hivue wrote:

XRAYretired wrote:

No. They gambled on beating the laws of probability and people lost their lives because of it.

If they had actually been gambling they would have contemplated no fix at all after JT and just counted on pilots following the runaway trim procedure for the remaining service life of the MAX. Instead they realized they had made a mistake -- a big mistake -- and they launched an effort to fix it right away. Unfortunately events overtook them and ET happened under identical circumstances only 4 months later -- not late enough for a fix to be implemented.

When the dust eventually settles on this whole MAX fiasco there will be a lot of factors seen to have contributed to it. Bad luck will be one of them.

No. Random failures are exactly that. Look again at the FAA risk assessment Catastrophic events were expected without a fix and they gambled that could get the fix done before the next one - They lost, people were killed.

Ray

Exeiowa wrote:

Regulation in aircraft should be considered more along the lines of checking that there is a proper system in place to check bolts are tight not themselves checking each bolt.

This should be the case in an environment of mutual trust. But if it turns out the system in place doesn't lead to the expected result (like with the check list preventing foreign objects to be left in fuel tanks), regulation is forced to "check each bolt". Boeing unfortunately failed to re-establish this trust early on in the process. That's a prime reason the ungrounding keeps dragging on.

XRAYretired wrote:

No. Random failures are exactly that. Look again at the FAA risk assessment Catastrophic events were expected without a fix and they gambled that could get the fix done before the next one - They lost, people were killed.

You're essentially stating my point. After JT Boeing started working on a fix. This can hardly be called gambling, but rather was prudent behavior (or at least prudent intent -- we don't know how good their fix would have been). Boeing couldn't ground the MAX. Only the regulators could do that. Boeing didn't get the fix done before ET happened because ET happened so quickly following JT.

The timing of JT - ET likely wouldn't meet anyone's definition of "random" in the context of modern commercial aviation operations. This -- i.e., the "bad luck" of an identical accident occurring so incredibly quickly after the first -- is precisely the reason we know that MCAS 1.0 was a disaster and the MAX needed to be grounded.

hivue wrote:

XRAYretired wrote:

No. Random failures are exactly that. Look again at the FAA risk assessment Catastrophic events were expected without a fix and they gambled that could get the fix done before the next one - They lost, people were killed.

You're essentially stating my point. After JT Boeing started working on a fix. This can hardly be called gambling, but rather was prudent behavior (or at least prudent intent -- we don't know how good their fix would have been). Boeing couldn't ground the MAX. Only the regulators could do that. Boeing didn't get the fix done before ET happened because ET happened so quickly following JT.

The timing of JT - ET likely wouldn't meet anyone's definition of "random" in the context of modern commercial aviation operations. This -- i.e., the "bad luck" of an identical accident occurring so incredibly quickly after the first -- is precisely the reason we know that MCAS 1.0 was a disaster and the MAX needed to be grounded.

No. it was gamble that they could get a fix rolled out before the next catastrophic event.

No. Boeing can recommend and indeed insist upon the grounding of any of their TC owned aircraft at any time they so wish.

No. Random is random in everyone's interpretation of random that knows what they are talking about. There is no elapsed timescale involved, nothing to do with your perception of timing. Assessment is based upon science not the supernatural.

Ray

XRAYretired wrote:

No. Random failures are exactly that. Look again at the FAA risk assessment Catastrophic events were expected without a fix and they gambled that could get the fix done before the next one - They lost, people were killed.

Regulators "gamble" all the time. Look at the gamble global regulators are currently taking with the known issues with the A350 and A220. They're just hoping that neither turns into a glider and people die. Regulators are notoriously reactionary. And when they do so, they're notoriously over-reactionary. Their actions are based partly on public image. They're looking to save their own skin. The latest evidence of that is how extremely unlikely (statistically near impossible) potential issues and routine ADs are being publicized and forced to be fixed on the MAX before it returns to service, Meanwhile other planes with known, potentially catastrophic issues are allowed to fly. Logical? No. Do they truly care about our safety? By this measure, no. Does it look good to the ignorant public? Oh yeah.

It's interesting seeing how once again the tone has changed on the FAA, and it's necessary to throw them under the bus for past events. That was no doubt a mistake by the FAA. But yet their current handling of the MAX is worthy of a vigorous defense and is unquestioned. The train of logic does not connect.

NonTechAvLover wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

..........
The problem with regulatory agencies like the FAA is that they simply don't have the necessary talent to properly evaluate aircraft. Who would know better than the people that actually built it? Should the government have evaluated the Wright Flyer before it was allowed in the air? If so, how?

No, the problem with regulatory agencies like the FAA is that if you do not finance them properly (because all you can think of is how can I transfer another penny from society to the owners of capital), they will not have the talent pool to perform their functions properly. Too much government or too much regulation has become the reigning ideological flavor of the day for more than 20 years now. Financial markets players tell everyone they do not need regulation, the govt regulators are slow, clumsy etc. etc. Then they leave a financial crisis on everyone's door and whoop-dee-doo, a good chunk of wealth finds its way to the owners of capital while average people lose jobs and homes. Ultra rich taxpayers always lobby for cutting the funding of regulatory agencies, including the tax agencies, and guess what, a couple of decades later, no ultra rich corporation pays any real tax, which means government has even less money to fulfill its regulatory functions. You starve regulatory agencies so you can have people fill their lungs with cigarette smoke as long as possible or blood streams with sugar as long as possible while the producers of their poison fill their pockets. This is all in the name of "efficient" government, which is a euphemism for no one other than owners of capital to have even the slightest say in how society is organized (and certainly not labor or any kind of other organized force in society). It is naked capitalism: only money can and will talk and everything else will shut up and live with the crumbs thrown their way at the mercy of the owners of capital. Look around you, it is not that difficult to see. And please do not read this as a statement in favor of organized labor, the church, the intelligentsia, some sort of bureaucracy or some other group organizing society as they see fit. They each have their problems as anyone who has read a bit of history would know. The problem is blindly rooting for one of these (and generally going with the ideological flavor of the day) and not seeing the price society pays when any of these forces are not moderated and have full control.

I was on an eight-hour flight on a 787 yesterday. From an average passenger perspective the plane is simply beautiful and amazing. I keep reading here that the program had problems and I am sure it did, but no sane person car argue with the end product. It is silly to throw the company that produced this into the thrash bin just because it made a big mistake in another product. But it is equally silly to try to ignore that mistake or to blame pilots or regulatory agencies for it. Boeing would actually benefit from a very strong and robust FAA and yes, it would have a cost. If we can all get our heads out of our parts where the sun don't shine and stop this craze about squeezing every penny out every iota of economic activity and human life to "maximize profits," we would have good regulatory agencies performing their functions, not perfect, not right 100% of the time, but maybe very very good regulatory agencies (as some countries still fight to keep).

I do not know if you have ever hear of Thalidomide, I will paste a couple of paragraphs from the Wikipedia article on it, but please feel free to read more and see how regulatory agencies functioned in a different era ('50s and '60s):

In the US, representatives from Chemie Grünenthal approached Smith, Kline & French (SKF), now GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), with a request to market and distribute the drug in North America. A memorandum rediscovered in 2010 in the archives of the FDA shows that, as part of its in-licensing approach, Smith, Kline and French conducted animal tests and ran a clinical trial of the drug in the US involving 875 people, including pregnant women, in 1956–57.[citation needed] In 1956, researchers at SKF involved in clinical trials noted that even when used in very high doses, thalidomide could not induce sleep in mice.[citation needed] And when administered at doses 50 to 650 times larger than that claimed by Chemie Grünenthal to be "sleep inducing", the researchers could still not achieve the hypnotic effect in animals that it had on humans.[citation needed] After completion of the trial, and based on reasons kept hidden for decades, SKF declined to commercialize the drug. Later, Chemie Grünenthal, in 1958, reached an agreement with William S Merrell Company in Cincinnati, Ohio, (later Richardson-Merrell, now part of Sanofi), to market and distribute thalidomide throughout the US[37]

The US FDA refused to approve thalidomide for marketing and distribution. However, the drug was distributed in large quantities for testing purposes, after the American distributor and manufacturer Richardson-Merrell had applied for its approval in September 1960.[citation needed] The official in charge of the FDA review, Frances Oldham Kelsey, did not rely on information from the company, which did not include any test results. Richardson-Merrell was called on to perform tests and report the results. The company demanded approval six times, and was refused each time. Nevertheless, a total of 17 children with thalidomide-induced malformations were born in the US. Oldham Kelsey was given a Presidential award for distinguished service from the federal government for not allowing thalidomide to be approved for sale in the US.[39]

And the full article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide

Again, one example does not prove a case, but I am certain there were tens and hundreds more like it and Thalidomide became so well-known because of its horrible effects on fetuses while their mothers were taking the drug for morning sickness in other countries. I put in bold and underlined "[t]he company demanded approval six times and was refused each time." Think about that and ask yourself whether what the FAA is now doing now, belatedly, could be saving lives and, if it is taking too long or if it does not have the resources to do it, whose decisions those were.

And I will not go into the Wright Flyer question as its many logical fallacies do not require a full listing, but I will mention one: The Wright Flyer carried Wilbur and Orville and even them only one at a time. Trust me, if the brothers were proposing to risk some 170 lives repeatedly, hundreds of times a day, everyone in their right minds would want the government to evaluate the Wright Flyer.

Just saw Dark Waters yesterday and it echoes the same thing you wrote here

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9071322/

MSPNWA wrote:

XRAYretired wrote:

No. Random failures are exactly that. Look again at the FAA risk assessment Catastrophic events were expected without a fix and they gambled that could get the fix done before the next one - They lost, people were killed.

Regulators "gamble" all the time. Look at the gamble global regulators are currently taking with the known issues with the A350 and A220. They're just hoping that neither turns into a glider and people die. Regulators are notoriously reactionary. And when they do so, they're notoriously over-reactionary. Their actions are based partly on public image. They're looking to save their own skin. The latest evidence of that is how extremely unlikely (statistically near impossible) potential issues and routine ADs are being publicized and forced to be fixed on the MAX before it returns to service, Meanwhile other planes with known, potentially catastrophic issues are allowed to fly. Logical? No. Do they truly care about our safety? By this measure, no. Does it look good to the ignorant public? Oh yeah.

It's interesting seeing how once again the tone has changed on the FAA, and it's necessary to throw them under the bus for past events. That was no doubt a mistake by the FAA. But yet their current handling of the MAX is worthy of a vigorous defense and is unquestioned. The train of logic does not connect.

Usual rambling nonsense. No further response.

Revelation wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

For Example: You do not have to have any knowledge of programming but you can still read a good code (because every line has comments saying why this is there and what it is doing)

Kind of a poor example, since well written code should be clear on its own with few comments. Most code reviewers advise to avoid looking at the comments and look at the bits that are actually being read by the compiler/interpreter.

Actually the best code is one which also has some debugging code is so in case things break, as in software it is and will do, then there is somebody to show/share and get it fixed. In the FOSS universe this happens all the time. Almost all the cloud services that we use today is using FOSS. Of course, there is lot of QA and stuff which gets done, more can be done and all of it is in public domain. See the piuparts and lintian tests at https://qa.debian.org/ as an e.g.

FluidFlow wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

enzo011 wrote:

For Example: You do not have to have any knowledge of programming but you can still read a good code (because every line has comments saying why this is there and what it is doing). The same goes for a good design that is well documented.

// Read the angle of attack from the active sensor. Assume this value is correct without sanitation or cross-checking with the other sensor
angleOfAttack = readAngleOfAttack(int sensorNumber);

Possible actual MCAS code?

par13del wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

The FAA is there to check the work of Boeing, .

So they checked, found nothing and we now have two fatal crashes with 300+ dead.
Does make you wonder other than the crashes what makes the FAA able to check now and find all these issues that they could not find before.....did they change the laws as it relates to the FAA?

More likely they didn’t check and accepted Boeing’s word (Jedi mind tricks not withstanding) or Boeing neglected to tell them stuff. Now they seem to be doing the job they should have done previously.

MSPNWA wrote:

It's interesting seeing how once again the tone has changed on the FAA, and it's necessary to throw them under the bus for past events.

This trope again? It’s clear that the FAA exhibited some serious shortcomings in certifying the MAX. They should be rightly criticised for that. They now appear to be righting that wrong and should be thanked for it. They’ve changed their behaviour and some have changed their view of the FAA accordingly. I don’t understand why you find that so difficult a concept to accept. Old FAA bad, new FAA better.

XRAYretired wrote:

Usual rambling nonsense. No further response.

The truth sometimes hurts, doesn't it? Your white flag is accepted.

scbriml wrote:

This trope again? It’s clear that the FAA exhibited some serious shortcomings in certifying the MAX. They should be rightly criticised for that. They now appear to be righting that wrong and should be thanked for it. They’ve changed their behaviour and some have changed their view of the FAA accordingly. I don’t understand why you find that so difficult a concept to accept. Old FAA bad, new FAA better.

The truth has a tendency to be a trope, doesn't it?

But that's not the only trope. You've avoided saying exactly why you believe there's a "new FAA" that is "righting the wrong" and now should be thanked and praised, although I'm quite certain why (it's not flattering). If a change of this magnitude has occurred in your opinion, there should be plenty of specific examples of why you believe there's been a change, and those reasons should logically point to that conclusion. Yet there's been nothing but crickets or vague generic statements like you repeated here. On the other hand, I've repeatedly stated specifically why they remain not to be trusted, and I gave a further example just now. Time for you to step up and finally defend your trope.

MSPNWA wrote:

XRAYretired wrote:

Usual rambling nonsense. No further response.

The truth sometimes hurts, doesn't it? Your white flag is accepted.

scbriml wrote:

This trope again? It’s clear that the FAA exhibited some serious shortcomings in certifying the MAX. They should be rightly criticised for that. They now appear to be righting that wrong and should be thanked for it. They’ve changed their behaviour and some have changed their view of the FAA accordingly. I don’t understand why you find that so difficult a concept to accept. Old FAA bad, new FAA better.

The truth has a tendency to be a trope, doesn't it?

But that's not the only trope. You've avoided saying exactly why you believe there's a "new FAA" that is "righting the wrong" and now should be thanked and praised, although I'm quite certain why (it's not flattering). If a change of this magnitude has occurred in your opinion, there should be plenty of specific examples of why you believe there's been a change, and those reasons should logically point to that conclusion. Yet there's been nothing but crickets or vague generic statements like you repeated here. On the other hand, I've repeatedly stated specifically why they remain not to be trusted, and I gave a further example just now. Time for you to step up and finally defend your trope.

What issues are you referring too in regards to the A350 or 220? Just curious. Are those issues being talked about in another thread?

morrisond wrote:

What issues are you referring too in regards to the A350 or 220? Just curious. Are those issues being talked about in another thread?

A220 - engine failures
A350 - engine shutdowns after liquid spillage in the cockpit

In particular only by lucky chance did we not lose two A350s. If we apply the same theory with the MAX, we have to ask the question - what else have we missed?

MSPNWA wrote:

XRAYretired wrote:

Usual rambling nonsense. No further response.

The truth sometimes hurts, doesn't it? Your white flag is accepted.

scbriml wrote:

This trope again? It’s clear that the FAA exhibited some serious shortcomings in certifying the MAX. They should be rightly criticised for that. They now appear to be righting that wrong and should be thanked for it. They’ve changed their behaviour and some have changed their view of the FAA accordingly. I don’t understand why you find that so difficult a concept to accept. Old FAA bad, new FAA better.

The truth has a tendency to be a trope, doesn't it?

But that's not the only trope. You've avoided saying exactly why you believe there's a "new FAA" that is "righting the wrong" and now should be thanked and praised, although I'm quite certain why (it's not flattering). If a change of this magnitude has occurred in your opinion, there should be plenty of specific examples of why you believe there's been a change, and those reasons should logically point to that conclusion. Yet there's been nothing but crickets or vague generic statements like you repeated here. On the other hand, I've repeatedly stated specifically why they remain not to be trusted, and I gave a further example just now. Time for you to step up and finally defend your trope.

Just ignoring nonsense

MSPNWA wrote:

XRAYretired wrote:

Usual rambling nonsense. No further response.

The truth sometimes hurts, doesn't it? Your white flag is accepted.

scbriml wrote:

This trope again? It’s clear that the FAA exhibited some serious shortcomings in certifying the MAX. They should be rightly criticised for that. They now appear to be righting that wrong and should be thanked for it. They’ve changed their behaviour and some have changed their view of the FAA accordingly. I don’t understand why you find that so difficult a concept to accept. Old FAA bad, new FAA better.

The truth has a tendency to be a trope, doesn't it?

But that's not the only trope. You've avoided saying exactly why you believe there's a "new FAA" that is "righting the wrong" and now should be thanked and praised, although I'm quite certain why (it's not flattering). If a change of this magnitude has occurred in your opinion, there should be plenty of specific examples of why you believe there's been a change, and those reasons should logically point to that conclusion. Yet there's been nothing but crickets or vague generic statements like you repeated here. On the other hand, I've repeatedly stated specifically why they remain not to be trusted, and I gave a further example just now. Time for you to step up and finally defend your trope.

Nothing personal.. but what is your college grade for probability theory/statistics classes? I hope they are at least 300 level classes as well..That would give your estimates some basic credibility...
My impression so far is that it is rudimentary knowledge - something like MATH300 level - is what is missing from the discussion...

nehalem wrote:

// Read the angle of attack from the active sensor. Assume this value is correct without sanitation or cross-checking with the other sensor
angleOfAttack = readAngleOfAttack(int sensorNumber);

Possible actual MCAS code?

Not for the MCAS V1 as there is only a single AoA sensor per FCC. The pilots have buttons to select either the FCC A or the FCC B, but neither of the two FCCs can select his AoA sensor.

Not for the MCAS V2 either as one AoA value would be read from the FCC internal AoA analog to digital resolver and converter and the second AoA value is most probably carry by a ARINC 429 bus cross link between the two FCCs.

I can't speculate on how the code actually look like: this so deeply depend on the architecture.

Really not trying to stir the pot or derail the thread, honest question though. Isn't MSPNWA kinda right? We've had quite a few instances of engine failures in A220s and A350s, luckily only one engine going out, but eventually, isn't it likely you'll get a dual engine failure?

I know there are plenty of differences between the MAX and A220s/350s but isn't the underlying issue very similar? Hoping a fix can happen before a moderate (relatively speaking) chance of failure?

DeltaMD90 wrote:

Really not trying to stir the pot or derail the thread, honest question though. Isn't MSPNWA kinda right? We've had quite a few instances of engine failures in A220s and A350s, luckily only one engine going out, but eventually, isn't it likely you'll get a dual engine failure?

I know there are plenty of differences between the MAX and A220s/350s but isn't the underlying issue very similar? Hoping a fix can happen before a moderate (relatively speaking) chance of failure?

Stirring and off topic. No, not right, no similarity whatsoever.

scbriml wrote:

More likely they didn’t check and accepted Boeing’s word (Jedi mind tricks not withstanding) or Boeing neglected to tell them stuff. Now they seem to be doing the job they should have done previously.

This trope again? It’s clear that the FAA exhibited some serious shortcomings in certifying the MAX. They should be rightly criticised for that. They now appear to be righting that wrong and should be thanked for it. They’ve changed their behaviour and some have changed their view of the FAA accordingly. I don’t understand why you find that so difficult a concept to accept. Old FAA bad, new FAA better.

Boeing seems to have been getting more and more delegated authority from the FAA, one of the reasons would be the often quoted underfunding of the agency by the government of the day. So it ties into the question of who would work for the FAA, they apparently pay less than private companies so those that cannot cut it at prestigious companies like Boeing will end up at the FAA and will not have close to the talent of the engineers and designers at Boeing. So it is only natural that those more talented individuals design and certify their work at the same time. It is also fine and no worry that they work for a company that has ruthlessly been chasing as much savings as possible, there is no way they would try and cut back on costs if there is no oversight to worry about because Boeing is a company we can trust and they will always do the right thing, right?

As for the delegated authority and what it means and how serious it is that they have been caught taking shortcuts with regulators and customers, this quote from tdscanuck on the 787 seems to somehow makes sense in what we are discussing now,

Quoting CaptainX (Reply 160):
I can see Boeing rubber-stamping to get done on time, but not the FAA.

Not a chance. Boeing has a lot of delegated authority from the FAA...rubber stamping anything would cause that to be instantly revoked and cripple Boeing's entire commercial business.

So here we are it seems, Boeing took too much liberty with the trust they have built up with the FAA. Now they will have to rebuild that trust and it will take time before the FAA will be comfortable to go back to the same relationship as before.

mjoelnir wrote:

The 737MAX is falling out of the skies because Boeing, engineers and managers did a terrible job. If Boeing would have done a good job, those frames would not have crashed and the 737MAX would be flying.

Actually "doing a good job" can sometimes mean saying "stop" followed by "this isn't going to work, we need more time to do it right". If Boeing would have done a good job, those 346 people wouldn't have died because those frames wouldn't be in the sky. Boeing would have said "stop", and then would still be designing the FCC for the Max. Or cancelling the program altogether. Some things are simply impossible and shouldn't be played with, or forwarded on to a marketable solution.

DeltaMD90 wrote:

Really not trying to stir the pot or derail the thread, honest question though. Isn't MSPNWA kinda right? We've had quite a few instances of engine failures in A220s and A350s, luckily only one engine going out, but eventually, isn't it likely you'll get a dual engine failure?

I know there are plenty of differences between the MAX and A220s/350s but isn't the underlying issue very similar? Hoping a fix can happen before a moderate (relatively speaking) chance of failure?

A 737MAX is kinda similar to a A220 like a 1972 ford pinto is similar to a 2018 tesla S

DeltaMD90 wrote:

Really not trying to stir the pot or derail the thread, honest question though. Isn't MSPNWA kinda right? We've had quite a few instances of engine failures in A220s and A350s, luckily only one engine going out, but eventually, isn't it likely you'll get a dual engine failure?

I know there are plenty of differences between the MAX and A220s/350s but isn't the underlying issue very similar? Hoping a fix can happen before a moderate (relatively speaking) chance of failure?

Well, this is called "risk management". Regulations are not written in "no crash" manner, regulations dictate engineering for low enough probability of fatal outcome, to the tune of less than 1 crash per lifetime of 737-scale program. but probability is there.
Underlying issues are in no way similar. in-flight engine shutdown math is pretty obvious; the engine is a redundant system on a twin, and procedures take that into account.
In fact, CFM-56 shutdown rate is about 3 per million flight hours (data from 2006 press release, link #2 in google search). WIth 15k engines in service at that point, that translates into 3-4 shutdowns a week. what is the probability that plane looses both engines?
Answer: still low enough to expect less than 1 event over lifetime of the model.
If estimates go higher - the manufacturer must act. Again, taking a chance is OK as long as the chance is low enough.

Problem of MAX is that chances were not estimated correctly, risks publicly downplayed - and Boeing won the lottery they didn't want winning. Honest estimates could mean loss of face but saved lives. The rest is history.

I think I was the first on the forum to suggest the production halt was due partly to the need for plant inspections/fixes:

https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/compa ... -problems/

par13del wrote:

sgrow787 wrote:

I think I was the first on the forum to suggest the production halt was due partly to the need for plant inspections/fixes:

https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/compa ... -problems/

We sure this is not fake news, why would Boeing be doing something proactive without EASA and the FAA forcing them to make improvement?

Wait, I thought the grounding forced the shutdown? Anyway, wasnt it Congress that requested plant inspections in the Dickson hearing?

MSPNWA wrote:

morrisond wrote:

What issues are you referring too in regards to the A350 or 220? Just curious. Are those issues being talked about in another thread?

A220 - engine failures
A350 - engine shutdowns after liquid spillage in the cockpit

In particular only by lucky chance did we not lose two A350s. If we apply the same theory with the MAX, we have to ask the question - what else have we missed?

I think you know why. You are not naive to believe that anyone here actually has faith in Boeing anymore? Boeing NEEDS to prove to everyone that they will change for the future but that board is behind the 43 billion in share buy backs and 2 months after the Indonesian crash, they authorized another 20 billion of share buybacks. That board are still there, those same bean counters who put profit over safety and prioritized pushing the stock price higher hasn't been cleaned out. No one here believes that Boeing is going to change because of that.

Those engine problems that the A220 and A350 has recently been dealing with. You seem to be trying to obfuscate and misguide forum readers since even Boeing is suffering that with their Dreamliners. Your not bringing them up are you?

You may be angry with the way people are attacking Boeing and relentlessly pointing out their faults, but shouldn't Boeing be attacked? When 70% of the fuel tanks in those recently built Maxes have foreign debris in them. That isn't the huge issue I have. I have deep worries about the Maxes that have already been delivered and are with airlines. If 70& of those Maxes at Renton have debris then the Maxes with the airlines that were flying have them as well. Are those planes being inspected? I haven't heard a peep if they are.

Boeing hasn't changed, they still have the same corporate culture that emphasis profit over safety. And you don't think we here shouldn't be a little worried about flying on those planes? Those planes are simply put, unsafe. Its not just the MCAS people are worried about but the entire plane and how it was built. Safety is not Boeing's first priority and you cannot convince anyone here that it is.

And since we live in the age of internet and social media. Unlike the DC10 that everyone likes to point out survived their multiple crash history. You didn't have those 2 back then. If you did, the DC10 would be dead and people would of avoided flying on those planes. A lot of pundits think people are ignorant and will fly on any plane when the Max gets re-certified. After the amount of bad press the Max has suffered, that is a bit arrogant to make that assumption.

The airlines that depend on the Max need the plane to recover. They are committed to the plane regardless of the situation. They can't go to Airbus and order A320's. There isn't any slots for 7 years. United is taking the step of bringing the Maxes in after everyone else does to prove to the public its safe. Airlines like Ryanair want to re-brand and trick passengers that its not a Max they are flying on. But you know what? That is going to backfire big time because there will be groups that will spring up to fight this misinformation and its going to cost those airlines dearly. I really don't think these executives realize how in tune people are when it comes to what is going on. Everyone knows about the Max, even people that don't fly.

Even when the Max gets re-certified and it will. We are going to see how Boeing responds whether they re-brand or how the Airlines respond whether they are going to be like United and inform passengers they are flying on a Max or hide it like Ryanair who are already calling their Maxes 8200. Its actually going to be quite interesting this year and next as the Max returns to service, how many Maxes get delivered and whether the flying public will fly on the Maxes.

For me I have my guesses, mostly from the friends and family members I have talked to. "Have you heard about the Max" "What do you know about it" "Do you look at what plane your flying on when you order online" I have to tell you, if your a flyer, people look at what plane they are flying on. And that is going to be a problem for Boeing. Re-brand or not, they have a big decision to make down the road.

Forgedias wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

morrisond wrote:

What issues are you referring too in regards to the A350 or 220? Just curious. Are those issues being talked about in another thread?

A220 - engine failures
A350 - engine shutdowns after liquid spillage in the cockpit

In particular only by lucky chance did we not lose two A350s. If we apply the same theory with the MAX, we have to ask the question - what else have we missed?

I think you know why. You are not naive to believe that anyone here actually has faith in Boeing anymore? Boeing NEEDS to prove to everyone that they will change for the future but that board is behind the 43 billion in share buy backs and 2 months after the Indonesian crash, they authorized another 20 billion of share buybacks. That board are still there, those same bean counters who put profit over safety and prioritized pushing the stock price higher hasn't been cleaned out. No one here believes that Boeing is going to change because of that.

Those engine problems that the A220 and A350 has recently been dealing with. You seem to be trying to obfuscate and misguide forum readers since even Boeing is suffering that with their Dreamliners. Your not bringing them up are you?

You may be angry with the way people are attacking Boeing and relentlessly pointing out their faults, but shouldn't Boeing be attacked? When 70% of the fuel tanks in those recently built Maxes have foreign debris in them. That isn't the huge issue I have. I have deep worries about the Maxes that have already been delivered and are with airlines. If 70& of those Maxes at Renton have debris then the Maxes with the airlines that were flying have them as well. Are those planes being inspected? I haven't heard a peep if they are.

Boeing hasn't changed, they still have the same corporate culture that emphasis profit over safety. And you don't think we here shouldn't be a little worried about flying on those planes? Those planes are simply put, unsafe. Its not just the MCAS people are worried about but the entire plane and how it was built. Safety is not Boeing's first priority and you cannot convince anyone here that it is.

And since we live in the age of internet and social media. Unlike the DC10 that everyone likes to point out survived their multiple crash history. You didn't have those 2 back then. If you did, the DC10 would be dead and people would of avoided flying on those planes. A lot of pundits think people are ignorant and will fly on any plane when the Max gets re-certified. After the amount of bad press the Max has suffered, that is a bit arrogant to make that assumption.

The airlines that depend on the Max need the plane to recover. They are committed to the plane regardless of the situation. They can't go to Airbus and order A320's. There isn't any slots for 7 years. United is taking the step of bringing the Maxes in after everyone else does to prove to the public its safe. Airlines like Ryanair want to re-brand and trick passengers that its not a Max they are flying on. But you know what? That is going to backfire big time because there will be groups that will spring up to fight this misinformation and its going to cost those airlines dearly. I really don't think these executives realize how in tune people are when it comes to what is going on. Everyone knows about the Max, even people that don't fly.

Even when the Max gets re-certified and it will. We are going to see how Boeing responds whether they re-brand or how the Airlines respond whether they are going to be like United and inform passengers they are flying on a Max or hide it like Ryanair who are already calling their Maxes 8200. Its actually going to be quite interesting this year and next as the Max returns to service, how many Maxes get delivered and whether the flying public will fly on the Maxes.

For me I have my guesses, mostly from the friends and family members I have talked to. "Have you heard about the Max" "What do you know about it" "Do you look at what plane your flying on when you order online" I have to tell you, if your a flyer, people look at what plane they are flying on. And that is going to be a problem for Boeing. Re-brand or not, they have a big decision to make down the road.

I think you have hit the nail on the head. As a flyer I would try to avoid Boeing altogether especially in any of their new products even if it mean shellint a few more Rupees for a competing Airbus product. Interestingly, even in this thread and the previous threads, nobody has faulted EASA or said it's a walkover like/similar to FAA. Which to my mind, simply means they have more independance. Interestingly, going forward, not just Boeing would have to do much more to regain trust (which they don't seem to be doing other than blaming others for the situation they are in and still not providing any data which people have been asking for. Even the recorded conversations which have been provided is too little. I do hope there are class-action lawsuits not only by people whose families have suffered but also consumer organizations so more info. can come out in the discovery. I do hope that does happen. Also perhaps forensics investigation of the servers where those conversations are recorded. If I were a prosecuting agency, I would not treat Boeing with kid gloves as has been done so far. The idea that Boeing is to vital to the American economy, how can a company think it's more precious than people and country at large. I do hope much more investigations are done and many more things come to light than people have been guessing and questioning things. It would be nice if a group of people for airliners.net could make a list of questions they would like to ask Boeing, it would be a contribution from airliners.net and people would have something to link to when people make conspirancy theories as to how everybody is out to get Boeing.

par13del wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

The FAA is there to check the work of Boeing, .

So they checked, found nothing and we now have two fatal crashes with 300+ dead.
Does make you wonder other than the crashes what makes the FAA able to check now and find all these issues that they could not find before.....did they change the laws as it relates to the FAA?

That does not change the primary responsibility of Boeing. Boeing had lobbied hard during the years to reduce the checks. Often with the argument, that it slows them down. And the checks were reduced with the known results.

What is your beef with the FAA is now doing it's work? Just because they did not control Boeing in the past years, they should not make any effort now?

Forgedias wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

morrisond wrote:

What issues are you referring too in regards to the A350 or 220? Just curious. Are those issues being talked about in another thread?

A220 - engine failures
A350 - engine shutdowns after liquid spillage in the cockpit

In particular only by lucky chance did we not lose two A350s. If we apply the same theory with the MAX, we have to ask the question - what else have we missed?

I think you know why. You are not naive to believe that anyone here actually has faith in Boeing anymore? Boeing NEEDS to prove to everyone that they will change for the future but that board is behind the 43 billion in share buy backs and 2 months after the Indonesian crash, they authorized another 20 billion of share buybacks. That board are still there, those same bean counters who put profit over safety and prioritized pushing the stock price higher hasn't been cleaned out. No one here believes that Boeing is going to change because of that.

Those engine problems that the A220 and A350 has recently been dealing with. You seem to be trying to obfuscate and misguide forum readers since even Boeing is suffering that with their Dreamliners. Your not bringing them up are you?

You may be angry with the way people are attacking Boeing and relentlessly pointing out their faults, but shouldn't Boeing be attacked? When 70% of the fuel tanks in those recently built Maxes have foreign debris in them. That isn't the huge issue I have. I have deep worries about the Maxes that have already been delivered and are with airlines. If 70& of those Maxes at Renton have debris then the Maxes with the airlines that were flying have them as well. Are those planes being inspected? I haven't heard a peep if they are.

Boeing hasn't changed, they still have the same corporate culture that emphasis profit over safety. And you don't think we here shouldn't be a little worried about flying on those planes? Those planes are simply put, unsafe. Its not just the MCAS people are worried about but the entire plane and how it was built. Safety is not Boeing's first priority and you cannot convince anyone here that it is.

And since we live in the age of internet and social media. Unlike the DC10 that everyone likes to point out survived their multiple crash history. You didn't have those 2 back then. If you did, the DC10 would be dead and people would of avoided flying on those planes. A lot of pundits think people are ignorant and will fly on any plane when the Max gets re-certified. After the amount of bad press the Max has suffered, that is a bit arrogant to make that assumption.

The airlines that depend on the Max need the plane to recover. They are committed to the plane regardless of the situation. They can't go to Airbus and order A320's. There isn't any slots for 7 years. United is taking the step of bringing the Maxes in after everyone else does to prove to the public its safe. Airlines like Ryanair want to re-brand and trick passengers that its not a Max they are flying on. But you know what? That is going to backfire big time because there will be groups that will spring up to fight this misinformation and its going to cost those airlines dearly. I really don't think these executives realize how in tune people are when it comes to what is going on. Everyone knows about the Max, even people that don't fly.

Even when the Max gets re-certified and it will. We are going to see how Boeing responds whether they re-brand or how the Airlines respond whether they are going to be like United and inform passengers they are flying on a Max or hide it like Ryanair who are already calling their Maxes 8200. Its actually going to be quite interesting this year and next as the Max returns to service, how many Maxes get delivered and whether the flying public will fly on the Maxes.

For me I have my guesses, mostly from the friends and family members I have talked to. "Have you heard about the Max" "What do you know about it" "Do you look at what plane your flying on when you order online" I have to tell you, if your a flyer, people look at what plane they are flying on. And that is going to be a problem for Boeing. Re-brand or not, they have a big decision to make down the road.

The problem is you all know you are spreading false information. As has been posted, that "debris" can mean something as small as dust or material filings. If you ever have a house built you will know that workers are not the most clean people and frequently leave trash around. But they clean it up before they hand you the keys. These aircraft have not been delivered and all will have to go through delivery prep and inspections before the airline takes possession. You all act like there are Cheeto bags floating around in the fuel tanks.

par13del wrote:

We sure this is not fake news, why would Boeing be doing something proactive without EASA and the FAA forcing them to make improvement?

Are you saying the FAA and EASA had to approve when Boeing went on an efficiency drive on other programs? What point are you trying to make other than try to throw shade that the authorities aren't taking Boeing's work as gospel any longer? In any case, good for Boeing for trying to make some lemonade from their lemon right now.

TTailedTiger wrote:

The problem is you all know you are spreading false information. As has been posted, that "debris" can mean something as small as dust or material filings. If you ever have a house built you will know that workers are not the most clean people and frequently leave trash around. But they clean it up before they hand you the keys. These aircraft have not been delivered and all will have to go through delivery prep and inspections before the airline takes possession. You all act like there are Cheeto bags floating around in the fuel tanks.

So no big deal then? Great, let's just hope this person throwing shade at this gets told that he is overreacting to this discovery,

The head of Boeing's 737 programme has told employees that the discovery was "absolutely unacceptable".

737 Max: Debris found in new planes' fuel tanks

"Transport Canada told Reuters by email on Wednesday it would not hesitate to add "Canadian-unique" non-normal procedures as a supplement to the MAX's aircraft flight manual, although its goal is still a "harmonized approach" with the FAA for the steps pilots must take during events related to system failures or malfunctions."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cana ... SKCN20L009

Oh well.. here we go.. maybe all the other regulators will want to add their own touches.. everytime I think this saga is drawing to a close another spanner gets thrown in the works .. or a fuel tank.

TTailedTiger wrote:

Forgedias wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

A220 - engine failures
A350 - engine shutdowns after liquid spillage in the cockpit

In particular only by lucky chance did we not lose two A350s. If we apply the same theory with the MAX, we have to ask the question - what else have we missed?

I think you know why. You are not naive to believe that anyone here actually has faith in Boeing anymore? Boeing NEEDS to prove to everyone that they will change for the future but that board is behind the 43 billion in share buy backs and 2 months after the Indonesian crash, they authorized another 20 billion of share buybacks. That board are still there, those same bean counters who put profit over safety and prioritized pushing the stock price higher hasn't been cleaned out. No one here believes that Boeing is going to change because of that.

Those engine problems that the A220 and A350 has recently been dealing with. You seem to be trying to obfuscate and misguide forum readers since even Boeing is suffering that with their Dreamliners. Your not bringing them up are you?

You may be angry with the way people are attacking Boeing and relentlessly pointing out their faults, but shouldn't Boeing be attacked? When 70% of the fuel tanks in those recently built Maxes have foreign debris in them. That isn't the huge issue I have. I have deep worries about the Maxes that have already been delivered and are with airlines. If 70& of those Maxes at Renton have debris then the Maxes with the airlines that were flying have them as well. Are those planes being inspected? I haven't heard a peep if they are.

Boeing hasn't changed, they still have the same corporate culture that emphasis profit over safety. And you don't think we here shouldn't be a little worried about flying on those planes? Those planes are simply put, unsafe. Its not just the MCAS people are worried about but the entire plane and how it was built. Safety is not Boeing's first priority and you cannot convince anyone here that it is.

And since we live in the age of internet and social media. Unlike the DC10 that everyone likes to point out survived their multiple crash history. You didn't have those 2 back then. If you did, the DC10 would be dead and people would of avoided flying on those planes. A lot of pundits think people are ignorant and will fly on any plane when the Max gets re-certified. After the amount of bad press the Max has suffered, that is a bit arrogant to make that assumption.

The airlines that depend on the Max need the plane to recover. They are committed to the plane regardless of the situation. They can't go to Airbus and order A320's. There isn't any slots for 7 years. United is taking the step of bringing the Maxes in after everyone else does to prove to the public its safe. Airlines like Ryanair want to re-brand and trick passengers that its not a Max they are flying on. But you know what? That is going to backfire big time because there will be groups that will spring up to fight this misinformation and its going to cost those airlines dearly. I really don't think these executives realize how in tune people are when it comes to what is going on. Everyone knows about the Max, even people that don't fly.

Even when the Max gets re-certified and it will. We are going to see how Boeing responds whether they re-brand or how the Airlines respond whether they are going to be like United and inform passengers they are flying on a Max or hide it like Ryanair who are already calling their Maxes 8200. Its actually going to be quite interesting this year and next as the Max returns to service, how many Maxes get delivered and whether the flying public will fly on the Maxes.

For me I have my guesses, mostly from the friends and family members I have talked to. "Have you heard about the Max" "What do you know about it" "Do you look at what plane your flying on when you order online" I have to tell you, if your a flyer, people look at what plane they are flying on. And that is going to be a problem for Boeing. Re-brand or not, they have a big decision to make down the road.

The problem is you all know you are spreading false information. As has been posted, that "debris" can mean something as small as dust or material filings. If you ever have a house built you will know that workers are not the most clean people and frequently leave trash around. But they clean it up before they hand you the keys. These aircraft have not been delivered and all will have to go through delivery prep and inspections before the airline takes possession. You all act like there are Cheeto bags floating around in the fuel tanks.

Misinformation and false narrative- Wing Fuel tank inspection, cleaning and sealing is long before completion and absolutely nothing to do with delivery inspection. This is another abject failure by Boeing as they have rightly acknowledged themselves "Absolutely unacceptable", "One Escape is too many".

flyingphil wrote:

"Transport Canada told Reuters by email on Wednesday it would not hesitate to add "Canadian-unique" non-normal procedures as a supplement to the MAX's aircraft flight manual, although its goal is still a "harmonized approach" with the FAA for the steps pilots must take during events related to system failures or malfunctions."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cana ... SKCN20L009

Oh well.. here we go.. maybe all the other regulators will want to add their own touches.. everytime I think this saga is drawing to a close another spanner gets thrown in the works .. or a fuel tank.

If the Canadian regulators add additional items, have US-airlines flying into Canada to comply with said rules? If so, this has way more weight than when other regulators demand such additional procedures. If transport Canada can get other American regulators on board, the US almost has to implement such procedures as all international MAX flights would be affected.

MSPNWA wrote:

The truth has a tendency to be a trope, doesn't it?

What truth is there in unproven allegations of conflict of interest and gaining financially from the MAX grounding?

My opinion is the that FAA is doing a better job now because MAX (and Boing for that matter) is now getting the kind of scrutiny it should have had originally. The FAA did a piss-poor job originally and were rightly criticised for it.

TTailedTiger wrote:

The problem is you all know you are spreading false information. As has been posted, that "debris" can mean something as small as dust or material filings. If you ever have a house built you will know that workers are not the most clean people and frequently leave trash around. But they clean it up before they hand you the keys. These aircraft have not been delivered and all will have to go through delivery prep and inspections before the airline takes possession. You all act like there are Cheeto bags floating around in the fuel tanks.

False information?

You're seriously comparing building a house and a plane?

The nature of the FOD found in 70% (35 of 50) planes inspected included: tools, rags and boot covers. This was widely reported last week by Reuters, Seattle Times, Wall St Journal, Seeking Alpha and Simple Flying among others.

https://seekingalpha.com/news/3544645-b ... nspections

Boeing (NYSE:BA) has found debris inside the fuel tanks of about two-thirds of undelivered 737 MAX jets inspected so far, according to federal and aviation officials, resulting in expanded inspections.

Materials left behind include tools, rags and boot coverings, which can pose various operational risks.

These planes were fully ready for delivery, in airline colours with final registrations applied. This is way beyond the point where fuel tanks should have been QCed. Not to mention that all these planes have already been flown multiple times.

Not Cheeto bags, but add some orange dust and they'd be pretty close.


You can pretend this isn't happening, but if you want to know just how bad Boeing's FOD problem is, read the whole of this Seattle Times article.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... inspected/

There's a reason Calhoun described this as "absolutely unacceptable".

MSPNWA wrote:

morrisond wrote:

What issues are you referring too in regards to the A350 or 220? Just curious. Are those issues being talked about in another thread?

A220 - engine failures
A350 - engine shutdowns after liquid spillage in the cockpit

In particular only by lucky chance did we not lose two A350s. If we apply the same theory with the MAX, we have to ask the question - what else have we missed?

I'm not sure why you believe two A350s would have been lost. Engine shutdowns are not a reason for an aircraft to crash. In case of dual engine failure, airplanes are designed to act like a glider.

par13del wrote:

Forgedias wrote:

You may be angry with the way people are attacking Boeing and relentlessly pointing out their faults, but shouldn't Boeing be attacked? When 70% of the fuel tanks in those recently built Maxes have foreign debris in them.
.

I asked another poster who made this same claim, is it 70% of the a/c built or 70% of the a/c inspected?
If they inspected 50 a/c out of 400 stored versus 100% of 400+ stored the 70% takes on a whole new meaning.

Will check the sticky thread to see if the distinction is made there.

As reported last week by multiple sources, FOD found in fuel tanks of 70% of the 50 planes inspected at time of reporting. Even if that ends up being 35/400, it's still totally unacceptable.

TTailedTiger wrote:

The problem is you all know you are spreading false information. As has been posted, that "debris" can mean something as small as dust or material filings. If you ever have a house built you will know that workers are not the most clean people and frequently leave trash around. But they clean it up before they hand you the keys. These aircraft have not been delivered and all will have to go through delivery prep and inspections before the airline takes possession. You all act like there are Cheeto bags floating around in the fuel tanks.

There you go again with your unhinged, deranged claptrap. Enough already, just stop it. Really, please just stop it.

The FOD descriptions were already listed by Boeing. It wasn't dust or material fillings. It was 'tools, rags and boot coverings'. And no, it's not false information because that's what Boeing said themselves.

Forgedias wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

morrisond wrote:

What issues are you referring too in regards to the A350 or 220? Just curious. Are those issues being talked about in another thread?

A220 - engine failures
A350 - engine shutdowns after liquid spillage in the cockpit

In particular only by lucky chance did we not lose two A350s. If we apply the same theory with the MAX, we have to ask the question - what else have we missed?

I think you know why. You are not naive to believe that anyone here actually has faith in Boeing anymore? Boeing NEEDS to prove to everyone that they will change for the future but that board is behind the 43 billion in share buy backs and 2 months after the Indonesian crash, they authorized another 20 billion of share buybacks. That board are still there, those same bean counters who put profit over safety and prioritized pushing the stock price higher hasn't been cleaned out. No one here believes that Boeing is going to change because of that.

Those engine problems that the A220 and A350 has recently been dealing with. You seem to be trying to obfuscate and misguide forum readers since even Boeing is suffering that with their Dreamliners. Your not bringing them up are you?

You may be angry with the way people are attacking Boeing and relentlessly pointing out their faults, but shouldn't Boeing be attacked? When 70% of the fuel tanks in those recently built Maxes have foreign debris in them. That isn't the huge issue I have. I have deep worries about the Maxes that have already been delivered and are with airlines. If 70& of those Maxes at Renton have debris then the Maxes with the airlines that were flying have them as well. Are those planes being inspected? I haven't heard a peep if they are.

Boeing hasn't changed, they still have the same corporate culture that emphasis profit over safety. And you don't think we here shouldn't be a little worried about flying on those planes? Those planes are simply put, unsafe. Its not just the MCAS people are worried about but the entire plane and how it was built. Safety is not Boeing's first priority and you cannot convince anyone here that it is.

And since we live in the age of internet and social media. Unlike the DC10 that everyone likes to point out survived their multiple crash history. You didn't have those 2 back then. If you did, the DC10 would be dead and people would of avoided flying on those planes. A lot of pundits think people are ignorant and will fly on any plane when the Max gets re-certified. After the amount of bad press the Max has suffered, that is a bit arrogant to make that assumption.

The airlines that depend on the Max need the plane to recover. They are committed to the plane regardless of the situation. They can't go to Airbus and order A320's. There isn't any slots for 7 years. United is taking the step of bringing the Maxes in after everyone else does to prove to the public its safe. Airlines like Ryanair want to re-brand and trick passengers that its not a Max they are flying on. But you know what? That is going to backfire big time because there will be groups that will spring up to fight this misinformation and its going to cost those airlines dearly. I really don't think these executives realize how in tune people are when it comes to what is going on. Everyone knows about the Max, even people that don't fly.

Even when the Max gets re-certified and it will. We are going to see how Boeing responds whether they re-brand or how the Airlines respond whether they are going to be like United and inform passengers they are flying on a Max or hide it like Ryanair who are already calling their Maxes 8200. Its actually going to be quite interesting this year and next as the Max returns to service, how many Maxes get delivered and whether the flying public will fly on the Maxes.

For me I have my guesses, mostly from the friends and family members I have talked to. "Have you heard about the Max" "What do you know about it" "Do you look at what plane your flying on when you order online" I have to tell you, if your a flyer, people look at what plane they are flying on. And that is going to be a problem for Boeing. Re-brand or not, they have a big decision to make down the road.

Well said.

After all the lies and Jedi mind tricking, I cannot understand why some people still defend Boeing. And now they try to move attention away from Boeing by hooking in on the A220 and A350.

I don't want to go off topic, but I didn't want to start a new thread either. Is this Fuel Tank FOD issue a Boeing wide concern (787, 777, 767) or just in the Max? If just the Max why? If I'm out of line, and this is common across Boeing in 2020 feel free to delete this post.. I have my theory's , but I don't like speculating.

glideslope wrote:

I don't want to go off topic, but I didn't want to start a new thread either. Is this Fuel Tank FOD issue a Boeing wide concern (787, 777, 767) or just in the Max? If just the Max why? If I'm out of line, and this is common across Boeing in 2020 feel free to delete this post.. I have my theory's , but I don't like speculating.

FOD has also been discovered in the KC-46A tanker, and some 787s that have been built in South Carolina.

PepeTheFrog wrote:

Forgedias wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

A220 - engine failures
A350 - engine shutdowns after liquid spillage in the cockpit

In particular only by lucky chance did we not lose two A350s. If we apply the same theory with the MAX, we have to ask the question - what else have we missed?

I think you know why. You are not naive to believe that anyone here actually has faith in Boeing anymore? Boeing NEEDS to prove to everyone that they will change for the future but that board is behind the 43 billion in share buy backs and 2 months after the Indonesian crash, they authorized another 20 billion of share buybacks. That board are still there, those same bean counters who put profit over safety and prioritized pushing the stock price higher hasn't been cleaned out. No one here believes that Boeing is going to change because of that.

Those engine problems that the A220 and A350 has recently been dealing with. You seem to be trying to obfuscate and misguide forum readers since even Boeing is suffering that with their Dreamliners. Your not bringing them up are you?

You may be angry with the way people are attacking Boeing and relentlessly pointing out their faults, but shouldn't Boeing be attacked? When 70% of the fuel tanks in those recently built Maxes have foreign debris in them. That isn't the huge issue I have. I have deep worries about the Maxes that have already been delivered and are with airlines. If 70& of those Maxes at Renton have debris then the Maxes with the airlines that were flying have them as well. Are those planes being inspected? I haven't heard a peep if they are.

Boeing hasn't changed, they still have the same corporate culture that emphasis profit over safety. And you don't think we here shouldn't be a little worried about flying on those planes? Those planes are simply put, unsafe. Its not just the MCAS people are worried about but the entire plane and how it was built. Safety is not Boeing's first priority and you cannot convince anyone here that it is.

And since we live in the age of internet and social media. Unlike the DC10 that everyone likes to point out survived their multiple crash history. You didn't have those 2 back then. If you did, the DC10 would be dead and people would of avoided flying on those planes. A lot of pundits think people are ignorant and will fly on any plane when the Max gets re-certified. After the amount of bad press the Max has suffered, that is a bit arrogant to make that assumption.

The airlines that depend on the Max need the plane to recover. They are committed to the plane regardless of the situation. They can't go to Airbus and order A320's. There isn't any slots for 7 years. United is taking the step of bringing the Maxes in after everyone else does to prove to the public its safe. Airlines like Ryanair want to re-brand and trick passengers that its not a Max they are flying on. But you know what? That is going to backfire big time because there will be groups that will spring up to fight this misinformation and its going to cost those airlines dearly. I really don't think these executives realize how in tune people are when it comes to what is going on. Everyone knows about the Max, even people that don't fly.

Even when the Max gets re-certified and it will. We are going to see how Boeing responds whether they re-brand or how the Airlines respond whether they are going to be like United and inform passengers they are flying on a Max or hide it like Ryanair who are already calling their Maxes 8200. Its actually going to be quite interesting this year and next as the Max returns to service, how many Maxes get delivered and whether the flying public will fly on the Maxes.

For me I have my guesses, mostly from the friends and family members I have talked to. "Have you heard about the Max" "What do you know about it" "Do you look at what plane your flying on when you order online" I have to tell you, if your a flyer, people look at what plane they are flying on. And that is going to be a problem for Boeing. Re-brand or not, they have a big decision to make down the road.

Well said.

After all the lies and Jedi mind tricking, I cannot understand why some people still defend Boeing. And now they try to move attention away from Boeing by hooking in on the A220 and A350.

But since he is hooking in on A220 let me just put couple of point on the table since majority of these points regarding MCAS are revolving around AoA, and Airspeed and cockpit indications.

A220 has:
6 Airdata sources of AoA (4 smart probes and 2AoA vanes used as backup in failure cases, AF447 scenario like)
4 probes also support Sideslip (Beta) measurement.

AoA and AoS are being taken jointly into consideration (high AoA, high AoS scenario) for active stall protection.

4 probes provide airspeed and are being compared to each other.

Provisions for derivation of the synthetic AoA and Airspeed are there.

Plenty of computing power and each probe and vane has its own computer, all cross-linked, constantly monitored and with 3 different and independent Flight Control Computers with appropriate failure rates qualification.

And Remote Electronic Units supporting another level of flight controls failures.

I am not going to waste any words on blabbing about cockpit layout and indications philosophy as A220 sets standard and homework for others!

Now look at MAX and this whole discussion...

Shame...

glideslope wrote:

I don't want to go off topic, but I didn't want to start a new thread either. Is this Fuel Tank FOD issue a Boeing wide concern (787, 777, 767) or just in the Max? If just the Max why? If I'm out of line, and this is common across Boeing in 2020 feel free to delete this post..

Boeing's FOD issue is not limited to just the MAX.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... inspected/

Boeing has had constant trouble with FOD discoveries in the past couple of years, previously on the 767-based KC-46 military tanker built in Everett and on the 787 Dreamliners built in North Charleston, S.C.