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 . . . 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 . . . 32 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Wiggo
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 00
Posts: 34555
Credit: 261,360,520
RAC: 489
Australia
Message 2123918 - Posted: 12 Aug 2023, 8:30:18 UTC - in response to Message 2123916.  

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.

And when Donny got in he cut a lot of "red tape" procedures further.
ID: 2123918 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Scrooge McDuck
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 99
Posts: 539
Credit: 1,674,173
RAC: 54
Germany
Message 2123923 - Posted: 12 Aug 2023, 10:00:06 UTC

Boeing should have learned by now that one (or two) fatal crash(es) is enough to ground a model series and halt production for years. This is the most expensive.
ID: 2123923 · 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 2123927 - Posted: 12 Aug 2023, 15:43:26 UTC - in response to Message 2123891.  
Last modified: 12 Aug 2023, 15:44:46 UTC

... 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,”...

Including "slow walking" fixes to avert catastrophic failure for the Boeing 747 for ... wait for it ... 13 years?!...

See:

Maximus Aviation - FAA WARNS Of Catastrophic 747 - 8 Cracks At Aft Bulkhead! BUT Boeing And The FAA KNEW for 13 YEARS!


... All hidden behind passenger reassuring obfuscated abstract-speak...

Have we been extremely fortunately "lucky" for that one?

So far...?


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: 2123927 · 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 2124175 - Posted: 17 Aug 2023, 20:07:32 UTC

Must be Boeing's fault
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPtCpqEozJ8
The didn't install Tesla automation to prevent taxi accidents.
ID: 2124175 · 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 2124183 - Posted: 17 Aug 2023, 21:58:08 UTC - in response to Message 2124175.  

Nope.

I don't follow click-bait or teasers.

Your comment is?


Fly safe folks!
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2124183 · 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 2124728 - Posted: 29 Aug 2023, 14:57:43 UTC
Last modified: 29 Aug 2023, 14:58:41 UTC

So... How does this balance out?...


Alaska 737 Hard Landing KSNA 20 Aug 2023



So... There is a concession to Boeing that allows them to land their 'stretched' 737 versions at (dangerously?) higher landing speeds for the sake of having stretched the aircraft limits/design/profits?...

Note this aircrew comment:

i am a retired flight attendant. i worked the 737 800, the A321, the A 319, 757, 767etc. Whenever we were about to touch down, the 737 800 was one we consciously held on to something to assist us when it hit. And it did indeed HIT. SLAM! All other aircraft listed above usually had an enormously smooth landing. All Airbus aircraft landed like it was on glass



Another Boeing stretch too far?...

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: 2124728 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Scrooge McDuck
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 99
Posts: 539
Credit: 1,674,173
RAC: 54
Germany
Message 2124786 - Posted: 30 Aug 2023, 9:37:31 UTC - in response to Message 2124728.  

Another Boeing stretch too far?...
And there's even the 737-900, not to mention the upcoming Max 10. Hmmm, I've landed dozens of times with all sorts of A319/320/321s, as well as 737-600/700/800s. I don't remember such differences between Boeing and Airbus. The hardness of the landing probably also depends a lot on the experience of the pilots and of course the weather. In Scandinavia, UK, Canada... you will probably have bad weather landings more often.
ID: 2124786 · 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: 22107
Credit: 416,307,556
RAC: 380
United Kingdom
Message 2124787 - Posted: 30 Aug 2023, 10:22:58 UTC - in response to Message 2124728.  

There are a lot of reasons for the B737-800 (and later) requiring higher approach and landing speeds. These include the low speed performance of the wings, the need to have a lower angle of attack during the final flare (to avoid tail strikes). Neither of these increases the probability of having a hard landing, indeed may actually reduce it under "normal" weather conditions.
Hard landings are the norm at certain airports which are known for their short runways, or the prevalence of cross-winds (BHX & EDI come to mind here). The hardest landing in B737 I've "enjoyed" was a few years ago in a B737-300 at BHX when the conditions were most definitely marginal with heavy rain, fog ($%^&* low cloud?) and a decent cross wind. Certainly the braking once down for a B737-800 and B737-8 are more fierce than almost any A-3xx or "lesser" B-737-xxx.
(Aside - Part of the harshness of all the B737 comes from them having short stroke landing gear due to the airlines' desire to have a very low load & maintenance height.)
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
ID: 2124787 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Scrooge McDuck
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 99
Posts: 539
Credit: 1,674,173
RAC: 54
Germany
Message 2124788 - Posted: 30 Aug 2023, 10:50:59 UTC
Last modified: 30 Aug 2023, 10:51:07 UTC

[...] the aircraft did not suffer a hard landing. The aft trunnion shear pin failed causing the damage to the upper wing panels.
https://avherald.com/h?article=50d52882&opt=0
ID: 2124788 · 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: 22107
Credit: 416,307,556
RAC: 380
United Kingdom
Message 2125659 - Posted: 17 Sep 2023, 15:18:14 UTC

Well, how actually makes the B737 MAX???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmJgweFmoxs

That all depends on what you define as an aircraft - by some definitions it is "Spirit" not Boeing, and it would appear Spirit are the core of these two problems, and Spirit isn't in the best of financial health....
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
ID: 2125659 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Scrooge McDuck
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 99
Posts: 539
Credit: 1,674,173
RAC: 54
Germany
Message 2125666 - Posted: 17 Sep 2023, 18:39:51 UTC

Well, the first prototype of the 737 Max was christened the “Spirit of Renton”.
ID: 2125666 · 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 2130550 - Posted: 29 Dec 2023, 21:29:09 UTC

How can this be?...

Boeing Urges Airlines To Inspect 787 Max Planes For Possible Loose Bolts
wrote:
... discovered two aircraft with missing bolts in the rudder control system, raising concerns about faults across all aircraft...




Fly safe folks?
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2130550 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24852
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 2130762 - Posted: 3 Jan 2024, 14:02:03 UTC

Too hot for the Transportation thread.
1st off though...
Air crew astounds the world of aviation
Japan Airlines experienced its own catastrophe in August 1985, when Osaka-bound Flight 123 crashed into a mountain shortly after take-off from Tokyo Haneda. It was later attributed to faulty repair work by Boeing, the aircraft manufacturer.Only four out of 524 people on board survived the crash.

Boeing can learn a thing or two from Airbus.
But there were also signs the aircraft's design was working to give those on board the best chance of escape. Prof Graham Braithwaite, director of transport systems at Cranfield University in the UK, told the BBC it looked like it "has done what it is designed to do, which is protect the occupants and allow a fast evacuation".
ID: 2130762 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 18945
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 2130859 - Posted: 6 Jan 2024, 6:18:13 UTC
Last modified: 6 Jan 2024, 6:35:13 UTC

Just got up and received this in my news update. U.S. safety board investigating Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 MAX 9 emergency landing
Jan 5 (Reuters) - The National Transportation Safety Board said late Friday it was investigating a depressurization incident that forced an Alaska Airlines (ALK.N) Boeing 737 MAX 9 (BA.N) to make an emergency landing shortly after taking off from Portland, Oregon.

Alaska Airlines Flight 1282, which had been bound for Ontario, California, suffered the depressurization soon after departing at 5:06 p.m. Pacific Time and landed safely back at Portland at 5:26 p.m. with 171 passengers and six crew, according to the airline and Flightradar24 data.


Have since found this, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-llaZBNC2H4
Start at 10 mins for view of missing panel/door.

The plane is only 10 weeks old.
edit] Fm Flightradar24
737-9 MAX N704AL Aircraft informationN704AL (MSN 67501) was delivered to Alaska new from Boeing on 31 October 2023. It entered commercial service on 11 November 2023 and has accumulated 145 flights since then (including the incident flight).
ID: 2130859 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Grant (SSSF)
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 13686
Credit: 208,696,464
RAC: 304
Australia
Message 2130863 - Posted: 6 Jan 2024, 9:56:02 UTC - in response to Message 2130859.  

Have since found this, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-llaZBNC2H4
Start at 10 mins for view of missing panel/door.

The plane is only 10 weeks old.
edit] Fm Flightradar24
737-9 MAX N704AL Aircraft informationN704AL (MSN 67501) was delivered to Alaska new from Boeing on 31 October 2023. It entered commercial service on 11 November 2023 and has accumulated 145 flights since then (including the incident flight).

Just saw a news article on it.
In the video they say it wasn't an emergency exit, however looking at images of the outside of the aircraft it was a door of some type.
Passenger screwing around again (eg Asiana Airlines flight OZ8124), or an actual failure?
Wondering just how high was the aircraft when it occurred?
Grant
Darwin NT
ID: 2130863 · 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 2130864 - Posted: 6 Jan 2024, 10:11:34 UTC - in response to Message 2130863.  
Last modified: 6 Jan 2024, 10:13:27 UTC

Wondering just how high was the aircraft when it occurred?
BBC is saying around 16,000 feet - so well below mid-flight cruising level, but high enough to be an immediate problem.

More interior photos in https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67899564
ID: 2130864 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 18945
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 2130865 - Posted: 6 Jan 2024, 10:19:54 UTC - in response to Message 2130863.  

however looking at images of the outside of the aircraft it was a door of some type.

That part of the plane, can be a door on some models, those that are fitted to seat higher numbers than the Alaska Airways plane. On this model it is factory sealed and trimmed on the interior to look like the rest of the plane with a window.
ID: 2130865 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 18945
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 2130905 - Posted: 7 Jan 2024, 8:48:50 UTC

ID: 2130905 · 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 2130914 - Posted: 7 Jan 2024, 13:48:17 UTC

And yet we have:

Boeing's 737 Max has been described as "the most scrutinised transport aircraft in history" after a series of safety issues.

... And still Boeing remains in the news for all the wrong reasons...

How is it that Boeing is allowed to be so casual about safety and their threat/gamble of killing people ?

What gamble do you suffer for the sake of extra profits?

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: 2130914 · 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: 22107
Credit: 416,307,556
RAC: 380
United Kingdom
Message 2130915 - Posted: 7 Jan 2024, 15:40:27 UTC - in response to Message 2130914.  

"Scrutiny" does not mean "safest" or "best" - it just means that something has been checked, but that something may be good, bad or indifferent; and if found wanting it may not have been fixed. In other words, just a load of hot air has been expelled.
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
ID: 2130915 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Previous · 1 . . . 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 . . . 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.