Ed 737 Max Crashes (was Shutdown caused Boeing crash.)

[Ziggurat]

I guess Lockheed could maybe crap out a passenger jet loosely based on one of their military transport designs (They tried to sell the L-500, a 1,000 passenger version of the C-5 Galaxy Heavy Transport, to airlines in the late 70s but nobody would bite) and they have had very, very limited success (114 airframes sold) of a civilian version of the venerable old C-130 Hercules.

Miltary transport planes frequently have wings at the top of the plane. This makes it easier to put the body of the plane closer to the ground on landing, which in turn makes it easier to load and unload heavy cargo in places that might not have so much equipment. It also puts the engines higher up which is desirable for places with lower quality runways where you have to worry about debris. But that makes for more noise for passengers compared to wings at the bottom of the plane which can then shield the body from much of the engine noise..

 

[JoeMorgue]

I've actually half wondered why no airline has ever tried a "Load from the front, unload from the back but for passengers" design.

I assume there's just not enough money margin in it for the restrictions of the design.

 

[smartcooky]

I've actually half wondered why no airline has ever tried a "Load from the front, unload from the back but for passengers" design.

I assume there's just not enough money margin in it for the restrictions of the design.

Well there were some aircraft designs that did load and unload passengers though a tail door (called tail airstaris). The B727, Yak 42,
DC9, BAC-111 and the Sud Aviation Caravelle are a few I can think of. Maybe the Vickers VC-10 did as well, but I can't remember.

There are a few air incidents or things that were done precisely because 727's had tail airstair.

1. The US used then to drop supplies through the tail door in Vietnam during the war.

2. Broken Wing used a B727 for their 2012 controlled crash test in the Sonora desert, so that the flight crew could safely bail out through the back

3. DB Cooper infamously hijacked a B727 and extorted $200,000 before escaping by bailing out through the tail airstair. He probably could not have safely bailed out of any other airliner that didn't have one.

 

[Eddie Dane]

Boeing’s 737 Max Software Outsourced to $9-an-Hour Engineers

It remains the mystery at the heart of Boeing Co.’s 737 Max crisis: how a company renowned for meticulous design made seemingly basic software mistakes leading to a pair of deadly crashes. Longtime Boeing engineers say the effort was complicated by a push to outsource work to lower-paid contractors.

The Max software -- plagued by issues that could keep the planes grounded months longer after U.S. regulators this week revealed a new flaw -- was developed at a time Boeing was laying off experienced engineers and pressing suppliers to cut costs.

Increasingly, the iconic American planemaker and its subcontractors have relied on temporary workers making as little as $9 an hour to develop and test software, often from countries lacking a deep background in aerospace -- notably India.

 

[smartcooky]

Boeing’s 737 Max Software Outsourced to $9-an-Hour Engineers

Every piece of news about this that comes out makes Boeing look even worse than before.

They have really screwed the pooch big-time.

 

[a_unique_person]

But their share price has been great.

 

[Eddie Dane]

But their share price has been great.

It doesn't reflect the tsunami of utter failures that caused the recent crash.

Compare that to Bayer who acquired Montesanto's legal trouble (possible cancer-causing products). That stock has tanked and is still falling.

Maybe BA is supported by its military products? I don't know if that's the same company.

 

[Trebuchet]

Boeing’s 737 Max Software Outsourced to $9-an-Hour Engineers

I find that very surprising! Just kidding, I don't. When I was still there they were sending more and more work to be done by what was called the Boeing Design Center in Moscow. It was horribly inefficient and when things weren't done on time, who do you suppose got called out on it? Me.

ETA: Not the Moscow in Idaho, either.

 

[Planigale]

Those following this thread may be interested in this article. Not good news for Boeing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49142761

 

[smartcooky]

Those following this thread may be interested in this article. Not good news for Boeing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49142761

"Mr Dickson said engineers were under pressure to downplay new features on the 737 Max.

He said by classifying them as minor rather than major changes, Boeing would face less scrutiny from the US regulator, the Federal Aviation Administration.

"The goal was to show that those differences were so similar to the previous design that it would not require a major design classification in the certification process. There was a lot of interest and pressure on the certification and analysis engineers in particular, to look at any changes to the Max as minor changes."

Not only this, but passing off the differences as insignificant and not requiring recertification meant that they would not have to type rate pilots, avoiding costly flight sim time. While that would not have been paid by Boeing, it allowed them to make it a selling point for airlines... "buy this aircraft and you won't have to certify your existing pilots to fly it.". That was a very big mistake, as is was shown that the handling characteristics of the 737 Max 8 on climb out was very significantly different from its predecessor.

 

[Trebuchet]

About a year ago a broker suggested I buy Boeing stock. I told him no, I used to work there.

 

[a_unique_person]

It just gets worse and worse. Boeing has taken a plane that has an excellent record but has many anachronisms in it from the the 1950's, when the fundamentals of it were first designed. Boeing has pushed it into the 21st century and not remedied them when it could have to save money. All those compromises of profit over safety and modern standards are now being scrutinised very closely. For example, there is no redundacy of the controls. There is still a single cable for the rudder from the cockpit to the rear where the hyrdaulics are. Ancient technology and there is no reason Boeing could not have addressed that earlier other than saving money.

 

[Blue Mountain]

It just gets worse and worse. Boeing has taken a plane that has an excellent record but has many anachronisms in it from the the 1950's, when the fundamentals of it were first designed. Boeing has pushed it into the 21st century and not remedied them when it could have to save money. All those compromises of profit over safety and modern standards are now being scrutinised very closely. For example, there is no redundancy of the controls. There is still a single cable for the rudder from the cockpit to the rear where the hydraulics are. Ancient technology and there is no reason Boeing could not have addressed that earlier other than saving money.

Or is is a matter of "It if ain't broke, don't fix it"?

 

[a_unique_person]

Or is is a matter of "It if ain't broke, don't fix it"?

Redundancy has been proven to have saved lives. It would not have been impossible for Boeing to implement it. New plane designs have to have the redunancy built in.

 

[Klimax]

Or is is a matter of "It if ain't broke, don't fix it"?

It might have been true at some point somewhere, but I don't think it applies in most cases anymore. Especially in cross-section of IT and planes.

 

[Planigale]

Boeing has 'persuaded' victims families to give up claims of compensation for about $2,000.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-48953892
(The difference between statuary compensation and the no claim compensation deal.) I am not sure that distraught families really understood the consequences of accepting immediate compensation; for many who may have lost their breadwinner they would not be in an easy immediate position and certainly would have needed some immediate payment.

Boeing has pledged $100,000,000 to help the families but none of the money goes directly to them but to fund support systems.
https://www.dw.com/en/boeing-to-pay-100-million-to-737-max-crash-families/a-49462963

In comparison the CEO was paid $23,000,000 last year. So the compensation for 346 deaths are just four years pay of the CEO.

 

[catsmate]

Or is is a matter of "It if ain't broke, don't fix it"?

No it's more about the type certification quagmire.

 

[quadraginta]

Or is is a matter of "It if ain't broke, don't fix it"?

Even things that ain't broke can be improved.

 

[a_unique_person]

Even things that ain't broke can be improved.

What was an acceptable risk changes over time to an unacceptable risk. That would be about sixty years by now for the 737.

 

[Klimax]

Even things that ain't broke can be improved.

Like all those changes that Boeing made to 737 including mounting even larger engines.