User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21466
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:47 pm

ArgentoSystems wrote:
The amount of time they are taking to submit it tells me Boeing themselves have trouble accepting the fix is going to fly, pun intended.

You are using the wrong tense, the fix is submitted.

#2406 above says:

'Smith, chief financial officer and executive vice president for strategy, said Boeing has turned over to the regulators its software fix for the 737 MAX flight-control system, as well as recommendations for additional pilot training and is now answering detailed technical questions from all corners of the globe every day.

"We've completed the software and training and passed that over," Smith said. "Now we've got regulators from around the world coming in with more questions before we go to the next milestone."'

https://www.aviationpros.com/home/news/ ... regulators

It should be no surprise to anyone that they are getting "regulators from around the world coming in with more questions" so it's no surprise that the process will not be swift. On the other hand it's hard to see how it will stretch on till January or longer, as some propose. The investment community seems to think that approval in July is still the likely result.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3886
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:52 pm

Ertro wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:
Then you've missed the replies that say Boeing caused the MAX to be a "Death Trap".
Over the top language has been the hallmark rather the exception for this thread.


Your over the top language tries to conflate two very different things.

Killing people is a crime and those who kill people should be made to stop even using drastic measures.

Death traps on the other hand are all over us in everyday life.
You like everybody else try and 99.9% time succeed in avoiding them.
However somebody dies every day in some of these.
Not much of a problem. Let's continue mostly like it is allowing for example motorcycles.


A simple question:

Do you think Boeing set out to kill people by creating the 737 MAX?
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
Ertro
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:28 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:55 pm

OldAeroGuy wrote:
A simple question:
Do you think Boeing set out to kill people by creating the 737 MAX?


What asinine question. Of course not. That was the whole point. NObody has set out to kill anybody.
It was the point I was trying to make that the word kill is totally 1000% inappropriate to be used anywhere in this discussion.
 
ArgentoSystems
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:05 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:59 pm

Revelation wrote:
The investment community seems to think that approval in July is still the likely result.

Ok, fine, the amount of time they TOOK to submit the fix. They started working on it immediately after Lion Air crash.

Investment community also believed when they were promised "back to air in a few weeks" immediately after ET. We are at 3 months now. Comes Aug and planes still don't fly, the investment community will reconsider.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3886
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:06 pm

Ertro wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:
A simple question:
Do you think Boeing set out to kill people by creating the 737 MAX?


What asinine question. Of course not. That was the whole point. NObody has set out to kill anybody.
It was the point I was trying to make that the word kill is totally 1000% inappropriate to be used anywhere in this discussion.


Thanks. It was unclear from your earlier reply what point you were trying to make.

What do you think about the term "death trap"? Is it appropriate for discussions on this thread?
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21466
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:08 pm

ArgentoSystems wrote:
Investment community also believed when they were promised "back to air in a few weeks" immediately after ET. We are at 3 months now. Comes Aug and planes still don't fly, the investment community will reconsider.

Of course they will reconsider if the current thinking turns out to be wrong.

That doesn't change what the current thinking is.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Ertro
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:28 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:24 pm

OldAeroGuy wrote:
What do you thing about the term "death trap"? Is it appropriate for discussions on this thread?


We need some words to talk about dangerous things and we cannot ban all of them.

Now that you specifically asked I could use that word to describe the condition of the plane after the first Lion air crash and before it was grounded and I cannot see how it would be inappropriate.

Edit: Actually especially before the Lion Air crash even more so.
Last edited by Ertro on Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
ArgentoSystems
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:05 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:25 pm

Revelation wrote:
ArgentoSystems wrote:
Investment community also believed when they were promised "back to air in a few weeks" immediately after ET. We are at 3 months now. Comes Aug and planes still don't fly, the investment community will reconsider.

Of course they will reconsider if the current thinking turns out to be wrong.

That doesn't change what the current thinking is.

I'm saying opinion of investment community is not an argument. Majority operate on news with little or no understanding of the actual issues.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21466
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:31 pm

ArgentoSystems wrote:
I'm saying opinion of investment community is not an argument. Majority operate on news with little or no understanding of the actual issues.

So you're saying all your retirement funding consists of gold bars buried in the garden?

Otherwise you must have some faith in the investment communities ability to interpret events, no?
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
ArgentoSystems
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:05 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:42 pm

Revelation wrote:
ArgentoSystems wrote:
I'm saying opinion of investment community is not an argument. Majority operate on news with little or no understanding of the actual issues.


Otherwise you must have some faith in the investment communities ability to interpret events, no?

Yes, but not this one.
 
art
Posts: 2936
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:43 pm

Not a designer or engineer, so correct me if I am wrong.. From some of what I have read I get the impression that adjusting the stabiliser design would help resolve the problems that sparked the genesis of MCAS. Would that take months or would it be years? If an airworthiness certificate is refused for MAX with MCAS 2.0, Boeing would have to modify the design of the hardware, wouldn't they?
 
papaah
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 2:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:52 pm

gatechae wrote:
Spirit Aerosystems (who builds 70% of the structure of the 737) is putting all its salaried employees on mandatory short workweeks (32 hrs) starting 6/21 due to revenue issues from the MAX grounding.




Put up together ....grounding + law suit+ storage .....Boeing cash flow problem???????
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9080
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:00 pm

art wrote:
Not a designer or engineer, so correct me if I am wrong.. From some of what I have read I get the impression that adjusting the stabiliser design would help resolve the problems that sparked the genesis of MCAS. Would that take months or would it be years? If an airworthiness certificate is refused for MAX with MCAS 2.0, Boeing would have to modify the design of the hardware, wouldn't they?

If a hardware fix is preferable and they can prove the software fix works but is not ideal, it can be entered into the production run at a later date once certified.
We know we have different version of the 788 as Boeing has finally started including some of advancements for the 789 into the older model as more airlines are seeing it as a viable 767 replacement, the same can be done for the MAX.
If the mods are not too extensive, they can also be retrofitted to existing models during D checks in a year of two.
 
Vladex
Posts: 364
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:44 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:25 pm

They bought a 50 year old plane, They should live and die with it. It would be like someone buying a 10 year old smartphone or 30 year old car and seeking compensation from it.
 
User avatar
aerolimani
Posts: 1218
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:46 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:34 pm

Revelation wrote:
Ugly51 wrote:
Really, Boeing are in trouble. I am thinking possibly January 2020 before the 737 Max all models get a worldwide Airworthiness certificate.

That's a false milestone. Chances are very high that some number of agencies will hold out not just for technical reasons but either to express grief for the victims or to leverage an asymmetric power opportunity or as a side effect of other issues such as the trade squabble. The odds of the world's regulators acting in unity is tiny. The US will approve first, and then things will stretch out month after month, IMO, for the reasons above.

Perhaps I am too optimistic, but I’d like to believe that the majority of the world’s aviation agencies will act in a responsible manner, and that any delays would be for purely technical reasons and not politically motivated ones.

Imagine this situation was reversed such that a similar messup had happened on an Airbus product. If the EASA ungrounded said plane (after approving a safe fix and rechecking all the certifications), do you believe the FAA would hold off ungrounding for political reasons, for months afterwards? Personally, I think better than that of the FAA, and I’m not even American.

Jingoism is a dangerous path to head down, and I believe that most of the world’s governments recognize that, and would not proceed in such a direction. Besides, even on a national level, it’s in most countries’ best interests to allow their airlines to fly their 737MAX aircraft as soon as it is safe to do so.
 
User avatar
spinotter
Posts: 603
Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 1:37 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:35 pm

Vladex wrote:
They bought a 50 year old plane, They should live and die with it. It would be like someone buying a 10 year old smartphone or 30 year old car and seeking compensation from it.


Is that a line of argumentation that you think Boeing will utilize?
 
Interested
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:52 pm

morrisond wrote:
Some1Somewhere wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Just to put "professional" into perspective:

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1417651


Based on 'better safe than sorry', one could easily argue the reverse (at least, if the original was in any way sensible or proportionate...).

What do we do if the investigation comes out and says that, shortly after the first incident, there were clear signs the plane was unsafe and revised/republished procedures inadequate? That it should have been grounded immediately pending the results of the full investigation, preventing the second incident?


If it turns out the interpretation of the preliminary report is right and they didn't follow the new procedures accurately then you don't have a point.

You would have to have had a crash where they put the plane in trim then hit the cut-offs and controlled the airspeed properly and they still crashed to start to think the procedures weren't good enough. However as numerous MAX pilots have demonstrated with the previous Lionair flight to the crash being a primary example - the MAX is quite controllable with the Manual trim wheel assuming the plane is close to in-trim and/or not over speed before you start using it.

If the plane still crashed after following the procedures in the back of the ET Pre-lim report and they still crashed - that's total pilot error. They should have known those two pages cold, and had them on hand in the cockpit.


Why is the plane grounded then?

If it's all so easy. Why is it grounded?
 
Interested
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 07, 2019 5:01 pm

Ertro wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:
What do you thing about the term "death trap"? Is it appropriate for discussions on this thread?


We need some words to talk about dangerous things and we cannot ban all of them.

Now that you specifically asked I could use that word to describe the condition of the plane after the first Lion air crash and before it was grounded and I cannot see how it would be inappropriate.

Edit: Actually especially before the Lion Air crash even more so.


I agree

A plane that wants to keep pitching nose down aggressively with one sensor etc and warning signal not working

I think "death trap" is an accurate description and was proven to be so?

Do you disagree Old aero guy?
 
9Patch
Posts: 342
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 07, 2019 5:12 pm

Vladex wrote:
They bought a 50 year old plane, They should live and die with it. It would be like someone buying a 10 year old smartphone or 30 year old car and seeking compensation from it.

So did the airlines who bought the A320neo buy a 35 year old plane?
 
User avatar
PixelFlight
Posts: 659
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:09 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 07, 2019 5:46 pm

9Patch wrote:
Vladex wrote:
They bought a 50 year old plane, They should live and die with it. It would be like someone buying a 10 year old smartphone or 30 year old car and seeking compensation from it.

So did the airlines who bought the A320neo buy a 35 year old plane?

In some aspects, yes. The A320neo still have the same flight control system principle as the original A320. While Boeing have pushed too far the 737 flight control system principle, Airbus will face the same with the A320 in a decade or two. The A320 flight control system was very advanced for a commercial aircraft at his design time, but the next iteration, the A330/A340, already used a significantly different organisation of the flight computers. The A380 introduced AFDX network and IMA. The A350 consolidate that trend even more. Both Boeing and Airbus will need to redesign a new flight control system for there entry cash-cow line, sooner or later. What strange to me is that the level of experience that both have on there most advanced models will certainly make a such project without real risk.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3886
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 07, 2019 5:47 pm

Interested wrote:
Ertro wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:
What do you thing about the term "death trap"? Is it appropriate for discussions on this thread?


We need some words to talk about dangerous things and we cannot ban all of them.

Now that you specifically asked I could use that word to describe the condition of the plane after the first Lion air crash and before it was grounded and I cannot see how it would be inappropriate.

Edit: Actually especially before the Lion Air crash even more so.


I agree

A plane that wants to keep pitching nose down aggressively with one sensor etc and warning signal not working

I think "death trap" is an accurate description and was proven to be so?

Do you disagree Old aero guy?


Yes, I do disagree. Application of the proper NNC's would have prevented both JT610 and ET302 accidents.

If this was not so, why was JT403 able to complete its planned flight without crashing?

Here's the Peter Lemme commentary comparing JT043 and JT610 prior to the ET302 DFDR readout.

I do agree that tying MCAS v1.0 to one sensor was a bad design that is being corrected in MCAS v2.0.

Words and phrases like "kill" and "death trap" do nothing to aid the analysis and discussion of these accidents.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3886
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 07, 2019 7:00 pm

art wrote:
Not a designer or engineer, so correct me if I am wrong.. From some of what I have read I get the impression that adjusting the stabiliser design would help resolve the problems that sparked the genesis of MCAS. Would that take months or would it be years? If an airworthiness certificate is refused for MAX with MCAS 2.0, Boeing would have to modify the design of the hardware, wouldn't they?


What adjustments would you make to the horizontal stabilizer to improve the 737-8 MAX stall handling characteristics and allow it to pass FAR 25.203?

I've seen it suggested that enlarging the h. stab would solve the problem. This isn't the case.

To understand why, let's look at the FAA Flight Test Guide and see how a power off, straight ahead stall is performed and evaluated.

From AC 25-7C, applicable when the 737 MAX was in flight test:

For Stall Testing

(3) Procedures.
(a) The airplane should be trimmed for hands-off flight at a speed 13 percent to 30
percent above the anticipated VSR, with the engines at idle and the airplane in the configuration
for which the stall speed is being determined. Then, using only the primary longitudinal control
for speed reduction, maintain a constant deceleration (entry rate) until the airplane is stalled, as
defined in § 25.201(d) and paragraph 29c(1) of this AC. Following the stall, engine power or
thrust may be used as desired to expedite recovery.

(b) A sufficient number of stalls (normally four to eight) should be accomplished
at each critical combination of weight, altitude, c.g., and external configuration. The intent is to
obtain enough data to determine the stall speed at an entry rate not exceeding 1.0 knot/second.
During the maneuver for determining stall speeds, the flight controls should be operated
smoothly in order to achieve good data quality rather than trying to maintain a constant entry rate
because experience has shown that adjusting the flight controls to maintain a constant entry rate
leads to fluctuations in load factor and significant data scatter.

(c) During the stall speed testing, the stall characteristics of the airplane must also
satisfy the requirements of § 25.203(a) and (b).


Paragraph (a) says that the stall demonstration starts with the airplane trimmed for hands off flight at an initial speed of 1.3 to 1.13 greater than the anticipated stall speed. At this point, h. stab is a point where its contribution to pitching moment exactly balances pitching moments caused by the rest of the configuration.

To approach the stall, the pilot increases the elevator angle, pitching the airplane up by increasing the total download of the h. stab. This increases the angle of attack of the whole configuration, including the wing and the h. stab. The pilot continues to increase the elevator angle until the wing reaches the critical AoA and the airplane stalls. As the pilot increases AoA for a longitudinally stable airplane, stick forces will increase as the airplane slows down to stall AoA

If the h. tail size were increased, then overall airplane longitudinal stability (ie the tendency to pitch down as AoA is increased) would be increased.

However, the stall maneuver begins with the airplane trimmed for hands off flight. If the airplane has increased longitudinal stability due to a larger h. stab, stick forces will increase compared to the less longitudinally stable airplane.

Now let's look at the requirements for Stall Handling.

FAR 25.203 Stall Handling Characteristics:

(3) Procedures.
(a) The airplane should be trimmed for hands-off flight at a speed 13 percent to 30
percent above the reference stall speed, with the appropriate power or thrust setting and
configuration. Then, using only the primary longitudinal control, establish and maintain a
deceleration (stall entry rate) consistent with that specified in § 25.201(c)(1) or (c)(2), as
appropriate, until the airplane is stalled. Both power/thrust and pilot selectable trim should
remain constant throughout the stall and recovery (to where the angle-of-attack has decreased to
the point of no stall warning).

(b) The same trim reference (for example, 1.23 VSR) should be used for both the
stall speeds and characteristics testing. For all stall testing, the trim speed is based on the stall
speeds provided in the AFM.

(c)During the approach to the stall, the longitudinal control pull force should
increase continuously as speed is reduced from the trimmed speed to the onset of stall warning.
Below that speed some reduction in longitudinal control force is acceptable, provided it is not
sudden or excessive.


During the stall maneuver, the flow over the wing begins to separate. This can cause a change in the amount of stick force required for the stall to vary as the stall progresses. Increased inboard separation will lead to increased stick forces. Increased outboard separation will lead to decreased stick forces.

In any case, the bolded parts of (c) above require continuously increasing stick forces. The overall level is not as important as the need to steadily increase.

For the 737 MAX, it appears that wing stall flow separations result in stick forces that do not steadily increase. Instead, at some point, wing flow separations cause a partial loss of longitudinal stability. This doesn't mean that the airplane is unstable, just less stable than it was at a lower AoA.

The change in longitudinal stability keeps the basic airplane from passing FAR 25.203 without MCAS. Increasing the h. stab size would increase stick forces during stall but the change in force level due to wing stall would still be present and FAR25.203 compliance would still need MCAS.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8544
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 07, 2019 8:22 pm

OldAeroGuy wrote:
Ertro wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:
Then you've missed the replies that say Boeing caused the MAX to be a "Death Trap".
Over the top language has been the hallmark rather the exception for this thread.


Your over the top language tries to conflate two very different things.

Killing people is a crime and those who kill people should be made to stop even using drastic measures.

Death traps on the other hand are all over us in everyday life.
You like everybody else try and 99.9% time succeed in avoiding them.
However somebody dies every day in some of these.
Not much of a problem. Let's continue mostly like it is allowing for example motorcycles.


A simple question:

Do you think Boeing set out to kill people by creating the 737 MAX?


Killing somebody by negligence is also a crime. Why do so many posters here expect others to tiptoe around the issue, just because Boeing is involved?
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8544
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 07, 2019 8:27 pm

OldAeroGuy wrote:
Interested wrote:
Ertro wrote:

We need some words to talk about dangerous things and we cannot ban all of them.

Now that you specifically asked I could use that word to describe the condition of the plane after the first Lion air crash and before it was grounded and I cannot see how it would be inappropriate.

Edit: Actually especially before the Lion Air crash even more so.


I agree

A plane that wants to keep pitching nose down aggressively with one sensor etc and warning signal not working

I think "death trap" is an accurate description and was proven to be so?

Do you disagree Old aero guy?


Yes, I do disagree. Application of the proper NNC's would have prevented both JT610 and ET302 accidents.

If this was not so, why was JT403 able to complete its planned flight without crashing?

Here's the Peter Lemme commentary comparing JT043 and JT610 prior to the ET302 DFDR readout.

I do agree that tying MCAS v1.0 to one sensor was a bad design that is being corrected in MCAS v2.0.

Words and phrases like "kill" and "death trap" do nothing to aid the analysis and discussion of these accidents.


Once again people were killed. How would you describe an airplane that it is actively trying to kill its crew and passengers? Why should anybody care about the sensibilities of Boeing friends here on a.net? Call a spade a spade.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21466
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 07, 2019 8:32 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Killing somebody by negligence is also a crime.

Saying that somebody was killed by negligence is a serious accusation, one that should not be made casually and without the kind of proof that would be needed in a court room, IMO.

We know there are swarms of lawyers filing lawful death suits and that FBI and DoJ are investigating, so why is there a hurry to throw around such language so casually?

Just so one can pound their chest and inflate their ego?

mjoelnir wrote:
Why do so many posters here expect others to tiptoe around the issue, just because Boeing is involved?

I doubt few would be using the language you have been using here even if another vendor's aircraft suffered a tragedy.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
kalvado
Posts: 2027
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 07, 2019 8:32 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:
Ertro wrote:

Your over the top language tries to conflate two very different things.

Killing people is a crime and those who kill people should be made to stop even using drastic measures.

Death traps on the other hand are all over us in everyday life.
You like everybody else try and 99.9% time succeed in avoiding them.
However somebody dies every day in some of these.
Not much of a problem. Let's continue mostly like it is allowing for example motorcycles.


A simple question:

Do you think Boeing set out to kill people by creating the 737 MAX?


Killing somebody by negligence is also a crime. Why do so many posters here expect others to tiptoe around the issue, just because Boeing is involved?

For one, I would say exact same thing if Boeing, Airbus, Toyota, Ford, or Sukhoi are involved: engineer making an honest mistake in design, which was not caught in test, can face a lot of professional consequences - but there should be no criminal consequences. Same with pilots, who survive their crashes: professionally things may be bad, but criminal action is not warranted. Same with doctors. Probably a bunch of other high responsibility professions.
People can make mistakes, system should be designed to minimize effect of those mistakes, but mistakes will happen, and scaring people away from those professions will only make things worse in a long run.
Money - reasonable measure. Those come from customers anyway, so everyone eventually looses, though
Formal qualification and future professional activities - maybe, case-by-case. Prison - no point.
 
zippy
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun May 11, 2014 9:46 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 07, 2019 9:46 pm

Revelation wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Killing somebody by negligence is also a crime.

Saying that somebody was killed by negligence is a serious accusation, one that should not be made casually and without the kind of proof that would be needed in a court room, IMO.


There's quite a significant difference between what a layperson refers to as negligence and what the court deems criminal negligence. Even then it's not like this discussion is happening in a vacuum. So far:

- Boeing has admitted that they knew the primary flight displays were faulty and had no intent on notifying the FAA, the airlines, correcting the documentation, or submitting a fix until 2020 (until the Lion Air crash)
- A Boeing engineer went on the record (60 Minutes Australia) stating that MCAS relied on only one alpha vane at a time to avoid additional scrutiny.
- Boeing knowingly modified MCAS to dramatically increase its authority after it was certified by the FAA (presumably after testing it about as much as they did the PFDs)
- Boeing knowingly signed off on simulators that not only didn't implement MCAS but didn't maintain realistic force on the trim wheels

These were deliberate actions, not casual mistakes.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8544
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 07, 2019 9:48 pm

kalvado wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:

A simple question:

Do you think Boeing set out to kill people by creating the 737 MAX?


Killing somebody by negligence is also a crime. Why do so many posters here expect others to tiptoe around the issue, just because Boeing is involved?

For one, I would say exact same thing if Boeing, Airbus, Toyota, Ford, or Sukhoi are involved: engineer making an honest mistake in design, which was not caught in test, can face a lot of professional consequences - but there should be no criminal consequences. Same with pilots, who survive their crashes: professionally things may be bad, but criminal action is not warranted. Same with doctors. Probably a bunch of other high responsibility professions.
People can make mistakes, system should be designed to minimize effect of those mistakes, but mistakes will happen, and scaring people away from those professions will only make things worse in a long run.
Money - reasonable measure. Those come from customers anyway, so everyone eventually looses, though
Formal qualification and future professional activities - maybe, case-by-case. Prison - no point.


Engineers are responsible for their design. Negligence has put engineers into prison before. Why should aircraft engineers get a special dispensation? Anyway we are not only talking about engineers.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8544
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 07, 2019 9:55 pm

Revelation wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Killing somebody by negligence is also a crime.

Saying that somebody was killed by negligence is a serious accusation, one that should not be made casually and without the kind of proof that would be needed in a court room, IMO.

We know there are swarms of lawyers filing lawful death suits and that FBI and DoJ are investigating, so why is there a hurry to throw around such language so casually?

Just so one can pound their chest and inflate their ego?

mjoelnir wrote:
Why do so many posters here expect others to tiptoe around the issue, just because Boeing is involved?

I doubt few would be using the language you have been using here even if another vendor's aircraft suffered a tragedy.


There has hardly been tiptoed around of accusing the pilots here on this thread. But when it comes to holy Boeing one should show restrained.

Does somebody here really want to declare, that there was no negligence in the way MCAS was designed, vetted and rolled out?
 
morrisond
Posts: 1417
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:00 pm

Ugly51 wrote:
morrisond wrote:
DocLightning wrote:

I agree. And if it's going to be 2-3 years, that's going to be a real problem world-wide, because Airbus doesn't have the capacity to double it's A320-NEO output and it would take them 2-3 years to do that.

And with Boeing Commercial having only one truly profitable program (the 777), it could lead to some serious financial problems at Boeing. Not to mention, I think any sane airline CEO will have a long and hard think about buying new types from Boeing anytime soon. Even if and when the 73M does make it back in the air, will anyone who hasn't already bought it want to?

This isn't 2008 when Boeing still had the 737-NG cranking out and was only having trouble delivering a completely new type that nobody had ever flown before (the 787). This is 2019 when airlines have been flying 737s for decades and they need more of them.


They make tons of cash on the 787 program, then there are parts and Services and Boeing defense and they could always continue production of the NG to bridge the gap. The 767 Program is probably cash flow positive as well - the Tanker Costs are already sunk and written off.

It's not as bad as you think even if it's 2-3 years.


Really, Boeing are in trouble. I am thinking possibly January 2020 before the 737 Max all models get a worldwide Airworthiness certificate.


Please provide a financial analysis of why. Instead of just making an assertion.
 
morrisond
Posts: 1417
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:05 pm

Jamie514 wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Some1Somewhere wrote:

Based on 'better safe than sorry', one could easily argue the reverse (at least, if the original was in any way sensible or proportionate...).

What do we do if the investigation comes out and says that, shortly after the first incident, there were clear signs the plane was unsafe and revised/republished procedures inadequate? That it should have been grounded immediately pending the results of the full investigation, preventing the second incident?


If it turns out the interpretation of the preliminary report is right and they didn't follow the new procedures accurately then you don't have a point.

You would have to have had a crash where they put the plane in trim then hit the cut-offs and controlled the airspeed properly and they still crashed to start to think the procedures weren't good enough. However as numerous MAX pilots have demonstrated with the previous Lionair flight to the crash being a primary example - the MAX is quite controllable with the Manual trim wheel assuming the plane is close to in-trim and/or not over speed before you start using it.

If the plane still crashed after following the procedures in the back of the ET Pre-lim report and they still crashed - that's total pilot error. They should have known those two pages cold, and had them on hand in the cockpit.



You have spent the entirety of the thread proving how easily triggered you are by such statements.

We know you think ET can't teach their crews a simple handout. You've made the same post about 500 times. So I will respond the same way again too. ET's procedural failure rates aren't higher than American carriers like AA, Southwest or Delta who can't land in places like California, Illinois or New York without writing off airframes. Where is your outrage for the training failure that causes WN to be repeatedly unable to keep planes of passengers intact and on the tarmac???

Its just as equally possible, if you'd read every post without your obvious terrible confirmation bias, that the Boeing procedure was lacking. Others have said subsequent attempts in sim had 50% success rate.

You've yet to address that, or the recent published NYT allegations that have blatantly contradicted your early explanations of MCAS; being described by credible news outlets as both anti-stall and operating in a much wider portion of the envelope than you wanted us to believe.

This quality of this thread doesn't benefit from knee jerk pro-Boeing trolls that make the same low quality posts again and again and then vanish for days when news developments push a burden of evidence that speaks against their narrative.


Actually I did point out all the 737 runway excursions as a problem - probably due to over reliance on auto throttle and not knowing what the plane was doing. I've also said about 500 times that this is worldwide problem not just an ET one.

The attempts in the sim were at the point way after the proper procedure should have been applied as has been discussed many times.

Find me a Sim where they put the plane in trim, had control of the airplane and hit the cut off switches and still crashed.

Sorry - I've ben busy and I haven't time to look at these threads - did you miss me?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21466
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:04 am

mjoelnir wrote:
There has hardly been tiptoed around of accusing the pilots here on this thread.

Right, questions have been raised about pilot's actions, but please show me where the pilots were called "killers" or "murderers" which is the kind of language you seem to be comfortable with using.

mjoelnir wrote:
But when it comes to holy Boeing one should show restrained.

That's your perception. No one is asking for restraint because of "holy Boeing".

mjoelnir wrote:
Does somebody here really want to declare, that there was no negligence in the way MCAS was designed, vetted and rolled out?

I guess you really can't wait to pound your chest and inflate your ego.

Boeing has admitted that mistakes were made.

There's a difference between making mistakes and being negligent.

I'm willing to wait to see what the investigations find out.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
planecane
Posts: 1167
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:21 am

mjoelnir wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:
Ertro wrote:

Your over the top language tries to conflate two very different things.

Killing people is a crime and those who kill people should be made to stop even using drastic measures.

Death traps on the other hand are all over us in everyday life.
You like everybody else try and 99.9% time succeed in avoiding them.
However somebody dies every day in some of these.
Not much of a problem. Let's continue mostly like it is allowing for example motorcycles.


A simple question:

Do you think Boeing set out to kill people by creating the 737 MAX?


Killing somebody by negligence is also a crime. Why do so many posters here expect others to tiptoe around the issue, just because Boeing is involved?


Please find the federal statute in the USA that says this. I can't find it and no State would have jurisdiction. If it isn't a federal law, even if the country where the crash occurred charged Boeing or a person at Boeing, the US government would not extradited anybody.

Even in the states that have it as a law, the negligence would have to be extreme to lead to a criminal negligence charge, far beyond anything Boeing did based on current information. Doctors are not arrested every time a mistake leads to a death.
 
planecane
Posts: 1167
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:25 am

mjoelnir wrote:
kalvado wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

Killing somebody by negligence is also a crime. Why do so many posters here expect others to tiptoe around the issue, just because Boeing is involved?

For one, I would say exact same thing if Boeing, Airbus, Toyota, Ford, or Sukhoi are involved: engineer making an honest mistake in design, which was not caught in test, can face a lot of professional consequences - but there should be no criminal consequences. Same with pilots, who survive their crashes: professionally things may be bad, but criminal action is not warranted. Same with doctors. Probably a bunch of other high responsibility professions.
People can make mistakes, system should be designed to minimize effect of those mistakes, but mistakes will happen, and scaring people away from those professions will only make things worse in a long run.
Money - reasonable measure. Those come from customers anyway, so everyone eventually looses, though
Formal qualification and future professional activities - maybe, case-by-case. Prison - no point.


Engineers are responsible for their design. Negligence has put engineers into prison before. Why should aircraft engineers get a special dispensation? Anyway we are not only talking about engineers.

In what country have engineers gone to prison and what did they do? I am an engineer in the USA and I was never warned of possible criminal charges for making a mistake.
 
speedking
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2018 3:00 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:36 am

planecane wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
kalvado wrote:
For one, I would say exact same thing if Boeing, Airbus, Toyota, Ford, or Sukhoi are involved: engineer making an honest mistake in design, which was not caught in test, can face a lot of professional consequences - but there should be no criminal consequences. Same with pilots, who survive their crashes: professionally things may be bad, but criminal action is not warranted. Same with doctors. Probably a bunch of other high responsibility professions.
People can make mistakes, system should be designed to minimize effect of those mistakes, but mistakes will happen, and scaring people away from those professions will only make things worse in a long run.
Money - reasonable measure. Those come from customers anyway, so everyone eventually looses, though
Formal qualification and future professional activities - maybe, case-by-case. Prison - no point.


Engineers are responsible for their design. Negligence has put engineers into prison before. Why should aircraft engineers get a special dispensation? Anyway we are not only talking about engineers.

In what country have engineers gone to prison and what did they do? I am an engineer in the USA and I was never warned of possible criminal charges for making a mistake.


This is not an engineering problem. This is a bean counter problem. The MBAs did it.
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1795
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:38 am

kalvado wrote:
Ertro wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:
Then you've missed the replies that say Boeing caused the MAX to be a "Death Trap".
Over the top language has been the hallmark rather the exception for this thread.


Your over the top language tries to conflate two very different things.

Killing people is a crime and those who kill people should be made to stop even using drastic measures.

Death traps on the other hand are all over us in everyday life.
You like everybody else try and 99.9% time succeed in avoiding them.
However somebody dies every day in some of these.
Not much of a problem. Let's continue mostly like it is but slowly reducing them.


"killing" is a very bad word for what appears to be more or less honest - albeit quite stupid - mistake. There was definitely no intention to harm.
And anyone who works with big system has to accept a risk that people may eventually die because designer (builder, maintenance) did a minor mistake - didn't recognize some crazy scenario, overlooked some fine detail etc. That is life. I do feel bad for Boeing folks, blaming them for "murder" is plain stupid.
There was a very bad mistake - with very bad consequences. But no need to talk bloodthirsty on either side. everyone signing off the project believed things will work just fine.


The problem for Boeing is that this appears to be a systemic mistake, not an ad-hoc mistake. The system failed due to poor management of the system. That goes all the way to the cost-cutting top.
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1795
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:39 am

Revelation wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
There has hardly been tiptoed around of accusing the pilots here on this thread.

Right, questions have been raised about pilot's actions, but please show me where the pilots were called "killers" or "murderers" which is the kind of language you seem to be comfortable with using.

mjoelnir wrote:
But when it comes to holy Boeing one should show restrained.

That's your perception. No one is asking for restraint because of "holy Boeing".

mjoelnir wrote:
Does somebody here really want to declare, that there was no negligence in the way MCAS was designed, vetted and rolled out?

I guess you really can't wait to pound your chest and inflate your ego.

Boeing has admitted that mistakes were made.

There's a difference between making mistakes and being negligent.

I'm willing to wait to see what the investigations find out.


A properly functioning quality system assumes that mistakes will be made. They will then be detected and remedied.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:00 am

OldAeroGuy wrote:
The intent is to
obtain enough data to determine the stall speed at an entry rate not exceeding 1.0 knot/second.

I take it that means a deceleration of less than 1.0 knot/second to stall, during which the control pressure must increase. So the righting force curve went flat or up on the MAX in this zone?
 
DenverTed
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:38 am

OldAeroGuy wrote:
I've seen it suggested that enlarging the h. stab would solve the problem. This isn't the case.

I assume the limiting case/configuration is the stab trim at nose up limit of trim switch, and the righting moment versus AOA curve as the elevator is used to enter a stall according to the parameters of the test.
I suppose if the curve was negative, a larger stab should work and make it more negative, increase the force on the column. If the curve has gone flat or up, something else is going on to cancel out the stab. The lift on the engines or front fuselage is not uniform with increase in angle? There is some spike at a certain angle?
Last edited by DenverTed on Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
kayik
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:42 am

zippy wrote:
Revelation wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Killing somebody by negligence is also a crime.

Saying that somebody was killed by negligence is a serious accusation, one that should not be made casually and without the kind of proof that would be needed in a court room, IMO.


There's quite a significant difference between what a layperson refers to as negligence and what the court deems criminal negligence. Even then it's not like this discussion is happening in a vacuum. So far:

- Boeing has admitted that they knew the primary flight displays were faulty and had no intent on notifying the FAA, the airlines, correcting the documentation, or submitting a fix until 2020 (until the Lion Air crash)
- A Boeing engineer went on the record (60 Minutes Australia) stating that MCAS relied on only one alpha vane at a time to avoid additional scrutiny.
- Boeing knowingly modified MCAS to dramatically increase its authority after it was certified by the FAA (presumably after testing it about as much as they did the PFDs)
- Boeing knowingly signed off on simulators that not only didn't implement MCAS but didn't maintain realistic force on the trim wheels

These were deliberate actions, not casual mistakes.


Yes, I would like to know whether these are mistakes or negligence or whatever you name it. What would a jury think if it goes there?
 
Ugly51
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 7:48 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 08, 2019 4:38 am

One the main problems Boeing has now is public perception. I believe there are also perception problems for the FAA while the work through and sort out the Boeing Max series problems.
The Boeing "Big Hitters" at corporate in Chicago made a lot of poor decisions in the aftermath of the Lion Air crash. It made them look like corporate greed and money trumps all safety concerns.
This is going to comb E back and bite them on the ass.
 
zippy
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun May 11, 2014 9:46 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 08, 2019 4:38 am

Revelation wrote:
There's a difference between making mistakes and being negligent.


Keep in mind that with safety critical software there should be processes in place, checks and balances if you will, to catch mistakes. So, sure, designing MCAS to only use one single, solitary sensor input and not sanity check it is a mistake. Not having processes in place to catch that mistake is negligent plain and simple.

Not validating the software running the primary flight displays was (hopefully) a mistake. Discovering faults with the PFD and deliberately hiding it from the airlines, authorities, and pilots borders on malice.

It's a lousy situation for Muilenburg to be in, but his behavior post Lion Air demonstrates that he too believes that the lawyers at Boeing are more important than the engineers. Muilenburg ought to be canned and McNerney jailed — unless McNerney is still too busy somewhere making engineers cower in fear.
Last edited by zippy on Sat Jun 08, 2019 4:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21562
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 08, 2019 4:44 am

morrisond wrote:

They make tons of cash on the 787 program, then there are parts and Services and Boeing defense and they could always continue production of the

morrisond wrote:
They make tons of cash on the 787 program, then there are parts and Services and Boeing defense and they could always continue production of the NG to bridge the gap. The 767 Program is probably cash flow positive as well - the Tanker Costs are already sunk and written off.


Boeing Commercial does not make money from Boeing Defense. Boeing Corporation does, of course and they could use that money to subsidize BCA. However, that would mean that BCA is not self-sustaining. The 787 program is cashflow-positive and has been since 2016, but the program has still not recouped the initial development costs and is nowhere near doing so. (1) The most optimistic projection is that if Boeing can negotiate prices aggressively and minimize future production costs, they may be able to maintain a 25% margin on each frame, which could zero-out the balance by the end of the program and might even turn a very small (a few million) overall program balance.

The 767 program, while now a defense product, is likely profitable for BCA, as is the 777, although the 777X program is of course running at a net loss because they haven't delivered any frames yet. Fortunately, that program doesn't seem to have run into any major snags yet.

(1)https://seekingalpha.com/article/4190295-boeing-787-going-zero?page=2 (Note: free registration required)
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Interested
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 08, 2019 5:54 am

OldAeroGuy wrote:
Interested wrote:
Ertro wrote:

We need some words to talk about dangerous things and we cannot ban all of them.

Now that you specifically asked I could use that word to describe the condition of the plane after the first Lion air crash and before it was grounded and I cannot see how it would be inappropriate.

Edit: Actually especially before the Lion Air crash even more so.


I agree

A plane that wants to keep pitching nose down aggressively with one sensor etc and warning signal not working

I think "death trap" is an accurate description and was proven to be so?

Do you disagree Old aero guy?


Yes, I do disagree. Application of the proper NNC's would have prevented both JT610 and ET302 accidents.

If this was not so, why was JT403 able to complete its planned flight without crashing?

Here's the Peter Lemme commentary comparing JT043 and JT610 prior to the ET302 DFDR readout.

I do agree that tying MCAS v1.0 to one sensor was a bad design that is being corrected in MCAS v2.0.

Words and phrases like "kill" and "death trap" do nothing to aid the analysis and discussion of these accidents.


But how many other commercial planes would even test pilot skills in this way?

How many other commercial planes would try and crash themselves?

Death trap doesn't mean tha plane always crashes

It means it has the potential to crash if you don't deal with it

We know this happened twice

Death trap is very accurate sadly
 
Interested
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 08, 2019 6:00 am

Definition of death trap

noun
noun: death-trap
a place, structure, or vehicle that is potentially very dangerous.

Surely its not even up for debate that Max 737 matches the death trap definition??

And it's entirely warranted for people to describe it as a death trap

It wasn't even potentially very dangerous. It was TWICE proven very dangerous

You are in total denial old aero guy if you claim any different IMO

The official Boeing statements may have to be guided by lawyers etc - you don't have to be

You've got your head in the sane if you consider death trap an unfair definition

Max 737 is the exact definition of death trap

I can't consider anything you say to be balanced if you cannot accept that definition?
Last edited by Interested on Sat Jun 08, 2019 6:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
bgm
Posts: 2173
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:37 am

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 08, 2019 6:15 am

Revelation wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Killing somebody by negligence is also a crime.

Saying that somebody was killed by negligence is a serious accusation, one that should not be made casually and without the kind of proof that would be needed in a court room, IMO.

We know there are swarms of lawyers filing lawful death suits and that FBI and DoJ are investigating, so why is there a hurry to throw around such language so casually?

Just so one can pound their chest and inflate their ego?

mjoelnir wrote:
Why do so many posters here expect others to tiptoe around the issue, just because Boeing is involved?

I doubt few would be using the language you have been using here even if another vendor's aircraft suffered a tragedy.


Manslaughter would be more appropriate. Boeing didn’t murder these innocent victims, but deliberately cutting corners on a tight budget/time schedule (which is clearly evident) would be manslaughter.

Boeing seems to be trying to settle out of court with the families of those onboard the crashed aircraft:

https://amp.businessinsider.com/boeing- ... ial-2019-6
████ ███ █ ███████ ██ █ █████ ██ ████ [redacted]
 
Interested
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 08, 2019 6:23 am

Yes they are speaking to families direct to avoid more bad publicity that would come their way through court cases

If you have nothing to fear you actually look forward to your time in court to demonstrate this and be vindicated

Will they be able to persuade every lawsuit to settle out of court

I would be very surprised - and it would be very expensive to achieve
 
zippy
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun May 11, 2014 9:46 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 08, 2019 6:27 am

planecane wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Killing somebody by negligence is also a crime. Why do so many posters here expect others to tiptoe around the issue, just because Boeing is involved?


Please find the federal statute in the USA that says this. I can't find it and no State would have jurisdiction. If it isn't a federal law, even if the country where the crash occurred charged Boeing or a person at Boeing, the US government would not extradited anybody.

Even in the states that have it as a law, the negligence would have to be extreme to lead to a criminal negligence charge, far beyond anything Boeing did based on current information. Doctors are not arrested every time a mistake leads to a death.


So this took me under a minute to find. I'm not sure why you couldn't.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1112

Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of two kinds:
Voluntary—Upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.

Involuntary—In the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony, or in the commission in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection, of a lawful act which might produce death.


The DoJ has a more in depth analysis of when homicide is a federal crime:

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/f ... ab6001.pdf
 
User avatar
aerolimani
Posts: 1218
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:46 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 08, 2019 6:37 am

zippy wrote:
planecane wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Killing somebody by negligence is also a crime. Why do so many posters here expect others to tiptoe around the issue, just because Boeing is involved?


Please find the federal statute in the USA that says this. I can't find it and no State would have jurisdiction. If it isn't a federal law, even if the country where the crash occurred charged Boeing or a person at Boeing, the US government would not extradited anybody.

Even in the states that have it as a law, the negligence would have to be extreme to lead to a criminal negligence charge, far beyond anything Boeing did based on current information. Doctors are not arrested every time a mistake leads to a death.


So this took me under a minute to find. I'm not sure why you couldn't.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1112

Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of two kinds:
Voluntary—Upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.

Involuntary—In the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony, or in the commission in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection, of a lawful act which might produce death.


The DoJ has a more in depth analysis of when homicide is a federal crime:

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/f ... ab6001.pdf

What you're looking for is corporate manslaughter which, as I understand, does not exist in the USA. Wiki (yes, I know) has a brief but informative page on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_manslaughter
 
zippy
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun May 11, 2014 9:46 pm

Re: Boeing 737MAX Grounded Worldwide Q2 2019

Sat Jun 08, 2019 6:54 am

aerolimani wrote:
What you're looking for is corporate manslaughter which, as I understand, does not exist in the USA.


Not really, no. Especially not after Citizens United where we've affirmed corporate personhood. In California, one of the dominant energy utilities (PG&E) is on probation and being investigated for violating the terms of probation. It's just a dog and pony show as the fines are just passed on to ratepayers. And, quite frankly I'd be perfectly happy with the DoJ going after the execs and senior management directly.

aerolimani wrote:
Wiki (yes, I know) has a brief but informative page on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_manslaughter


This approach, known in the U.S. as the collective knowledge doctrine, aggregates all the acts and mental elements of various company employees and finds the offence if all the elements of manslaughter are made out, though not necessarily within a single controlling mind. This approach is used in the U.S. but has been rejected in England and Wales.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos