Boeing Max Jet?

[Dick Foster]

I'd like to know where the FAA is during the congressional hearing on the 737 Max. Boeing built it but the FAA had to certify it before it could carry passengers or even be sold. If they have no responsibility then exactly what is their purpose and why are we paying them?

 

[pknopp]

This should not have been a Congressional hearing. It should be a criminal investigation.

When a country puts "shareholder value" ahead of everything else though, this is what you get. Dog and Pony shows.

 

[Pogo]

I'd like to know where the FAA is during the congressional hearing on the 737 Max. Boeing built it but the FAA had to certify it before it could carry passengers or even be sold. If they have no responsibility then exactly what is their purpose and why are we paying them?

Part of what Boeing did was underequip the plane with a single (ONE) pitch sensor, specifically so that it (Boeing) could circumvent the FAA regs -- a more adequately comprehensive multi-sensor system would have required extra training under FAA regs, and Boeing didn't want that delay because they were in such a hurry for Profit.

The whole freaking plane was badly designed by hanging too-big engines where they would throw the balance off and kick in this whole pitch problem, which then had to be compensated by the ultra-super-secret software nobody knew about, wasn't trained on and couldn't be controlled --- rather than designing the plane to accommodate the engines, from the ground up, again in a mad dash for profit. This came back to bite them.

 

[B. Kidd]

Boeing has lost $9 billion so far over this.
That's what they get for outsourcing the computer programming on this jet in order to save money instead of doing it in-house.

That's like driving 400 miles to a different station to save a nickel per gallon on gas......idiots!

 

[Pogo]

Boeing has lost $9 billion so far over this.
That's what they get for outsourcing the computer programming on this jet in order to save money instead of doing it in-house.

That's like driving 400 miles to a different station to save a nickel per gallon on gas......idiots!

The issue is not who created the software. It's that they slapped it in there without explaining it or offering any training --- not even mentioned in the manual -- and deliberately designed the systems that software was there to compensate for, in a way that ensured they wouldn't have to lose time to FAA regs, because Profit took precedence over safety. This is ALL on Boeing, and they deserve every pain they get.

 

[22lcidw]

Just let the Asians expand their passenger jet corporate desires. They obviously are graduating better engineers and tech people. Because they guarantee the jobs to their best. Not to who is qualified by quotas. Boeing and Airbus both know that the Asians would be serious competition in Aerospace. Passenger planes being part of it. It is obvious we give them their crumbs to stop their grumbling and let this part of the industry to Boeing and Airbus.

 

[Dick Foster]

This should not have been a Congressional hearing. It should be a criminal investigation.

When a country puts "shareholder value" ahead of everything else though, this is what you get. Dog and Pony shows.

But what's the FAAs part? They have the power yet no responsibility? The aircraft with all of it's supposed warts and faults was approved to go into service by the FAA before a single passenger could climb aboard. So where are they?

 

[Dick Foster]

I'd like to know where the FAA is during the congressional hearing on the 737 Max. Boeing built it but the FAA had to certify it before it could carry passengers or even be sold. If they have no responsibility then exactly what is their purpose and why are we paying them?

Part of what Boeing did was underequip the plane with a single (ONE) pitch sensor, specifically so that it (Boeing) could circumvent the FAA regs -- a more adequately comprehensive multi-sensor system would have required extra training under FAA regs, and Boeing didn't want that delay because they were in such a hurry for Profit.

The whole freaking plane was badly designed by hanging too-big engines where they would throw the balance off and kick in this whole pitch problem, which then had to be compensated by the ultra-super-secret software nobody knew about, wasn't trained on and couldn't be controlled --- rather than designing the plane to accommodate the engines, from the ground up, again in a mad dash for profit. This came back to bite them.

Listen dumbass I'm well aware of the faults of the plane but that is not the point of this thread. The point is why did the FAA certify it to go into service? They have the final say so and have to give their approval before it can go into service. Why did they not point out any shortcomings and make Boing fix them before certifying it for sale and service?
If you don't know how the industry works or have never been in the avation business it's probably best that you simply shut up.

 

[pknopp]

This should not have been a Congressional hearing. It should be a criminal investigation.

When a country puts "shareholder value" ahead of everything else though, this is what you get. Dog and Pony shows.

But what's the FAAs part? They have the power yet no responsibility? The aircraft with all of it's supposed warts and faults was approved to go into service by the FAA before a single passenger could climb aboard. So where are they?

They should be part of the criminal investigation.

 

[Dick Foster]

There are a bunch of loud mouthed ignorant dumbasses here who apparantly have great difficulty with reading comprehension mustless have absolutely no knowledge of the avaition industry.

The question was regarding the FAAs part in the Max jet fiasco.

 

[Dick Foster]

This should not have been a Congressional hearing. It should be a criminal investigation.

When a country puts "shareholder value" ahead of everything else though, this is what you get. Dog and Pony shows.

But what's the FAAs part? They have the power yet no responsibility? The aircraft with all of it's supposed warts and faults was approved to go into service by the FAA before a single passenger could climb aboard. So where are they?

They should be part of the criminal investigation.

In what way? They should be held partially responsible so why arent they?

 

[pknopp]

This should not have been a Congressional hearing. It should be a criminal investigation.

When a country puts "shareholder value" ahead of everything else though, this is what you get. Dog and Pony shows.

But what's the FAAs part? They have the power yet no responsibility? The aircraft with all of it's supposed warts and faults was approved to go into service by the FAA before a single passenger could climb aboard. So where are they?

They should be part of the criminal investigation.

In what way? They should be held partially responsible so why arent they?

Because Wall Street does NOT want them held accountable.

 

[Pogo]

I'd like to know where the FAA is during the congressional hearing on the 737 Max. Boeing built it but the FAA had to certify it before it could carry passengers or even be sold. If they have no responsibility then exactly what is their purpose and why are we paying them?

Part of what Boeing did was underequip the plane with a single (ONE) pitch sensor, specifically so that it (Boeing) could circumvent the FAA regs -- a more adequately comprehensive multi-sensor system would have required extra training under FAA regs, and Boeing didn't want that delay because they were in such a hurry for Profit.

The whole freaking plane was badly designed by hanging too-big engines where they would throw the balance off and kick in this whole pitch problem, which then had to be compensated by the ultra-super-secret software nobody knew about, wasn't trained on and couldn't be controlled --- rather than designing the plane to accommodate the engines, from the ground up, again in a mad dash for profit. This came back to bite them.

Listen dumbass I'm well aware of the faults of the plane but that is not the point of this thread. The point is why did the FAA certify it to go into service? They have the final say so and have to give their approval before it can go into service. Why did they not point out any shortcomings and make Boing fix them before certifying it for sale and service?
If you don't know how the industry works or have never been in the avation business it's probably best that you simply shut up.

^^ posts "Boing" and then thinks somebody else should 'shut up'

 

[Dick Foster]

This should not have been a Congressional hearing. It should be a criminal investigation.

When a country puts "shareholder value" ahead of everything else though, this is what you get. Dog and Pony shows.

But what's the FAAs part? They have the power yet no responsibility? The aircraft with all of it's supposed warts and faults was approved to go into service by the FAA before a single passenger could climb aboard. So where are they?

They should be part of the criminal investigation.

In what way? They should be held partially responsible so why arent they?

Because Wall Street does NOT want them held accountable.

Why would Wall Street not want the FAA to be held to account? Last I checked there was no FAA stock.

 

[Dick Foster]

I'd like to know where the FAA is during the congressional hearing on the 737 Max. Boeing built it but the FAA had to certify it before it could carry passengers or even be sold. If they have no responsibility then exactly what is their purpose and why are we paying them?

Part of what Boeing did was underequip the plane with a single (ONE) pitch sensor, specifically so that it (Boeing) could circumvent the FAA regs -- a more adequately comprehensive multi-sensor system would have required extra training under FAA regs, and Boeing didn't want that delay because they were in such a hurry for Profit.

The whole freaking plane was badly designed by hanging too-big engines where they would throw the balance off and kick in this whole pitch problem, which then had to be compensated by the ultra-super-secret software nobody knew about, wasn't trained on and couldn't be controlled --- rather than designing the plane to accommodate the engines, from the ground up, again in a mad dash for profit. This came back to bite them.

Listen dumbass I'm well aware of the faults of the plane but that is not the point of this thread. The point is why did the FAA certify it to go into service? They have the final say so and have to give their approval before it can go into service. Why did they not point out any shortcomings and make Boing fix them before certifying it for sale and service?
If you don't know how the industry works or have never been in the avation business it's probably best that you simply shut up.

^^ posts "Boing" and then thinks somebody else should 'shut up'

You really are a part of that dumbass crowd aren't you? Did you have to work on stupid or does it come natural to you?

 

[pknopp]

This should not have been a Congressional hearing. It should be a criminal investigation.

When a country puts "shareholder value" ahead of everything else though, this is what you get. Dog and Pony shows.

But what's the FAAs part? They have the power yet no responsibility? The aircraft with all of it's supposed warts and faults was approved to go into service by the FAA before a single passenger could climb aboard. So where are they?

They should be part of the criminal investigation.

In what way? They should be held partially responsible so why arent they?

Because Wall Street does NOT want them held accountable.

Why would Wall Street not want the FAA to be held to account? Last I checked there was no FAA stock.

I think you can figure it out.

 

[Dick Foster]

But what's the FAAs part? They have the power yet no responsibility? The aircraft with all of it's supposed warts and faults was approved to go into service by the FAA before a single passenger could climb aboard. So where are they?

They should be part of the criminal investigation.

In what way? They should be held partially responsible so why arent they?

Because Wall Street does NOT want them held accountable.

Why would Wall Street not want the FAA to be held to account? Last I checked there was no FAA stock.

I think you can figure it out.

Maybe it was a rhetorical question, dummy. Meant to get people to question and wonder why we pay for a department of government that has authority but apparently no responsibility which makes most with a brain question what we're getting for our money.

 

[Pogo]

They should be part of the criminal investigation.

In what way? They should be held partially responsible so why arent they?

Because Wall Street does NOT want them held accountable.

Why would Wall Street not want the FAA to be held to account? Last I checked there was no FAA stock.

I think you can figure it out.

Maybe it was a rhetorical question, dummy. Meant to get people to question and wonder why we pay for a department of government that has authority but apparently no responsibility which makes most with a brain question what we're getting for our money.

Maybe we have to try this again, Boing-Boi. FAA requires regulations, and "Boing" games the system to get around said regulations. You seem to be desperately scraping the bottom of the proverbial barrel for the purpose of getting Corporatia off the hook for their own world of shit.

 

[pknopp]

They should be part of the criminal investigation.

In what way? They should be held partially responsible so why arent they?

Because Wall Street does NOT want them held accountable.

Why would Wall Street not want the FAA to be held to account? Last I checked there was no FAA stock.

I think you can figure it out.

Maybe it was a rhetorical question, dummy. Meant to get people to question and wonder why we pay for a department of government that has authority but apparently no responsibility which makes most with a brain question what we're getting for our money.

Everything is about feeding wall street. Everything.

 

[airplanemechanic]

I'd like to know where the FAA is during the congressional hearing on the 737 Max. Boeing built it but the FAA had to certify it before it could carry passengers or even be sold. If they have no responsibility then exactly what is their purpose and why are we paying them?

Part of what Boeing did was underequip the plane with a single (ONE) pitch sensor, specifically so that it (Boeing) could circumvent the FAA regs -- a more adequately comprehensive multi-sensor system would have required extra training under FAA regs, and Boeing didn't want that delay because they were in such a hurry for Profit.

The whole freaking plane was badly designed by hanging too-big engines where they would throw the balance off and kick in this whole pitch problem, which then had to be compensated by the ultra-super-secret software nobody knew about, wasn't trained on and couldn't be controlled --- rather than designing the plane to accommodate the engines, from the ground up, again in a mad dash for profit. This came back to bite them.

Listen dumbass I'm well aware of the faults of the plane but that is not the point of this thread. The point is why did the FAA certify it to go into service? They have the final say so and have to give their approval before it can go into service. Why did they not point out any shortcomings and make Boing fix them before certifying it for sale and service?
If you don't know how the industry works or have never been in the avation business it's probably best that you simply shut up.

This is the first and last time I'll ever tell a man this.

Dick, you have a good point.

I usually come running to the defense of airplane manufacturers because I'm a pilot and mechanic but this is not something I can defend. There are too many red flags that were ignored because of money.

Someone with Boeing needs to go to the iron bar hotel for a few decades.