• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

quadraginta said:
It wasn't "all those changes ... including mounting even larger engines" that caused the 737 Max crashes.



It wasn't even one specific change.



It was the way that change was tested and handled. Even it could have been done properly.
Click to expand...
MCAS was the trigger issue. Other issues have now been revealed. The FAA has been deliberately compromised to allow Boeing to get away with multiple safety issues.
 
a_unique_person said:
MCAS was the trigger issue. Other issues have now been revealed. The FAA has been deliberately compromised to allow Boeing to get away with multiple safety issues.
Click to expand...


I'm not questioning that, and I think it's deplorable, and I hope that some heads roll ... criminally speaking, that is.

But it wasn't the simple existence of changes which was the problem. It was the way those changes were made, how they were evaluated, and ... as you point out yourself ... the appropriate processes and channels which were bypassed in pursuit of speed and profit over safety.

It isn't that the changes couldn't have been made safely, it's that they weren't, for reasons of simple greed.
 
a_unique_person said:
What was an acceptable risk changes over time to an unacceptable risk. That would be about sixty years by now for the 737.
Click to expand...

Yea everyone was happy with steering columns that stabbed you in the heart in car accidents when it came out, now not so much.
 
This story appeared on AFP but was pulled. In it they claim that two Boeing whistle blowers stated that Boeing knew the disasterous consquences of an MCAS failure and the difficulty of controlling the event.


http://en.rfi.fr/contenu/20190804-behind-max-crisis-lax-regulator-top-down-company-culture


It is still on other outlets that copied the story.


ven before the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines crashes claimed 346 lives, Boeing flight tests had revealed problems similar to those encountered by pilots on the ill-fated 737 MAX flights.Company officials learned that its MCAS anti-stall system -- which is at the center of both accidents -- activated within minutes of takeoff, repeatedly pushing the nose of the aircraft down even when the plane was operating in normal conditions at lower speed.
This discovery, recounted to AFP by two former Boeing engineers who spoke on the condition of anonymity, suggested that mastering the MCAS was important for safely flying the MAX.
The MCAS should have been closely vetted by regulators, and procedures for operating the system should have been included in plane manuals and highlighted during pilot training.
But none of that happened.
Before the Lion Air disaster in October, the MCAS was not even named in the official documents given to pilots.
In the earliest documents submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration, Boeing said the MCAS would only activate under abnormal conditions, such as a sudden turn at great speed.
Boeing later amended its documents to say MCAS could be activated at lower speeds, but maintained throughout that there were no significant safety changes compared with earlier models.
FAA representatives were present during a test flight when an MCAS problem occurred, according to a regulatory source, but approved the MAX without independently studying or testing the flight system.
Instead, regulators deferred on key aspects of certification to Boeing, allowed under a congressionally-mandated program begun in 2005 while the FAA faced budget pressure.
In essence, Boeing chose the engineers who would inspect its planes in a process rubber-stamped by the agency.
Click to expand...
 
Just thought you would enjoy this video from the TopTenz channel. It says that The Boeing 737 Max Crashes And Subsequent Scandal Are Harming Boeing’s Reputation.

https://youtu.be/L4gRWNKyJRs?t=443

I think that if any American airplane manufacturer decides to go into the same market as Boeing then Boeing will be in trouble. The only thing that will save it is that pilots will need a lot of retraining to fly any other type of aircraft.
 
rjh01 said:
Just thought you would enjoy this video from the TopTenz channel. It says that The Boeing 737 Max Crashes And Subsequent Scandal Are Harming Boeing’s Reputation.

https://youtu.be/L4gRWNKyJRs?t=443

I think that if any American airplane manufacturer decides to go into the same market as Boeing then Boeing will be in trouble. The only thing that will save it is that pilots will need a lot of retraining to fly any other type of aircraft.
Click to expand...

I found this video interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7OnNhEziYE

it claims that with the enormous growth in the number of flights (great for the environment!) we will eventually move away from the huge airport hubs served by huge aeroplanes, and will switch to a finer network of smaller airports with smaller planes.

If true, that could provide an opening to competitors that are not able to build these humongous aeroplanes.
 
a_unique_person said:
This story appeared on AFP but was pulled. In it they claim that two Boeing whistle blowers stated that Boeing knew the disasterous consquences of an MCAS failure and the difficulty of controlling the event.


http://en.rfi.fr/contenu/20190804-behind-max-crisis-lax-regulator-top-down-company-culture


It is still on other outlets that copied the story.
Click to expand...


"FAA representatives were present during a test flight when an MCAS problem occurred, according to a regulatory source, but approved the MAX without independently studying or testing the flight system. "​

JESUS H TAP-DANCING CHRIST!!!! REALLY?
 
Blue Mountain said:
Or is is a matter of "It if ain't broke, don't fix it"?
Click to expand...
Also the old 737 design was obsolete and facing competition from more modern, capable and fuel efficient Airbuses. Hence the attempt to stick new engines on the airframe, call it a variant, and skimp on testing to save money and time.
 
smartcooky said:

"FAA representatives were present during a test flight when an MCAS problem occurred, according to a regulatory source, but approved the MAX without independently studying or testing the flight system. "​

JESUS H TAP-DANCING CHRIST!!!! REALLY?
Click to expand...
Welcome to low cost, reduced red tape, Republic oversight.
 
Eddie Dane said:
I found this video interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7OnNhEziYE

it claims that with the enormous growth in the number of flights (great for the environment!) we will eventually move away from the huge airport hubs served by huge aeroplanes, and will switch to a finer network of smaller airports with smaller planes.

If true, that could provide an opening to competitors that are not able to build these humongous aeroplanes.
Click to expand...

There are regulations came in a few years that say you can fly a two engined aircraft longer distances away from an airport. So now this type of aircraft, such as a 737 max, are in big demand. There is no demand for four engined aircraft.
 
SpitfireIX said:
If either Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman wants to take the long view, they should start designing a hydrogen-powered alternative to the A320 and 737 series.
Click to expand...

Maybe, though I would wonder if that would make a lot of sense instead of synthesizing hydrocarbon based fuels. The pressure vessels or liquid hydrogen would be pretty tricky and hydrocarbons can always be synthesized for the purpose.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Maybe, though I would wonder if that would make a lot of sense instead of synthesizing hydrocarbon based fuels. The pressure vessels or liquid hydrogen would be pretty tricky and hydrocarbons can always be synthesized for the purpose.
Click to expand...


I'm no expert, but I don't believe synthesizing hydrocarbons will be economically feasible until we have either thorium MSRs or fusion power, and those are likely still decades away from widespread adoption.
 
SpitfireIX said:
I'm no expert, but I don't believe synthesizing hydrocarbons will be economically feasible until we have either thorium MSRs or fusion power, and those are likely still decades away from widespread adoption.
Click to expand...

For surface transport that makes sense, but for air I don't know.
 
rjh01 said:
I think that if any American airplane manufacturer decides to go into the same market as Boeing then Boeing will be in trouble. The only thing that will save it is that pilots will need a lot of retraining to fly any other type of aircraft.
Click to expand...
I think the problem is that the initial cost of designing and developing a new passenger plane (especially a large one capable of replacing things like the Boeing long-haul jets), then finding a market, would probably be prohibitive. You would need a lot of money and a lot of expertise.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
that is kinda hilarious.

Boeing might be better of giving them away for free - maybe Trump can afford his airline after all!
Click to expand...

Why would any airline accept delivery of a grounded airliner? Until they are allowed to fly again they are not going to be delivering any of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom