Also,

Boeing also said it would incur a charge of $410 million as a result of its botched rocket launch late last year, when a space capsule it designed for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration failed to reach the correct orbit.

Thanks for that.

I wonder if that is a consequence of the sloppy problems reported here?


Starliner’s thruster performance receiving close scrutiny from NASA wrote:

“Many of the elements of the propulsion system were overstressed.”...

There is also what I can only assume to be a 10¢ '555' timer circuit in there that has proved to have very expensive consequences...

In stark robust contrast, I believe SpaceX instead use GNSS and inertial navigation to sequence their flights and to provide a real-time safety detect of any deviation from the planned flight path. None of the stupidity of "we've gone 40 seconds so must be time for adjust thrusts..." unreliable silliness...


All in and above 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)

Curiously, this story from last year has reappeared:

Boeing Dreamliner production problems threaten the aircraft's safety, former quality manager warns wrote:

... The 100-year-old US company is facing intense scrutiny after two of its 737 MAX 8 planes were involved in fatal crashes in the last 18 months.

Now a second aircraft model — the 787 Dreamliner — is also facing allegations of production problems which compromise its safety.

Former Boeing quality manager John Barnett worked on the company's flagship 787 Dreamliner in the United States but he does not consider any of the planes that left the company's North Charleston factory airworthy.

"I would not fly on a Dreamliner and I've asked my family and begged my family not to fly Dreamliners...

All in the profits-lead world of Boeing?

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)

Sadly it just seems to be a reflection on most of the U.S. manufacturing industry these days which was probably excused or even ok back in WWII (there are a few exceptions, but even more sadly they're very few and far between these days and getting worse in the era of MAGA), but it does not fit in with what's expected today outside of the U.S. by a long way.

If you want something of real top quality then buy it from the French , Germans or Italians produced in their own country's plants, if you want to save a few $'s and don't want the absolute best then buy it from Japanese sourced plants, but if you want something similar to Chinese quality and are willing to pay more for it then throw away your $'s on U.S. made stuff just so you can get that "Made in the U.S." stamp on it (though that doesn't mean that it was actually made there anyway).

The greed for the $ has greatly overtaken quality in the greater majority of U.S. manufacturing, but I guess that that is just a sign of the times these days. :-(

Wiggo, it is called the fiduciary duty to the shareholder, the duty to maximize profits over all else. As the time frame is one quarter the result is obvious.

I'm just shocked that someone isn't blasting away at foreflight, telling all of us how terrible they are and how they don't have any safety culture ... .

I'm just shocked that someone isn't blasting away at foreflight, telling all of us how terrible they are and how they don't have any safety culture ... .

Yes it is a little disconcerting that Boeing bought that company.

I'm just shocked that someone isn't blasting away at foreflight, telling all of us how terrible they are and how they don't have any safety culture ... .

Yes it is a little disconcerting that Boeing bought that company.

They own Jeppesen too!

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
When your competitor is doing this, how do you compete?
And now you know why 737MAX.

Here is a very clear summary of the state of Boeing:

YouTube - What's wrong with Boeing?
wrote:

Yesterday The Boeing Company released its first annual loss in over two decades. The ongoing Boeing 737MAX debacle keeps haunting the company who was once the pride of American engineering industry. What has gone wrong? In this episode we will dive back into the history of Boeing to try and answer that very question. We will look at the merger with McDonnell Douglas and the move of headquraters from Seattle to Chicago. We will look at a leadership style that has gone from being driven by engineers to being driven by profits and share-holder returns. Stay tuned!

... Below you will find some of the links to the articles/podcasts and other channels I have used to create this episode. ...

Note that is from a usually extremely positive Mentour Pilot...

Thoroughly researched. Very clearly and succinctly summarised.

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)

Another problem for Boeing?
It seems that Boeing aircraft has issues with Turkish airports.
Airbus doesn't

Another problem for Boeing?
It seems that Boeing aircraft has issues with Turkish airports.
Airbus doesn't

Any aircraft trying to land with heavy tailwinds and rain is going to have problems which are very likely going to be big.

This is a plain and simple case of human error, but was it the flight crew's, or the air traffic controller/s's, or both?

Cheers.

True, but Airbus doesn't build 737's. :-)

True, but Airbus doesn't build 737's. :-)

Since that airline has skidded multiple planes off runways, I'd say the problem is the airline!

Airbus do scary things too http://www.smartcockpit.com/docs/Airbus_A320-Total_Electrical_Failure_During_Climb.pdf

Another problem for Boeing?
It seems that Boeing aircraft has issues with Turkish airports.
Airbus doesn't

Any aircraft trying to land with heavy tailwinds and rain is going to have problems which are very likely going to be big.

This is a plain and simple case of human error, but was it the flight crew's, or the air traffic controller/s's, or both?

Cheers.

Flight Crew gross negligence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTdTu2BHius

Ah, Garry beat me to that link.
Summary: - Absolutely ***p weather a slick runway, a tail wind that may well have been over the practical limits (if not the real limits), not being aware of he speed over ground, landing too far down the runway, now what could possibly go wrong? -Woops who put that drop and wall there?

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Ah, Garry beat me to that link.
Summary: - Absolutely ***p weather a slick runway, a tail wind that may well have been over the practical limits (if not the real limits), not being aware of he speed over ground, landing too far down the runway, now what could possibly go wrong? -Woops who put that drop and wall there?

The only thing left is the airline itself. Training, proficiency, standards. In other words how the hell do you allow anyone who would make the decision to attempt to land under those circumstances into the cockpit?

Profits.

Absolutely. And why isn't runway 24 used?

Also in the news.
Boeing Refuses to Cooperate With New Inquiry Into Deadly Crash

Dutch lawmakers are reviewing an investigation into the 2009 crash of a Boeing 737 NG.

Boeing and American safety officials refused to cooperate on Thursday with a new inquiry by Dutch lawmakers into a deadly crash near Amsterdam in 2009 that had striking parallels with two more recent accidents involving the manufacturer’s 737 Max.

Members of the Dutch parliament wanted to question the Boeing chief executive, David Calhoun, about the company’s possible influence over the original Dutch investigation of the accident, which killed nine people on a Turkish Airlines flight. The National Transportation Safety Board also refused lawmakers’ request to participate.

The legislators initiated the review in the wake of a New York Times examination of evidence from the 2009 crash that found that Dutch safety authorities had either removed or played down some criticisms of Boeing in their accident report, after pushback from an American team that included the manufacturer and officials from the N.T.S.B. and the Federal Aviation Administration.

Absolutely. And why isn't runway 24 used?

Because non-pilots are making the decision, "noise sensitive area" comes up first, NIMBY number two, ... .

Profits.

That's my first thought also.


To touch down so ridiculously far along the runway so as to be already on the last 1/3rd of the runway is just ridiculous to attempt unless there are other overriding factors...

• Dangerously low on fuel?
  
• Instant dismissal for flying an aborted landing or for flying a touch-and-go abort?
  
• Onerous penalty for a late arrival?
  
• Deteriorating weather and no fuel for a divert?
  
• Inadequate training for the flight crew? Flight crew panic?
  

Simply, a landing like that normally should never happen for any aircraft.

Another one to watch...


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)