Profits 1st, Safety 2nd?

Message boards : Politics : Profits 1st, Safety 2nd?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 . . . 22 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 25263
Credit: 47,899,838
RAC: 26,159
United States
Message 1998233 - Posted: 14 Jun 2019, 22:55:15 UTC - in response to Message 1998226.  

Corporate ones win, negotiated settlement for a fine which will be passed on to the customer.
You mean like in healthcare that cost twice as much in the US compared to all other OECD countries?
Are customers in the US more safe because of lawyer fees then we are ?

What part of Fiduciary duty to the SHAREHOLDER do you no understand? There is no duty to the ustomer. Aren't legal ethics grand?
Lets say that legal ethics are very different between the US and Europe, eh the EU, eh countries not in the Eurozone, eh not the Schengen agreement.
So what part don't you understand?
Thought we were discussing Boeing, HQ USA. I know the rest of the world is different, why they flock to the NYSE.
ID: 1998233 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
moomin
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Oct 17
Posts: 4628
Credit: 29,105
RAC: 35
Sweden
Message 1998235 - Posted: 14 Jun 2019, 23:17:12 UTC - in response to Message 1998233.  

Why would airliners that are not even American flock to NYSE?
ID: 1998235 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 25263
Credit: 47,899,838
RAC: 26,159
United States
Message 1998252 - Posted: 15 Jun 2019, 1:18:44 UTC - in response to Message 1998235.  

Why would airliners that are not even American flock to NYSE?

Not just airlines, corporations of every kind. Why, access to the US court system which is business friendly and anti-consumer.
ID: 1998252 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
rob smith Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 17440
Credit: 392,615,224
RAC: 98,316
United Kingdom
Message 1998281 - Posted: 15 Jun 2019, 8:28:56 UTC

I have to say that one of the few groups of people to actually profit from the MCAS debacle will be the corporate lawyers. Just think corp on corp actions, class actions, individual actions. it will keep them in bacon butties for the rest of their greedy lives to no benefit of Joe Public apart from higher airfares....
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
ID: 1998281 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
moomin
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Oct 17
Posts: 4628
Credit: 29,105
RAC: 35
Sweden
Message 1998293 - Posted: 15 Jun 2019, 12:21:56 UTC

What's WRONG with Boeing?! MAX update
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQCPSXTE9Mg
Petter's dog seem to have no interest at all...
ID: 1998293 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
rob smith Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 17440
Credit: 392,615,224
RAC: 98,316
United Kingdom
Message 1998326 - Posted: 15 Jun 2019, 19:11:25 UTC

...that dog rarely shows any interest....
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
ID: 1998326 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
moomin
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Oct 17
Posts: 4628
Credit: 29,105
RAC: 35
Sweden
Message 1998329 - Posted: 15 Jun 2019, 19:36:39 UTC - in response to Message 1998326.  

He's called Patxi:)
ID: 1998329 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 20793
Credit: 2,843,393
RAC: 1,247
Ireland
Message 1998466 - Posted: 16 Jun 2019, 21:57:23 UTC
Last modified: 16 Jun 2019, 22:12:52 UTC

Whirlpool had claimed the fire was caused by “spontaneous combustion” inside the tumble dryer.
Whirlpool had brought US experts to the inquest and “at no time did they accept there was a problem”. The company did accept after the inquest that the tumble dryer was the source of the fire, but there was no admission over the specific mechanism.
Whirlpool of flames
"Nice" experts. Are all U.S. experts that dumb?

Edit: Shame the rest of the world cannot follow suit.
In Australia and New Zealand, the authorities have decided they cannot wait for international agreement.
ID: 1998466 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Richard Haselgrove Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 99
Posts: 12988
Credit: 138,422,564
RAC: 55,958
United Kingdom
Message 1998520 - Posted: 17 Jun 2019, 7:33:09 UTC
Last modified: 17 Jun 2019, 7:35:09 UTC

The BBC has put together one of their long background pieces on the Boeing 737 Max saga. Haven't read it yet, but they're usually pretty thorough.

Boeing and the battle over blame

Edit - broadcast news is linking the Max story to the Paris Air Show, opening today.
ID: 1998520 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 9808
Credit: 7,388,783
RAC: 60
United Kingdom
Message 1998527 - Posted: 17 Jun 2019, 9:11:01 UTC - in response to Message 1998520.  
Last modified: 17 Jun 2019, 9:12:00 UTC

The BBC has put together one of their long background pieces on the Boeing 737 Max saga. Haven't read it yet, but they're usually pretty thorough.

Boeing and the battle over blame

Just now read it thanks in a brief break:

That is an excellent write-up and excellent journalism. Covers nicely our discussions on this thread.



Edit - broadcast news is linking the Max story to the Paris Air Show, opening today.

That will be 'interesting' for the Boeing Marketing 'spin'...



All in our only one world,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1998527 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 20793
Credit: 2,843,393
RAC: 1,247
Ireland
Message 1998529 - Posted: 17 Jun 2019, 10:28:25 UTC - in response to Message 1998520.  

Congressman Sam Graves 3 days ago on Twitter:
"The best safety feature on any aircraft is a well trained pilot. The pilot must be trained to fly the aircraft, not just the computer that runs it."

In late May, Boeing admitted that software provided to simulator operators was flawed, and incapable of reproducing some flight conditions, including the failures experienced by ET302.
Anyone in the States got the balls to ask that yankee doodle dandy how can pilots trained in America have avoided those accidents when not only was MCAS flawed but the training simulator software was also flawed?
ID: 1998529 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 9808
Credit: 7,388,783
RAC: 60
United Kingdom
Message 1998719 - Posted: 18 Jun 2019, 22:07:11 UTC

Boeing 'pushes ahead' with their 737 Max MCAS 'v3+':


Boeing CEO says troubled 737 Max jets should be flying by the end of the year

Boeing's CEO Dennis Muilenburg on Monday said it is conducting simulated flights with air-safety regulators this week and plans to fly its 737 Max aircraft with the Federal Aviation Administration "very soon" to get the grounded planes cleared to return to airline service...



Meanwhile, elsewhere in the world of Boeing:


Boeing is open to changing the name of the 737 Max

Boeing is open to renaming its troubled 737 Max, its most important and currently its most infamous aircraft.

Boeing Chief Financial Officer Greg Smith revealed the possibility of a name change while speaking to Bloomberg on the sidelines of the Paris Air Show...

... Rebranding a plane due to bad publicity surrounding a crash would be unprecedented, according to aviation experts. Other aircraft that had high profile crashes such as the DC-10 or 727 kept their names. That's because airlines aren't going to view the plane any differently with a different name. And the passengers who buy the tickets often are not aware of what type of plane they will be flying. "Most people don't know if they're flying an Airbus or a Boeing," said Shem Malmquist, an accident investigator and visiting professor at the Florida Institute of Technology. "They're looking at the price on the ticket."...


Profit over safety? Boeing under fire over 737 Max crashes as families demand answers

... For four months since the tragedy, Stumo and Milleron say they have been thwarted in their quest for clarity from Boeing, the company’s political representatives in Washington and regulators at the Federal Aviation Administration.

The couple recently filed a 50-page negligence lawsuit against Boeing, Ethiopian Airlines and Rosemount Aerospace, the makers of the sensor that informed the Max’s controversial MCAS anti-stall system at the center of investigations into the Ethiopian tragedy and the Lion Air Max crash last October.

“We just don’t want there to be a third crash,” Michael Stumo told the Guardian. “Nothing was done after the first Lion Air crash. Something has to be done now after the second.”

The drip of information about the rush development of the Max 8, the shortcomings and ferocity of its anti-stall technology, and the degree to which regulators permitted Boeing to certify the plane and its systems, have left Samya Stumo’s parents with little reason for confidence.

“We have a fear that the un-grounding process is being rushed and improperly influenced by a concern for Boeing’s profits more than for safety,”...

... If that requires a change of leadership, so be it, said Stumo. “Boeing needs to come clean. It needs to say: something went wrong with this plane. It grabbed control multiple times and tried to run it into the ground. It overpowered the pilots, and we need to figure out how this will not happen again.”



Pilots reveal safety fears over Boeing’s fleet of Dreamliners

Company admits that fire extinguisher switch has failed a ‘small number’ of times

... the switch used to extinguish an engine fire has failed in a “small number” of instances. The switch also severs the fuel supply and the hydraulic fluid to prevent flames spreading.

UK airlines Tui, British Airways and Virgin Atlantic operate more than 60 Dreamliners between them. The US regulator, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), has decided not to ground the fleet, despite admitting a “risk to the flying public”.

Pilots, however, claim that the safety of passengers and crew is being compromised. “If there was an engine fire on a transatlantic flight and the aircraft had one of the defective fire switches, then we would have to fly with a burning wing for up to three hours before we could safely land,”...

... Boeing warns that long-term heating can cause the fire switch to stick in the locked position so it can’t be used to release the two fire extinguishers in each engine...

... “We, as a pilot community, have found it all smacks of taking the cheap route and not the safe route,” says a pilot who spoke anonymously to the Observer...

... Boeing said that fewer than 1% of fire switches have proved defective...




Note for that last article, "1%" with the numbers of aircraft in use means that there are multiple Boeing aircraft in use where the fire extinguisher switches do not work. Really! Boeing and the FAA consider that to be of no concern?!

Working fire extinguishers surely must be on the required list before flight?... Or even before starting the engines...



All in our only one world,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1998719 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 25263
Credit: 47,899,838
RAC: 26,159
United States
Message 1998728 - Posted: 18 Jun 2019, 22:47:39 UTC - in response to Message 1998719.  

Note for that last article, "1%" with the numbers of aircraft in use means that there are multiple Boeing aircraft in use where the fire extinguisher switches do not work. Really! Boeing and the FAA consider that to be of no concern?!
All SOP all over the world. I guess you are just finding out what SOP is. However I'd be asking why the operators of the aircraft aren't checking the switches when their aircraft are taken offline for the regular maintenance and safety inspections. You might be shocked at the SOP with the number of hours of flight time and calendar time that passes between those checks.

Got a SOP question. You have a wing on an airplane. You load test it until it fails. Say you get 1000 kilos to failure. What do you think the certification will be in kilos?
A) 1000 kilos 100% of test maximum = 0% margin
B) 900 kilos 90% = +10% margin
C) 750 kilos 75% = +25% margin
D) 200 kilos 20% = +5X margin
E) 100 kilos 10% = +10X margin

So what do you think they certify an airplane at? What is the safety margin?
ID: 1998728 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 9808
Credit: 7,388,783
RAC: 60
United Kingdom
Message 1998733 - Posted: 18 Jun 2019, 23:23:15 UTC - in response to Message 1998728.  
Last modified: 18 Jun 2019, 23:24:10 UTC

Note for that last article, "1%" with the numbers of aircraft in use means that there are multiple Boeing aircraft in use where the fire extinguisher switches do not work. Really! Boeing and the FAA consider that to be of no concern?!
All SOP all over the world. I guess you are just finding out what SOP is. However I'd be asking why the operators of the aircraft aren't checking the switches when their aircraft are taken offline for the regular maintenance and safety inspections. You might be shocked at the SOP with the number of hours of flight time and calendar time that passes between those checks.

Are you confusing "Standard Operating Procedures" with safety checks and maintenance checks?

From those previous articles, ISTR that the Air Directive is for those switches to now be checked/tested every 30 days. However, there is nothing there for any urgency to check before any unchecked plane goes flying again!

All a gamble that disaster doesn't strike too soon...


Got a SOP question. You have a wing on an airplane. You load test it until it fails. Say you get 1000 kilos to failure. What do you think the certification will be in kilos?
A) 1000 kilos 100% of test maximum = 0% margin
B) 900 kilos 90% = +10% margin
C) 750 kilos 75% = +25% margin
D) 200 kilos 20% = +5X margin
E) 100 kilos 10% = +10X margin

So what do you think they certify an airplane at? What is the safety margin?

Don't understand your SOP allusion there...

Again, ISTR from previous articles that Boeing physically test their wings to over 150% of expected max loading.

Also I've read that there is some controversy that Boeing now wish to do away with the physical tests and 'just rely on their design numbers'! That one is for another post sometime...


All in our only one world,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1998733 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 25263
Credit: 47,899,838
RAC: 26,159
United States
Message 1998744 - Posted: 19 Jun 2019, 1:05:08 UTC - in response to Message 1998733.  

Note for that last article, "1%" with the numbers of aircraft in use means that there are multiple Boeing aircraft in use where the fire extinguisher switches do not work. Really! Boeing and the FAA consider that to be of no concern?!
All SOP all over the world. I guess you are just finding out what SOP is. However I'd be asking why the operators of the aircraft aren't checking the switches when their aircraft are taken offline for the regular maintenance and safety inspections. You might be shocked at the SOP with the number of hours of flight time and calendar time that passes between those checks.

Are you confusing "Standard Operating Procedures" with safety checks and maintenance checks?
safety checks and maintenance checks are SOP, carried out to SOP standards which are well documented. (Assuming a licensed mechanic is doing the work as is SOP and usually legally required)

From those previous articles, ISTR that the Air Directive is for those switches to now be checked/tested every 30 days. However, there is nothing there for any urgency to check before any unchecked plane goes flying again!
So just who is signing the aircraft logbook that all checks have been done and passed then? Or are they flying airplanes that are on paper not airworthy?
Oh, you think every plane should be grounded until checked. Bit expensive and disruptive to do that. Might make for a long backlog too.
(This may be the data gathering stage, see how many are actually failed in the field. Then they change how often the checks need to be made, or perhaps find it was a bad batch or two by serial number. That is a SOP response to a safety issue BTW.)

Don't understand your SOP allusion there...
SOP certification requirements, not just Boeing, any plane.

Again, ISTR from previous articles that Boeing physically test their wings to over 150% of expected max loading.
That's the SOP design value for any aircraft. And that isn't "expected" load, it is "permitted" load. Airline is permitted to load the plane up to that 100% number on a routine basis. Mother nature, e.g. turbulence, gets the 50%. OBW if a pilot knows they went over the limit in flight, they are required to squawk that and the plane is out of service until some rather extensive testing for metal fatigue (likely including x-ray) has been completed on a long list of structural members and connections of the air-frame.
ID: 1998744 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 20793
Credit: 2,843,393
RAC: 1,247
Ireland
Message 1998794 - Posted: 19 Jun 2019, 10:44:18 UTC - in response to Message 1998719.  

Boeing 'pushes ahead' with their 737 Max MCAS 'v3+':


Boeing CEO says troubled 737 Max jets should be flying by the end of the year

Boeing's CEO Dennis Muilenburg on Monday said it is conducting simulated flights with air-safety regulators this week and plans to fly its 737 Max aircraft with the Federal Aviation Administration "very soon" to get the grounded planes cleared to return to airline service...
Hmm...
...does that mean they've updated the training simulator software as well?
ID: 1998794 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 20793
Credit: 2,843,393
RAC: 1,247
Ireland
Message 1998796 - Posted: 19 Jun 2019, 11:15:47 UTC

Stock market manipulation?
Boeing shares rose more than 2.8% after the announcement.
This week a US Federal Aviation Administration official indicated that Boeing 737 Max aircraft might could be grounded until the end of the year - longer than many had been expecting.
BA gives Boeing a boost
ID: 1998796 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 20793
Credit: 2,843,393
RAC: 1,247
Ireland
Message 1999136 - Posted: 22 Jun 2019, 6:11:01 UTC

Boeing updated the software for its 737 simulators twice in recent weeks because they didn’t accurately replicate the forces on the wheels.
Skynet anyone?
Wonder how A.I. would have handled the situation?
ID: 1999136 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Wiggo "Democratic Socialist"
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 00
Posts: 16454
Credit: 215,699,449
RAC: 163,979
Australia
Message 1999138 - Posted: 22 Jun 2019, 6:37:11 UTC - in response to Message 1999136.  

Boeing updated the software for its 737 simulators twice in recent weeks because they didn’t accurately replicate the forces on the wheels.
Skynet anyone?
Wonder how A.I. would have handled the situation?
Nothing new here to see folks.

Sirius, why link something that has been repeated so many times before here?

And personally your links really should use their proper news titles as a lot of the times your made up titles really throw an unwanted/unneeded/unwarranted factor/spanner in that usually doesn't belong with the link at all. ;-)
ID: 1999138 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 20793
Credit: 2,843,393
RAC: 1,247
Ireland
Message 1999140 - Posted: 22 Jun 2019, 6:43:52 UTC - in response to Message 1999138.  

Highlighted under the main heading: A battle between men & machine highlights a complex probe.
So one cannot voice an opinion & secondly, I can't see anyone bringing up A.I hence the question.
ID: 1999140 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Previous · 1 . . . 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 . . . 22 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Profits 1st, Safety 2nd?


 
©2019 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.