a short summary
Place a man by the Telephone answering -- should any questions arise.

How come they cannot do a regular impartial investigation up to the Basic principles in professional situations

" Senate report that raised concerns about the re-approval process."
For heavens sake under Criminal Investigations and potential investors Lawsuits
Still cannot clean up their Act ............

 

[Jim]

So why is there any coaching at all ???

But a lengthy Senate Commerce Committee report released on Friday found that Boeing officials “inappropriately coached” FAA test pilots during its recertification efforts.

As I understand it .. criticism exist about FAA s Impartiality as well as Competence.
" Dogs watching TV " . and now the signal is that these dogs needs some coaching to sign the X on the dotted line for approval.

I am surprised they cannot get it right .. If Boeing is allowed to interfere in that process.
Why not the pistol in the neck or the brown envelope with all the cash.

In my book .. it should be something like
Hand over the product you want approved in this the Max 8
Hand over the Documentation ..with a short summary
Place a man by the Telephone answering -- should any questions arise.

How come they cannot do a regular impartial investigation up to the Basic principles in professional situations

" Senate report that raised concerns about the re-approval process."
For heavens sake under Criminal Investigations and potential investors Lawsuits
Still cannot clean up their Act ............

Let's look at two scenarios:
1. Boeing writes procedures to overide the runaway trim. They "coach" the FAA pilot on how to follow those procedures.
2. Boeing writes procedures to overide the runaway trim. They fold their arms and tell the FAA pilot. "Effin' figure it out yourself."
Personally, I like option 1.