Bad day for Boeing

For all the MAGAt Trumpeteers and Lie-brul socialists to post their wearisome screeds.
The board admins are not responsible for any items posted from Biker's FaceBook feed.
Anyone posting Ben Garrison political cartoons gets a three-day vacation.

In memory of our lost political forum members. :cry:

Moderator: Biker

Post Reply
User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#151

Post by AnalHamster »

Biker wrote: Tue Jun 18, 2019 5:21 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Tue Jun 18, 2019 5:16 pm
Biker wrote: Tue Jun 18, 2019 5:07 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Tue Jun 18, 2019 5:06 pm Are you dropping your welching claim that the sensor being faulty for any particular reason means you don't lose then mr welcher?
I havent welched and never will. The winner will be determined by the final report's release. Whats so hard to understand?
Your claim that if the sensor had been hit by a bird you're in the clear mr welcher. Could you explain it?
That was simply one theory. I personally think that it was due to pilot error or lack of pilot training. There were redundancies that were not purchased by EA that placed more emphasis on pilot training.

Now quickly run along and Google to see what Im talking about
I know far more about this one than you do bicker. You appear to be claiming that the optional warning light was a choice between buying the optional warning light or doing more pilot training instead? Despite the fact that boeing told its customers more pilot training was unnecessary, told the FAA the system required no pilot training at all under any circumstances, that the engineers who designed the thing were actually unaware the warning light wasn't a basic standard feature but had been made an optional extra, and that if anyone had thought to train pilots in how to deal with the kamikaze system, the simulators simply could not simulate the problem? In a simulator, the solution in the manual - not the solution to the specific problem, which was not in the manual, but the solution to the general problem of runaway trim - actually worked, turning the trim wheel. In the real world situation in both crashes, the wheel could not physically be turned because the forces on the stabiliser were too great. There are precisely 2 options to get round that, neither in the procedures. 1 is to reduce thrust, which pushes the nose down - the basic problem MCAS is there for with the faulty 737 airframe new engine configuration, 2 is to 'rollercoaster', which is to briefly deliberately dive in order to reduce the forces so you can spin the wheel. The pilots in both crashes experienced this problem shortly after takeoff, they simply did not have the altitude for either approach because both involve diving in an aircraft that is already trying to put you into a fatal dive.

The pilots followed the procedures given to them, they did not work. They could not turn the wheel to manually trim because the forces on the stabiliser from the airspeed were beyond human muscle capacity. Dropping airspeed would have had the same affect as turning the electrical trim system back on - pushing the nose down further.
User avatar
CaptQuint
Biker's Biatch
Posts: 30361
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:18 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#152

Post by CaptQuint »

Pilots heard on audio pleading with Boeing to give them information about the mcas system 5 months before the second 737 Max 8 crash.

Any damn fool can navigate the world sober. It takes a really good sailor to do it drunk
User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#153

Post by AnalHamster »

Silly pilots getting upset about a secret single point of failure kamikaze system.
User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#154

Post by AnalHamster »

Biker wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2019 3:10 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:55 pm Silly pilots getting upset about a secret single point of failure kamikaze system.
Although AA had purchased both sets of redundancies to ensure it didnt happen.
United hadn't, and neither was told the system existed so had no reason to suspect it could happen.

It wasn't a "redundancy" it was a warning light that didn't work unless an optional extra had been purchased, due to a mistake by boeing. The warning was intended to be standard, they just done goofed. And all it did was warn of a disagree between the 2 sensors, which would not actually have prevented MCAS crashing either plane or alerted the pilots to the fact that MCAS actually existed. The other 'redundancy' displays the output of the two sensors. Neither would have affected MCAS operation. The changes boeing is making include making the warning light work on all the planes, and having it disable MCAS if there is disagreement. The pilots in the first crash had no clue the system existed, and the pilots in the second crash figured out what the problem was but had no options to deal with it. It's possible the malfunctioning warning light or optional display would have clued them in sooner, though their options were still slim to none.

And of course, if the optional extra display or the warning light that should have worked for free were essential safeguards, that would make boeing squarely to blame for failing to make one work and the other standard equipment.
User avatar
VinceBordenIII
Loves swimmin' with bowlegged women!
Posts: 3075
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:03 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#155

Post by VinceBordenIII »

All this over a fire in the cargo hold.
User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#156

Post by AnalHamster »

Image
User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#157

Post by AnalHamster »

I've really mastered this photochop thing
User avatar
PimpDaddy
Flat and Bony Ass Lover
Posts: 1195
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:39 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#158

Post by PimpDaddy »

AnalHamster wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:49 pm Image
And yet, we can't keep a Shop a Hawk thread going for more than a handful of posts :evil:
User avatar
CaptQuint
Biker's Biatch
Posts: 30361
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:18 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#159

Post by CaptQuint »

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
Any damn fool can navigate the world sober. It takes a really good sailor to do it drunk
User avatar
Charliesheen
Snarky Fucker
Posts: 9253
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:49 am

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#160

Post by Charliesheen »

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

Seems like it have been better to address the CG issue with engine placement rather than software.
A cunt is a cunt by any other name.
User avatar
FSchmertz
UJR Chief Meme Factchecker
Posts: 5216
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:37 am

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#161

Post by FSchmertz »

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: 9253
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:49 am

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#162

Post by Charliesheen »

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
A cunt is a cunt by any other name.
User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#163

Post by AnalHamster »

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: 2008
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:05 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#164

Post by DandyDon »

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



https://www.dallasnews.com/business/air ... t-software
spudoc
Most Likely To Have a Neckbeard
Posts: 1363
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:31 am

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#165

Post by spudoc »

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: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#166

Post by AnalHamster »

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
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#167

Post by AnalHamster »

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
UJR Chief Meme Factchecker
Posts: 5216
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:37 am

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#168

Post by FSchmertz »

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
B-Tender
Christ, get a life already!
Posts: 4199
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:48 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#169

Post by B-Tender »

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: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#170

Post by AnalHamster »

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
UJR Chief Meme Factchecker
Posts: 5216
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:37 am

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#171

Post by FSchmertz »

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
FSchmertz
UJR Chief Meme Factchecker
Posts: 5216
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:37 am

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#172

Post by FSchmertz »

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: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#173

Post by AnalHamster »

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
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#174

Post by AnalHamster »

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
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Bad day for Boeing

#175

Post by AnalHamster »

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.
Post Reply