Profits 1st, Safety 2nd? Pt 2

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

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 26 · Next

AuthorMessage
moomin
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Oct 17
Posts: 6204
Credit: 38,420
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 2014572 - Posted: 7 Oct 2019, 22:08:26 UTC - in response to Message 2014570.  

Hmm... That both airline companies and manufacturing companies go hand in hand so to speak is perhaps not unusually when it comes to costs.
But what has this to do with the Boeing MCAS?
But Ethiopian Airlines is the largest airline company in Africa.
Ethiopia is also a country with lots of corruption. Actually country no 114 on the Transparency International Index https://www.transparency.org/cpi2018
Perhaps there could be a problem there...
ID: 2014572 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 29302
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 2014575 - Posted: 7 Oct 2019, 22:20:31 UTC - in response to Message 2014572.  

But what has this to do with the Boeing MCAS?
Maybe records that needed to be faked that showed a repair was made when it wasn't?

I don't know but a black box showing failed part -- one that is required to be working to fly -- from engine start to crash is pretty damning. Someone wanted pretty bad to paper their butt over.

Ethiopia is also a country with lots of corruption. Actually country no 114 on the Transparency International Index https://www.transparency.org/cpi2018
Perhaps there could be a problem there...
Ya think?
ID: 2014575 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24497
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 2014621 - Posted: 8 Oct 2019, 11:10:25 UTC

Everyone is to blame but Boeing!
ID: 2014621 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
moomin
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Oct 17
Posts: 6204
Credit: 38,420
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 2014633 - Posted: 8 Oct 2019, 16:17:46 UTC

I hope everyone understand that a system like MCAS rely on not only the software but also the hardware that support the system.
AND the pilots that are part of the system. The 737 MAX is not a fly-by-wire plane. Boeing seems to not acknowledge that. Or should I say they do but when accidents like what happened to 737 MAX they act like ostriches.
ID: 2014633 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 17593
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 2014657 - Posted: 8 Oct 2019, 21:44:33 UTC

Boeing 737 MAX timetable uncertain as regulators continue safety review
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. and European Union regulators said on Tuesday they were still reviewing changes Boeing Co (BA.N) made to 737 MAX software after two fatal crashes, a development that raised questions about how quickly the grounded aircraft can return to service.

The ongoing safety review means a key 737 MAX certification test flight is unlikely before November, two sources said.

FAA Administrator Steve Dickson told Reuters in September the agency would need about a month following the yet-to-be scheduled certification test flight before the planes could return to service.

FAA still needs to see Boeing’s “final system description” - a “500-ish page document that has the architecture of the flight control system and the changes that they have made,” Dickson said last month. It then will need to complete an “integrated system safety analysis” and conduct pilot workload management scenarios.
ID: 2014657 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 17593
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 2015030 - Posted: 11 Oct 2019, 14:02:28 UTC

Business Insider - A damning new report into the Boeing 737 Max slammed the FAA's 'inadequate awareness' of the system blamed for 2 deadly crashes or Reuters - FAA failed to properly review 737 MAX jet's anti-stall system: JATR findings

A new report into the Federal Aviation Administration's oversight of the certification of the Boeing 737 Max has slammed its "inadequate awareness" of the system blamed for two deadly crashes involving the plane.

The Joint Authorities Technical Review was commissioned by the FAA in April to look into the agency's oversight and approval of the MCAS anti-stall system before the fatal crashes.

"In the B737 Max program, the FAA had inadequate awareness of the MCAS function which, coupled with limited involvement, resulted in an inability of the FAA to provide an independent assessment of the adequacy of the Boeing-proposed certification activities associated with MCAS," the report said, according to Reuters.


Also on Reuters, United Airlines cancels Boeing 737 MAX flights until January 6
ID: 2015030 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 16255
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2015053 - Posted: 11 Oct 2019, 15:38:27 UTC
Last modified: 11 Oct 2019, 15:38:51 UTC

More of the fatal Boeing 737 Max story unfolds:


Boeing 737 Max: European regulators insist on more testing of troubled plane

European air safety regulators have told their US counterpart they want more testing on fixes to the troubled 737 Max flight-control systems before the plane is cleared to re-enter service...

... The aim, according to the Journal, is to add redundancy by having both computers work simultaneously to eliminate potential problems stemming from computer chip malfunctions...



‘Startle factor’ a key concern in study of grounded 737 MAX fleets: Transport Canada

Global regulators are looking at “startle factors” that can overwhelm pilots as they consider revised protocols for the Boeing 737 MAX...


In scathing lawsuit, Southwest pilots’ union says Boeing 737 MAX was unsafe

... In a scathing indictment of Boeing, the suit directly attacks the manufacturer’s integrity. It accuses Boeing of deliberately putting profits ahead of safety considerations...


Southwest Pilots Sue, Allege Boeing Made ‘Calculated Decision’ in Faulty 737 Max Design

... “Boeing made a calculated decision to rush a re-engined aircraft to market to secure its single-aisle market share and prioritize its bottom line,”’ the lawsuit reads. “In doing so, Boeing abandoned sound design and engineering practices, withheld critical safety information from regulators and deliberately mislead (sic) its customers, pilots and the public about the true scope of design changes to the 737 MAX.”...



So... How did the Boeing 737 MAX come to so badly fatally fly?...

Personally, none of that deadly silliness flies for me.


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: 2015053 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 17593
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 2015358 - Posted: 14 Oct 2019, 0:18:35 UTC
Last modified: 14 Oct 2019, 0:21:23 UTC

Boeing names new board chairman in setback to CEO

October 12, 2019

CHICAGO (AP) — Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg has lost his title as chairman of the troubled aircraft manufacturer, nearly a year after the first of two crashes of its 737 Max that together killed 346 people.

Boeing announced late Friday that company directors decided to separate the two jobs and elected one of their own, David L. Calhoun, to serve as non-executive chairman.

Earlier on Friday, a panel of international aviation regulators issued a report critical of Boeing** and the Federal Aviation Administration over how the Max was approved to fly. The group said Boeing failed to adequately inform the FAA about changes to a key flight-control system implicated in the accidents.

** https://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=78677&postid=2015219#2015219
ID: 2015358 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 16255
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2015524 - Posted: 15 Oct 2019, 14:16:39 UTC - in response to Message 2015053.  
Last modified: 15 Oct 2019, 14:19:02 UTC

More of the fatal Boeing 737 Max story unfolds:


Boeing 737 Max: European regulators insist on more testing of troubled plane

European air safety regulators have told their US counterpart they want more testing on fixes to the troubled 737 Max flight-control systems before the plane is cleared to re-enter service...

... The aim, according to the Journal, is to add redundancy by having both computers work simultaneously to eliminate potential problems stemming from computer chip malfunctions...


[...]



So... How did the Boeing 737 MAX come to so badly fatally fly?...

Personally, none of that deadly silliness flies for me.

From my personally ignorant unknowingness of anything:

  • Note how on the Airbus fly-by-wire systems, there is x5 redundancy for the flight control computers and at least x3 redundancy for the power supply systems. So how can Boeing fly with only x2 redundancy (and what if any redundancy on their power supplies?) for the Boeing flight control computer?...!

  • Note also that for anything safety critical, usually there is always at least x3 redundancy...


So for Boeing, how cheap are human lives?...


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: 2015524 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 16255
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2015526 - Posted: 15 Oct 2019, 14:33:51 UTC
Last modified: 15 Oct 2019, 14:36:41 UTC

More of the Boeing story unfolds. To my humble personal view, ever more damningly so:


737 Max lawsuit suggests parallels to 1990s crashes

A lawsuit filed by the former inspector general of the Department of Transportation accuses Boeing in a new lawsuit of repeatedly concealing design flaws in its aircraft and blaming pilots in the aftermath of crashes...

... draws parallels between Boeing's responses in the aftermath of the 737 Max crashes in October and March and two crashes involving older 737 models in 1991 and 1994.
After both series of accidents, Boeing withheld information, rejected or resisted calls to ground the aircraft and emphasized pilots' faults over design issues, the lawsuit argues. "Boeing deployed a common and continuous scheme after both series of crashes to conceal deadly faults in the aircraft that caused the planes, without pilot input or ability to overcome the aircraft, to dive into the ground killing all aboard," the lawsuit states...



Boeing pushed FAA to relax 737 MAX certification requirements for crew alerts

In 2014, Boeing convinced the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to relax the safety standards for the new 737 MAX related to cockpit alerts that would warn pilots if something went wrong during flight, according to documents reviewed by the Seattle Times.

Seeking an exception, Boeing relied on a special FAA rule to successfully argue that full compliance with the latest federal requirements would be “impractical” for the MAX and would cost too much...

... Based on lessons learned from past airline accidents, the FAA regulation stipulates precise design details for the warning displays in the cockpit. These are aimed at ensuring that alerts relay clearly to the pilots what’s going on when a malfunction occurs, catch attention so that they won’t be overlooked, and avert any possible confusion.

During the two fatal MAX crashes that killed 346 people, pilots struggled to understand the cascade of warnings in their cockpits. Last week a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report on those crashes highlighted the crucial role that crew alerting systems play...



International Regulator Report Slams Boeing, FAA Over 737 Max Design and Approval

... More broadly, the panel also questioned how systems on the the MAX were certified as derivative of a now-50-year-old aircraft design.

And it further recommended that airplane-safety systems address the new reality of increased cockpit automation by reducing the reliance on pilots to respond to emergencies, and instead designing protections as part of the systems.

The report from officials representing 10 different regulatory bodies carries the weight of the world’s aviation experts. Its findings point to glaring shortcomings in how Boeing’s 737 MAX was certified as safe, with the company effectively auditing its own design and and the FAA unable to fulfill its oversight role...



Boeing, FAA both faulted in certification of the 737 Max

A panel of international aviation regulators found that Boeing withheld key information about the 737 Max from pilots and regulators, and the Federal Aviation Administration lacked the expertise to understand an automated flight system...

... the panel made 12 recommendations for improving the FAA’s certification of new aircraft, including more emphasis on understanding how pilots will handle the increasing amount of automation driving modern planes...

... “As pilots, we have to be able to trust that Boeing will provide all the information we need to safely operate our aircraft,” Weaks said. “In the case of the 737 Max, that absolutely did not happen.”...



Flawed analysis, failed oversight: How Boeing, FAA certified the suspect 737 MAX flight control system

... Certifying a new flight control system

Going against a long Boeing tradition of giving the pilot complete control of the aircraft, the MAX’s new MCAS automatic flight control system was designed to act in the background, without pilot input...



Boeing rejected 737 MAX safety upgrades before fatal crashes, whistleblower says

... describes how around 2014 his group presented to managers and senior executives a proposal to add various safety upgrades to the MAX.

The complaint, a copy of which was reviewed by The Seattle Times, suggests that one of the proposed systems could have potentially prevented the crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia that killed 346 people. Three of Ewbank’s former colleagues interviewed for this story concurred.

The details revealed in the ethics complaint raise new questions about the culture at Boeing and whether the long-held imperative that safety must be the overarching priority was compromised on the MAX by business considerations and management’s focus on schedule and cost.

Managers twice rejected adding the new system on the basis of “cost and potential (pilot) training impact,”...




In summary, I ain't flying anything Boeing for a year or two after all the fixes and news have all healthily stabilized...

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: 2015526 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 17593
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 2015873 - Posted: 18 Oct 2019, 18:00:04 UTC

Breaking news.
WaPO Text messages show Boeing employees knew in 2016 of problems that turned deadly on the 737 Max
Oct. 18, 2019 at 6:45 p.m. GMT+1

Text messages between Boeing employees in 2016 indicate that the company was aware of major problems with an automated feature on the 737 Max jet that made the aircraft difficult to control, the messages show.

Safety investigators say the system, known as MCAS, had repeatedly pushed the noses of planes down in Indonesia and Ethi­o­pia, contributing to crashes that killed 346 people in the past year.

One text message wuth a misspelling said the feature was engaging “itself like craxy.” Another termed the problem “egregious.”

Another indicated that the Boeing empoyees misled the Federal Aviation Administation. “So I basically lied to the regulators (unknowingly),” read one message.

“It wasnt a lie, no one told us that was the case,” came the response.


National Review Boeing Pilot Lied to F.A.A. Regarding 737 Max Jet
A Boeing pilot who tested the 737 Max jet in flight simulators in 2016 admitted in a series of text messages that he lied to the Federal Aviation Administration regarding the plane’s performance.

The text messages, reviewed by the New York Times, show that the lead technical pilot for the plane, Mark Forkner, was having trouble with an automated flight system known as MCAS. Malfunctions with MCAS caused two 737 Max jets to crash, killing a total of 346 people.

“It’s running rampant in the sim,” Forkner wrote to a colleague, referring to the simulation. “Granted, I suck at flying, but even this was egregious.”

Eight months prior to the messages, Forkner had asked the F.A.A. to remove the MCAS from the 737 Max pilot’s manual. The F.A.A. approved the request, believing the system didn’t present a danger.

“I basically lied to the regulators (unknowingly),” Forkner texted.
ID: 2015873 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 17593
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 2016356 - Posted: 23 Oct 2019, 10:22:40 UTC

Lion Air families told 737 MAX design flaws linked to deadly crash
JAKARTA (Reuters) - 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.


Or at the BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50151573
ID: 2016356 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 16255
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2016400 - Posted: 23 Oct 2019, 19:22:50 UTC - in response to Message 2016356.  
Last modified: 23 Oct 2019, 19:25:56 UTC

Lion Air families told 737 MAX design flaws linked to deadly crash
JAKARTA (Reuters) - 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.


Or at the BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50151573

Thanks for that.


As a reminder as to what happened:

What went wrong inside Boeing's cockpit?


Note that for that BBC news report noting the crash report release, there is the positive spin in the title of "Boeing expects 737 Max to fly again by New Year"

To my mind, that headline suggests a woeful shift of emphasis as though the crash victims and the required redesign are indeed nothing more than just an irritating business expense...

Also specially note the passages:

... The notion that assumptions made by Boeing and the regulators who signed the aircraft off about how that system would perform and how pilots would react to it were "incorrect" suggests something went badly wrong...

... The fundamental question belying everything is: why was more drastic action not taken after the Lion Air crash before a second accident killed another 157 people and grounded the plane worldwide?...




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: 2016400 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 16255
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2016439 - Posted: 24 Oct 2019, 1:12:16 UTC - in response to Message 2014296.  
Last modified: 24 Oct 2019, 1:31:33 UTC

How MCAS came to be?

Is that somehow trying to excuse Boeing management for their fatally pushing too many cost cutting shortcuts and (in my humble personal view) lying to and misleading the (underfunded and too easily led) FCC?

Safety critical systems are called safety critical for good reason and must always be respected...

A certain well known pilot has given direct good comment against some of the Boeing 'excuses':


Captain Sully Labels Boeing 737 MAX’s MCAS “Fatally Flawed Design”

... Captain Chesley ‘Sully’ Sullenberger has written a letter to the editor of New York Times Magazine regarding the ‘What Really Brought Down the Boeing 737 MAX?’ feature...

... In his letter he explains his personal experience of the Boeing 737 MAX MCAS software in a flight simulator.

“I know firsthand the challenges the pilots on the doomed accident flights faced, and how wrong it is to blame them for not being able to compensate for such a pernicious and deadly design.” says Sully...

... Captain Sully’s response perfectly sums up why Langewiesche’s claims are disingenuous.

“Inadequate pilot training and insufficient pilot experience are problems worldwide, but they do not excuse the fatally flawed design of the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) that was a death trap,” says Captain Sully.

Lion Air’s safety record is pretty terrible as far as airlines go. But, the fact that Lion Air Flight 610 crashed as a result of the same software flaw as Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, shows the MCAS software was clearly not fit for purpose.




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: 2016439 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 16255
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2016441 - Posted: 24 Oct 2019, 1:19:42 UTC
Last modified: 24 Oct 2019, 1:30:31 UTC

This makes for a very hefty read:


Boeing 737 MAX Flight Control System - faa.gov Observations, Findings, and Recommendations
Submitted to the Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, U.S. Federal Aviation Administration
October 11, 2019 (pdf)



For ease of reading, I would suggest to skip the preambles and jump straight into the various Observations, Findings, and Recommendations.

The list is to my mind damningly long and simply damning. My own personal reading is that Boeing gamed and gambled the system to greedily hustle in their profits.

All other considerations be damned?


(Note: That report is not the yet-to-be-released Accident Investigation Report for the Lion Air crash.)

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: 2016441 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 16255
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2016443 - Posted: 24 Oct 2019, 1:28:45 UTC - in response to Message 2016441.  
Last modified: 24 Oct 2019, 1:30:46 UTC

This makes for a very hefty read:


Boeing 737 MAX Flight Control System - faa.gov Observations, Findings, and Recommendations
Submitted to the Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, U.S. Federal Aviation Administration
October 11, 2019 (pdf)



For ease of reading, I would suggest to skip the preambles and jump straight into the various Observations, Findings, and Recommendations.

The list is to my mind damningly long and simply damning. My own personal reading is that Boeing gamed and gambled the system to greedily hustle in their profits.

All other considerations be damned?


(Note: That report is not the yet-to-be-released Accident Investigation Report for the Lion Air crash.)

The New York Times summary of the report is:


Boeing and F.A.A. Faulted in Damning Report on 737 Max Certification

A breakdown in the nation’s regulatory system and poor communication from Boeing compromised the safety of the 737 Max jet before it crashed twice in five months and killed 346 people, according to a damning report released Friday.

Boeing did not adequately explain to federal regulators how a crucial new system on the plane worked, the report says...

The Federal Aviation Administration relied heavily on Boeing employees to vouch for the safety of the Max and lacked the ability to effectively analyze much of what Boeing did share about the new plane...

Boeing employees who worked on behalf of the F.A.A. faced “undue pressures” at times during the plane’s development because of “conflicting priorities,” according to the report.

“This report confirms our very worst fears about a broken system,” Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, said in an interview...




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: 2016443 · 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: 20892
Credit: 416,307,556
RAC: 380
United Kingdom
Message 2016458 - Posted: 24 Oct 2019, 6:40:29 UTC - in response to Message 2016443.  

This bit really concerns me - it points both at Boeing and the FAA for not ensuring the independence of the FAA's scrutiny of Boeing's work:
Boeing employees who worked on behalf of the F.A.A. faced “undue pressures” at times during the plane’s development because of “conflicting priorities,” according to the report.


In my book, being employed by Boeing and working on Boeing projects for the FAA is a serious breach of the principal of the FAA (staff) being independent of the "client organisation".
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
ID: 2016458 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24497
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 2016593 - Posted: 25 Oct 2019, 15:43:46 UTC - in response to Message 2016458.  

In my book, being employed by Boeing and working on Boeing projects for the FAA is a serious breach of the principal of the FAA (staff) being independent of the "client organisation".
In plain language, a conflict of interests.

A series of failures led to the Lion Air tragedy.
"If one of the nine hadn't occurred, maybe the accident wouldn't have occurred."
ID: 2016593 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 29302
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 2016596 - Posted: 25 Oct 2019, 16:21:58 UTC - in response to Message 2016593.  

One thought BBC reported news. Now it seems they write opinion and call it news.

Most damning statement is "The 353-page report found the jet should have been grounded before departing on the fatal flight because of an earlier cockpit issue." No way to gloss this over. And it isn't a "Maybe" this is a for sure no crash.

There is "Further, a crucial sensor - which had been bought from a repair shop in Florida - had not been properly tested, the report found. On Friday, the US aviation regulator revoked the company's certification." The very reason the plane should have been on the ground, the "crucial sensor" was not working. It is on the list of things that must be working to fly the airplane.
ID: 2016596 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24497
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 2016617 - Posted: 25 Oct 2019, 20:06:27 UTC - in response to Message 2016596.  

I see you still believe that everyone but Boeing is to blame.
Didn't MCAS only operate from JUST the one sensor?
Design flaw.
Did the repair shop design it?
Did the airline design it?
Did the pilots design it?
Did maintenance design it?
Did the passengers design it?
Did the FAA design it?

DIDN'T BOEING design it?
ID: 2016617 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 26 · Next

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


 
©2022 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.