Profits 1st, Safety 2nd?

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

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 . . . 29 · Next

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

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 25518
Credit: 49,432,453
RAC: 20,056
United States
Message 1990990 - Posted: 21 Apr 2019, 17:23:55 UTC - in response to Message 1990982.  

It appears that the resulting investigation(s)
Mueller report v 2.0 another complete and total vindication.
ID: 1990990 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Nick: ID 666
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 12994
Credit: 36,001,482
RAC: 19,788
United Kingdom
Message 1991134 - Posted: 23 Apr 2019, 2:19:54 UTC

U.S. names experts to Boeing certification review panel
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao said on Monday she named four experts to a blue-ribbon committee to review the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) aircraft certification process after two deadly Boeing 737 MAX crashes killed nearly 350 people.

Chao said she was naming NASA’s former aviation safety program director Amy Pritchett and Gretchen Haskins, chief executive of HeliOffshore Ltd, an international expert in aviation safety and a former U.S. Air Force officer.

She also named Kenneth Hylander, chief safety officer at Amtrak and a former senior safety executive at Delta and Northwest airlines, and J. David Grizzle, chairman of the board of Republic Airways and a former FAA chief counsel.

The committee is “specifically tasked to review the 737 MAX 800 certification process from 2012 to 2017, and recommend improvements to the certification process.”

U.S. lawmakers have criticized the FAA’s program that allows Boeing Co and other manufacturers to oversee the process that ensures air worthiness and other vital safety aspects of new aircraft.

Chao said last month the panel would be co-chaired by retired Air Force General Darren McDew, the former head of the U.S. Transportation Command, and Lee Moak, a former president of the Air Line Pilots Association.

Federal prosecutors, the Transportation Department’s inspector general and lawmakers are investigating the FAA’s certification of the 737 MAX 8 aircraft. A joint review by 10 governmental air regulators is also set to start April 29.
ID: 1991134 · 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: 25518
Credit: 49,432,453
RAC: 20,056
United States
Message 1991154 - Posted: 23 Apr 2019, 5:58:07 UTC - in response to Message 1991134.  

I'm not quite sure what they expect to find. In the process of designing the airplane, only the manufacturer is flying it. While it is only on computers, these days - in the past they built models for wind tunnels or even full size for test pilots, at least on computer they aren't bending sheet metal. But once the design seems correct, a test airplane has to be made and flown to be sure the computer model is correct. (And all the jigs needed to build it must be designed and manufactured.) Once the bugs are out a couple more test air-frames are built. At least one is destructively tested to rate maximum G-loads and turbulence. Another will get flown behind another plane spraying water to test the ability to withstand weather including icing. The issue is at this point only the manufacturer can actually test because only they know what to test for, they know what bugs the computer models said might be there or were possible issues. The best that can be done is have an FAA guy on site to see that they aren't cheating, but in reality no manufacturer would dare because there would be no limit to the damages they would face after an accident. About the only thing the FAA could do is make sure that there is a test run for every system and make sure there is a paragraph in the flight manual from every system.
ID: 1991154 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 9891
Credit: 7,396,238
RAC: 94
United Kingdom
Message 1991178 - Posted: 23 Apr 2019, 11:29:24 UTC - in response to Message 1990891.  
Last modified: 23 Apr 2019, 11:29:58 UTC

This time Charleston built Dreamliner. From NYT Claims of Shoddy Production Draw Scrutiny to a Second Boeing Jet

Rather a damning article, and very scarily all too believable...

One killer from the culture reported there is the danger from metal shavings causing random damage/shorts to the electrical wiring for the flight systems...


The killer summary is:

... In North Charleston, the pace of production has quickened. Starting this year, Boeing is producing 14 Dreamliners a month, split between North Charleston and Everett, up from the previous 12. At the same time, Boeing said it was eliminating about a hundred quality control positions in North Charleston.

“They’re trying to shorten the time of manufacturing,” said Mr. Mester, the former mechanic. “But are you willing to sacrifice the safety of our product to maximize profit?”




We really do need to make people personally responsible, rather than allowing employees, managers, execs, hide behind a company name and company lawyers...

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: 1991178 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 20964
Credit: 2,908,538
RAC: 644
Ireland
Message 1991189 - Posted: 23 Apr 2019, 12:22:59 UTC - in response to Message 1991178.  

We really do need to make people personally responsible, rather than allowing employees, managers, execs, hide behind a company name and company lawyers...
That would be nice, but the thread title tells one why it won't happen. :-(
ID: 1991189 · 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: 25518
Credit: 49,432,453
RAC: 20,056
United States
Message 1991199 - Posted: 23 Apr 2019, 19:02:53 UTC - in response to Message 1991189.  

We really do need to make people personally responsible, rather than allowing employees, managers, execs, hide behind a company name and company lawyers...
That would be nice, but the thread title tells one why it won't happen. :-(

Goes back much farther. A corporation is a grant from a king to be a little king. King's can do no wrong ergo corporations can do no wrong. Fiduciary duty to the shareholder. Absolute limitation on liability. These concepts are rooted in the antiquity of our legal systems. They are not going to change any time soon, no matter the supposed need.
ID: 1991199 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile betreger
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 9439
Credit: 25,375,045
RAC: 21,374
United States
Message 1991206 - Posted: 23 Apr 2019, 21:00:42 UTC - in response to Message 1991199.  

Goes back much farther. A corporation is a grant from a king to be a little king. King's can do no wrong ergo corporations can do no wrong. Fiduciary duty to the shareholder. Absolute limitation on liability. These concepts are rooted in the antiquity of our legal systems

Gary these charters were limited. Hudson's Bay company could not go to India that was reserve for the East India company. Today corporations do whatever they feel like.
ID: 1991206 · 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: 25518
Credit: 49,432,453
RAC: 20,056
United States
Message 1991208 - Posted: 23 Apr 2019, 21:11:20 UTC - in response to Message 1991206.  

Goes back much farther. A corporation is a grant from a king to be a little king. King's can do no wrong ergo corporations can do no wrong. Fiduciary duty to the shareholder. Absolute limitation on liability. These concepts are rooted in the antiquity of our legal systems

Gary these charters were limited. Hudson's Bay company could not go to India that was reserve for the East India company. Today corporations do whatever they feel like.
Why, yes, much like a trademark today is limited in a specific product area. So if you grow Apples, Macintosh is yours to use. If you make computers Macintosh is yours to use. But and Apple farmer can't make computers.
ID: 1991208 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
moomin
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Oct 17
Posts: 4906
Credit: 30,761
RAC: 49
Sweden
Message 1991211 - Posted: 23 Apr 2019, 22:04:37 UTC - in response to Message 1991178.  
Last modified: 23 Apr 2019, 22:13:37 UTC

We really do need to make people personally responsible, rather than allowing employees, managers, execs, hide behind a company name and company lawyers...
Won't work.
As an employee you are not the juridical person when being trialed.
And the employee has to been proved having an intent to not follow the companies rules and policies and therefore guilty of something, that is gaining something as a legal person.
ID: 1991211 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 20964
Credit: 2,908,538
RAC: 644
Ireland
Message 1991283 - Posted: 24 Apr 2019, 13:14:05 UTC

Ah, the poor little darlings, moaning...
...about a 9% drop in revenues
ID: 1991283 · 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: 25518
Credit: 49,432,453
RAC: 20,056
United States
Message 1991287 - Posted: 24 Apr 2019, 13:38:49 UTC - in response to Message 1991283.  

Ah, the poor little darlings, moaning...
...about a 9% drop in revenues

Shareholders insist on an extra dime every month. Do you think the workforce is ready for a 9% cut in pay? Will the landlords take a 9% cut in rent? Will the electric company take a 9% cut in rates? Will Rump take a 9% cut in tariffs?
ID: 1991287 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 20964
Credit: 2,908,538
RAC: 644
Ireland
Message 1991292 - Posted: 24 Apr 2019, 14:03:34 UTC - in response to Message 1991287.  

Ah, the poor little darlings, moaning...
...about a 9% drop in revenues

Shareholders insist on an extra dime every month. Do you think the workforce is ready for a 9% cut in pay? Will the landlords take a 9% cut in rent? Will the electric company take a 9% cut in rates? Will Rump take a 9% cut in tariffs?
Continuing with stupidity & it will continue to drop.
At the same time, Boeing said it was eliminating about a hundred quality control positions in North Charleston.
I bet the relatives of those Landlords/Electric Company personnel/Trump would scare up a massive lawsuit should they be on a plane that went down to poor workmanship/lack of quality control.
ID: 1991292 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Nick: ID 666
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 12994
Credit: 36,001,482
RAC: 19,788
United Kingdom
Message 1991294 - Posted: 24 Apr 2019, 14:21:02 UTC - in response to Message 1991292.  

Ah, the poor little darlings, moaning...
...about a 9% drop in revenues

Shareholders insist on an extra dime every month. Do you think the workforce is ready for a 9% cut in pay? Will the landlords take a 9% cut in rent? Will the electric company take a 9% cut in rates? Will Rump take a 9% cut in tariffs?
Continuing with stupidity & it will continue to drop.
At the same time, Boeing said it was eliminating about a hundred quality control positions in North Charleston.
I bet the relatives of those Landlords/Electric Company personnel/Trump would scare up a massive lawsuit should they be on a plane that went down to poor workmanship/lack of quality control.

And all the time buying back $24 billion in its stock during the past three years — nearly three-quarters of the company’s free cash flow over that period, but has now had to pause plans to buy back a further $18 billion in stock.
ID: 1991294 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 20964
Credit: 2,908,538
RAC: 644
Ireland
Message 1991296 - Posted: 24 Apr 2019, 14:30:11 UTC - in response to Message 1991294.  

And all the time buying back $24 billion in its stock during the past three years — nearly three-quarters of the company’s free cash flow over that period, but has now had to pause plans to buy back a further $18 billion in stock.
Probably because the pending lawsuits is going to eat up a fair chunk of the remaining cash, leaving very little for their shareholders to feast on. :-)
ID: 1991296 · 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: 25518
Credit: 49,432,453
RAC: 20,056
United States
Message 1991303 - Posted: 24 Apr 2019, 15:17:52 UTC - in response to Message 1991296.  

And all the time buying back $24 billion in its stock during the past three years — nearly three-quarters of the company’s free cash flow over that period, but has now had to pause plans to buy back a further $18 billion in stock.
Probably because the pending lawsuits is going to eat up a fair chunk of the remaining cash, leaving very little for their shareholders to feast on. :-)

And who be those shareholders? 401(k) pension plans that are required to invest in ETF's that have Boeing as a component of their index. So that be the little guy who get screwed as per usual.
ID: 1991303 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 20964
Credit: 2,908,538
RAC: 644
Ireland
Message 1991305 - Posted: 24 Apr 2019, 15:23:37 UTC - in response to Message 1991303.  

And who be those shareholders? 401(k) pension plans that are required to invest in ETF's that have Boeing as a component of their index. So that be the little guy who get screwed as per usual.
Yep, with an extra benefit, the possibility of getting killed in a plane by said company. Ah well, it is fiduciary duty after all.
ID: 1991305 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Nick: ID 666
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 12994
Credit: 36,001,482
RAC: 19,788
United Kingdom
Message 1991978 - Posted: 30 Apr 2019, 8:53:57 UTC

Boeing says pilot alert on 737 Max was ‘not activated as intended’ on all planes
Boeing Co. acknowledged that a cockpit alert notifying pilots of a sensor malfunction linked to two fatal accidents wasn’t working as represented on every 737 Max.

The plane maker said it didn’t deactivate a warning that was supposed to show conflicting readings between two angle-of-attack vanes. But the alert functioned only on jets that had a separate indicator display — available for a fee — with readings from the sensors, Boeing said in a statement Monday.’

“The disagree alert was intended to be a standard, stand-alone feature on Max airplanes,” the company said. “However, the disagree alert was not operable on all airplanes because the feature was not activated as intended.”

The disclosure adds a new mystery about the design of Boeing’s bestselling jet, which has been grounded since shortly after an Ethiopian Airlines 737 Max 8 crashed March 10 — the second deadly Max disaster in five months. Boeing is working to convince airlines and regulators that the Max will be safe once an update is installed to software that played a role in both accidents after being activated by erroneous data from a single sensor.
ID: 1991978 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 9891
Credit: 7,396,238
RAC: 94
United Kingdom
Message 1991988 - Posted: 30 Apr 2019, 11:07:04 UTC - in response to Message 1991978.  

By 'eck!

That is some very creative trying to shovel the blame elsewhere...

All a game now of obfuscation and muck spreading?


So... That pathetic excuse and blame game now gets even more serious in that, really, a critical safety feature was not tested for on the production planes?

How many other flight features are similarly not tested??!


Looks to me to be all too greedy and shoddy and lives be damned?...

There really does need to be personal responsibility taken for so recklessly risking the lives of so many for so long, needlessly, and for killing two planes full of people...

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: 1991988 · 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: 25518
Credit: 49,432,453
RAC: 20,056
United States
Message 1992008 - Posted: 30 Apr 2019, 16:39:34 UTC - in response to Message 1991988.  

How many other flight features are similarly not tested??!
100% from 100% of manufacturers. Ever heard the words "used" and "new"? Like buying a "new"car. A car dealer is supposed to check that the factory put oil in the engine, doesn't always happen. There isn't a dealer that does "dealer prep" on a new airplane. Airline sends pilot to pick up the plane from the factory, he better check it or it will enter service no matter the number of flaws. (Smart profitable airlines fly the plane from the factory to their maintenance shop to be give a through going over before they enter revenue service.)

Or Martin, was it, the tech at the factory loaded the wrong software? You would think it might display it's version number every time it is powered on. Who didn't catch this mismatch then? The factory? The Airline when they picked the plane up? The pilots every time they flew the plane?

These things are always the result of a chain of failures. At every link in the chain it could be stopped. To err is human.
ID: 1992008 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Nick: ID 666
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 12994
Credit: 36,001,482
RAC: 19,788
United Kingdom
Message 1992162 - Posted: 1 May 2019, 17:00:35 UTC

FAA mandates changes to Boeing 787 Dreamliner
SEATTLE (Reuters) - The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration on Wednesday said it was mandating new flight control software and parts to Boeing Co’s 787 Dreamliner to address what it called an unsafe operating condition of certain products on the plane.

The FAA’s new airworthiness directive was prompted by a finding that certain areas in the 787’s tire and wheel “threat zones” could be susceptible to damage, resulting in the loss of braking and steering power on the ground at certain speeds.

The FAA said it requires installing hydraulic tubing, a pressure-operated check valve, and new flight control software.

Boeing did not immediately return requests for comment.
ID: 1992162 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 . . . 29 · 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.