Boeing Is Looking Worse and Worse

[Weatherman2020]

WSJ: Boeing turned off malfunction alerts on 737 Max — and didn’t tell airlines or FAA.

At what point does this investigation turn from civil to criminal?

 

[Likkmee]

Boeing: Corporate Governance

 

[gipper]

The corrupt US government will never allow Boeing to be harmed. Fascism on display...again.

But that damn Julian Assange deserves a death sentence. Lori Loughlin too.

CRAZY!

 

[martybegan]

WSJ: Boeing turned off malfunction alerts on 737 Max — and didn’t tell airlines or FAA.

At what point does this investigation turn from civil to criminal?

Boeing decided that "the customer is always right" when it came to designing the 737 MAX, and "the customer doesn't need to know everything" when there were problems with the aircraft's stability due to the customer demands.

Customers wanted an aircraft with the same training requirements and certification as the 737, with bigger engines and more fuel efficiency.

When that led to aerodynamic issues, they tried to fix it with software instead of hardware.

 

[Likkmee]

Software is code.Hardware is cash (hint hint)

 

[gipper]

WSJ: Boeing turned off malfunction alerts on 737 Max — and didn’t tell airlines or FAA.

At what point does this investigation turn from civil to criminal?

Boeing decided that "the customer is always right" when it came to designing the 737 MAX, and "the customer doesn't need to know everything" when there were problems with the aircraft's stability due to the customer demands.

Customers wanted an aircraft with the same training requirements and certification as the 737, with bigger engines and more fuel efficiency.

When that led to aerodynamic issues, they tried to fix it with software instead of hardware.

Boeing did this because Uncle Sam makes it damn near impossible and very expensive to get a new passenger jet certified. So, they chose to retrofit an existing certified plane. This doesn’t alleviate Boeing of responsibility for the deaths, but also implicates Uncle.

 

[K9Buck]

The corrupt US government will never allow Boeing to be harmed. Fascism on display...again.

But that damn Julian Assange deserves a death sentence. Lori Loughlin too.

CRAZY!

You're not overly dramatic at all.

 

[gipper]

The corrupt US government will never allow Boeing to be harmed. Fascism on display...again.

But that damn Julian Assange deserves a death sentence. Lori Loughlin too.

CRAZY!

You're not overly dramatic at all.

There are plenty of politicians who have demanded Assange be executed. You know this right?

I suppose Lori Loughlin is a stretch.

 

[K9Buck]

The corrupt US government will never allow Boeing to be harmed. Fascism on display...again.

But that damn Julian Assange deserves a death sentence. Lori Loughlin too.

CRAZY!

You're not overly dramatic at all.

There are plenty of politicians who have demanded Assange be executed. You know this right?

I suppose Lori Loughlin is a stretch.

Yea, Hillary reportedly wanted him assassinated.

 

[gipper]

The corrupt US government will never allow Boeing to be harmed. Fascism on display...again.

But that damn Julian Assange deserves a death sentence. Lori Loughlin too.

CRAZY!

You're not overly dramatic at all.

There are plenty of politicians who have demanded Assange be executed. You know this right?

I suppose Lori Loughlin is a stretch.

Yea, Hillary reportedly wanted him assassinated.

Yes plus a bunch of others.

 

[martybegan]

WSJ: Boeing turned off malfunction alerts on 737 Max — and didn’t tell airlines or FAA.

At what point does this investigation turn from civil to criminal?

Boeing decided that "the customer is always right" when it came to designing the 737 MAX, and "the customer doesn't need to know everything" when there were problems with the aircraft's stability due to the customer demands.

Customers wanted an aircraft with the same training requirements and certification as the 737, with bigger engines and more fuel efficiency.

When that led to aerodynamic issues, they tried to fix it with software instead of hardware.

Boeing did this because Uncle Sam makes it damn near impossible and very expensive to get a new passenger jet certified. So, they chose to retrofit an existing certified plane. This doesn’t alleviate Boeing of responsibility for the deaths, but also implicates Uncle.

I would think certifying a new airframe should be rather hard. The issue could also be they allow expansion of a certification too easily.

The planes fly in US airspace, in US jurisdiction, and by its nature air travel can involve state to state travel. I see no issue in the FAA being able to certify new aircraft, or allow existing ones to me modified under a given certification. I think the issue is also they need to narrow down the scope of modified certification.

The airlines are also not blameless, as they ask for aircraft with modified certifications so they don't have to retrain all their pilots.

 

[gipper]

WSJ: Boeing turned off malfunction alerts on 737 Max — and didn’t tell airlines or FAA.

At what point does this investigation turn from civil to criminal?

Boeing decided that "the customer is always right" when it came to designing the 737 MAX, and "the customer doesn't need to know everything" when there were problems with the aircraft's stability due to the customer demands.

Customers wanted an aircraft with the same training requirements and certification as the 737, with bigger engines and more fuel efficiency.

When that led to aerodynamic issues, they tried to fix it with software instead of hardware.

Boeing did this because Uncle Sam makes it damn near impossible and very expensive to get a new passenger jet certified. So, they chose to retrofit an existing certified plane. This doesn’t alleviate Boeing of responsibility for the deaths, but also implicates Uncle.

I would think certifying a new airframe should be rather hard. The issue could also be they allow expansion of a certification too easily.

The planes fly in US airspace, in US jurisdiction, and by its nature air travel can involve state to state travel. I see no issue in the FAA being able to certify new aircraft, or allow existing ones to me modified under a given certification. I think the issue is also they need to narrow down the scope of modified certification.

The airlines are also not blameless, as they ask for aircraft with modified certifications so they don't have to retrain all their pilots.

Agreed but you are assuming what the FAA does in certifying a new plane, is logical. I tend to doubt that.

 

[martybegan]

WSJ: Boeing turned off malfunction alerts on 737 Max — and didn’t tell airlines or FAA.

At what point does this investigation turn from civil to criminal?

Boeing decided that "the customer is always right" when it came to designing the 737 MAX, and "the customer doesn't need to know everything" when there were problems with the aircraft's stability due to the customer demands.

Customers wanted an aircraft with the same training requirements and certification as the 737, with bigger engines and more fuel efficiency.

When that led to aerodynamic issues, they tried to fix it with software instead of hardware.

Boeing did this because Uncle Sam makes it damn near impossible and very expensive to get a new passenger jet certified. So, they chose to retrofit an existing certified plane. This doesn’t alleviate Boeing of responsibility for the deaths, but also implicates Uncle.

I would think certifying a new airframe should be rather hard. The issue could also be they allow expansion of a certification too easily.

The planes fly in US airspace, in US jurisdiction, and by its nature air travel can involve state to state travel. I see no issue in the FAA being able to certify new aircraft, or allow existing ones to me modified under a given certification. I think the issue is also they need to narrow down the scope of modified certification.

The airlines are also not blameless, as they ask for aircraft with modified certifications so they don't have to retrain all their pilots.

Agreed but you are assuming what the FAA does in certifying a new plane, is logical. I tend to doubt that.

And you assume automatically that they are somehow overdoing it.

The FAA's technical section is probably one of the LEAST political branches of the federal government.

Their job is to make sure crap planes don't fly. If they have any failure here, it's in allowing self-certification for existing design changes to be TOO easy.

 

[Pilot1]

The FAA could streamline the certification process without compromising safety. They can be VERY unreasonable in just about every facet of their existence with regulation enforcement and new sweeping regulations that are often just too damn stringent. They are a bureaucracy that can be out of control. I have dealt with them several times over the years. It is rarely a positive experience.

 

[gipper]

WSJ: Boeing turned off malfunction alerts on 737 Max — and didn’t tell airlines or FAA.

At what point does this investigation turn from civil to criminal?

Boeing decided that "the customer is always right" when it came to designing the 737 MAX, and "the customer doesn't need to know everything" when there were problems with the aircraft's stability due to the customer demands.

Customers wanted an aircraft with the same training requirements and certification as the 737, with bigger engines and more fuel efficiency.

When that led to aerodynamic issues, they tried to fix it with software instead of hardware.

Boeing did this because Uncle Sam makes it damn near impossible and very expensive to get a new passenger jet certified. So, they chose to retrofit an existing certified plane. This doesn’t alleviate Boeing of responsibility for the deaths, but also implicates Uncle.

I would think certifying a new airframe should be rather hard. The issue could also be they allow expansion of a certification too easily.

The planes fly in US airspace, in US jurisdiction, and by its nature air travel can involve state to state travel. I see no issue in the FAA being able to certify new aircraft, or allow existing ones to me modified under a given certification. I think the issue is also they need to narrow down the scope of modified certification.

The airlines are also not blameless, as they ask for aircraft with modified certifications so they don't have to retrain all their pilots.

Agreed but you are assuming what the FAA does in certifying a new plane, is logical. I tend to doubt that.

And you assume automatically that they are somehow overdoing it.

The FAA's technical section is probably one of the LEAST political branches of the federal government.

Their job is to make sure crap planes don't fly. If they have any failure here, it's in allowing self-certification for existing design changes to be TOO easy.

I do. I also believe in protecting the public, but suspect our criminal government is incapable of the job.

Boeing chose to retrofit rather than make new. Why? Because of Uncle. The result is people died. How is this protecting the public?

 

[martybegan]

Boeing decided that "the customer is always right" when it came to designing the 737 MAX, and "the customer doesn't need to know everything" when there were problems with the aircraft's stability due to the customer demands.

Customers wanted an aircraft with the same training requirements and certification as the 737, with bigger engines and more fuel efficiency.

When that led to aerodynamic issues, they tried to fix it with software instead of hardware.

Boeing did this because Uncle Sam makes it damn near impossible and very expensive to get a new passenger jet certified. So, they chose to retrofit an existing certified plane. This doesn’t alleviate Boeing of responsibility for the deaths, but also implicates Uncle.

I would think certifying a new airframe should be rather hard. The issue could also be they allow expansion of a certification too easily.

The planes fly in US airspace, in US jurisdiction, and by its nature air travel can involve state to state travel. I see no issue in the FAA being able to certify new aircraft, or allow existing ones to me modified under a given certification. I think the issue is also they need to narrow down the scope of modified certification.

The airlines are also not blameless, as they ask for aircraft with modified certifications so they don't have to retrain all their pilots.

Agreed but you are assuming what the FAA does in certifying a new plane, is logical. I tend to doubt that.

And you assume automatically that they are somehow overdoing it.

The FAA's technical section is probably one of the LEAST political branches of the federal government.

Their job is to make sure crap planes don't fly. If they have any failure here, it's in allowing self-certification for existing design changes to be TOO easy.

I do. I also believe in protecting the public, but suspect our criminal government is incapable of the job.

Boeing chose to retrofit rather than make new. Why? Because of Uncle. The result is people died. How is this protecting the public?

The airlines have a say in it, not just due to certification but due to training requirements. Even if there was no certification you would have to re-train pilots more with a new airframe than with an upgrade. This is particularly true with smaller airlines and/or smaller planes, where some airlines like southwest use only 1 model or like Jet Blue that only uses two models.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Bottom line is if a pilot is told one thing about Angle Of Attack and how the related instruments work, the pilot uses that knowledge to determine if the aircraft is giving the correct information or not in an emergency. If Boeing changed what the pilots were originally told, that’s big do-do for Boeing.

 

[xband]

The new gizmos and gadgets grounded the Boeing 737 Max. Old tech is better than new tech.

 

[williepete]

They can be VERY unreasonable in just about every facet of their existence with regulation enforcement and new sweeping regulations that are often just too damn stringent. They are a bureaucracy that can be out of control. I have dealt with them several times over the years. It is rarely a positive experience.

One word in dealing with the FAA: INCONSISTENT.
You ask a dozen FAA inspectors to interpret a regulation and you'll get a dozen different answers.

Their charter is contradictory. They exist to promote safety and at the same time encourage commercial civil aviation. What is good for business is bad for safety. What is good for safety is bad for business.


FAA's major roles and responsibilities
Under the broad umbrella of safety and efficiency, we have several major roles:

• Regulating civil aviation to promote safety
• Encouraging and developing civil aeronautics, including new aviation technology
• Developing and operating a system of air traffic control and navigation for both civil and military aircraft
• Researching and developing the National Airspace System and civil aeronautics
• Developing and carrying out programs to control aircraft noise and other environmental effects of civil aviation
• Regulating U.S. commercial space transportation

Safety: The Foundation of Everything We Do

 

[Pilot1]

Bottom line is if a pilot is told one thing about Angle Of Attack and how the related instruments work, the pilot uses that knowledge to determine if the aircraft is giving the correct information or not in an emergency. If Boeing changed what the pilots were originally told, that’s big do-do for Boeing.

I don't think the computer and MCAS system allowed the pilots to reduce AOA. By the time they got it disengaged it was too late on at least the one crash. The sensors were giving wrong info to the computer, and the pilots couldn't counteract the pitching down of the nose that the MCAS was demanding.