Planet Rugby Forum

Boeing ... will not offer the 737 Max for FAA certification until it has “satisfied all requirements for certification and its safe return to service”.

Boeing has acknowledged the new issue on the Boeing 737 Max recently uncovered by the US Federal Aviation Administration, but gave no indication how long remedying it will take.

The FAA found a data processing issue that could force the 737 MAX to dive in-flight, which pilots had difficulty recovering from in simulator tests, according to Bloomberg. This new issue is similar to the one responsible for two crashes since October 2018 that killed 346 people.

message #2527204 wrote:

Boeing ... will not offer the 737 Max for FAA certification until it has “satisfied all requirements for certification and its safe return to service”.

Boeing has acknowledged the new issue on the Boeing 737 Max recently uncovered by the US Federal Aviation Administration, but gave no indication how long remedying it will take.

The FAA found a data processing issue that could force the 737 MAX to dive in-flight, which pilots had difficulty recovering from in simulator tests, according to Bloomberg. This new issue is similar to the one responsible for two crashes since October 2018 that killed 346 people.

Seneca of the Night wrote:This is 'funny':

Boeing’s 737 Max Software Outsourced to $9-an-Hour Engineers

It remains the mystery at the heart of Boeing Co.’s 737 Max crisis: how a company renowned for meticulous design made seemingly basic software mistakes leading to a pair of deadly crashes. Longtime Boeing engineers say the effort was complicated by a push to outsource work to lower-paid contractors.

The Max software -- plagued by issues that could keep the planes grounded months longer after U.S. regulators this week revealed a new flaw -- was developed at a time Boeing was laying off experienced engineers and pressing suppliers to cut costs.

Increasingly, the iconic American planemaker and its subcontractors have relied on temporary workers making as little as $9 an hour to develop and test software, often from countries lacking a deep background in aerospace -- notably India.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -engineers

Seneca of the Night wrote:

fishfoodie wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:This is 'funny':

Boeing’s 737 Max Software Outsourced to $9-an-Hour Engineers

It remains the mystery at the heart of Boeing Co.’s 737 Max crisis: how a company renowned for meticulous design made seemingly basic software mistakes leading to a pair of deadly crashes. Longtime Boeing engineers say the effort was complicated by a push to outsource work to lower-paid contractors.

The Max software -- plagued by issues that could keep the planes grounded months longer after U.S. regulators this week revealed a new flaw -- was developed at a time Boeing was laying off experienced engineers and pressing suppliers to cut costs.

Increasingly, the iconic American planemaker and its subcontractors have relied on temporary workers making as little as $9 an hour to develop and test software, often from countries lacking a deep background in aerospace -- notably India.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -engineers

And what will happen to the Managerial geniuses, who thought this was a good idea; & signed off on the results ?, Nothing !!!

What will happen to the board that demanded this bullshit; nothing !!!

If it gets really, really, bad; & the shareholders demand blood; they'll give a few of them gold plated payoffs & send them on their way.

It's fucking sickening

President Tucker Carlson would have them in prison.

Gavin Duffy wrote:Panorama putting the boot in there.

Saint wrote:Dunno what Panorama are saying, but Boeing are planning to close the 737 line. They're running out of storage space and are expecting recertification to run well into next year

Adam Dickson worked at Boeing for 30 years and led a team of engineers who worked on the 737 Max. He said they were under constant pressure to keep costs down.

"Certainly what I saw was a lack of sufficient resources to do the job in its entirety," he says.

"The culture was very cost centred, incredibly pressurised. Engineers were given targets to get certain amount of cost out of the aeroplane."

Mr Dickson said engineers were under pressure to downplay new features on the 737 Max.

He said by classifying them as minor rather than major changes, Boeing would face less scrutiny from the US regulator, the Federal Aviation Administration.

"The goal was to show that those differences were so similar to the previous design that it would not require a major design classification in the certification process. There was a lot of interest and pressure on the certification and analysis engineers in particular, to look at any changes to the Max as minor changes."

fishfoodie wrote:

Saint wrote:Dunno what Panorama are saying, but Boeing are planning to close the 737 line. They're running out of storage space and are expecting recertification to run well into next year

I assume they're expanding on their initial teaser article from this morning, the way they usually do.

Adam Dickson worked at Boeing for 30 years and led a team of engineers who worked on the 737 Max. He said they were under constant pressure to keep costs down.

"Certainly what I saw was a lack of sufficient resources to do the job in its entirety," he says.

"The culture was very cost centred, incredibly pressurised. Engineers were given targets to get certain amount of cost out of the aeroplane."

Mr Dickson said engineers were under pressure to downplay new features on the 737 Max.

He said by classifying them as minor rather than major changes, Boeing would face less scrutiny from the US regulator, the Federal Aviation Administration.

"The goal was to show that those differences were so similar to the previous design that it would not require a major design classification in the certification process. There was a lot of interest and pressure on the certification and analysis engineers in particular, to look at any changes to the Max as minor changes."

I'm shocked; shocked, I tells ya

Plato'sCave wrote:

fishfoodie wrote:
I'm shocked; shocked, I tells ya

I second that eye roll.

fishfoodie wrote:

Plato'sCave wrote:

fishfoodie wrote:
I'm shocked; shocked, I tells ya

I second that eye roll.

I'd say a lot of us on here, have worked for Multi-Nationals, who while they loudly blather on about, 'values', & 'culture', & other such bullshit; are ultimately, all about profit.

No-one gets promoted for choosing 'culture', or declared values; at the expense of actual Profit !

Everyone knows this, but bugger all people actually say it; I know this particularly well, because I was frequently one of those lightning rods who did point out when the company was being two-faced; & often ended up being pulled aside later by my manager, for them to caution be about being, 'cynical'; or, honest, as I preferred to say.

I've nothing against profit, because smart companies have mechanisms to enable employees to invest in their companies, & do well for themselves; when the company does well; but the problems occur; when critical employees, & managers, are put in a position, where they do better, if the customer does worse.

These people were put in a position, where effectively; for every person who died in a crash; the were rewarded more.

Plato'sCave wrote:

fishfoodie wrote:

Plato'sCave wrote:

fishfoodie wrote:
I'm shocked; shocked, I tells ya

I second that eye roll.

I'd say a lot of us on here, have worked for Multi-Nationals, who while they loudly blather on about, 'values', & 'culture', & other such bullshit; are ultimately, all about profit.

No-one gets promoted for choosing 'culture', or declared values; at the expense of actual Profit !

Everyone knows this, but bugger all people actually say it; I know this particularly well, because I was frequently one of those lightning rods who did point out when the company was being two-faced; & often ended up being pulled aside later by my manager, for them to caution be about being, 'cynical'; or, honest, as I preferred to say.

I've nothing against profit, because smart companies have mechanisms to enable employees to invest in their companies, & do well for themselves; when the company does well; but the problems occur; when critical employees, & managers, are put in a position, where they do better, if the customer does worse.

These people were put in a position, where effectively; for every person who died in a crash; the were rewarded more.

It’s a high pressure industry, and many fast tracked managers wont pay that extra for quality because they don’t understand the difference between quality design, requirements, code and testing from aggregated figures on a spreadsheet.

fishfoodie wrote:

Plato'sCave wrote:

fishfoodie wrote:
I'm shocked; shocked, I tells ya

I second that eye roll.

I'd say a lot of us on here, have worked for Multi-Nationals, who while they loudly blather on about, 'values', & 'culture', & other such bullshit; are ultimately, all about profit.

No-one gets promoted for choosing 'culture', or declared values; at the expense of actual Profit !

Everyone knows this, but bugger all people actually say it; I know this particularly well, because I was frequently one of those lightning rods who did point out when the company was being two-faced; & often ended up being pulled aside later by my manager, for them to caution be about being, 'cynical'; or, honest, as I preferred to say.

I've nothing against profit, because smart companies have mechanisms to enable employees to invest in their companies, & do well for themselves; when the company does well; but the problems occur; when critical employees, & managers, are put in a position, where they do better, if the customer does worse.

These people were put in a position, where effectively; for every person who died in a crash; the were rewarded more.

camroc1 wrote:

fishfoodie wrote:

Plato'sCave wrote:

fishfoodie wrote:
I'm shocked; shocked, I tells ya

I second that eye roll.

I'd say a lot of us on here, have worked for Multi-Nationals, who while they loudly blather on about, 'values', & 'culture', & other such bullshit; are ultimately, all about profit.

No-one gets promoted for choosing 'culture', or declared values; at the expense of actual Profit !

Everyone knows this, but bugger all people actually say it; I know this particularly well, because I was frequently one of those lightning rods who did point out when the company was being two-faced; & often ended up being pulled aside later by my manager, for them to caution be about being, 'cynical'; or, honest, as I preferred to say.

I've nothing against profit, because smart companies have mechanisms to enable employees to invest in their companies, & do well for themselves; when the company does well; but the problems occur; when critical employees, & managers, are put in a position, where they do better, if the customer does worse.

These people were put in a position, where effectively; for every person who died in a crash; the were rewarded more.

It's what happens when bean counters take over from engineers in manufacturing companies.

fishfoodie wrote:

camroc1 wrote:

fishfoodie wrote:

Plato'sCave wrote:

fishfoodie wrote:
I'm shocked; shocked, I tells ya

I second that eye roll.

I'd say a lot of us on here, have worked for Multi-Nationals, who while they loudly blather on about, 'values', & 'culture', & other such bullshit; are ultimately, all about profit.

No-one gets promoted for choosing 'culture', or declared values; at the expense of actual Profit !

Everyone knows this, but bugger all people actually say it; I know this particularly well, because I was frequently one of those lightning rods who did point out when the company was being two-faced; & often ended up being pulled aside later by my manager, for them to caution be about being, 'cynical'; or, honest, as I preferred to say.

I've nothing against profit, because smart companies have mechanisms to enable employees to invest in their companies, & do well for themselves; when the company does well; but the problems occur; when critical employees, & managers, are put in a position, where they do better, if the customer does worse.

These people were put in a position, where effectively; for every person who died in a crash; the were rewarded more.

It's what happens when bean counters take over from engineers in manufacturing companies.

Not really.

Often the people on both sides are Engineers; at least they were in the Company I worked for; but, one group have thrown away their engineering cards, & swapped them for chinos & button-down shirts.

fishfoodie wrote:

Plato'sCave wrote:

fishfoodie wrote:
I'm shocked; shocked, I tells ya

I second that eye roll.

I'd say a lot of us on here, have worked for Multi-Nationals, who while they loudly blather on about, 'values', & 'culture', & other such bullshit; are ultimately, all about profit.

No-one gets promoted for choosing 'culture', or declared values; at the expense of actual Profit !

Everyone knows this, but bugger all people actually say it; I know this particularly well, because I was frequently one of those lightning rods who did point out when the company was being two-faced; & often ended up being pulled aside later by my manager, for them to caution be about being, 'cynical'; or, honest, as I preferred to say.

I've nothing against profit, because smart companies have mechanisms to enable employees to invest in their companies, & do well for themselves; when the company does well; but the problems occur; when critical employees, & managers, are put in a position, where they do better, if the customer does worse.

These people were put in a position, where effectively; for every person who died in a crash; the were rewarded more.

fishfoodie wrote:I'd decided in my early teens I was destined to be an Engineer, once I realized I wasn't creative enough to be an architect; and over the next few years, before I ended up in college, these were some of the International events I remembered pouring over the official reports of.

Bhopal Disaster - 1984
Challenger - 1986
Chernobyl - 1986
Piper Alpha - 1988

In ever single case, I saw, dogma, or short term monetary concerns; triumph over actual objective common sense, or simple human decency; & in each & ever case; the poor schmuck who stood up for those; got fucked !

In the case of Bhopal, it would have cost about $100 to prevent the disaster, Challenger was a few days delay; Chernobyl, another delay; or God forbid, pointing out that an experiment was catastrophically stupid & dangerous; piper alpha was a simple f**ked up LOTO procedure.

All preventable, & all disasters where the short term, 'Gain', was wiped out a million fold, by the reality of exactly the consequences the engineers warned about.

fishfoodie wrote:

Saint wrote:Dunno what Panorama are saying, but Boeing are planning to close the 737 line. They're running out of storage space and are expecting recertification to run well into next year

I assume they're expanding on their initial teaser article from this morning, the way they usually do.

Adam Dickson worked at Boeing for 30 years and led a team of engineers who worked on the 737 Max. He said they were under constant pressure to keep costs down.

"Certainly what I saw was a lack of sufficient resources to do the job in its entirety," he says.

"The culture was very cost centred, incredibly pressurised. Engineers were given targets to get certain amount of cost out of the aeroplane."

Mr Dickson said engineers were under pressure to downplay new features on the 737 Max.

He said by classifying them as minor rather than major changes, Boeing would face less scrutiny from the US regulator, the Federal Aviation Administration.

"The goal was to show that those differences were so similar to the previous design that it would not require a major design classification in the certification process. There was a lot of interest and pressure on the certification and analysis engineers in particular, to look at any changes to the Max as minor changes."

I'm shocked; shocked, I tells ya

Jeff the Bear wrote:
The one thing that I've noticed (and I once read a great article articulating this with regards to the Challenger disaster, but be buggered if I can find it now) is people's short-term memory/understanding of where the risk actually lies. i.e. in the Challenger disaster, the issue was taking off when the launch site was so cold. It was considerably colder than what was deemed to be the acceptable level, but because they had been dipping down below what had previously been agreed safe temp levels for previous launches, they had a false perception of where they sat within the risk profile.

And I see similar all the time. People push the envelope a little, see nothing catastrophic happens, and then move the 'safe line' to this new point, and once there, they do it again. They think they are smart, saving money and time...when in fact, all that is happening is either negligent or incompetent people are just playing inside the safety factors.

fishfoodie wrote:

Plato'sCave wrote:

fishfoodie wrote:

Plato'sCave wrote:

fishfoodie wrote:
I'm shocked; shocked, I tells ya

I second that eye roll.

I'd say a lot of us on here, have worked for Multi-Nationals, who while they loudly blather on about, 'values', & 'culture', & other such bullshit; are ultimately, all about profit.

No-one gets promoted for choosing 'culture', or declared values; at the expense of actual Profit !

Everyone knows this, but bugger all people actually say it; I know this particularly well, because I was frequently one of those lightning rods who did point out when the company was being two-faced; & often ended up being pulled aside later by my manager, for them to caution be about being, 'cynical'; or, honest, as I preferred to say.

I've nothing against profit, because smart companies have mechanisms to enable employees to invest in their companies, & do well for themselves; when the company does well; but the problems occur; when critical employees, & managers, are put in a position, where they do better, if the customer does worse.

These people were put in a position, where effectively; for every person who died in a crash; the were rewarded more.

It’s a high pressure industry, and many fast tracked managers wont pay that extra for quality because they don’t understand the difference between quality design, requirements, code and testing from aggregated figures on a spreadsheet.

That's a rather naive statement. The stated directives; to the Lead Engineer I quoted, speak to a direct knowledge of all of these; & a desire to avoid the correct classification of changes from the original 737 design, so that the company could avoid the proper certification processes.

It's never an act of ignorance, if it is done such a deliberate & exact manner.

Senior Management knew that the, 'correct', classification of the 737 MAX would entail a much more significant expenditure, & they; very deliberately tried to deceive the FAA; & they decided it was preferable to kill hundreds of passengers, than follow the correct processes.

inactionman wrote:
I'd agree with the first part of your bolded sentence, although perhaps not the second - a jaundiced view of the safety and certification process isn't really a conscious decision.

There's a parallel with the Nimrod crash, where Qinetiq and BAe just bodged through safety case checks as the plane was considered safe and the perception was no-one really needed to bother with the legislative bureaucracy and cost. They weren't actually seeking to release an unsafe plane, but had become complacent.

fishfoodie wrote:

inactionman wrote:
I'd agree with the first part of your bolded sentence, although perhaps not the second - a jaundiced view of the safety and certification process isn't really a conscious decision.

There's a parallel with the Nimrod crash, where Qinetiq and BAe just bodged through safety case checks as the plane was considered safe and the perception was no-one really needed to bother with the legislative bureaucracy and cost. They weren't actually seeking to release an unsafe plane, but had become complacent.

You don't pay Engineers to Think, you pay them to Know !

They Thought it was Safe; but they didn't test it appropriately, so they didn't Know, it was Safe !

Further; if you aren't sure what the appropriate test scheme is; you use the most exhaustive one you have.

Jeff the Bear wrote:

fishfoodie wrote:I'd decided in my early teens I was destined to be an Engineer, once I realized I wasn't creative enough to be an architect; and over the next few years, before I ended up in college, these were some of the International events I remembered pouring over the official reports of.

Bhopal Disaster - 1984
Challenger - 1986
Chernobyl - 1986
Piper Alpha - 1988

In ever single case, I saw, dogma, or short term monetary concerns; triumph over actual objective common sense, or simple human decency; & in each & ever case; the poor schmuck who stood up for those; got fucked !

In the case of Bhopal, it would have cost about $100 to prevent the disaster, Challenger was a few days delay; Chernobyl, another delay; or God forbid, pointing out that an experiment was catastrophically stupid & dangerous; piper alpha was a simple f**ked up LOTO procedure.

All preventable, & all disasters where the short term, 'Gain', was wiped out a million fold, by the reality of exactly the consequences the engineers warned about.

The one thing that I've noticed (and I once read a great article articulating this with regards to the Challenger disaster, but be buggered if I can find it now) is people's short-term memory/understanding of where the risk actually lies. i.e. in the Challenger disaster, the issue was taking off when the launch site was so cold. It was considerably colder than what was deemed to be the acceptable level, but because they had been dipping down below what had previously been agreed safe temp levels for previous launches, they had a false perception of where they sat within the risk profile.

And I see similar all the time. People push the envelope a little, see nothing catastrophic happens, and then move the 'safe line' to this new point, and once there, they do it again. They think they are smart, saving money and time...when in fact, all that is happening is either negligent or incompetent people are just playing inside the safety factors.

inactionman wrote:

fishfoodie wrote:

inactionman wrote:
I'd agree with the first part of your bolded sentence, although perhaps not the second - a jaundiced view of the safety and certification process isn't really a conscious decision.

There's a parallel with the Nimrod crash, where Qinetiq and BAe just bodged through safety case checks as the plane was considered safe and the perception was no-one really needed to bother with the legislative bureaucracy and cost. They weren't actually seeking to release an unsafe plane, but had become complacent.

You don't pay Engineers to Think, you pay them to Know !

They Thought it was Safe; but they didn't test it appropriately, so they didn't Know, it was Safe !

Further; if you aren't sure what the appropriate test scheme is; you use the most exhaustive one you have.

You most definitely pay engineers to think - reasoning through from first principles is one of the most basic tenets of engineering.

I assume the point you were making was that they assumed the design was safe, given historical safety records of the plane (both 737 and Nimrod) but didn't demonstrate and ultimately prove the design was safe given some key design changes. This I agree with, but I'd more readily believe it was caused by complacency than any other cause.

I still find it hard to understand how any aerospace company can self-certify its work, or have any say in what constitutes a change worthy of re-certification. I'm doing a lot of work in IT now, and a fundamental of security (as close as any digital service tends to get to safety) is that an external company is used for penetration testing (fnar fnar). People involved in the product development can get too caught up in it, too blind to what are sometimes pretty clear risks, and too invested in the product to critically evaluate.

Lion Air crash investigation faults Boeing 737 Max design and oversight
The families of victims in last year's Lion Air crash have been told by Indonesian investigators that poor regulatory oversight and the design of Boeing's 737 Max contributed to the fatal disaster.

Investigators on Wednesday provided victims' relatives with a summary of their final report on the crash, which killed 189 people. Details from the briefing for family members were shared with CNN by Anton Sahadi, a spokesperson for the relatives.

The report summary said that faulty "assumptions" were made during the design and certification of the 737 Max about how pilots would respond to malfunctions by the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), according to the presentation seen by CNN.

MCAS lowers the nose of the plane when it receives information that the aircraft is flying too slowly or steeply, and at risk of stalling. The system was vulnerable because it relied on a single angle of attack (AOA) sensor, investigators said.

The AOA sensor on the doomed Lion Air plane had been miscalibrated during a repair, according to investigators. But the airline's maintenance crews and pilots couldn't identify the problem because one of the aircraft's safety features — the AOA Disagree alert — was not "correctly enabled during Boeing 737-8 (Max) development," they said...

...A spokesman for Indonesia's National Transportation Safety Commission said Wednesday that its final report will publish on Friday.

It has been sent to the US National Transportation Safety Board and other relevant parties, and those parties have replied with comments, the spokesman said.
============
Note:
The Indonesian NTSC investigated that the replacement vane had been a recertified Rosemount Aerospace's AOA sensor which had been serviced by a USA company in Florida. Please read the following news article for details: Faulty 737 Sensor In Lion Air Crash Linked To US Repairer .

- https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/23/b...air/index.html
- https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/...-repairer.html

Lion Air Families Told 737 MAX Design Flaws Linked To Deadly Crash
Mechanical and design issues contributed to the crash of a Lion Air 737 MAX jet last October, Indonesian investigators told victims’ families in a briefing on Wednesday ahead of the release of a final report.

Contributing factors to the crash of the new Boeing (BA.N) jet, which killed all 189 on board, included incorrect assumptions on how an anti-stall device called the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) functioned and how pilots would react, slides in the presentation showed.

The briefing slides showed that a lack of documentation about how systems would behave in a crash scenario, including the activation of a “stick shaker” device that warned pilots of a dangerous loss of lift, also contributed.

“Deficiencies” in the flight crew’s communication and manual control of the aircraft contributed as well, the slides showed, as did alerts and distractions in the cockpit.

The deficiencies had been “identified during training,” the slides said, without elaborating.

Reliance on a single angle-of-attack sensor made MCAS more vulnerable to failure, while the sensor on the plane that crashed had been miscalibrated during an earlier repair, according to the slides.

The final report will be released on Friday...

- https://www.reuters.com/article/us-i...-idUSKBN1X20EJ

Saint wrote:Been a while since this thread was updated, but it's safe to say that things have not been going well for Boeing. Firstly they've had to shut down Max production as they've effectively run out of storage space. They appear to have no idea how to accurately fix MCAS and get re-certified.

Then, they're experiencing massive delays in the 777X. Cracks are appearing in some of the NGs currently out there


Some of their customers are opening lawsuits


And the Federal Government have finally woken up to what's been going on, leading to their CEO having to resign (should have happened ages ago tbh)

bok_viking wrote:

Saint wrote:Been a while since this thread was updated, but it's safe to say that things have not been going well for Boeing. Firstly they've had to shut down Max production as they've effectively run out of storage space. They appear to have no idea how to accurately fix MCAS and get re-certified.

Then, they're experiencing massive delays in the 777X. Cracks are appearing in some of the NGs currently out there


Some of their customers are opening lawsuits


And the Federal Government have finally woken up to what's been going on, leading to their CEO having to resign (should have happened ages ago tbh)

I think the whole board of directors should have gone, no way that these decisions are the CEO's alone. So the CEO takes the fall in urn for a nice golden parachute.

Saint wrote:Been a while since this thread was updated, but it's safe to say that things have not been going well for Boeing. Firstly they've had to shut down Max production as they've effectively run out of storage space. They appear to have no idea how to accurately fix MCAS and get re-certified.

Then, they're experiencing massive delays in the 777X. Cracks are appearing in some of the NGs currently out there


Some of their customers are opening lawsuits


And the Federal Government have finally woken up to what's been going on, leading to their CEO having to resign (should have happened ages ago tbh)

fishfoodie wrote:

Saint wrote:Been a while since this thread was updated, but it's safe to say that things have not been going well for Boeing. Firstly they've had to shut down Max production as they've effectively run out of storage space. They appear to have no idea how to accurately fix MCAS and get re-certified.

Then, they're experiencing massive delays in the 777X. Cracks are appearing in some of the NGs currently out there


Some of their customers are opening lawsuits


And the Federal Government have finally woken up to what's been going on, leading to their CEO having to resign (should have happened ages ago tbh)

I think most people, who've lost loved ones to this type of 'accident'; would be prepared to, forgive & forget, if they we're properly compensated, & felt like the company was legitimately acknowledging their fault, & were going to do everything necessary to ensure that no-one else lost loved ones.

Boeing have never done any of this.

It was "fuck you", all the way, & they have gone out of their way to antagonize the victims families; & the general public; all in the name of protecting share-holder value; which ironically, they also done a marvelous job of destroying.

Compare & contrast to the way Johnson & Johnson responded to someone spiking Tylenol with cyanide.

In years to come, aspiring Managers & PR drones will have to write essays about what a bunch of stupid wankers worked on Boeing.

Saint wrote:

fishfoodie wrote:

Saint wrote:Been a while since this thread was updated, but it's safe to say that things have not been going well for Boeing. Firstly they've had to shut down Max production as they've effectively run out of storage space. They appear to have no idea how to accurately fix MCAS and get re-certified.

Then, they're experiencing massive delays in the 777X. Cracks are appearing in some of the NGs currently out there


Some of their customers are opening lawsuits


And the Federal Government have finally woken up to what's been going on, leading to their CEO having to resign (should have happened ages ago tbh)

I think most people, who've lost loved ones to this type of 'accident'; would be prepared to, forgive & forget, if they we're properly compensated, & felt like the company was legitimately acknowledging their fault, & were going to do everything necessary to ensure that no-one else lost loved ones.

Boeing have never done any of this.

It was "fuck you", all the way, & they have gone out of their way to antagonize the victims families; & the general public; all in the name of protecting share-holder value; which ironically, they also done a marvelous job of destroying.

Compare & contrast to the way Johnson & Johnson responded to someone spiking Tylenol with cyanide.

In years to come, aspiring Managers & PR drones will have to write essays about what a bunch of stupid wankers worked on Boeing.

I'd go along with that, mostly. However, the stuff that's been uncovered subsequently has created it's own problems.

At this point I think that the 737max is effectively dead - Boeing have created their own DC10. They may yet sell another couple of thousand, but they're going to have to produce a brand new design ASAP

blindcider wrote:

Saint wrote:

fishfoodie wrote:

Saint wrote:Been a while since this thread was updated, but it's safe to say that things have not been going well for Boeing. Firstly they've had to shut down Max production as they've effectively run out of storage space. They appear to have no idea how to accurately fix MCAS and get re-certified.

Then, they're experiencing massive delays in the 777X. Cracks are appearing in some of the NGs currently out there


Some of their customers are opening lawsuits


And the Federal Government have finally woken up to what's been going on, leading to their CEO having to resign (should have happened ages ago tbh)

I think most people, who've lost loved ones to this type of 'accident'; would be prepared to, forgive & forget, if they we're properly compensated, & felt like the company was legitimately acknowledging their fault, & were going to do everything necessary to ensure that no-one else lost loved ones.

Boeing have never done any of this.

It was "fuck you", all the way, & they have gone out of their way to antagonize the victims families; & the general public; all in the name of protecting share-holder value; which ironically, they also done a marvelous job of destroying.

Compare & contrast to the way Johnson & Johnson responded to someone spiking Tylenol with cyanide.

In years to come, aspiring Managers & PR drones will have to write essays about what a bunch of stupid wankers worked on Boeing.

I'd go along with that, mostly. However, the stuff that's been uncovered subsequently has created it's own problems.

At this point I think that the 737max is effectively dead - Boeing have created their own DC10. They may yet sell another couple of thousand, but they're going to have to produce a brand new design ASAP

The problem with that approach is that the industry needs the next game-changing technology to make designing a new aircraft profitable. The risk is that they spend $Xm to design something that is immediately made obsolete, the counter to that risk is that they have to do something.

blindcider wrote:

Saint wrote:

fishfoodie wrote:

Saint wrote:Been a while since this thread was updated, but it's safe to say that things have not been going well for Boeing. Firstly they've had to shut down Max production as they've effectively run out of storage space. They appear to have no idea how to accurately fix MCAS and get re-certified.

Then, they're experiencing massive delays in the 777X. Cracks are appearing in some of the NGs currently out there


Some of their customers are opening lawsuits


And the Federal Government have finally woken up to what's been going on, leading to their CEO having to resign (should have happened ages ago tbh)

I think most people, who've lost loved ones to this type of 'accident'; would be prepared to, forgive & forget, if they we're properly compensated, & felt like the company was legitimately acknowledging their fault, & were going to do everything necessary to ensure that no-one else lost loved ones.

Boeing have never done any of this.

It was "fuck you", all the way, & they have gone out of their way to antagonize the victims families; & the general public; all in the name of protecting share-holder value; which ironically, they also done a marvelous job of destroying.

Compare & contrast to the way Johnson & Johnson responded to someone spiking Tylenol with cyanide.

In years to come, aspiring Managers & PR drones will have to write essays about what a bunch of stupid wankers worked on Boeing.

I'd go along with that, mostly. However, the stuff that's been uncovered subsequently has created it's own problems.

At this point I think that the 737max is effectively dead - Boeing have created their own DC10. They may yet sell another couple of thousand, but they're going to have to produce a brand new design ASAP

The problem with that approach is that the industry needs the next game-changing technology to make designing a new aircraft profitable. The risk is that they spend $Xm to design something that is immediately made obsolete, the counter to that risk is that they have to do something.

fishfoodie wrote:

blindcider wrote:

Saint wrote:

fishfoodie wrote:

Saint wrote:Been a while since this thread was updated, but it's safe to say that things have not been going well for Boeing. Firstly they've had to shut down Max production as they've effectively run out of storage space. They appear to have no idea how to accurately fix MCAS and get re-certified.

Then, they're experiencing massive delays in the 777X. Cracks are appearing in some of the NGs currently out there


Some of their customers are opening lawsuits


And the Federal Government have finally woken up to what's been going on, leading to their CEO having to resign (should have happened ages ago tbh)

I think most people, who've lost loved ones to this type of 'accident'; would be prepared to, forgive & forget, if they we're properly compensated, & felt like the company was legitimately acknowledging their fault, & were going to do everything necessary to ensure that no-one else lost loved ones.

Boeing have never done any of this.

It was "fuck you", all the way, & they have gone out of their way to antagonize the victims families; & the general public; all in the name of protecting share-holder value; which ironically, they also done a marvelous job of destroying.

Compare & contrast to the way Johnson & Johnson responded to someone spiking Tylenol with cyanide.

In years to come, aspiring Managers & PR drones will have to write essays about what a bunch of stupid wankers worked on Boeing.

I'd go along with that, mostly. However, the stuff that's been uncovered subsequently has created it's own problems.

At this point I think that the 737max is effectively dead - Boeing have created their own DC10. They may yet sell another couple of thousand, but they're going to have to produce a brand new design ASAP

The problem with that approach is that the industry needs the next game-changing technology to make designing a new aircraft profitable. The risk is that they spend $Xm to design something that is immediately made obsolete, the counter to that risk is that they have to do something.

The problem was that Boeing decided that there was only one criteria that counted when selling an aircraft; COST !

To meet that single criteria, they cut the basic features of a new design down to the bare bones, & compromised the fundamental safety of that design as a result, (i.e. single points-of-failure sensors).

But much more egregiously; they pretended that this new design, wasn't fundamentally different from the previous design, & so, new flight crew didn't need to undergo the training associated with re-training flight crew on a totally new design.

... and of course they self-certified the software that was supposed to protect everyone from the foibles of the completely different flight characteristics of this new design.

Anonymous. wrote: I think the FAA are as culpable as Boeing and nothing has really changed in attitude of multinationals since the General Motors exploding petrol tank case.

fishfoodie wrote:

Anonymous. wrote: I think the FAA are as culpable as Boeing and nothing has really changed in attitude of multinationals since the General Motors exploding petrol tank case.

Well, if the FAA is culpable; & I tend to agree they are; then the last 20+ years of Politicians also need to take their share of blame too; as they were all very happy to let the FAA outsource quality control to the manufacturers, instead of funding the FAA to hire the people necessary to do the work in house.