Bad day for Boeing

For all the Trumpeteers and Liberal Commies to post their screeds.
Post Reply
User avatar
CaptQuint
UJR Military Attaché
Posts: 12681
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:18 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#226

Post by CaptQuint » Sun Jun 23, 2019 9:50 am

Boeing sued by more than 400 pilots in class action over 737 MAX's 'unprecedented cover-up'

More than 400 pilots have joined a class action against American plane manufacturer Boeing, seeking damages in the millions over what they allege was the company's "unprecedented cover-up" of the "known design flaws" of the latest edition of its top-selling jet, the 737 MAX.

Key points:
A plaintiff lodged claims against Boeing on behalf of hundreds of colleagues
It alleges that the company knowingly covered up the defective aspects of its 737 MAX jet
The claim hinges on a piece of software pilots say they weren't told about
Boeing's 737 MAX series— first announced in 2011 and put to service in 2017 — is the fourth generation of its 737 aircraft, a widely popular narrow-body aircraft model that has been a mainstay of short-haul aircraft routes across the globe.

By March 2019, the entire global fleet was suspended by a US presidential decree, following the second fatal crash involving a 737 MAX that killed 157 people in Ethiopia.

The first crash involving the 737 MAX jet happened off the coast of Indonesia in October 2018, killing 189 people.

In the time since the two fatal crashes, some of the families of the 346 people killed have sought compensation, while aircraft carriers — such as Norwegian Air — have sought compensation from the American manufacturer for lost revenue as a result of the plane's global ban.

This latest lawsuit filed against Boeing marks the first class action lodged by pilots qualified to fly the 737 MAX series, who have alleged that Boeing's decisions have caused them to suffer from monetary loss and mental distress since the jet's suspension.


Boeing's newest version of its most popular plane, the 737 MAX, is again in the spotlight after another deadly crash minutes after take-off.
The originating plaintiff, known as Pilot X —who has chosen to remain anonymous for "fear of reprisal from Boeing and discrimination from Boeing customers" — lodged the statement of claim on Friday, which seeks damages for them and more than 400 colleagues who work for the same airline.

In court documents seen by the ABC, the claim alleges that Boeing "engaged in an unprecedented cover-up of the known design flaws of the MAX, which predictably resulted in the crashes of two MAX aircraft and subsequent grounding of all MAX aircraft worldwide."

They argue that they "suffer and continue to suffer significant lost wages, among other economic and non-economic damages" since the fleet's global grounding.

The class action will be heard in a Chicago court, with a hearing date set for October 21, 2019.

Automated software at the centre of the MAX's woes

The claim brought against Boeing hinges on the controversial addition of an automated piece of software known as the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS).


American aircraft manufacturer Boeing is shedding billions monthly as a result of a global ban on its top-selling jet, the 737 MAX — but how much more blowback can the company take?
Pilot X claimed that this gave the aircraft "inherently dangerous aerodynamic handling defects".

The reason for this handling quirk was by design, as Boeing made the decision to retrofit newer, large fuel-efficient engines onto an existing 737 model's fuselage, in order to create the MAX.

The larger engines caused a change in aerodynamics which made the plane prone to pitching up during flight, so much so, that it risked a crash as a result of an aerodynamic stall.

To stop this from happening, Boeing introduced MCAS software to the MAX, which automatically tilted the plane down if the software detected that the plane's nose was pointing at too steep of an angle, known as a high Angle of Attack (AOA).


But in light of the MAX's two fatal crashes, questions were raised about the software's capacity to determine the AOA correctly, as the MCAS system only relies on two AOA sensors.

Critics of this design choice said this made the plane vulnerable to faulty or mismatched readings, and Boeing made a cockpit display alerting mismatched AOA readings to MAX pilots an optional extra.

The MAX's competitor, the Airbus A320neo, relies on three sensors as a fail-safe.

These concerns were also noted in Pilot X's claim:

"Boeing's defective design causes the MCAS to activate based on the single input of a failed AOA sensor without cross-checking its data with another properly functioning AOA sensor."

Pilots allege that Boeing kept them in the dark about MCAS
Space to play or pause, M to mute, left and right arrows to seek, up and down arrows for volume.

The MCAS function was not made explicit to pilots.

In a rush to bring the plane to customers, Boeing did not alert pilots to the software in a bid to prevent "any new training that required a simulator" — a decision that was also designed to save MAX customers money.


New audio reveals pilots confronted Boeing about its automated flight-control system just months before a second deadly plane crash.
Pilot X, alleges that Boeing "decided not to tell MAX pilots about the MCAS or to require MAX pilots to undergo any MCAS training" so that its customers could deploy pilots on "revenue-generating routes as quickly as possible".

In March, a report from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) found that the system was only mentioned once in the aircraft manual, which was in the glossary, explaining the MCAS acronym — an omission Boeing did not deny in response to the CBC.

When contacted by the ABC in April, a Boeing spokesperson said that MCAS's function was referenced in the MAX's flight crew operations manual, where it outlined what the plane would do "in the rare event that the airplane reaches a high angle of attack".

But this is disputed by Pilot X:

"Boeing decided not to provide MAX pilots with information or knowledge that the MCAS was incorporated into the airplane."

Pilot X hopes profits won't trump safety ever again

By seeking damages for monetary and mental distress, the pilots lodging the class action said they hoped to "deter Boeing and other airplane manufacturers from placing corporate profits ahead of the lives of the pilots, crews, and general public they service".

Spokespeople for the pilots' legal team — Queensland's International Aerospace Law and Policy Group (IALPG) and Chicago's PMJ PLLC — told the ABC that they would never like to see a case like theirs come before a court again.


The 737 MAX has been banned from flying in most countries after the Ethiopian Airlines crash. What will the company do when airplanes start cluttering up its Seattle factory?
"Success would have meant that no similar action is required in the future, as Boeing would never have permitted profits to displace proper safe design," a spokesperson said.

They also told the ABC that Pilot X would serve an administrative claim — an out-of-court claim seeking compensatory damages — against the FAA.

Presently, the Boeing 737 MAX fleet remains grounded around the world as the company proceeds with a software update.

The last Boeing press statement on certification progress in May said that the MAX has flown "with updated MCAS software for more than 360 hours on 207 flights".

So far the FAA has not committed to a timetable for the jet's return.
Boeing declined to comment on the class action.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-23/ ... x/11238282
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."

User avatar
Charliesheen
Snarky Fucker
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:49 am
Location: Almost as Nice as Bermuda

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#227

Post by Charliesheen » Sun Jun 23, 2019 6:02 pm

https://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.co ... -software/

Seems like it have been better to address the CG issue with engine placement rather than software.

User avatar
FSchmertz
Cant Stop Watching His Avatar
Posts: 1686
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:37 am

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#228

Post by FSchmertz » Sun Jun 23, 2019 6:06 pm

Charliesheen wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 6:02 pm
https://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.co ... -software/

Seems like it have been better to address the CG issue with engine placement rather than software.
They were concerned that plane modifications would require that it be classified as a new plane, with all the stuff (time, cost and training) that would result.

I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say "time" was the key issue, as Airbus was beating them with a recently developed new competitor. They may have felt they didn't have the time to create a brand new plane.

User avatar
Charliesheen
Snarky Fucker
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:49 am
Location: Almost as Nice as Bermuda

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#229

Post by Charliesheen » Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:34 pm

Breathtaking amount of arrogance, apparently. I wonder if Boeing were Japanese how management would deal with the crisis.

http://cf.collectorsweekly.com/stories/ ... 1.S.4Q.jpg

User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 4175
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#230

Post by AnalHamster » Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:17 am

Failed in testing again, they've found a new error. Could be related to the fix but sounds like another single point of failure that was missed in the initial certification-
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/26/poli ... index.html

User avatar
DandyDon
Redneck Commie
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:05 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#231

Post by DandyDon » Sun Jun 30, 2019 9:49 pm

Boeing increasingly relied on outsourced $9-an-hour engineers to test software



https://www.dallasnews.com/business/air ... t-software

spudoc
Forum God
Posts: 459
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:31 am

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#232

Post by spudoc » Sun Jun 30, 2019 10:30 pm

DandyDon wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 9:49 pm
Boeing increasingly relied on outsourced $9-an-hour engineers to test software



https://www.dallasnews.com/business/air ... t-software
This strikes right at the bullshit narrative that there aren't enough STEM graduates from the US to fill all the demand from US companies.
What they mean to say is there aren't enough STEM graduates from the US willing to work for $9/hour.

User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 4175
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#233

Post by AnalHamster » Fri Oct 18, 2019 6:39 pm

chief technical pilot who lied to the FAA wrote:It’s running rampant in the sim.. I basically lied to the regulators (unknowingly)
Referring to MCAS, the system behind the crashes, 2 years before they happened.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/18/busi ... e=Homepage

This is the guy who asked the FAA if he could remove all reference to MCAS from the flight manual 8 months earlier, which is presumably what he's referring to with the unknowingly. When he did that, he hadn't experience how fucked it really was in the sim, and having experienced that, he covered it up without troubling to fix it. This is coming out due to the congressional witchhunt into the crashes which never even happened because they were fake news and even if they did happen were really caused by the Kurds and hillary clinton's emails overloading the onbaord computers.

User avatar
Biker
Not really a democrat
Posts: 6566
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:22 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#234

Post by Biker » Fri Oct 18, 2019 6:56 pm

Did the report come out?

User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 4175
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#235

Post by AnalHamster » Fri Oct 18, 2019 6:59 pm

Biker wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 6:56 pm
Did the report come out?
The preliminary report did and you welched, you welcher. Still waiting on the final reports, but since the CEO got demoted, the hearings are finding they knew in advance and kept it quiet, hundreds of people are dead and the planes are still grounded, I'm quietly confident.

Don't worry though, I'm like totally gracious in victory. Not going to rub it in at all.

User avatar
FSchmertz
Cant Stop Watching His Avatar
Posts: 1686
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:37 am

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#236

Post by FSchmertz » Fri Oct 18, 2019 7:53 pm

AnalHamster wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 6:59 pm
Biker wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 6:56 pm
Did the report come out?
The preliminary report did and you welched, you welcher. Still waiting on the final reports, but since the CEO got demoted, the hearings are finding they knew in advance and kept it quiet, hundreds of people are dead and the planes are still grounded, I'm quietly confident.

Don't worry though, I'm like totally gracious in victory. Not going to rub it in at all.
I think he's still the CEO and President, just not Chairman of the Board anymore?

P.S. To have that many positions in the hierarchy doesn't seem wise to me anyhow.

User avatar
Biker
Not really a democrat
Posts: 6566
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:22 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#237

Post by Biker » Fri Oct 18, 2019 8:03 pm

AnalHamster wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 6:59 pm
Biker wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 6:56 pm
Did the report come out?
The preliminary report did and you welched, you welcher. Still waiting on the final reports, but since the CEO got demoted, the hearings are finding they knew in advance and kept it quiet, hundreds of people are dead and the planes are still grounded, I'm quietly confident.

Don't worry though, I'm like totally gracious in victory. Not going to rub it in at all.
I didnt welch, as the prelim report is not the official report

Planes will be back by February

User avatar
B-Tender
Needs to step away from the keyboard.
Posts: 1498
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:48 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#238

Post by B-Tender » Fri Oct 18, 2019 8:39 pm

Biker wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 8:03 pm
AnalHamster wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 6:59 pm
Biker wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 6:56 pm
Did the report come out?
The preliminary report did and you welched, you welcher. Still waiting on the final reports, but since the CEO got demoted, the hearings are finding they knew in advance and kept it quiet, hundreds of people are dead and the planes are still grounded, I'm quietly confident.

Don't worry though, I'm like totally gracious in victory. Not going to rub it in at all.
I didnt welch, as the prelim report is not the official report

Planes will be back by February
Good Friday?

User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 4175
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#239

Post by AnalHamster » Fri Oct 25, 2019 10:47 am

Final report on the first one is out, MCAS being a primary factor of course. Boeing issued a statement already admitting it.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... ot-errors/
https://www.boeing.com/737-max-updates/

User avatar
FSchmertz
Cant Stop Watching His Avatar
Posts: 1686
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:37 am

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#240

Post by FSchmertz » Fri Oct 25, 2019 12:17 pm

Short analysis:

Both Boeing and it's pet FAA were far more concerned with competing with Airbus and the $$$ than with the safety of passengers.

P.S. I've noted many times where the FAA has ignored NTSB's safety findings post-crash. I think they're too concerned with the airline's and manufacturer's health, at the expense of customers/passengers.

User avatar
Biker
Not really a democrat
Posts: 6566
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:22 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#241

Post by Biker » Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:05 pm

AnalHamster wrote:
Fri Oct 25, 2019 10:47 am
Final report on the first one is out, MCAS being a primary factor of course. Boeing issued a statement already admitting it.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... ot-errors/
https://www.boeing.com/737-max-updates/
“The design and certification of the MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) did not adequately consider the likelihood of loss of control of the aircraft,” the report states. “A fail-safe design concept and redundant system should have been necessary for the MCAS.”
So pilot error and the airlines refusal to purchase the additional redundancies. Hmmm, where have I heard that argument before?

User avatar
FSchmertz
Cant Stop Watching His Avatar
Posts: 1686
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:37 am

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#242

Post by FSchmertz » Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:14 pm

Biker wrote:
Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:05 pm
AnalHamster wrote:
Fri Oct 25, 2019 10:47 am
Final report on the first one is out, MCAS being a primary factor of course. Boeing issued a statement already admitting it.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... ot-errors/
https://www.boeing.com/737-max-updates/
“The design and certification of the MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) did not adequately consider the likelihood of loss of control of the aircraft,” the report states. “A fail-safe design concept and redundant system should have been necessary for the MCAS.”
So pilot error and the airlines refusal to purchase the additional redundancies. Hmmm, where have I heard that argument before?
They actually removed this from the military version when they designed the 737 Max. Our military required the redundancy and wanted MCAS to be more limited. Someone decided they didn't need that in the 737 Max? :doh:

User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 4175
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#243

Post by AnalHamster » Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:53 pm

Biker wrote:
Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:05 pm
AnalHamster wrote:
Fri Oct 25, 2019 10:47 am
Final report on the first one is out, MCAS being a primary factor of course. Boeing issued a statement already admitting it.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... ot-errors/
https://www.boeing.com/737-max-updates/
“The design and certification of the MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) did not adequately consider the likelihood of loss of control of the aircraft,” the report states. “A fail-safe design concept and redundant system should have been necessary for the MCAS.”
So pilot error and the airlines refusal to purchase the additional redundancies. Hmmm, where have I heard that argument before?
Multiple factors certainly, the bet if you recall was that mcas was a significant factor, the final report confirms it was. You can't cherry pick your way to welching here.

There was no redundancy option to purchase, just a warning light option and a warning light boeing mistakenly didn't hook up correctly.

User avatar
Biker
Not really a democrat
Posts: 6566
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:22 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#244

Post by Biker » Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:59 pm

AnalHamster wrote:
Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:53 pm

There was no redundancy option to purchase, just a warning light option and a warning light boeing mistakenly didn't hook up correctly.
There are two redundancies available for purchase

User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 4175
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#245

Post by AnalHamster » Fri Oct 25, 2019 3:02 pm

Biker wrote:
Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:59 pm
AnalHamster wrote:
Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:53 pm

There was no redundancy option to purchase, just a warning light option and a warning light boeing mistakenly didn't hook up correctly.
There are two redundancies available for purchase
Nope.

User avatar
Biker
Not really a democrat
Posts: 6566
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:22 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#246

Post by Biker » Fri Oct 25, 2019 3:02 pm

AnalHamster wrote:
Fri Oct 25, 2019 3:02 pm
Biker wrote:
Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:59 pm
AnalHamster wrote:
Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:53 pm

There was no redundancy option to purchase, just a warning light option and a warning light boeing mistakenly didn't hook up correctly.
There are two redundancies available for purchase
Nope.
Yep, and all the major American carriers purchased them. Better check up on it, GoogleFurhrer

User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 4175
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#247

Post by AnalHamster » Fri Oct 25, 2019 3:16 pm

Biker wrote:
Fri Oct 25, 2019 3:02 pm
AnalHamster wrote:
Fri Oct 25, 2019 3:02 pm
Biker wrote:
Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:59 pm
AnalHamster wrote:
Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:53 pm

There was no redundancy option to purchase, just a warning light option and a warning light boeing mistakenly didn't hook up correctly.
There are two redundancies available for purchase
Nope.
Yep, and all the major American carriers purchased them. Better check up on it, GoogleFurhrer
A warning light is not a redundancy. It's a warning that might give you a clue that the critical system you didn't know existed that relies on a single sensor has failed. There was no redundancy in the mcas system, one sensor failed and it was kaput. Do you know what redundancy means?

Also, just an FYI since the CEO apparently didn't cover this in his secret emails to you, but if your mythical redundant system had existed making it optional would still have been a major failure by boeing and a significant factor in both crashes.

User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 4175
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#248

Post by AnalHamster » Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:19 pm

Biker wrote:
Fri Oct 25, 2019 3:02 pm
AnalHamster wrote:
Fri Oct 25, 2019 3:02 pm
Biker wrote:
Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:59 pm
AnalHamster wrote:
Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:53 pm

There was no redundancy option to purchase, just a warning light option and a warning light boeing mistakenly didn't hook up correctly.
There are two redundancies available for purchase
Nope.
Yep, and all the major American carriers purchased them. Better check up on it, GoogleFurhrer
I take it from the silence you now grasp what a redundant system actually is. Maybe you should work on your googlage.

User avatar
Biker
Not really a democrat
Posts: 6566
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:22 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#249

Post by Biker » Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:21 pm

AnalHamster wrote:
Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:19 pm
Biker wrote:
Fri Oct 25, 2019 3:02 pm
AnalHamster wrote:
Fri Oct 25, 2019 3:02 pm
Biker wrote:
Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:59 pm
AnalHamster wrote:
Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:53 pm

There was no redundancy option to purchase, just a warning light option and a warning light boeing mistakenly didn't hook up correctly.
There are two redundancies available for purchase
Nope.
Yep, and all the major American carriers purchased them. Better check up on it, GoogleFurhrer
I take it from the silence you now grasp what a redundant system actually is. Maybe you should work on your googlage.
Nah, just not going to debate with someone who doesn’t know jack shit.

User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 4175
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#250

Post by AnalHamster » Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:31 pm

Biker wrote:
Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:21 pm
AnalHamster wrote:
Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:19 pm
Biker wrote:
Fri Oct 25, 2019 3:02 pm
AnalHamster wrote:
Fri Oct 25, 2019 3:02 pm
Biker wrote:
Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:59 pm
AnalHamster wrote:
Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:53 pm

There was no redundancy option to purchase, just a warning light option and a warning light boeing mistakenly didn't hook up correctly.
There are two redundancies available for purchase
Nope.
Yep, and all the major American carriers purchased them. Better check up on it, GoogleFurhrer
I take it from the silence you now grasp what a redundant system actually is. Maybe you should work on your googlage.
Nah, just not going to debate with someone who doesn’t know jack shit.
Well you're wrong and you know you are, so now you have to necro. What do you think redundancy means? Name the redundant systems for MCAS that you claim US airlines bought.

You cannot answer those simple questions because you understand you are wrong. It was a critical system with a single point of failure and zero redundancies. I doubt you'll have the balls to clarify, but I assume what you mistakenly thought were redundancies were actually an optional warning light showing an AOA disagree, and an optional display showing the output of both AOA sensors. The first warning light wasn't even intended to be an optional extra, it simply didn't work unless the optional display had been purchased due to another fuckup by boeing. They caught it before either crash had occurred and decided it wasn't important enough to tell anyone. Neither feature would have affected the operation of MCAS in any way, since there were no redundancies built in to that. If pilots had been made aware MCAS existed, and also had the warning lights, it may have clued them in to which critical system had failed, but that is not a redundancy, it is a warning. Dodge away.

Post Reply