General > General Technical Chat
Corperate greed & the 737 max, read this
<< < (4/7) > >>
BravoV:

--- Quote from: BravoV on September 25, 2020, 05:57:51 am ---
--- Quote from: pickle9000 on September 25, 2020, 05:50:28 am ---
--- Quote from: BravoV on September 25, 2020, 05:29:58 am ---
--- Quote from: pickle9000 on September 25, 2020, 03:39:20 am ---I think it has to be re-certified in Europe as well and it's not just a rubber stamp as is the norm.

--- End quote ---

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.  >:D

--- End quote ---

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

--- End quote ---

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

--- End quote ---

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

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

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

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 ?  :-DD
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:

--- Quote from: duckduck on October 16, 2020, 06:12:58 pm ---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.

--- End quote ---

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

--- Quote from: SilverSolder on October 16, 2020, 06:31:23 pm ---
--- Quote from: duckduck on October 16, 2020, 06:12:58 pm ---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.

--- End quote ---

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

--- End quote ---
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:

--- Quote from: Benta on September 24, 2020, 10:01:28 pm ---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.
--- End quote ---

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.
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod