Boeing: Profits 1st, Safety 2nd? (Part 3)

Message boards : Politics : Boeing: Profits 1st, Safety 2nd? (Part 3)
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 . . . 32 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 19973
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2121199 - Posted: 19 Jun 2023, 15:18:57 UTC
Last modified: 19 Jun 2023, 15:36:49 UTC

For a surprisingly forthright summary of the multiple disasters:


Megaprojects - MCAS: The Silent Killer on the 737 MAX
wrote:
A tale of cost-cutting and tragedy. Discover the shocking history, fatal crashes, and investigations that exposed corporate misconduct, shattered public trust, and led to lawsuits...



That is quite unusual for such a topic to be aired by that channel.

And was there even one lawyers destroying "allegedly" uttered throughout that?... (Note: Not that I heard anywhere!)


Fly safe?...
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2121199 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 19973
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2121209 - Posted: 19 Jun 2023, 18:50:23 UTC
Last modified: 19 Jun 2023, 18:51:11 UTC

... And for a badly Boeing update?...


Judge rejects Boeing request to block pain and suffering damages for crash victims who died upon impact
wrote:
A federal judge rejected arguments from attorneys for Boeing that it should not have to pay for the pain and suffering of 157 victims of a March 2019 Boeing 737 Max crash because they all died on impact...


Boeing says certification of 737 MAX 7 is taking 'considerable amount of time'
wrote:
The certification of the Boeing Co (BA.N) 737 MAX 7 is taking a "considerable amount of time" due to new documentation requirements...

... Both the MAX 7 and MAX 10 are seen as critical for Boeing to compete against Airbus...

... also "close" to receiving FAA approval to begin certification flights of its new longer 737 MAX 10, Fleming told reporters. Certification of that aircraft is still projected to occur in 2024, but will depend on when Boeing is approved to begin those flights...

... Asked about Boeing's comments, the FAA said "safety will dictate the timeline. We do not comment on ongoing certifications."

Congress in December exempted the MAX 7 and MAX 10 from a new safety standard for modern cockpit alerts that applied to all planes certified after late 2022. The requirement had been imposed by Congress in 2020 after two fatal 737 MAX crashes killed 346 people in Indonesia and Ethiopia.


Boeing sued for allegedly stealing intellectual property related to NASA's Artemis moon rocket
wrote:
The suit alleges Boeing's improper use of stolen technology put astronauts' lives at risk and led to ongoing SLS launch delays...

... against Boeing accusing the aerospace giant of intellectual property (IP) theft, conspiracy and misuse of critical components...

... "Boeing has not only stolen our intellectual property and damaged our company's reputation but has used the technology incorrectly and at the expense of astronauts' safety, which is beyond despicable."...


Boeing delays 1st Starliner astronaut launch for NASA indefinitely over parachute, wiring safety issues
wrote:
Boeing's first Starliner astronaut flight was scheduled for July 21. It won't fly this summer, but a fall launch is 'feasible.'...

... Boeing is standing down ... possibly indefinitely, due to safety issues with the spacecraft's parachutes and wiring...

... targeted to launch two NASA astronauts to the International Space Station on July 21. Now, it likely won't launch at all this summer, and may not get off the ground this year...

... Two major safety issues are driving the latest delay, both of them discovered last week during in-depth reviews of Starliner...

... cannot handle the load of Starliner if one chute fails...

... flammable and there are "hundreds" of feet of it inside Starliner...



Phew!

Unbelievable?...

And really?... Only 'discovered' at the last moment during review??

And how can anyone in the industry ever forget, or not be aware of, Apollo 1?...


Fly safe?!
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2121209 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 19973
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2122367 - Posted: 8 Jul 2023, 19:19:38 UTC
Last modified: 8 Jul 2023, 19:21:27 UTC

This isn't the first time...


See:

Blancolirio - NTSB Final Report Transair 810 737 Ditching Honolulu July 2021


For one apt comment from the comments:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQjLIXdebr4&lc=UgyOtlKXMXo7pTYiiZd4AaABAg wrote:
oh man, imagine going thru all that while you've got a perfectly functional engine notched at idle the entire time



Note: In total darkness, over an inky black ocean, scraping along at less than 2000', and with faltering power... That is very difficult very high stress... All impossibly fraught in the dark to be fumbling with paper check-lists and trying to untangle a confusion of old steam gauges!

... And yet... Really? There is no lives saving modern day EICAS/ECAM retrofitted?!

We have well over 50 years of safety to add to those old Boeing gauges. Hell, even a RaspberryPi could be bolted on to do the reporting!


Note that this problem with the Boeing cockpit is not the first example... There is an almost identical crash for this fatal example:

Wikipedia - Kegworth air disaster

UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch - Kegworth 8 January 1989


Do not underestimate the difficulty of correctly diagnosing faults whilst busy flying!

Especially so when faced with a gazillion old dials and flashing lights and a death siren screaming in your ears...


Fly safe?!
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2122367 · 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: 30537
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 2122400 - Posted: 9 Jul 2023, 6:30:07 UTC - in response to Message 2122367.  
Last modified: 9 Jul 2023, 6:47:11 UTC

This isn't the first time...
And there have been dozens since ... and there will be dozens more.

Juan's very apt comment at the start, "A story as old as aviation itself as long as we have had twin engine aircraft" simply states the very obvious fact. Human brains under stress screw up. No amount of fancy bells and whistles can compensate for it, in fact they may increase the stress. See CRM.
<ed>The Rhoades Aviation Boeing 737 Aircraft Operations Manual wrote:
Any time an engine shutdown is required in flight, good crew coordination is
essential. Airplane incidents have turned into airplane accidents as a result of the
flight crew shutting down the incorrect engine.


I'm suspecting that the pilot training may be a factor, no matter the NTSB report. My speculation is that in all those simulator flights of engine out, when the instructor failed the engine, they completely failed the engine. Faced with a partial failure, seeing any thrust set in the mind that was a good engine. If you aren't in a situation you train for, first you have to realize you are not in the situation you trained for before you can react to the situation you do face.

The parts about CRM are also extremely important to understand. Many bad outcomes have happened when one member suspected something but kept his mouth shut because (usually the pecking order chain) ...

There are three things necessary
1) Current (legal minimum practice)
2) Competent (know what to do)
3) Proficient (able to stay ahead of any situation)
All three are necessary for safety with the third being paramount.

The accident aircraft was made in 1975. Glass cockpit did not exist then. I'm not going to argue if a 40+ year old plane should be doing several cargo runs a day, but that decision is not Boeing's but the owner's.
ID: 2122400 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 19973
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2122407 - Posted: 9 Jul 2023, 13:47:05 UTC - in response to Message 2122400.  
Last modified: 9 Jul 2023, 13:54:39 UTC

... I'm suspecting that the pilot training may be a factor, no matter the NTSB report. ... Faced with a partial failure, seeing any thrust set in the mind that was a good engine. If you aren't in a situation you train for, first you have to realize you are not in the situation you trained for before you can react to the situation you do face...

... And facing reality is very real and very different from bland words in a cozy (eg: Boeing) office.

So... Looking at those engine gauges... That's a LOT of steps of understanding and diagnosis to work out what might be happening!

For that deadly example, there is far too much thought required there when you're concentrating hard on flying through pitch black darkness, with no frame of reference other than the artificial horizon on the instruments, AND you know you're desperately low and slow and an engine has somehow failed.

SO... According to Boeing... Then the pilots are to take "time out" to sit back, have a stiff drink, and diagnose two or three pages of checklists once they've thumbed through a thick paper manual for a checklist that fits the circumstance, all in the subdued light of a darkened cockpit over an inky black ocean, an ocean that is perilously all too close below?!...

And we already know this type of deadly peril will happen again, and overwhelm the pilots yet again, and most likely people will die.

We know this, and we already have very well proven aviation tech (EICAS/ECAM) for the cockpit that is readily available to remedy this.

And yet...


Boeing continue to fly long long outdated cockpits to then blame everything on the overwhelmed pilots...

We really do know better since over 50 years ago. That knowing better should be used to avoid unnecessarily risking people's lives. In my opinion, the Boeing cockpit is as ridiculous as driving a motor vehicle on known bald tires and with a broken brake pedal...


And yet Boeing continue to MAKE and fly outdated cockpits.

Really? Just hope and pray that 'nothing goes wrong'?... Until the next Boeing deadly crash.

Fly safe?...
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2122407 · 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: 30537
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 2122439 - Posted: 10 Jul 2023, 4:21:31 UTC - in response to Message 2122407.  

Boeing continue to fly long long outdated cockpits to then blame everything on the overwhelmed pilots...
Boeing doesn't fly. Owners do.

Or are you saying Boeing should have charged enough when the plane was made in 1975 to refit the airplane with some tech that didn't exist when the last Boeing employee touched the plane?

You should talk to some pilots. Many want to learn their skills on steam gauges because it gives them a deeper knowledge of what is going on and how to fix it. Then they have to be retrained on glass due to the information deficit.

Finally you seem to be on about paper. Do you not know of the EFB? The i-Pad and i-Phone. Yes Apple products. All the paper is in it. All searchable. On top of that it has GPS. It displays maps and charts. And with Fore-Flight (a Boeing product) it does full flight planning, and even talks to the government computers. I assure you this Boeing Product is used on every Airbus. Don't forget Jeppesen that publishes the instrument procedures for every airport worldwide is a Boeing division.

Now there is nothing preventing the owner from putting in glass on their 1975 Boeing 737-200 airplane. Take it to any avionics shop, drop it off with a big check and say Garmin Glass please. Pick it up a few months later and fly your amazing glass panel. But the government made you put placards on the airplane that read: "Passenger warning - this aircraft does not comply with federal safety regulations for standard aircraft." And with that it no longer can carry passengers or cargo for hire.

The problem isn't Boeing, the problem is the Government a/k/a the legislature.
ID: 2122439 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Scrooge McDuck
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 99
Posts: 539
Credit: 1,674,173
RAC: 54
Germany
Message 2122445 - Posted: 10 Jul 2023, 11:01:18 UTC - in response to Message 2122400.  
Last modified: 10 Jul 2023, 11:09:30 UTC

There are three things necessary
1) Current (legal minimum practice)
2) Competent (know what to do)
3) Proficient (able to stay ahead of any situation)
All three are necessary for safety with the third being paramount.

The accident aircraft was made in 1975. Glass cockpit did not exist then. I'm not going to argue if a 40+ year old plane should be doing several cargo runs a day, but that decision is not Boeing's but the owner's.
I think it was safe in 1975, even in 1990 or 2000. Until then all pilots knew how to fly classic jetliners without all the automatic aids. Maybe no longer today.
There's one argument I read somewhere. In the U.S. a remarkable portion of commercial pilots earned their wings from Air Force, Navy, Air National Guard. They flew military planes and learned lots of irregular stuff. They are aware of unforeseen events. In Europe, or Asia, there are few military pilots.

Today, at the end of their training, commercial pilots learn how to fly a modern jetliner. After a few years practice, inferior pilots mainly monitor the automatic systems. (Boeing 737 Max crashed in Asia and Ethiopia also due to a lack of pilot's competence). They aren't ahead of the situation but observers of computer displays when unforeseen things happen. And now such younger pilot, with no experience on older jetliners, is being retrained on the Boeing 737-200. I think it depends very much on the airline to ensure professionalism of its pilots, which is hardly possible when it's a small cargo airline operating two or three old jets.

[EDIT:]I read Gary's comment too late. I repeated his statement: Pilots learn their skills best on planes with steam gauge cockpits.
ID: 2122445 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Scrooge McDuck
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 99
Posts: 539
Credit: 1,674,173
RAC: 54
Germany
Message 2122448 - Posted: 10 Jul 2023, 11:45:53 UTC - in response to Message 2122407.  

We know this, and we already have very well proven aviation tech (EICAS/ECAM) for the cockpit that is readily available to remedy this.

Boeing continue to fly long long outdated cockpits to then blame everything on the overwhelmed pilots...

We really do know better since over 50 years ago. That knowing better should be used to avoid unnecessarily risking people's lives. In my opinion, the Boeing cockpit is as ridiculous as driving a motor vehicle on known bald tires and with a broken brake pedal...
I think it's unfair to point fingers on Boeing only. The specification of a new generation of e.g. 737 is at the beginning a discussion of Boeing with major airlines (lead customers). These airlines have large fleets of Boeing 737 NG planes (e.g. 737-800). Boeing could have easily modernized the cockpit to include EICAS/ECAM (like in the 757/767). But this leads to a different type rating for the 737 Max. You have to qualify your pilots to different type ratings. Costs, flexibility of crew planning... The airlines with large fleets don't want that. It would be a significant cost disadvantage vs. an A320 fleet.

And yet Boeing continue to MAKE and fly outdated cockpits.
Boeing knows how to make state-of-the-art cockpits for 737 with EICAS/ECAM if there are no restrictions concerning the plane's type rating. It's the military Boeing P-8 Poseidon based on 737 NG.

Really? Just hope and pray that 'nothing goes wrong'?... Until the next Boeing deadly crash.
I had this impression myself after the crashes and some large European airlines (Icelandair, Ryanair, TUI/Thomson airways) switching to 737 Max fleets. I read lots of the fantastic articles by Dominic Gates (Pulitzer price winner) in the Seattle Times on the reasons for the deadly Max crashes and the subsequent overhaul of the MCAS system.

Fly safe?...
The European EASA did not take over the US approval this time, but examined everything very critically itself. The 737 Max Jets are certified and now as safe as Airbus A320. Boeing suffered a great deal of financial damage and learned from it, as did US authorities.
ID: 2122448 · 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: 30537
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 2122459 - Posted: 10 Jul 2023, 13:10:34 UTC - in response to Message 2122445.  
Last modified: 10 Jul 2023, 13:10:56 UTC

The accident aircraft was made in 1975. Glass cockpit did not exist then. I'm not going to argue if a 40+ year old plane should be doing several cargo runs a day, but that decision is not Boeing's but the owner's.
I think it was safe in 1975, even in 1990 or 2000. Until then all pilots knew how to fly classic jetliners without all the automatic aids. Maybe no longer today.
It isn't the plane that has become unsafe with the passage of time, it is humans. We have been trained to have shorter attention spans and less understanding of complexities. That is bad not just for the skill of flying but for so much of life.
ID: 2122459 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Richard Haselgrove Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 99
Posts: 14634
Credit: 200,643,578
RAC: 874
United Kingdom
Message 2122466 - Posted: 10 Jul 2023, 18:37:30 UTC

A British inquest into the death of three Britons in the Ethiopian B737 Max crash in 2019 has come back with a verdict of "unlawful killing" by Boeing.

Boeing plane crash: Coroner rules Britons unlawfully killed

Three British people who died in a plane crash were unlawfully killed, a coroner has ruled.

The court heard flight ET302 from Addis Ababa to Kenya crashed shortly after take-off because of a design flaw.

A sensor failure in the flight control software, designed to make the plane easier and more predictable to fly, deployed at the wrong time and pushed the aircraft into a catastrophic dive.

West Sussex coroner Penelope Schofield said the incident occurred as a result of a series of failures relating to the development and operation of the flight control software, known as MCAS.

Two employees of the manufacturer, she said, had deliberately deceived regulators and operators of the 737 Max over the operation of a safety critical system.
That'll stir the pot nicely.
ID: 2122466 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 19973
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2123010 - Posted: 22 Jul 2023, 23:07:07 UTC
Last modified: 22 Jul 2023, 23:09:58 UTC

Yet another profitably 'humdrum' month at Boeing:


Boeing Completes{-ing} 737NG Nacelle Redesign Work
wrote:
... redesign work and retrofit instructions on 737 Next Generation nacelles to better protect them from broken fan blades but needs more time to address risks linked to human-factors issues such as leaving access doors unlatched...

... both involving Southwest Airlines 737-700s, that led to unexpected aircraft damage caused by pieces of nacelles breaking free.

The NTSB in 2019 recommended that FAA require redesigns of the 737NG-family nacelle...

... Boeing agreed and has been working with the FAA for nearly four years. Last August, Boeing asked for another seven years...

... Boeing is submitting this request for an additional extension of the previously granted exemption to allow Boeing to work with operators and the FAA to address these undetected maintenance errors...

... Boeing’s work is in addition to revised inspection requirements and fan blade life limits put in place by engine maker CFM to address FBO [Fan Blade Out] risks spotlighted by the two accidents—one of which resulted in a passenger fatality...

... Investigators determined that the blade struck the fan case and transmitted loads to a latch mechanism. Part of the latch broke away, struck a window and dislodged it, causing a rapid decompression and leading to a passenger fatality...

... “Boeing has developed a set of design changes which are intended to keep the nacelle structure from separating in the event of fan blade failure by providing additional structural support for the loads resulting from such a failure,”...

Software Validation Issue Prompts Boeing 737{MAX}-7 Exemption Request
wrote:
Boeing is requesting the 737-7 be temporarily exempted from complying with two FAA regulations so the model’s certification can proceed, saying it will ensure the two non-compliances are addressed as part of the 737-10 approval process and apply any needed changes to the entire 737 MAX fleet...

FAA addresses Boeing 767 inoperative horizontal stabilizer trim switches
wrote:
... the decision to issue the directive was prompted by reports of inoperative manual and alternate horizontal stabilizer trim switches from operators. “The FAA is issuing this AD to address collected water or ice that could damage the [limit switch and position transmitter module (LSPTM)] and cause stabilizer trim position sensors to generate corrupt or erroneous signals to the flight crew,” the agency’s AD read, adding that the condition could result in “misleading or confusing flight deck indications, a high speed overrun during takeoff, or a low altitude stall immediately after takeoff”.

As such, the FAA will now require airlines flying all Boeing 767-200, 767-300F, 767-400ER, and 767-2C aircraft to do “repetitive inspections...

... FedEx requested that the inspection intervals be prolonged from 90 to 225 days ... The FAA responded that while the 225-day interval would be unsafe, inspections every 150 days would be sufficient...

Boeing 767 slide ends up in Chicago home’s backyard
wrote:
I suppose this fits into the category of “all’s well that ends well,” but this is still mighty unusual, and kind of scary...

... While the aircraft was on final approach to Chicago O’Hare’s runway 28C, an evacuation slide separated from the aircraft and landed in the backyard of a house underneath the approach path, around 2.5 miles from the end of the runway...

... on the 767, the overwing escape slides are stored in the main part of the fuselage, and not in the doors, as you’d find at other exits. As a result, there is no EICAS (Engine Indicating and Crew Alerting System) associated with this, which would alert the pilots...

... Interestingly this isn’t the first time that this has happened on a Boeing 767. Furthermore, the crew wasn’t even aware of this until after the plane landed...

Navy set to lose out on jets due to row with Boeing
wrote:
Boeing and the Navy aren’t getting along, and it’s costing the military essential jets needed to phase out aging aircraft and be prepared for potential conflict with China...

... the Navy is still waiting for Boeing to submit a “fully priced” proposal for the 20 Super Hornet aircraft...

... “The request for proposal is clear that it requires Boeing and its suppliers to deliver … all the technical data necessary for our sailors and civil servants to operate, maintain, and sustain those aircraft in the Fleet in peacetime as well as in a contested logistics environment,”...

... the Navy did negotiate data rights with Boeing for the Super Hornet in 2019, and in the service’s view, the company is not honoring that contract ... Instead, Boeing is citing a carveout in the contract that does not require the company to provide data rights that fall under a certain category...



Really? Cargo crews, especially FedEx, are expendable??

Rules and good will and safety?

... Only for the bits and pieces that Boeing chooses?...


Fly safe?...
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2123010 · 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: 30537
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 2123195 - Posted: 27 Jul 2023, 12:58:26 UTC

ML1, want to hear how you spin this to be Boeing's fault?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j1gTCmQku0

After all Boeing uses P&W engines on some of it planes.
ID: 2123195 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 19973
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2123198 - Posted: 27 Jul 2023, 13:32:21 UTC - in response to Message 2123195.  

Please explain your spin?

Safe flying!
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2123198 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 19973
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2123225 - Posted: 27 Jul 2023, 23:58:03 UTC
Last modified: 27 Jul 2023, 23:59:15 UTC

Meanwhile, is this the cost of retro-fitting death-defying essentials?...


Boeing has now lost $1.1 billion on Starliner, with no crew flight in sight
wrote:
"We're not really ready to talk about a launch opportunity yet."...

... The identification of two serious problems so close to the spaceflight prompted NASA to take a broader look at Starliner and determine whether there might be other problems lurking in the spacecraft...



Fly safe?
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2123225 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 19973
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2123521 - Posted: 2 Aug 2023, 22:58:54 UTC
Last modified: 2 Aug 2023, 23:03:56 UTC

Another Boeing 737-MAX saga in the making?...

... Meet the Boeing 777X:


Boeing Says 777X & 737 MAX Certification Delays Could Lead To "Significant Order Cancelations"
wrote:
Boeing’s timeline slip on the 737 MAX could have impacts beyond being unable to deliver the new jets to customers. Alongside this, the planemaker has flagged potential risks in maintaining its orderbook for the flagship 777X...

... Building a new aircraft is never cheap, and the expenses have run even deeper against the background of the 737 MAX crisis. Early in the project, Boeing expected to be able to certify the 777X as a derivative of the classic 777, grandfathering in elements of the aircraft from its predecessors. Some technologies, such as the engines and unique folding wings, would still require certification, but much of the systems and construction would be waved through.

However, EASA raised concerns in 2021 regarding the lack of redundancy on some of the fly-by-wire systems, and demanded closer scrutiny of the project. With so much new stuff on board - empennages, center box, composite wing, fuselage stretch… the list goes on - the FAA is going to be looking at the plane as if it were a new model, and rightly so. With the fallout from the 737 MAX crisis still ringing in its ears, it won’t want to pass anything that’s not up to scratch...

"... These challenges include increased global regulatory scrutiny of all development aircraft in the wake of the 737 MAX accidents.”...

... This has led to what aircraft manufacturers call ‘abnormal production costs’; Boeing expects these to total $1 billion by the time production restarts...

"... potential risks associated with the testing program and the timing of aircraft certification.”...




My personal impression from reading that is that, Boeing were/are trying to pull a "fast one" using the same design/test/certification excuses as used to develop the 737MAX aircraft and... EASA is flagging up the deficiencies in that game... Lack of critically redundant systems? Lack of whatever else??... To the tune of $1000 Million of "short cuts", so far?...

I also read an undercurrent in there that "testing" and "certification" are an afterthought and somehow "abnormal" and are something that are seen to be getting in the way, and something to throw all the 'blame' at for any delays, against Boeing's rush/push for getting the latest Boeing baby out-of-the-door...


Whatever happened to iterating through design and test to prove and improve the design? And to be safe? And to have that properly scheduled in from the outset?...

Fly safe?...
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2123521 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Scrooge McDuck
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 99
Posts: 539
Credit: 1,674,173
RAC: 54
Germany
Message 2123548 - Posted: 3 Aug 2023, 16:21:45 UTC

Yes, the FAA and EASA will now have a closer look at the 777X project. This will delay the project for one or two years. But with the enlarged 777X, equipped with modern engines, Boeing will finally offer a modern, fuel-efficient aircraft again for which Airbus has no competing model. Many aging Jumbos or older 777s are still in long-haul service on e.g. routes from Europe to SE Asia which are likely to be replaced by 777Xs. German Lufthansa is going to replace all of its older Jumbos (747-400) and all (not so fuel efficient) A380s with 777X.
ID: 2123548 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 19973
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2123840 - Posted: 10 Aug 2023, 15:34:51 UTC
Last modified: 10 Aug 2023, 15:40:40 UTC

More of the Boeing game?...


Starliner undergoing three independent investigations as flight slips to 2024
wrote:
... Boeing has reported $1.1 billion in losses for its Starliner program, which is one of two vehicles that NASA helped support development of to fly astronauts to the space station. The other vehicle, SpaceX's Crew Dragon spacecraft, flew its crew test flight in May 2020. Dragon's seventh operational mission, Crew-7, is due to launch in about two weeks...

... Boeing and NASA have been busy. During a teleconference with reporters on Monday, Nappi and the leader of the Commercial Crew Program for NASA, Steve Stich, provided updates on what has transpired since the eye-raising announcement on June 1 of two major problems identified so close to launch...

... started removing the flammable tape from inside the spacecraft ... Several pounds of tape have been removed from Starliner so far...

... Starliner's parachutes ... were found to not have a high enough safety factor ... [now] fabricating a new version of the parachute joints using a stronger Kevlar material...

... In addition to the hardware work, Boeing must also comply with three separate investigations ... to ensure there are no other potential surprises looming ... All of these assessments must be completed before NASA convenes a flight-readiness review and determines that Starliner is finally ready to take flight with astronauts on board.

More of the Boeing "Abnormal" 'trifling activities' "getting in the way" that they are blaming for costs and delays?...

The Angry Astronaut gives a good summary on:

A new disaster for Boeing Starliner...




Fly safe?...
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2123840 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 19973
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2123890 - Posted: 11 Aug 2023, 12:53:45 UTC

Continuing in the Boeing way?...


Long long long after when this should have been first discovered and fixed, we have:

Boeing Redesigning 737 MAX Nacelle Part Following Anti-Ice Testing Discovery
wrote:
Boeing is redesigning a 737 MAX engine nacelle component after discovering that operating the anti-ice system in certain conditions can damage the part and operators will be required to adhere to certain limits until the fix is complete...

... Recent “flight testing and analysis” revealed that running EAI ... can push inlet temperatures beyond design limits. “Excessive heat buildup can cause overheating of the engine inlet inner barrel beyond the material design limit, resulting in failure of the engine inlet inner barrel and severe engine inlet cowl damage,” the directive says. That, in turn, could lead to airframe damage caused by pieces of the nacelle breaking away...

... it was deemed important enough for the [FAA] to bypass inviting public input on a draft version, will require operators of U.S.-registered 737 MAXs to update flight manuals within 15 days...

... Also prohibited will be dispatch of any 737 MAX with an EAI [anti-ice hot gas] valve locked open. The current master minimum equipment list (MMEL) permits dispatch with this condition...

... Meanwhile, Boeing is developing a modification [fix]...

... The risk of nacelle damage is being scrutinized carefully following a series of occurrences involving 737s and 777s in recent years, including one fatal accident. Boeing is redesigning the 737 Next Generation nacelle as a result—a process that began in 2019...

What happened to testing during the original design?...


Fly safe?!
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2123890 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 19973
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2123891 - Posted: 11 Aug 2023, 13:10:40 UTC
Last modified: 11 Aug 2023, 13:13:52 UTC

... And we have the curiously conflicting results of some successful lobbying:


House votes to speed approval of safety fixes to Boeing jets despite critics
wrote:
A sweeping piece of aviation legislation passed last week by the U.S. House includes an obscure amendment that allows airliners to continue flying with partial safety upgrades, even though they don’t fully meet current safety standards...

... Boeing ... lobbied for the change...

... Aerospace industry officials who pushed for the amendment say it’s in the interests of the flying public to deploy safety upgrades faster. But some critics argue the proposed fast-track approval could degrade the level of scrutiny of safety-related changes...

... the new approval process lacks transparency and invites waivers of design changes behind closed doors...

... while the new fast-track process should add some near-term safety enhancements, the concern is that this could allow Boeing to delay costly longer-term upgrades needed to bring the jets fully into compliance with regulations.

Former FAA safety engineer Mike Dostert, who provided his analysis of the proposed amendment to congressional staff, said the speedier approval process in the FAA bill “is not about safety; it’s about reducing costs.”...

... the new process can be acceptable as long as the FAA is required to conduct a complete risk assessment...

... the addition of the deadline is “a real positive improvement” over what Boeing and the industry asked for. Still, he remains wary that the inserted safeguards may not be enforceable in practice. “Where are the consequences if they don’t meet the deadline?” he asked...

... Both the 737 MAX and the 787 Dreamliner, Boeing’s two most important jets, do not fully comply with FAA safety standards.

For example, the 787 does not meet the lightning protection standard designed to prevent a wing fuel tank explosion...

... And the 737 MAX has approaching 200 noncompliant systems...

... The FAA is aware of the below-standard lightning protection on the 787’s wing fuel tank but assesses it as not an immediate safety risk. In March 2019, against the opposition of front-line FAA safety engineers, the agency’s management let Boeing remove certain elements of the jet’s lightning protection on the wings that were proving costly for airlines to maintain...

... Boeing is obliged to bring its jets into full compliance with current safety standards. Critics complain that, with no FAA mandate to move expeditiously, Boeing too often allows its planes to continue flying indefinitely without such fixes ... “There is continuing noncompliance in many areas as Boeing slow-walks getting to full compliance for years..."

... “We are allowing Boeing to produce products with a bunch of noncompliances. Some are trivial. But a lot become an issue over time,”...

... On the 737 MAX, the list of noncompliance issues includes the crew alerting system that warns pilots when something goes wrong in flight. For that system, the FAA and Congress have granted Boeing a permanent exemption from full compliance, conditional on installation of a couple of safety improvements [that have no date for completion]...



Deadly issues of who pays the consequences of the gambles and games on an accountant's spreadsheet?...

All a gamble of just how much profit turns deadly?


Fly safe??...
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2123891 · 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: 30537
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 2123916 - Posted: 12 Aug 2023, 2:13:47 UTC - in response to Message 2123890.  

What happened to testing during the original design?...
They followed the FAA mandated testing perfectly. We all know how well government works when put in charge.
ID: 2123916 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Previous · 1 . . . 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 . . . 32 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Boeing: Profits 1st, Safety 2nd? (Part 3)


 
©2024 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.