Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
paid_influencer wrote:everybody turn aeronautical engineer overnight yes.
here's the thing with today's internet.
on one hand, you have the best aircraft company in the world, with billions of dollars in research and development and decades of making this caliber of plane with a second-to-none safety rating.
on the other you have aggregator websites and youtube. You hear the same opinions repeated over and over, from multiple voices. The appears to be 'consensus,' even though most of those voices aren't experts.
the average man will listen to the consensus, which isn't necessarily true or accurate. that is how fake news spreads and why it is so difficult to stop.
ismithx wrote:Would you trust a massive company to do everything right and dot all the i's and cross all the t's because they care more about people than profit?
After living all this amount of time do you honestly trust people that much?
ismithx wrote:paid_influencer wrote:everybody turn aeronautical engineer overnight yes.
here's the thing with today's internet.
on one hand, you have the best aircraft company in the world, with billions of dollars in research and development and decades of making this caliber of plane with a second-to-none safety rating.
on the other you have aggregator websites and youtube. You hear the same opinions repeated over and over, from multiple voices. The appears to be 'consensus,' even though most of those voices aren't experts.
the average man will listen to the consensus, which isn't necessarily true or accurate. that is how fake news spreads and why it is so difficult to stop.
Would you trust a massive company to do everything right and dot all the i's and cross all the t's because they care more about people than profit?
After living all this amount of time do you honestly trust people that much?
paid_influencer wrote:everybody turn aeronautical engineer overnight yes.
here's the thing with today's internet.
on one hand, you have the best aircraft company in the world, with billions of dollars in research and development and decades of making this caliber of plane with a second-to-none safety rating.
on the other you have aggregator websites and youtube. You hear the same opinions repeated over and over, from multiple voices. The appears to be 'consensus,' even though most of those voices aren't experts.
the average man will listen to the consensus, which isn't necessarily true or accurate. that is how fake news spreads and why it is so difficult to stop.
paid_influencer wrote:ismithx wrote:Would you trust a massive company to do everything right and dot all the i's and cross all the t's because they care more about people than profit?
After living all this amount of time do you honestly trust people that much?
This is the other part of the equation. The tendency to believe the experts are part of a conspiracy, so you should believe the consensus of voices instead.
It is the same as anti-vaxxers saying don't trust the doctors.
Boeing warns of potential wing faults in some 737 jets
3 June 2019
Boeing has warned airlines about potential flaws on the wings of some 737 aircraft, including on the new-generation 737 Max that was grounded after two crashes.
The company has identified possible faulty parts on more than 300 aircraft worldwide.
The parts, called wing slats, generate extra lift on take-off and landing.
Affected parts may be susceptible to premature failure or cracks, the US aviation regulator said.
The Federal Aviation Administration Authority (FAA) added that the issue arose due to an "improper manufacturing process".
According to the FAA's statement, the defective parts were manufactured by a subcontractor not Boeing.
The president and chief executive of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Kevin McAllister, said in a statement: "We are committed to supporting our customers in every way possible as they identify and replace these potentially non-conforming tracks."
Boeing chairman and chief executive Dennis Muilenburg told CNBC the company was dealing with the issue "expeditiously", adding: "Certainly it is something we regret, the impact it has had to our customers.
"Any time there is news on the 737, it is something that goes to the top of our list, we're paying close attention to it."
News of the potentially faulty wing parts prompted a 1.6% fall in Boeing's share price at the start of trading, but the stock partially recovered to finish 0.8% down.
The latest issue comes as the planemaker grapples with the consequences of the 737 Max grounding.
The planes were grounded worldwide after a combined 346 people died in two crashes, the first in Indonesia in October followed by one in Ethiopia in March.
That also knocked the reputation of the FAA amid questions over its oversight during the flight certification process of the Max.
Boeing is working on a software fix that will allow the Max to begin flying again, but differences have arisen between the US and Canada on how to train pilots on the software after the update.
Washington believes training on computers or tablets is sufficient for seasoned pilots, but Ottawa wants to require training on flight simulators.
Other regulators around the world are trying to work on a coordinated plan to get the Max back into the skies.
maj. tom wrote:It's worse than that. They did it to please American Airlines, who is their biggest customer. This is actually a boardroom meeting conspiracy regarding money deals at the cost of a flawed airplane and compromised safety. Rather than Airbus getting the order with their newer narrow-body A320neo. AA would therefore not need to retrain their pilots and just stick with what they knew on the Boeing 737.
Check at 5:00 for this deal. But the entire video is a good watch, as are all Wendover Productions.
US regulators have uncovered a possible new flaw in Boeing's troubled 737 Max aircraft that is likely to push back test flights.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said it had identified the "potential risk" during simulator tests, but did not reveal details.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48752932
Imbert: Max 8s will be leased if certified
Carol Matroo
If the Boeing 737 aircraft being leased by government to complement Cariibbean Airlines (CAL) fleet cannot be certified as airworthy, then the money paid upfront will be refunded.
So said acting Prime Minister and Finance Minister Colm Imbert in the Senate, yesterday, during the debate of the Evidence (Amendment) Bill, 2019.
Questioned by Opposition Senator Saddam Hosein about the procurement of the aircraft, Imbert said in December 2018, CAL executed leased agreements with Tous Les Halles for operating leases for a total of 12 Boeing 737 Max 8 aircraft to replace current fleet of 737 aircraft which range in age from eight to 20 years.
In March 2019, aviation regulators and airlines around the world grounded all Boeing 737 Max passenger airliners after two Max 8 aircraft crashed, killing the 346 people aboard.
The ban by several countries comes after an Ethiopian Airlines plane crash which resulted in the death of all 157 people on board. The Boeing 737 Max 8 plane was also involved in a fatal Lion Air flight in which 189 passengers were killed. An investigation has been launched into the accidents.
Imbert said subsequent to the two accidents, CAL has been in constant contact with Tous Les Halles and Boeing to be fully apprised of developments and findings as regulatory investigations take place in terms of the status of the agreement to lease Max 8 aircraft.
"This agreement is subject to the leasors providing all approval documentation and certification of airworthiness from the Federal Aviation Administration which has not yet approved. If the aircraft are not certified as airworthy, then CAL will be under no obligation to accept them or pay for them. In the interim, CAL has made arrangements to extend the leases of its current fleet of Boeing 737 aircraft as and when required to ensure the smooth continuity of its flight operation.
the max... no question there.MaxPower wrote:Whats safer?
A 737 max or a Tiida pullin bull?
MaxPower wrote:Whats safer?
A 737 max or a Tiida pullin bull?
Boeing: US regulator admits 'mistake' over aircraft crashes
US aviation regulators allowed Boeing's 737 Max aircraft to continue flying despite knowing there was a risk of further crashes.
Analysis after the first crash last year predicted there could be up to 15 disasters over the lifetime of the aircraft without design changes.
Despite this, the Federal Aviation Administration did not ground the Max until a second crash five months later.
FAA chief Steve Dickson, who started in August, said this was a mistake.
The FAA risk assessment was revealed during a US congressional hearing on Wednesday. Lawmakers are investigating Boeing following fatal 737 Max crashes in Indonesia in October 2018, and Ethiopia in March. The disasters killed 346 people in total.
Air safety officials investigating the crashes have identified an automated control system in the 737 Max 8, known as MCAS, as a factor in both accidents.
Boeing has said the system, which relied on a single sensor, received erroneous data, which led it to override pilot commands and push the aircraft downwards.
What went wrong in Boeing's cockpit?
The FAA's investigation of the October Indonesia crash called for Boeing to redesign its system, warning of a risk of more than a dozen crashes over the 45-year lifetime of the roughly 4,800 737 Max planes in service.
Regulators also issued an alert to airlines, but the agency did not ground the aircraft until after the 10 March Ethiopia crash, several days after action by other countries.
"Was a mistake made?" asked Democrat congressman Henry Johnson.
"Obviously the result was not satisfactory," said Mr Dickson. In response to later questions, he admitted the agency had made a mistake at some point in the process.
'Grave concerns'
Boeing is revising the MCAS software, but lawmakers say their investigation has shown that the aircraft manufacturer was aware of flaws in the system.
Boeing staff have also raised concerns that the company was prioritising speed over safety at the factory that produced Max 737s, contributing to the crashes.
Ed Pierson, a former senior manager at the factory, told Congress he repeatedly warned Boeing's leadership of the safety risks caused by what he described as a "factory in chaos", but it had little effect.
He also said that, after the crashes, US government regulators have shown little interest in his concerns.
"I remain gravely concerned that... the flying public will remain at risk unless this unstable production environment is rigorously investigated and closely monitored by regulators on an ongoing basis," he said in prepared testimony.
Mr Dickson said the FAA is probing production issues. He also said he is considering further actions against Boeing.
In a statement, Boeing said Mr Pierson's own account showed the company took his concerns seriously.
"Company executives and senior leaders on the 737 programme were made aware of Mr Pierson's concerns, discussed them in detail, and took appropriate steps to assess them," it said.
maj. tom wrote:If after all this, if a single 737-Max ever crashes in the future again, Boeing will be in so much trouble they will have to declare bankruptcy and restructure everything. They should have cancelled the program and cut their losses up front and designed a new plane.
speedmelter wrote:maj. tom wrote:If after all this, if a single 737-Max ever crashes in the future again, Boeing will be in so much trouble they will have to declare bankruptcy and restructure everything. They should have cancelled the program and cut their losses up front and designed a new plane.
They are already in alot of financial trouble due to the crashes.
The 737 max is a good aircraft. Was designed with that one flaw however that flew through all of the holes in the swiss cheese. Redundancy for safety is never an option. The MCAS system should have been standardized to include full levels of redundancy across the board and not compromise safety for the sake of the airlines saving money. The last from the investigation i believe found that the sensors were known to have possible faults iirc which exposed alot between the FAA and the company.. clearly violations occured.
Why havent there been any US crashes? well the US companies tend to regard safety as high priority and would have not skimmed on an option of a few hundred thousand extra for a backup sensor, and they would have had better pilots and policies in place for their pilots to properly acquaint themselves with the flight dynamics of the max vs the old 800's.
Those countries in africa and asia are known for having sub standard ethics as well as poor pilot training and maintenance but in the case of the crashes boeing did not cover their asses well and a simple thing cost them which i mentioned above. that is what the stiffness of competition does.
About cancelling the program and cutting losses, its not so easy, Airbus Neo wouldve gotten all the orders if boeing did not come up with a competing aircraft in time. The aircraft is an excellent aircraft, electronic aided flight augmentation system is nothing new. Issue was with the redundancy not being a standard option and flight acquaintance did not happen globally.
If they had made any adjustments to the airframe and landing system to compensate for the bigger engines etc. in a manner to increase the stall speed etc naturally, the aircraft would have essentially become a different aircraft as it would have gone out of the range of the 737-800 by too far. This means airlines would have had to send pilots on new flight ratings etc.. expensive and inconvenient and airbus wouldve taken them badly. by sticking to the 737 platform, pilots with the type rating of that does not and did not have to go redo anything, simple top up by studying the manuals and changelogs etc.
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 109 guests