mga707
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:52 am

Re: Something wrong with Boeing's safety culture?

Sat May 11, 2019 10:42 pm

morrisond wrote:

I'm Canadian but I'm going to defend my American Cousins. Please stop with the American bashing and attacks. Not all Americans are the same.

American cars can't be driven beyond 120km/h and can't go 240 km/h? You obviously do not know much about American Vehicles like the Camaro/Mustang/Corvette or the Chrysler/JEEP SRT models - even there generic cars are safe at high speeds and in general can get to high speeds and safe highway speeds easier anyways as they don't have puny motors like some of the European Cars base cars.

BTW - Most American small cars are based off Cars designed for Europe by Ford or Fiat. Even Gas guzzling Full size SUV's and trucks are perfectly stable at 160 km/h - although I don't know why you need to go faster than that - Fuel Economy goes in the Toilet and how good is that for the Environment and BTW I believe the highest limit in North America is 130 km/h.

Yes I remember now - Europe has brought the world the oh so clean diesel engine. How much damage has been done to the Environment due to all the emissions cheating. I'm sure Diesels are super clean above 160km/h.

If Tesla hadn't been funded by American Capitalism Electric Cars would not be where there are either. Where was Europe's leadership on this?

In terms of Boeing's hyper focus on Profitability - they are not building cheap planes. The Carbon technology on the 787 cost billions to develop - The battery system on the 787 was very expensive to design - it did not save money - it was meant to be lighter to save Airlines money.

Part of their focus on Profitability has been directly related to Airbus and there predatory pricing practises in their quest to get market share. Combined with Large bags of cash (I'm sure Boeing hands out bags of cash as well but Airbus seems to have taken it to a new level) to win orders.

Finally let me remind you - Boeing was ready to spend billions developing a clean sheet for the 737 back in 2011 - but the airlines voted no and wanted a re-enginged version of what they have. They got what they ordered. Albeit with one bad system.

They will most likely launch a new State of the are NMA/NSA soon that will cost billions with probably unprecedented safety and I would bet Airbus will respond with warmed over versions of the A320 which will be 50 years old at that point.


For those of us 'Mericans of 'a certain age', your post reminds me (and probably others) of Canadian broadcaster Gordon Sinclair's 1973 recitation simply titled 'Americans-a Canadian's Opinion' that became a surprise hit single in narrated by fellow Canadian Byron MacGregor in early 1974. And coincidentally, Sinclair's opinion piece mentioned the Boeing 747, Douglas DC-10, and Lockheed L-1011.
Well said--thank you!
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1223
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Something wrong with Boeing's safety culture?

Sat May 11, 2019 11:18 pm

Thank you for this post - excellent points.

The US auto industry is variable - some car designed are for the lowest price point possible, or for a specific market. The Taurus was designed as a good 'family' car, reliable, safer than required, presentable but $5K or more less than other middle market cars. It sold for 45 years.

Your point on the Camero/Mustang/Corvette - they are hot cars with amazing performance.

The excellence is in US Trucks and SUV's. I have a 2004 Tahoe with almost 200K miles on it, no repairs except oil changes in the last 25K miles, it is happy to launch my pretty big boat in the salt water. Super comfortable, holds lots of stuff, tows, and yes only gets 16 MPG on the highway at 70 MPH. It has been to 110 MPH (175 kph).

German cars are excellent but also expensive, I go for the Japanese cars when I buy as they are better value. Would I buy a British, French, Italian, or Swedish car - er no - how they design does not suit my style.

Yes Boeing does not build cheap planes, Boeing values are better than the competition as the years wear by. Boeing planes get converted into freighters for another 5+ years of flying. But as all businesses they must turn a profit, at least 10% consistently or they start to die, below 5% all future R & D is probably gone. They must innovate to stay ahead of the competition as the competition is in hot battle on price. Aviation is a pretty smart market, the buyers know and understand all the costs of operation, the revenue differences, and the true performance. Selections are based on variances of 1 to 2%, that difference gets priced in for the life of the plane.

morrisond wrote:
A3801000 wrote:
They use fuel like they don't care about future generations, they can't really be driven any faster then let's say 120 km/h etc. Cheapest to design, cheapest to build but still ok. Kind of a 'That'll do'.
Problem is that other countries can produce such cars too, but much cheaper. And again other countries decided to build high quality cars, advanced engines, no big difference if driven 120 or 240 km/h.
It seems that Boeing is going the 'cheap' way too. Not intentionally designing or building 'cheap' planes but 'that'll do' planes. The battery problems in the 787? Could have easily been solved earlier, but would have taken more money and more time. MCAS in the MAX, same. Flutter and software problems in the 748, again the same. And also the reduction of costs in production seems to show: FOD problems during manufacturing for the 787 and the 767 Tanker seems to show that.
Is it 'safety culture'? Or is it 'maximum profit' culture?
IMO Boeing needs to turn around for the long term and start designing and building highest quality again. 'Cheap' planes are or will be available soon from other countries (China/Russia).
I hope the do turn around but I have my doubts.


I'm Canadian but I'm going to defend my American Cousins. Please stop with the American bashing and attacks. Not all Americans are the same.

American cars can't be driven beyond 120km/h and can't go 240 km/h? You obviously do not know much about American Vehicles like the Camaro/Mustang/Corvette or the Chrysler/JEEP SRT models - even there generic cars are safe at high speeds and in general can get to high speeds and safe highway speeds easier anyways as they don't have puny motors like some of the European Cars base cars.

BTW - Most American small cars are based off Cars designed for Europe by Ford or Fiat. Even Gas guzzling Full size SUV's and trucks are perfectly stable at 160 km/h - although I don't know why you need to go faster than that - Fuel Economy goes in the Toilet and how good is that for the Environment and BTW I believe the highest limit in North America is 130 km/h.

Yes I remember now - Europe has brought the world the oh so clean diesel engine. How much damage has been done to the Environment due to all the emissions cheating. I'm sure Diesels are super clean above 160km/h.

If Tesla hadn't been funded by American Capitalism Electric Cars would not be where there are either. Where was Europe's leadership on this?

In terms of Boeing's hyper focus on Profitability - they are not building cheap planes. The Carbon technology on the 787 cost billions to develop - The battery system on the 787 was very expensive to design - it did not save money - it was meant to be lighter to save Airlines money.

Part of their focus on Profitability has been directly related to Airbus and there predatory pricing practises in their quest to get market share. Combined with Large bags of cash (I'm sure Boeing hands out bags of cash as well but Airbus seems to have taken it to a new level) to win orders.

Finally let me remind you - Boeing was ready to spend billions developing a clean sheet for the 737 back in 2011 - but the airlines voted no and wanted a re-enginged version of what they have. They got what they ordered. Albeit with one bad system.

They will most likely launch a new State of the are NMA/NSA soon that will cost billions with probably unprecedented safety and I would bet Airbus will respond with warmed over versions of the A320 which will be 50 years old at that point.
 
NightStar
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu May 09, 2019 11:17 am

Re: Something wrong with Boeing's safety culture?

Sun May 12, 2019 5:41 am

WingsOfLove wrote:
NightStar wrote:
https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/04/13/boeing-crushes-airbus-q1-aircraft-orders-737-max.aspx

Airbus has lost more orders this year than Boeing has


"The net order total is even worse for Boeing (NYSE: BA) which, after cutting more than 200 orders from its books in relation to the suspended operations of India’s Jet Airways, saw its official net order total fall to a deficit of 119 jets through the first quarter."

https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/new ... april.html

Airbus is negative 58 through April. Boeing has only reported cancellations for 1Q.


It's still interesting to see that despite Boeing's woes, Airbus doesn't seem to be capitalizing on it. They both are doing abysmally bad this year.
 
fabian9
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 5:27 am

Re: Something wrong with Boeing's safety culture

Sun May 12, 2019 6:03 am

smartplane wrote:
Airlines and military, raise your acceptance standards for the benefit of crews and passengers, and OEM's are sure to follow.


I disagree wholeheartedly with this - a company’s quality department should always set a higher standard than the customer expects. Don’t turn the customer into the quality inspector...
 
WIederling
Posts: 8359
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Something wrong with Boeing's safety culture?

Sun May 12, 2019 6:44 am

morrisond wrote:
So Airbus is the first loser then?

your reasoning is difficult to grasp.

Airbus -58 over 4 month vs Boeing -119 for 3 month ( and not really touched by the ET crash yet )
( linear extrapolation (to 4 month ) would set B net order loss numbers ~3times higher than Airbus.)
Murphy is an optimist
 
WIederling
Posts: 8359
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Something wrong with Boeing's safety culture?

Sun May 12, 2019 6:52 am

JayinKitsap wrote:
Your point on the Camero/Mustang/Corvette - they are hot cars with amazing performance.

The excellence is in US Trucks and SUV's.


Guy I worked with got a Corvette here in Germany. Nice, flashy on the outside. A girl mover.
Under the hood though .. and looking at finishing quality...
Same seems to go for Tesla. Bit like medieval cathedrals: flashy religious statement sitting on roman foundations.

US small trucks ( and thus SUVs ) need and get protection from chicken tax.

The lower midrange of in Japan produced cars seem to go above EU ( or DE ) quality of production.
( i.e. types like the Yaris show superior reliability relative the Aygo ( or Peugeot 107/8, Citroen C1 ) )
Murphy is an optimist
 
1989worstyear
Posts: 476
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:53 pm

Re: Something wrong with Boeing's safety culture?

Sun May 12, 2019 7:12 am

morrisond wrote:
A3801000 wrote:
They use fuel like they don't care about future generations, they can't really be driven any faster then let's say 120 km/h etc. Cheapest to design, cheapest to build but still ok. Kind of a 'That'll do'.
Problem is that other countries can produce such cars too, but much cheaper. And again other countries decided to build high quality cars, advanced engines, no big difference if driven 120 or 240 km/h.
It seems that Boeing is going the 'cheap' way too. Not intentionally designing or building 'cheap' planes but 'that'll do' planes. The battery problems in the 787? Could have easily been solved earlier, but would have taken more money and more time. MCAS in the MAX, same. Flutter and software problems in the 748, again the same. And also the reduction of costs in production seems to show: FOD problems during manufacturing for the 787 and the 767 Tanker seems to show that.
Is it 'safety culture'? Or is it 'maximum profit' culture?
IMO Boeing needs to turn around for the long term and start designing and building highest quality again. 'Cheap' planes are or will be available soon from other countries (China/Russia).
I hope the do turn around but I have my doubts.


I'm Canadian but I'm going to defend my American Cousins. Please stop with the American bashing and attacks. Not all Americans are the same.

American cars can't be driven beyond 120km/h and can't go 240 km/h? You obviously do not know much about American Vehicles like the Camaro/Mustang/Corvette or the Chrysler/JEEP SRT models - even there generic cars are safe at high speeds and in general can get to high speeds and safe highway speeds easier anyways as they don't have puny motors like some of the European Cars base cars.

BTW - Most American small cars are based off Cars designed for Europe by Ford or Fiat. Even Gas guzzling Full size SUV's and trucks are perfectly stable at 160 km/h - although I don't know why you need to go faster than that - Fuel Economy goes in the Toilet and how good is that for the Environment and BTW I believe the highest limit in North America is 130 km/h.

Yes I remember now - Europe has brought the world the oh so clean diesel engine. How much damage has been done to the Environment due to all the emissions cheating. I'm sure Diesels are super clean above 160km/h.

If Tesla hadn't been funded by American Capitalism Electric Cars would not be where there are either. Where was Europe's leadership on this?

In terms of Boeing's hyper focus on Profitability - they are not building cheap planes. The Carbon technology on the 787 cost billions to develop - The battery system on the 787 was very expensive to design - it did not save money - it was meant to be lighter to save Airlines money.

Part of their focus on Profitability has been directly related to Airbus and there predatory pricing practises in their quest to get market share. Combined with Large bags of cash (I'm sure Boeing hands out bags of cash as well but Airbus seems to have taken it to a new level) to win orders.

Finally let me remind you - Boeing was ready to spend billions developing a clean sheet for the 737 back in 2011 - but the airlines voted no and wanted a re-enginged version of what they have. They got what they ordered. Albeit with one bad system.

They will most likely launch a new State of the are NMA/NSA soon that will cost billions with probably unprecedented safety and I would bet Airbus will respond with warmed over versions of the A320 which will be 50 years old at that point.


Don't forget that "fuel efficient and superior European" A320 wing is already 30.5 years old.

Regarding the NSA - all I can say is, what a missed opportunity (much like throwing a legal fit with BBD and letting Airbus get the C Series) :banghead:
Stuck at age 15 thanks to the certification date of the A320-200 and my parents' decision to postpone having a kid by 3 years. At least there's Dignitas...
 
axio
Posts: 247
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 10:44 am

Re: Something wrong with Boeing's safety culture?

Sun May 12, 2019 8:36 am

greendot wrote:
And, assuming there were software problems in the future, is the FAA really set up to regulate a high technology industry such as software? One day the problem really will be software and the FAA will not be adequate to regulate something it has no idea about. This isn't about just the FAA. We have similar problems with the FDA and EPA. Government agencies that are politically manipulated, not subject to public scrutiny, littered with people favoring a political party, and often led by people who came from or go to the very industry they are supposed to regulate.


Frankly, we are also looking at the consequence of decades of being told 'big government is a bad thing'. 'Big government', a.k.a. an apolitical professional civil service, is how you provide enough oversight that people don't get lead poisoning from their water pipes, can breathe air without wearing face masks, and stop 346 people dying in air crashes because of design shortcuts. If, as a society, we're prepared to wear all those 'negative consequences', then sure, we don't need big government, but the uproar over these crashes suggests we do. Put another way (and thus keeping on topic :)), Boeing's alleged safety culture is perhaps quite in-line with wider culture.

FluidFlow wrote:
If you want to check the "cost" of a life, check out your car insurance. Where I am from you can add a accident insurance (covers health costs of you and your passengers). This is limited in case of death do 20'000. So the insurance will actually put a price on a life and the same is done in for airline insurance. It will be stated how much life is worth.

Your car insurance cost-of-life is based on providing funeral expenses and is quite different from the cost-of-life considered by an economist. In cost-benefit-analyses for road safety, for instance, the cost of a fatality is in the order of several million dollars (http://bca.transportationeconomics.org/ ... -accidents).
Time for a new viewing deck at AKL!
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 8420
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Something wrong with Boeing's safety culture?

Sun May 12, 2019 8:40 am

axio wrote:
Frankly, we are also looking at the consequence of decades of being told 'big government is a bad thing'. 'Big government', a.k.a. an apolitical professional civil service, is how you provide enough oversight that people don't get lead poisoning from their water pipes, can breathe air without wearing face masks, and stop 346 people dying in air crashes because of design shortcuts. If, as a society, we're prepared to wear all those 'negative consequences', then sure, we don't need big government, but the uproar over these crashes suggests we do. Put another way (and thus keeping on topic :)), Boeing's alleged safety culture is perhaps quite in-line with wider culture.


You seem to forget that it isn't just the Americans whom grant an air worthy certificate, it is every rogatory body in the world.

As far as Boeing's safety culture, yes perhaps, it is difficult to say. I have been fortunate enough to have PM's from several of Boeing employees, so that was quite interesting.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
WIederling
Posts: 8359
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Something wrong with Boeing's safety culture?

Sun May 12, 2019 8:56 am

Dutchy wrote:
You seem to forget that it isn't just the Americans whom grant an air worthy certificate, it is every rogatory body in the world.


In an environment of US preference for strong arming others for their own gain than accepting reasonable arguments as the presented facade would suggest. What changed is that US institutions and corporations today show their objectives much more openly.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2781
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Something wrong with Boeing's safety culture?

Sun May 12, 2019 1:43 pm

WIederling wrote:
an environment of US preference for strong arming others for their own gain than accepting reasonable arguments as the presented facade would suggest.


Strong arm, perhaps. But the game is played on both sides. If they desires stronger regulations, it is their perogative. As all are negotiable.

Aside, even though we live in the States, my wife would trust food product made in the EU more than the US, and Japanese, Singapore, and Korean more than Chinese . . . Why? It's her trust in their regulations and the enforcement there of.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
 
Amiga500
Posts: 1974
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Something wrong with Boeing's safety culture?

Thu May 16, 2019 10:21 am

Its not just a Boeing problem.

It is endemic across the world and going far back in history - decision makers not qualified to make those decisions force experts down routes they don't want to go - but for whatever reason, pushback by those who do know what they are doing is discouraged or ignored.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6014
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Something wrong with Boeing's safety culture?

Thu May 16, 2019 3:43 pm

WIederling wrote:
planecane wrote:
I don't give this whistleblower much credence unless somebody can explain why making MCAS less likely to fail, relying on 2 sensors, would require simulator training. It doesn't make sense.


Handling AoA disagree would have turned into mandatory curriculum.
( not any longer a bespoke customer option where the customer is responsible for training/using that feature.)
No way around mentioning MCAS as (safety) dependent on AoA disagree ... tin of worms. $1m per plane. humans are only $60k per :-)

[list=][/list]

Again, you are distorting the truth. The AOA Disagree alert was intended to be a baseline feature of the 737. It was tied to another option due to a supplier software error and it was in the process of being fixed before the accidents.

That reality just doesn’t make a good story for Boeing bashers.

I’ve already stated my opinion about the credibility of the Whistle Blower. I know the individual and have seen his “work” and his own lack of proper evaluation of MCAS, per his job assignment. Boeing bashers don’t like to hear this either, but he left Boeing angry and bitter and is way overdramatizing the Issues, and is not credible.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Something wrong with Boeing's safety culture?

Thu May 16, 2019 3:54 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:
WIederling wrote:
planecane wrote:
I don't give this whistleblower much credence unless somebody can explain why making MCAS less likely to fail, relying on 2 sensors, would require simulator training. It doesn't make sense.


Handling AoA disagree would have turned into mandatory curriculum.
( not any longer a bespoke customer option where the customer is responsible for training/using that feature.)
No way around mentioning MCAS as (safety) dependent on AoA disagree ... tin of worms. $1m per plane. humans are only $60k per :-)

[list=][/list]

Again, you are distorting the truth. The AOA Disagree alert was intended to be a baseline feature of the 737. It was tied to another option due to a supplier software error and it was in the process of being fixed before the accidents.

That reality just doesn’t make a good story for Boeing bashers.

I’ve already stated my opinion about the credibility of the Whistle Blower. I know the individual and have seen his “work” and his own lack of proper evaluation of MCAS, per his job assignment. Boeing bashers don’t like to hear this either, but he left Boeing angry and bitter and is way overdramatizing the Issues, and is not credible.


Did Boeing still deliver the aircraft even tho the fault was known? And if so, was the fault disclosed to the buyers and they were aware of the fact that they get faulty aircrafts delivered? Or were only the early deliveries faulty?

Also as the whistle blower was working on MCAS and did a evaluationaccording to you, someone had to check his work and reevaluate it. Shouldnt the new guy have raised questions about the not ideal design of the software and the possible safety risk it posed?
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6014
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Something wrong with Boeing's safety culture?

Thu May 16, 2019 4:07 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
WIederling wrote:

Handling AoA disagree would have turned into mandatory curriculum.
( not any longer a bespoke customer option where the customer is responsible for training/using that feature.)
No way around mentioning MCAS as (safety) dependent on AoA disagree ... tin of worms. $1m per plane. humans are only $60k per :-)

[list=][/list]

Again, you are distorting the truth. The AOA Disagree alert was intended to be a baseline feature of the 737. It was tied to another option due to a supplier software error and it was in the process of being fixed before the accidents.

That reality just doesn’t make a good story for Boeing bashers.

I’ve already stated my opinion about the credibility of the Whistle Blower. I know the individual and have seen his “work” and his own lack of proper evaluation of MCAS, per his job assignment. Boeing bashers don’t like to hear this either, but he left Boeing angry and bitter and is way overdramatizing the Issues, and is not credible.


Did Boeing still deliver the aircraft even tho the fault was known? And if so, was the fault disclosed to the buyers and they were aware of the fact that they get faulty aircrafts delivered? Or were only the early deliveries faulty?

Also as the whistle blower was working on MCAS and did a evaluationaccording to you, someone had to check his work and reevaluate it. Shouldnt the new guy have raised questions about the not ideal design of the software and the possible safety risk it posed?


Yes, I don’t know why the software error wasn’t disclosed. Remember we are talking about two different things. I’m referring to the AOA Disagree light, not MCAS itself.

Keep in mind that no other Boeing airplanes have an EICAS message for AOA Disagree.

I said the Whistle Blower didn’t properly evaluate MCAS. He should have flagged it as needing more evaluation, per his job, but was clueless.

I don’t agree with everything Boeing leadership does either, although I’ve never seen anyone knowingly and intentionally disregard safety. However, it makes a lot of people sick and angry seeing the Whistle Blower out bashing Boeing in the press when in fact he himself could have helped find the issues if he ever actually did any useful work. There’s a reason why he was laid off.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Something wrong with Boeing's safety culture?

Thu May 16, 2019 4:13 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
[list=][/list]

Again, you are distorting the truth. The AOA Disagree alert was intended to be a baseline feature of the 737. It was tied to another option due to a supplier software error and it was in the process of being fixed before the accidents.

That reality just doesn’t make a good story for Boeing bashers.

I’ve already stated my opinion about the credibility of the Whistle Blower. I know the individual and have seen his “work” and his own lack of proper evaluation of MCAS, per his job assignment. Boeing bashers don’t like to hear this either, but he left Boeing angry and bitter and is way overdramatizing the Issues, and is not credible.


Did Boeing still deliver the aircraft even tho the fault was known? And if so, was the fault disclosed to the buyers and they were aware of the fact that they get faulty aircrafts delivered? Or were only the early deliveries faulty?

Also as the whistle blower was working on MCAS and did a evaluationaccording to you, someone had to check his work and reevaluate it. Shouldnt the new guy have raised questions about the not ideal design of the software and the possible safety risk it posed?


Yes, I don’t know why the software error wasn’t disclosed. Remember we are talking about two different things. I’m referring to the AOA Disagree light, not MCAS itself.

Keep in mind that no other Boeing airplanes have an EICAS message for AOA Disagree.

I said the Whistle Blower didn’t properly evaluate MCAS. He should have flagged it as needing more evaluation, per his job, but was clueless.

I don’t agree with everything Boeing leadership does either, although I’ve never seen anyone knowingly and intentionally disregard safety. However, it makes a lot of people sick and angry seeing the Whistle Blower out bashing Boeing in the press when in fact he himself could have helped find the issues if he ever actually did any useful work. There’s a reason why he was laid off.


Thank you for the clarification that helps to understand the situation.

About the AoA disagree alert failure and not disclosing it, do you think there will be any lawsuits following? Customers might be able to file a fraud lawsuit as I would not be really happy if I buy an aircraft that has an issue that is actually known beforehand.
 
747megatop
Posts: 1661
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 8:22 am

Re: Something wrong with Boeing's safety culture

Thu May 16, 2019 4:18 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
Not to discount the issues, but it's also possible that all this surfaces now due to the MAX issues. It seems all eyes are on Boeing right now, and every single issue gets blown out of proportion (i.e., the media found they needed to add "Miami Air International is a charter airline operating a fleet of the Boeing 737-800, different from the 737 MAX 8 aircraft that has been grounded following two fatal crashes involving that plane", which is irrelevant to that specific incident).

Eh? The MAX issue blown out of proportion? You are kidding right? This isn't a simple "tire blowout on landing" on a MAX aircraft.
This fiasco should not have even made it past the design review stage let alone construction, Quality Assurance and Certification stage. Any engineer however inexperienced would tell you that
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 733
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Something wrong with Boeing's safety culture

Thu May 16, 2019 4:46 pm

747megatop wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
Not to discount the issues, but it's also possible that all this surfaces now due to the MAX issues. It seems all eyes are on Boeing right now, and every single issue gets blown out of proportion (i.e., the media found they needed to add "Miami Air International is a charter airline operating a fleet of the Boeing 737-800, different from the 737 MAX 8 aircraft that has been grounded following two fatal crashes involving that plane", which is irrelevant to that specific incident).

Eh? The MAX issue blown out of proportion? You are kidding right? This isn't a simple "tire blowout on landing" on a MAX aircraft.
This fiasco should not have even made it past the design review stage let alone construction, Quality Assurance and Certification stage. Any engineer however inexperienced would tell you that

Can you please point out where I said the MAX issue was blown out of proportion?
I said that, due to the MAX issue, every single problem affecting a Boeing aircraft (which cannot be a 737MAX since they are grounded worldwide) is getting blown out of proportion... Just a "tiny" little difference...
 
747megatop
Posts: 1661
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 8:22 am

Re: Something wrong with Boeing's safety culture

Thu May 16, 2019 10:46 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
747megatop wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
Not to discount the issues, but it's also possible that all this surfaces now due to the MAX issues. It seems all eyes are on Boeing right now, and every single issue gets blown out of proportion (i.e., the media found they needed to add "Miami Air International is a charter airline operating a fleet of the Boeing 737-800, different from the 737 MAX 8 aircraft that has been grounded following two fatal crashes involving that plane", which is irrelevant to that specific incident).

Eh? The MAX issue blown out of proportion? You are kidding right? This isn't a simple "tire blowout on landing" on a MAX aircraft.
This fiasco should not have even made it past the design review stage let alone construction, Quality Assurance and Certification stage. Any engineer however inexperienced would tell you that

Can you please point out where I said the MAX issue was blown out of proportion?
I said that, due to the MAX issue, every single problem affecting a Boeing aircraft (which cannot be a 737MAX since they are grounded worldwide) is getting blown out of proportion... Just a "tiny" little difference...

Sorry. Apologies my friend. I stand corrected as i completely misread your post.

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