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 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 17 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 15988
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2047470 - Posted: 28 Apr 2020, 23:11:01 UTC

Meanwhile, the Boeing 737 Max stays grounded:


Boeing 737 MAX expected to remain grounded until at least August...
wrote:
... 737 MAX jet is expected to remain grounded until at least August as the manufacturer continues to grapple with software issues...

... One issue involves hypothetical faults in the flight control microprocessor, which could potentially lead to a loss of control known as a runaway stabilizer. The other issue could lead to disengagement of the autopilot feature during final approach...

... Last month, Boeing decided to separate 737 MAX wiring bundles that regulators had flagged as potentially dangerous...

... In February, Boeing said it would need a software update to address a 737 MAX indicator light issue. In January it disclosed a separate software issue relating to a power-up monitoring function. Boeing is also inspecting 737 MAX airplanes after it discovered foreign object debris in undelivered airplanes...



Boeing probed for quality-control lapses on 737 Max assembly line
wrote:
Boeing potentially faces far greater legal liability than previously known...

... faces criminal and civil scrutiny into years of widespread quality-control lapses on its 737 Max assembly line...

... DOJ prosecutors and FAA investigators also have been examining factory problems that raise red flags about the Chicago plane maker’s compliance with mandatory production rules and safeguards. Boeing found debris mistakenly left behind by workers in fuel tanks or other interior spaces of approximately half of the Max aircraft it inspected...




All in our deadly greedy world,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2047470 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 15988
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2047476 - Posted: 28 Apr 2020, 23:29:58 UTC - in response to Message 2047470.  
Last modified: 28 Apr 2020, 23:30:52 UTC

... Last month, Boeing decided to separate 737 MAX wiring bundles that regulators had flagged as potentially dangerous...

A reminder that the same problem "potentially catastrophic failure" wiring is on the current 737 NG aircraft. Those are still flying...

See: Boeing to Separate Grounded 737 MAX Wiring Bundles


Any news for the 737 NG wiring bundles likewise getting fixed?


All in our deadly greedy world,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2047476 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 15988
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2049086 - Posted: 14 May 2020, 0:45:54 UTC
Last modified: 14 May 2020, 0:47:56 UTC

Here's an easily followed summary of the present state for the Boeing 737 Max:

YouTube: FAA Launches Investigation this Week
wrote:
The FAA is launching a NEW investigation into the Foreign Object Debris left in Half of all MAX jets fuel tanks, engines, and other sealed spaces. Employees may be doing this on purpose or in the least the morale is so bad at Boeing, nobody cares anymore...



Very interesting that the question is raised of whether the potentially deadly Foreign Object Debris found in over half of the 737 Max aircraft inspected after leaving the factory is possibly due to (disgruntled, overworked?) worker sabotage...

Whatever next?


All in our deadly greedy world,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2049086 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 15988
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2049972 - Posted: 21 May 2020, 17:04:22 UTC
Last modified: 21 May 2020, 17:15:32 UTC

This to my mind and personal view is just unforgivably gobsmacking!


Read the wording carefully:

FAA Response to 737 MAX Crash Report Preserves Boeing’s Big Role in Certifying its Own Planes


So, for my personal totally ignorant interpretation of that:

  • Business as usual keeping the deadly conflicts of interest;
  • The existing procedures work yet didn't avert disaster so no one is at fault;
  • Vague reassurances about reviewing how pilots respond to emergencies...




So... Nothing useful learned and the FAA is relying on a PR whitewash?

All forced by?:

The FAA welcomed that finding and noted that “application of new airworthiness standards, in some circumstances, can increase costs.” The current system for certifying a derivative airplane like the MAX, “balances these economic and safety outcomes,” the FAA report states.

Really?!!! For the Boeing 737 MAX examples for example, totally ignoring the potentially catastrophically fatal wiring and lack of flight computer redundant operation and single points of failure?

Note that it was such failures that are now known to have caused three fatal crashes... And others?




All in our deadly greedy world,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2049972 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 15988
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2050073 - Posted: 22 May 2020, 19:22:40 UTC - in response to Message 2049972.  
Last modified: 22 May 2020, 19:25:09 UTC

For a little more detail, see:

FAA response to 737 MAX crash report preserves Boeing’s big role in certifying its own planes
wrote:
... A former top FAA official, who asked not to be identified to protect his current role as a consultant on aviation safety matters, said the overall FAA response looks like “more of the same” — a determination to maintain its decades-long progression of doing less and less hands-on oversight and delegating more of that work to Boeing.

He pointed to the FAA’s future vision, outlined in 2017, of expanding the current delegation system further, an agency “transformation” that would see it set safety regulations in place but then leave it almost entirely to the manufacturer to find that its aircraft is in compliance.

In the new report, the former official said, “I don’t see anything suggesting that [the] FAA will reverse its determination to continue to disengage from certification.”




All in our continuing deadly greedy world,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2050073 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 15988
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2050076 - Posted: 22 May 2020, 20:57:46 UTC
Last modified: 22 May 2020, 20:59:24 UTC

This one is unusual and worrying that such parts can be lost in flight:

Swift Air B737 Lands With Tail Parts Missing


Quite a scary picture for what isn't there... An aircraft can too easily lose its skin from such damage.

Next comes the how and why...

(Note that is on an old Boeing 737 NG aircraft.)


All in our deadly greedy world,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2050076 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 15988
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2052499 - Posted: 22 Jun 2020, 0:23:13 UTC
Last modified: 22 Jun 2020, 0:28:45 UTC

A few more bits of Boeing news:


Lawmakers rip FAA for not disclosing documents on Boeing Max
wrote:
Senators of both parties lashed out at the Federal Aviation Administration on Wednesday, accusing it of stonewalling their attempts to understand how the agency approved a Boeing jet that later suffered two deadly crashes and whether it retaliates against whistleblowers...

Wicker said he holds Stephen Dickson, President Donald Trump's pick to lead the FAA, personally responsible for creating an adversarial relationship with Congress. “It is hard not to conclude your team at the FAA has deliberately attempted to keep us in the dark,” Wicker told Dickson during a committee hearing.

Dickson disputed Wicker's description of the FAA, but he promised “to redouble our efforts”...

Really!... They really said that!...

I find their lack of seriousness very disturbing...



More debris found on a new Boeing tanker
wrote:
Delivery of a Boeing Co. KC-46 tanker has been delayed after another incident of debris found on the aircraft...



Boeing tried to amend bid after guidance from NASA official, raising concerns it received inside information
wrote:
... about a bid to win a contract potentially worth hundreds of millions of dollars, the company attempted to amend its proposal past the deadline for doing so...

That raised alarm bells inside the space agency, where officials were concerned that Boeing was attempting to take advantage of inside information...



Boeing whistleblower alleges systemic problems with 737 Max
wrote:
A Boeing engineer who last year lodged an internal ethics complaint alleging serious shortcomings in development of the 737 Max has written to a U.S. Senate committee asserting that systemic problems with the jet’s design “must be fixed before the 737 Max is allowed to return to service.”...

... “However, given the numerous other known flaws in the airframe, it will be just a matter of time before another flight crew is overwhelmed by a design flaw known to Boeing and further lives are senselessly lost.”

He goes on to suggest similar shortcomings in the flight-control systems may affect the safety of Boeing’s forthcoming 777X...

... alleged that Boeing rejected his safety upgrades because of management’s focus on schedule and cost considerations and the insistence that anything that might require more pilot training would not be considered.

He also alleged that Boeing pushed regulators at the Federal Aviation Administration to relax certification requirements for the airplane, particularly in regard to the cockpit systems for alerting pilots that something is wrong inflight. Those systems on the Max have been under scrutiny because during the two fatal Max crashes that killed 346 people, pilots struggled to understand the cascade of warnings in their cockpits...

... “The 737 Max’s original certification was accomplished with hand-waving and deception to hide the numerous ways the 1960s-era design of the 737 does not meet current regulatory standards,”...



Highly damning.

All just a 'normal' week for Boeing?

Your life may well depend on that...


All in our deadly greedy world,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2052499 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11091
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 2052503 - Posted: 22 Jun 2020, 2:20:04 UTC - in response to Message 2052499.  

[quote]Highly damning.

All just a 'normal' week for Boeing?

Your life may well depend on that...


All in our deadly greedy world,[/quote Not Boeing's fault, they were just following the legally mandated fiduciary law.
The concept sprung out of the highly respected London School of Economics. Until congress steps in and changes the law that will be business as usual for all publicly held companies.
ID: 2052503 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 17479
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 2052505 - Posted: 22 Jun 2020, 5:00:25 UTC - in response to Message 2052503.  
Last modified: 22 Jun 2020, 5:02:33 UTC

[quote]Highly damning.

All just a 'normal' week for Boeing?

Your life may well depend on that...


All in our deadly greedy world,[/quote Not Boeing's fault, they were just following the legally mandated fiduciary law.
The concept sprung out of the highly respected London School of Economics. Until congress steps in and changes the law that will be business as usual for all publicly held companies.

Surely it is older that the LSE, isn't it within English Common Law or the Court of Chancery?
ID: 2052505 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 17479
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 2052758 - Posted: 26 Jun 2020, 15:30:44 UTC

FAA orders fix for engine covers of Boeing 737 Max planes
WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. safety officials will require all Boeing 737 Max airliners to be inspected for a manufacturing defect on engine coverings that they say could lead to loss of power during flights.

Inspections and repairs, if needed, will be required before the grounded planes are allowed to fly again, according to a notice posted Wednesday by the Federal Aviation Administration.

The problem is not related to the flight-control system that pushed planes into nosedives before two deadly Max crashes. The crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia killed 346 people.

However, it is another blow to Boeing’s safety reputation.
...

The FAA estimated the work could take five to 12 hours per plane. It said Boeing will cover all costs because the planes are still under warranty.

The FAA order affects 128 Max jets registered to U.S. airlines American, Southwest and United.
ID: 2052758 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 17479
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 2052841 - Posted: 28 Jun 2020, 10:24:59 UTC

Boeing 737 MAX certification flight tests to begin on Monday
SEATTLE/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Pilots and test crew members from the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration and Boeing Co (BA.N) are slated to begin a three-day certification test campaign for the 737 MAX on Monday, people familiar with the matter told Reuters.

...

The rigors of the test campaign go beyond previous Boeing test flights, completed in a matter of hours on a single day, industry sources say.
ID: 2052841 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Wiggo
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 00
Posts: 26243
Credit: 261,360,520
RAC: 489
Australia
Message 2052842 - Posted: 28 Jun 2020, 11:47:43 UTC

I'm starting to wonder if Boeing will be able to survive under the current conditions and that's not just because of their 737 MAX problems. With major airlines mothballing large numbers of aircraft due to this coronavirus and lack of demand forcing them to downsize their fleets while many aircraft storage companies are in a rush to expand facilities all over the world to accommodate all those planes so who are Boeing going to find to sell all those new planes to?
ID: 2052842 · 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: 20786
Credit: 416,307,556
RAC: 380
United Kingdom
Message 2052844 - Posted: 28 Jun 2020, 12:15:37 UTC - in response to Message 2052842.  

Most (all) of them will have been sold already, but not delivered. The way aircraft are bought is not a simple "pay on delivery", but a series of staged payments, starting when the order is place, followed by key points during construction. Depending on the particular delivery contract there could be as little as 5% of the total agreed price to pay on some of the completed aircraft, while for those further back in the manufacturing process only 5% may have already been paid. Nothing in airline financing is easy - it's all designed to keep the lawyers and accountants in jobs.
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
ID: 2052844 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 15988
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2054012 - Posted: 25 Jul 2020, 0:24:24 UTC
Last modified: 25 Jul 2020, 0:28:04 UTC

WTF?!!

Very scary...


FAA issues emergency directive on 2,000 Boeing 737 NG, Classic planes
wrote:
... (FAA) on Friday issued an emergency airworthiness directive for 2,000 U.S.-registered Boeing 737 NG and Classic aircraft that have been in storage, warning they could have corrosion that could lead to a dual-engine failure...

... The directive covers planes not operated for seven or more consecutive days...

... The directive covering the 737 NG (600 to 900 series) and 737 Classic (737-300 to 737-500 series) was prompted by four recent reports of single-engine shutdowns caused by engine bleed air 5th stage check valves stuck in the open position. The FAA said the AD is to address corrosion of the engine bleed air 5th stage check valves for both engines. The FAA said that could result in compressor stalls and dual-engine power loss without the ability to restart...



That is one nasty common mode fault from which there is no recovery... What happened to "fail safe" design for critical parts?...

How much more 'winging it' on a 'prayer and hope'?...

OK, so that is with the engines supplier but still, Boeing is the one that signs off on such things and then kills people...

All in our only one greedy world...


Stay safe!
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2054012 · 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: 20786
Credit: 416,307,556
RAC: 380
United Kingdom
Message 2054029 - Posted: 25 Jul 2020, 7:42:56 UTC
Last modified: 25 Jul 2020, 7:44:46 UTC

Since the same engine is used on the A32x series I think we will see a similar directive covering those aircraft.

Don't forget that this applies to aircraft that have been parked for months without engine start & run-up.
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
ID: 2054029 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 15988
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2054042 - Posted: 25 Jul 2020, 14:28:55 UTC - in response to Message 2054029.  

Since the same engine is used on the A32x series I think we will see a similar directive covering those aircraft.

Don't forget that this applies to aircraft that have been parked for months without engine start & run-up.

Good comment. Will be interesting to see how quickly that directive gets spread further.

Curiously: Why then is only Boeing detailed and not that particular engine type?


Also:

I was under the impression that part of parking up the planes was that the engines were spun up every week to keep things dry and lubricated... Is that not the case?

And for such a critical valve to jam, should there not be a further directive for that valve to be redesigned or at the very least, tested by the engine controller as part of start-up?

All a game of incomplete design due to the rush for greedy profit?


Stay safe!
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2054042 · 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: 29161
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 2054052 - Posted: 25 Jul 2020, 15:34:00 UTC - in response to Message 2054042.  

Since the same engine is used on the A32x series I think we will see a similar directive covering those aircraft.

Don't forget that this applies to aircraft that have been parked for months without engine start & run-up.

Good comment. Will be interesting to see how quickly that directive gets spread further.

Curiously: Why then is only Boeing detailed and not that particular engine type?


Also:

I was under the impression that part of parking up the planes was that the engines were spun up every week to keep things dry and lubricated... Is that not the case?

And for such a critical valve to jam, should there not be a further directive for that valve to be redesigned or at the very least, tested by the engine controller as part of start-up?

All a game of incomplete design due to the rush for greedy profit?


Stay safe!
Martin

This valve won't move until the engine is at near full power. Doesn't happen on the ground unless you want to take off.
ID: 2054052 · 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: 20786
Credit: 416,307,556
RAC: 380
United Kingdom
Message 2054055 - Posted: 25 Jul 2020, 16:34:49 UTC

Well, yes and no - it's not quite as simple as "it won't move until at high power", its more a case of "It is not returned to closed until dropping from high power".
The actual EAD is very easy to implement, on the ground being a visual inspection of the valve seats and "replace as necessary", and only affects aircraft that have been stored for the last few months. And why the inspection isn't it part of the release from storage procedure - that's a whole different question.
Blancolirio has put out a short video outlining things and why only the b737 is affected (just now?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHHMPXYEs9Y
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
ID: 2054055 · 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: 29161
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 2054057 - Posted: 25 Jul 2020, 17:07:24 UTC - in response to Message 2054055.  

Put it this way, it closed on the last flight and sealed. Seal rotted while sitting. Opens at high power tearing the seal. Low power called for and it can't close from all the hanging torn rot.
ID: 2054057 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Wiggo
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 00
Posts: 26243
Credit: 261,360,520
RAC: 489
Australia
Message 2054069 - Posted: 25 Jul 2020, 21:39:50 UTC - in response to Message 2054029.  

Since the same engine is used on the A32x series I think we will see a similar directive covering those aircraft.

Don't forget that this applies to aircraft that have been parked for months without engine start & run-up.
Which is why I put this story in the Cafe's Transportation Safety thread and not here as it does not really suit this thread or its title. ;-)

Cheers.
ID: 2054069 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 17 · Next

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


 
©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.