Corperate greed & the 737 max, read this

[fourtytwo42]

Just released, congressional ? report
Makes horrendous reading
This is what our once proud engineering profession has been reduced to by the bean counters
Anybody want to fly one of these things has to be stir crazy
https://transportation.house.gov/imo/media/doc/2020.09.15%20FINAL%20737%20MAX%20Report%20for%20Public%20Release.pdf
BUT how many other bit's of crap are out there that our lives depend upon that have yet to be uncovered ?

Our world seems on a downward trajectory............

BIG attitude problem 

[Benta]

The 737 is actually an extremely reliable aircraft, but there's no getting around the fact that it's a +50 years old airframe, and that there are better designs around today.

The 737-MAX story is a scandal of mismanagement, greed, kowtowing to "shareholder value" and a design attitude of "OK, it's old, let's just throw some software at it and it'll work."

I always wondered why Boeing didn't modify the undercarriage structure, as this was the obvious problem to anyone looking at the plane. It was really sleek in the 70/80s, but with the larger turbofan engines there was little space under the wings.

Oh, well.

Condolences to the people who died.

[SilverSolder]

Yeah, the 737-MAX story is not America's proudest moment, and does an injustice to all the good people that work in the industry.   The loudmouths seem to always prevail, for whatever reason. 

[WattsThat]

I always wondered why Boeing didn't modify the undercarriage structure, as this was the obvious problem to anyone looking at the plane. It was really sleek in the 70/80s, but with the larger turbofan engines there was little space under the wings.

I have met people that thought those flat bottom sections on the turbofans were just styling/sheet metal changes!

Another odd design feature was the DC-9 elevator. It confused many, thinking the aircraft had broken or cross-connected elevator cables.

[pickle9000]

How much you wanna bet they change the name?

I'd also say it will be safer now that people are paying attention. I think it has to be re-certified in Europe as well and it's not just a rubber stamp as is the norm.   

[james_s]

The positive side about air disasters is that people are much less complacent for a period of time, and they almost always result in changes in the way things are done. Eventually after nothing bad has happened in a while people start to get complacent which is what happened with the MAX. It had been quite a while since there was a fatal crash caused by a design flaw.

[pickle9000]

The positive side about air disasters is that people are much less complacent for a period of time, and they almost always result in changes in the way things are done. Eventually after nothing bad has happened in a while people start to get complacent which is what happened with the MAX. It had been quite a while since there was a fatal crash caused by a design flaw.

And then there is PIA 8303. A people problem.

[wraper]

I always wondered why Boeing didn't modify the undercarriage structure, as this was the obvious problem to anyone looking at the plane. It was really sleek in the 70/80s, but with the larger turbofan engines there was little space under the wings.

Because it becomes a different type of plane where everything that comes together with actually using it and certifications will be different too. Consider it as backwards compatibility. So they decided to modify the old stuff yet again rather than making much larger investment into completely new design. And that software garbage is to make it feel as it was before for pilots, even though it's sort of as a dog with fifth leg.

[pickle9000]

[BravoV]

Its not just corporate greed, which is expected, but do not deny that there is government's bodies on collusion and corruption, like a typical under developed/developing countries do, its a fact.

[BravoV]

I think it has to be re-certified in Europe as well and it's not just a rubber stamp as is the norm.

It will be norm, trust me, all it needs just a single phone call from the POTUS to the European country that do the certification. 

[pickle9000]

I think it has to be re-certified in Europe as well and it's not just a rubber stamp as is the norm.

It will be norm, trust me, all it needs just a single phone call from the POTUS to the European country that do the certification. 

That is too funny, could you imagine what Trump would say.

[BravoV]

I think it has to be re-certified in Europe as well and it's not just a rubber stamp as is the norm.

It will be norm, trust me, all it needs just a single phone call from the POTUS to the European country that do the certification. 

That is too funny, could you imagine what Trump would say.

Thats easy .... "I will make your Airbus life harder, really-really hard ... so ... just do it as I ask, OR ELSE !!!" 

[Rick Law]

Just released, congressional ? report
Makes horrendous reading
This is what our once proud engineering profession has been reduced to by the bean counters
Anybody want to fly one of these things has to be stir crazy
https://transportation.house.gov/imo/media/doc/2020.09.15%20FINAL%20737%20MAX%20Report%20for%20Public%20Release.pdf
BUT how many other bit's of crap are out there that our lives depend upon that have yet to be uncovered ?

Our world seems on a downward trajectory............

BIG attitude problem 

No doubt cost cutting (profit seeking) and coziness between the FAA and Boeing is an issue, but congressional reports should be taken with a ton of salt.  They tend to be political.

Two important points:

(1) About congressional committee reports

If you notice prominently displayed on the cover is the report was prepared by the "majority party staff" for the "majority party chairman".   Most if not all serving in Congress are career politicians.  Which ever party happens to be the majority tends to disregard opinions and conclusions of those in the "minority party" when it is in their political interest to do so. 

I am not accusing anyone of misrepresenting the truths here in this report.  I am however pointing out readers need to keep in mind what are the political motives, if any.

(2) FAA mission conflict which enabled coziness between regulator and regulated

The FAA has a mission-conflict problem.  In a nutshell, FAA was established to regulate and to promote aviation.  Regulation increase cost, yet cost increase is often counter to promoting the industry.  The wording was later changed from "promoting aviation" to "encourage aviation".  But still, the mission conflict between "regulate aviation" and "encourage aviation" are apparently not compatible enough to be easily housed under one roof.

The Los Angeles Times had a pretty good article about this issue:
https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-faa-ntsb-boeing-737-crash-20190322-story.html

[chickenHeadKnob]

The other important news out of Boeing in the last week is shutting down 787 production in Everett and moving it all to Charleston SC. Boeing built 787 in both plants but the South Carolina facility is non-unionized. It also produces significantly poorer quality aircraft, with more initial defects.

[BravoV]

I think it has to be re-certified in Europe as well and it's not just a rubber stamp as is the norm.

It will be norm, trust me, all it needs just a single phone call from the POTUS to the European country that do the certification. 

That is too funny, could you imagine what Trump would say.

Thats easy .... "I will make your Airbus life harder, really-really hard ... so ... just do it as I ask, OR ELSE !!!" 

I think "the call" was made just recently as I predicted. 

New on October 16 2020 ...
 -> Boeing Max Judged Safe to Fly by Europe’s Aviation Regulator 

About 2 months ago, news on Aug 12 2020 ...
 -> Airbus expects EU to respond to U.S. tariffs in aircraft subsidy dispute   

PS : And this comes to fundamental question, which is, should we trust EU flight safety certification ? As it has been just downgraded ... errr.. I mean equalized to US FAA level ? 

[duckduck]

Off topic. I live in the Seattle area and Boeing employees have told me that they regularly have to rework parts from the South Carolina factory. The closing of the 787 line in Seattle is not good news for airlines or passengers. It's sad to see another formerly great business suffer the humiliations of being run by MBAs instead of engineers. I suppose it is the cycle of life.

[SilverSolder]

Off topic. I live in the Seattle area and Boeing employees have told me that they regularly have to rework parts from the South Carolina factory. The closing of the 787 line in Seattle is not good news for airlines or passengers. It's sad to see another formerly great business suffer the humiliations of being run by MBAs instead of engineers. I suppose it is the cycle of life.

The whole sad MAX story has "run by MBAs" written all over it too.

[tooki]

Off topic. I live in the Seattle area and Boeing employees have told me that they regularly have to rework parts from the South Carolina factory. The closing of the 787 line in Seattle is not good news for airlines or passengers. It's sad to see another formerly great business suffer the humiliations of being run by MBAs instead of engineers. I suppose it is the cycle of life.

The whole sad MAX story has "run by MBAs" written all over it too.

Yep. But I guess that was to be expected when McDonnell Douglas’s management (which was famously bean-counter types) replaced Boeing’s engineering-driven management. I think Boeing’s stockholders who want long-term value (rather than pump-and-dump style quick returns) need to oust those fools.

[ve7xen]

I always wondered why Boeing didn't modify the undercarriage structure, as this was the obvious problem to anyone looking at the plane. It was really sleek in the 70/80s, but with the larger turbofan engines there was little space under the wings.

The larger story here is that Boeing had planned a 737 successor airframe in the late 2000s, in parallel to Dreamliner development, but they were caught flatfooted with the economic crisis, rising fuel costs, and the arrival of A320neo when their project that would be a viable competitor was likely 10-15 years from commercial service. So they threw together 737MAX so they'd have a competitive offering and not be giving up the market segment to Airbus in the meantime, deferring the new airframe project.

None of this is surprising or even problematic, on the face of it. Problem is, they let the business need to scramble and catch up override any engineering needs to actually do so in a safe and proper manner. The regulatory capture and lack of proper engineering safety culture is shocking. The report really is damning. Given the glaring lack of ethics and safety culture at Boeing evidenced in the report, and not only related to 737MAX, getting on one of their birds is definitely going to give me some pause, even if they are statistically no worse than any other.

What gets me is how the regulations are structured not only to allow such modifications but to encourage them. I think this is something the regulators really need to look closely at. The way the type rating / certification system is structured incentivizes hacks and not good integrated design, discouraging safety improvements over time. There's of course a balance to be had between 'tried and true' and 'bleeding edge' but this incident shows some of the risks. Even if it's not clean-sheet, some improvements should be encouraged/required by the regulations. 737MAX really should have had at the very least fly-by-wire with envelope protection, which would have made MCAS an integrated part of the flight controls, with full redundancy, and these accidents wouldn't have occurred.

[coppercone2]

The other important news out of Boeing in the last week is shutting down 787 production in Everett and moving it all to Charleston SC. Boeing built 787 in both plants but the South Carolina facility is non-unionized. It also produces significantly poorer quality aircraft, with more initial defects.

Yea, the union protection allows the workers to.. actually do their job. Without the union corporate can squeeze 'efficiency' out of the plant, meaning basically corporate can decide who to hassle/rush into passing shitty QC and shoddy work that 'they know is not important', wheras with a union, they get told to fuck off, so everything is done. So you noticed of course the numbers, two plants, one has 1/3rd of the staff, and it happens to be corporate. I wonder who has longer work hours, stricter with breaks, etc. (probobly the non union place). And being non union, they can shroud problems etc, because they are capable of exerting massive amounts of pressure on the work force.

[coppercone2]

Off topic. I live in the Seattle area and Boeing employees have told me that they regularly have to rework parts from the South Carolina factory. The closing of the 787 line in Seattle is not good news for airlines or passengers. It's sad to see another formerly great business suffer the humiliations of being run by MBAs instead of engineers. I suppose it is the cycle of life.

The whole sad MAX story has "run by MBAs" written all over it too.

Yep. But I guess that was to be expected when McDonnell Douglas’s management (which was famously bean-counter types) replaced Boeing’s engineering-driven management. I think Boeing’s stockholders who want long-term value (rather than pump-and-dump style quick returns) need to oust those fools.

I find it hillarious when I read the story of the A-10 warthog, the initial design was handled on a 'price per pound'. The airplane became wildly appealing/interesting AFTER this policy was dropped. I believe that initial development was handled by McD corporate. It might have been price per cubic meter, but you get the idea of how the project was managed from the start. It's described in some old encyclopedia I read once. Also, if I recall, the initial number was completely ridiculous, even for 1960's currency value. The project started completely choked out.

I imagine the board room went somewhat like this:

Hmm. This widget we are building.. it occupies space, and it has mass. How should we design it? Hmm.
I think we should divide something by cost. I like cost. Hmm. Lets use weight. That's right, we are going to use weight.. and divide it by cost. Get to it.

 I wanna bet the sales pitch to the military was "look how cheap you are getting 10 tons for!"
What is shows you is that business administrators cannot fathom the complexity of aircraft design, r&d, etc.. and will set completely ridiculous design guidelines. They want to be hot shit, because its an aircraft and they think that they should be filthy rich from it, since it flies and looks cool, and believe in unrealistic margins. Then they complain because they setup their business logistics in some inefficient and crazy way and claim its not profitable and impossible to do any better and bitch to the government then try to strong arm global travel and national economies. 

[nuclearcat]

How much you wanna bet they change the name?

I'd also say it will be safer now that people are paying attention. I think it has to be re-certified in Europe as well and it's not just a rubber stamp as is the norm.

They did, it is already in report

[Alti]

I believe that the consequence of the story might be that some private enterprise replaces all government administrations dealing with aviation safety by introducing smple, open, verifyable, objective, regularly updated safety rating of a flight. In simplest concept, it is enough to do some elementary data analysis and calculate statistics regarding a proof of safe passengerkms rating for a specific flight. Just an easily comparable number 0-100.

My proposition of scaling:

0     : reserved for first flight with a test pilot on-board, stewardess shows you how to fasten your parachute.
50   : world average death rate per passengerkms for today.
100 : reserved for theoretical plane that transports all passenger trafic without single loss of life.

Once some plane hits WTC or someone beaks neck while stepping off board, the counter goes down.
PIA 8303 and rating drop by 27 points.

Human factor, geese, MCAS, surface to air missile, divine intervention, corporate greed - who cares?

I suspect there won't be many passengers interested to pay for a flight with low rating. The manufacturers would have to hire airlines for passengerkms to test the plane and raise the rating first. Some would prefer to pay extra for sth closer to 50. Personally I do not need blue leds, cutting edge technology or untested avionics that even creators are afraid to fly.

As for the victims, they were not passengers, they were guinea pigs, test flight rating 11.

[SilverSolder]

[...] As for the victims, they were not passengers, they were guinea pigs [...]

That, sadly, sums up the situation perfectly.