Really? The Boeing 737 MAX flight control system is too much of an unreliable unknown not to require repeated external testing to see if it still seems to work well enough?

WOW! You mean you shouldn't have to test a mechanical switch to see if it works? WOW!

You need this https://www.youtube.com/user/UGOT2CTHIS Dan will teach you about the number one cause.

For such a desperate last moment get-out-of-death system, safest is to never have that switch switched on!

For such a desperate last moment get-out-of-death system, safest is to never have that switch switched on!

So no fuses or circuit breakers. No fuel shutoff valves. Wonderful engineering.

BTW Juan Brown likes Dan Gryder. Dan just doesn't hold back on the number one cause, like most everyone else and the NTSB never ever says the number one cause.

There is supposed to be enforced the design doctrine that aircraft systems must fail safely or must fail to a benign state... Something that instead has to be actively turned off to avoid deadly catastrophe for normal flight is an inherently deadly design...

Your example there of a fuel shut-off is a very good safety feature that is only ever to be used either only whilst safely on the ground or only until AFTER some catastrophe has already happened...

Indeed, there is a world of difference in the expense of merely training a pilot to fly vs the extra time needed training a pilot to fly for other than normal conditions...

When it fails it will do so with whatever pitch, roll and yaw inputs it last had

Really...? There are no prior warnings that the autopilot is having to work far too hard and is outside of safe (recoverable) margins?...

Boeing is slowing 787 production in order to address a new manufacturing issue that the company says involves an issue with the jet’s forward pressure bulkhead.

The airframer has also slashed the number of Dreamliners it expects to deliver in 2021, now predicting it will hand over about half of the roughly 100 787s it holds in inventory.

Previously, Boeing told investors it would deliver the majority of those jets this year.

News of a new 787 manufacturing problem came to light on 12 July when the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said a “manufacturing quality issue near the nose” of some of Boeing’s undelivered 787s had been identified.

WASHINGTON, July 15 (Reuters) - The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on Thursday issued a directive to operators of all Boeing Co (BA.N) 737 series airplanes to conduct inspections to address possible failures of cabin altitude pressure switches.
The directive requires operators to conduct repetitive tests of the switches and replace them if needed. The directive covers 2,502 U.S.-registered airplanes and 9,315 airplanes worldwide.
It was prompted after an operator reported in September that both pressure switches failed the on-wing functional test on three different 737 models.
The FAA said failure of the switches could result in the cabin altitude warning system not activating if the cabin altitude exceeds 10,000 feet (3,050 m), at which point oxygen levels could become dangerously low.

Boeing initially reviewed the issue, including the expected failure rate of the switches, and found it did not pose a safety issue.

Subsequent investigation and analysis led the FAA and Boeing to determine in May that "the failure rate of both switches is much higher than initially estimated, and therefore does pose a safety issue."

...It was prompted after an operator reported in September that both pressure switches failed the on-wing functional test on three different 737 models.
The FAA said failure of the switches could result in the cabin altitude warning system not activating if the cabin altitude exceeds 10,000 feet (3,050 m), at which point oxygen levels could become dangerously low.

Boeing initially reviewed the issue, including the expected failure rate of the switches, and found it did not pose a safety issue.

Subsequent investigation and analysis led the FAA and Boeing to determine in May that "the failure rate of both switches is much higher than initially estimated, and therefore does pose a safety issue [of the pilots losing consciousness]."

Boeing fluffs the design-and-test-and-QA-checks;
Operator reports faults/concerns;
Boeing denies any problem;
FAA chases up long after the event to too late declare a real problem;
Work-around minimum cost 'fix' agreed;
Pilots and passengers fly on their prayers...

Fly safe folks!
Martin

Another problem for the 737.
FAA orders checks on 9,300 Boeing 737 planes for possible switch failures

WASHINGTON, July 15 (Reuters) - The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on Thursday issued a directive to operators of all Boeing Co (BA.N) 737 series airplanes to conduct inspections to address possible failures of cabin altitude pressure switches.
The directive requires operators to conduct repetitive tests of the switches and replace them if needed. The directive covers 2,502 U.S.-registered airplanes and 9,315 airplanes worldwide.
It was prompted after an operator reported in September that both pressure switches failed the on-wing functional test on three different 737 models.
The FAA said failure of the switches could result in the cabin altitude warning system not activating if the cabin altitude exceeds 10,000 feet (3,050 m), at which point oxygen levels could become dangerously low.

Boeing initially reviewed the issue, including the expected failure rate of the switches, and found it did not pose a safety issue.

Subsequent investigation and analysis led the FAA and Boeing to determine in May that "the failure rate of both switches is much higher than initially estimated, and therefore does pose a safety issue."

My question, who builds the switches? Are they in other airplanes? Spacecraft?

My question, who builds the switches? Are they in other airplanes? Spacecraft?

No idea, but have they been 'grandfathered in' and therefore could be late 50's or early 60's design and that there are better more reliable alternatives available.

My question, who builds the switches? Are they in other airplanes? Spacecraft?

No idea, but have they been 'grandfathered in' and therefore could be late 50's or early 60's design and that there are better more reliable alternatives available.

In the world of certified aircraft, once a design is blessed, er certified, no one dares make a big improvement because obtaining a new certification will bankrupt the investors.

There have been a number of biz jets that have obviously depressurized and flown until they run out of fuel over the years. A shared bad part or part design?

My question, who builds the switches? Are they in other airplanes? Spacecraft?

No idea, but have they been 'grandfathered in' and therefore could be late 50's or early 60's design and that there are better more reliable alternatives available.

In the world of certified aircraft, once a design is blessed, er certified, no one dares make a big improvement because obtaining a new certification will bankrupt the investors.

There have been a number of biz jets that have obviously depressurized and flown until they run out of fuel over the years. A shared bad part or part design?

But no doubt they would have no problem with introducing newer designs if it came with a significant weight and size reduction in the item.

... The CST-100 Starliner will launch from Florida at some point to showcase how it can ferry crews to and from the International Space Station (ISS).

It will be the second test flight, and conducted with no people aboard. The previous demonstration in 2019 encountered software problems that very nearly caused the loss of the capsule...

... Controllers had been targeting Tuesday for the launch, but scrubbed the countdown with two-and-a-half hours left on the clock.

The reason was not immediately clear. However, Tory Bruno, the CEO of United Launch Alliance, which operates the Atlas rocket, tweeted that his team would recycle for an attempt on Wednesday...

... while SpaceX is now two crewed operational flights into this privatised era, Boeing has yet to run a single crewed mission in a Starliner. And that's because Boeing's first unpiloted "Orbital Flight Test" in December 2019 went seriously awry...

... Boeing's director of Starliner mission operations, said the company had run full-mission duration simulations of the new software on the capsule. The new code, he added, had implemented every correction recommended by the review. "We fixed every one, we addressed every one. We want this next flight to be as clean as it could possibly be," he told reporters...

... we need an alternative to Starliner... no matter the cost.

2 The Future

A few days on and not looking good...

[...]

I would imagine that the thrusters valves, ALL of 'em, are ALL 'Safety Critical'... Or why have them?...

...

Teams continue to work on Starliner's service module propulsion system inside of ULALaunch's Vertical Integration Facility. BoeingSpace has been able to command seven of 13 valves open that previously were in the closed position... August 9, 2021

Seven of 13 valves that stayed shut when they should have opened during a pre-launch test have now been opened by engineers, but they have yet to track down what is keeping them closed [or what is not opening them...]. Boeing has been able to rule out external physical or chemical damage or corrosion to the affected valves.

NASA said that the Starliner will remain in the VIF [Vertical Integration Facility] until engineers have been able to isolate the root problem, correct the issue, and verify "repeatable system performance."...

... A new defect on Boeing’s Dreamliner aircraft surfaced in July, the latest in a series of issues that arose late last summer. Deliveries of the popular plane are now halted, pressuring Boeing’s profits. WSJ’s Andrew Tangel explains how Boeing got here...

Oxygen levels could become "dangerously low" if switches fail over 10,000 feet...

... But the crew and maintenance personnel are not alerted of switch failures...

... "A latent failure of both pressure switches could result in the loss of cabin altitude warning, which could ... result in incapacitation of the flight crew due to hypoxia (a lack of oxygen in the body), and consequent loss of control of the airplane,"...

... The FAA order affects around 2,500 planes in the U.S. including the Boeing 737 Max and 737 NextGen...

... The concern was prompted by a test in September when an operator reported that both switches had failed on three different models of the Boeing 737...

... The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said all Boeing MAX planes and some other 737 models were affected by the precautionary measure...

... the aircraft may have a failed electronic flow control in the air conditioning packs that vent air into the hold...

... The airworthiness directive impacts 663 airplanes registered in the United States and approximately 2,204 worldwide, the FAA said.

It potentially means that operators would be unable ... to take passenger baggage in the hold at the height of the holiday season...