4 ms·

Boeing's 737 NG was manufactured using unsafe structural components (2010)

24 points by the_fonz 7y ago

mjevans 7y ago
I think there are two things that would actually satisfy me at this point. Audited by an independent (E.G. EU's) agency, with open records... EITHER: A review of the actual paper trails and sources of the news story and build logs. OR: A randomized sample of like 5-10% of the planes from the suspect time range looking at the suspect parts in question.
- spectramax 7y ago
  Are you suggesting that you’d rather trust EU agency than FAA? I think FAA had a fantastic record until this whole MAX PR nightmare - they’ve certainly damaged their reputation. But I feel like domain experts at Boeing or Airbus definitely are going to have an edge vs a lowly paid government auditor. EU’s agency or whatever are still going to have to rely on Boeing engineers input. Having worked in the aviation industry (I was designing C-130 fuselage section) as a Mechanical Engineer, I can tell you that the whole enterprise sometimes feels like it’s supported on stilts, it’s a house of cards.
  - mjevans 7y ago
    I'm saying that, BECAUSE of the loss of trust, yes. I currently would prefer the EU to review US made air-frames, and the US to review EU made air-frames, with the results open and reviewed by the other global agencies.
    - spectramax 7y ago
      That makes sense, it is sort of unfortunate that we feel that way. It shouldn't be about which geopolitical tribal wars and more about objective data and analysis.
    - fmajid 7y ago
      As do the Ethiopians. They sent the black boxes to the French NTSB, clearly they don’t trust US investigators not to be leaned on by Boeing. In any case the root cause of the problem is Boeing cheaper out on the Angle of Attack detector, by default only one is installed, a second one as an added-cost option. To be fault-tolerant, you need a quorum and thus a minimum of 3, as Airbus does. I would also add the 3 need to be made by different manufacturers to avoid systemic issues, if disk array manufacturers can do it, so can Boeing for safety-critical equipment.
      - salawat 7y ago
        >Boeing cheaper out on the Angle of Attack detector, by default only one is installed, a second one as an added-cost option. This is incorrect. The 737 MAX 8 comes with two AoA vanes. The paid upgrade package is to wire them both into the flight computer, and to add an AoA disagree notification light. >To be fault-tolerant, you need a quorum and thus a minimum of 3, as Airbus does. I would also add the 3 need to be made by different manufacturers to avoid systemic issues, if disk array manufacturers can do it, so can Boeing for safety-critical equipment. This is correct, but not infallible. It's really complicated as the last batches of discussion here have gone into great length on. Boeing fubar'd by not accurately categorizing MCAS as a safety-critical system, as their original classification was "Hazardous" instead of "Catastrophic". The original implementation had only +/- .6 degrees authority. After the paperwork was filed, they upped the gain to 2.5 degrees up to maximum trim down over time, without reclassifying the subsystem as safety critical. Therefore no-one ever made sure that subsystem chain was bulletproof.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    What makes you think EU government employees are underpaid, uninterested or unqualified? The "low pay" thing is largely a US phenomenon in the first world. Here's a write-up from Brussels claiming quite the opposite [1]. In many places working for the government is something to be proud of. 38% of Norway's entire labor force works for the government. Further you know the FAA and NTSB are both ... "lowly paid government auditors" right? [1] http://www.brusselstimes.com/magazine2/5828/myths-and-truths-about-the-salaries-and-taxes-of-eu-officials http://www.brusselstimes.com/magazine2/5828/myths-and-truths...
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - spectramax 7y ago
      https://www.europeandatajournalism.eu/eng/News/Data-news/Public-employees-Comparisons-between-European-countries-are-deceptive https://www.europeandatajournalism.eu/eng/News/Data-news/Pub... Here is some data that contradicts your arguments, but I would like to analyze it further and I do not know the reputation of the source. Quoting the article: > Comparison between countries is also possible when it comes to salaries. American and Belgian public employees come out better than their Swedish and British counterparts in this regard. By the way, please refrain from using rhetorical questions when making arguments, it comes across as impolite and brash.
      - addicted 7y ago
        The quoted statement in no ways tells you anything about the relative salaries of Swedish vs “American” employees, because it’s comparing public salaries vs GDP/Capita. The “American” numbers could be twice as good, but if the “American” GDP per capita is 1/4th that would mean the Swedish public employees are still paid twice as much in absolute terms. Anyways, my usage of the word “American” is in quotes for a good reason. American is almost certainly a typo there and was likely supposed to be Austrian, Austria being the country right below Belgium on that chart. None of the charts reference the US, and nowhere else is the US mentioned. This is data about European countries.
  - ulfw 7y ago
    What fantastic record? Huh? The 787 was already "self certified". What kind of agency outsources certification to the manufacturer?! What's the point of an agency then? So that some 'Head' can earn millions? I do not trust the FAA and it's "fantastic" record for a second. Now the NTSB on the other hand does a tremendous job. Sadly they only come in after disaster has struck.
  - dis-sys 7y ago
    > EU’s agency or whatever are still going to have to rely on Boeing engineers input. That is still vastly better than letting FAA + Boeing to keep misleading the public. What FAA did are way worse than just PR nightmare, FAA didn't find out the design problem when 737 Max was given the green light to go kill people, after two crashes and 346 dead bodies, FAA still defended Boeing to the very last minute. It was the US president that ordered the 737 Max to be grounded in the US, not by the FAA, let's don't forget that. FAA has no reputation left after the 737 Max incidents. The level of corruption is just shockingly unbelievable.
rurban 7y ago
Reiteration of the whistle blowers lawsuit from 2005. https://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-195565.html https://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-195565.html

24 points by the_fonz 7y ago

I think there are two things that would actually satisfy me at this point. Audited by an independent (E.G. EU's) agency, with open records... EITHER: A review of the actual paper trails and sources of the news story and build logs. OR: A randomized sample of like 5-10% of the planes from the suspect time range looking at the suspect parts in question.

spectramax 7y ago
Are you suggesting that you’d rather trust EU agency than FAA? I think FAA had a fantastic record until this whole MAX PR nightmare - they’ve certainly damaged their reputation. But I feel like domain experts at Boeing or Airbus definitely are going to have an edge vs a lowly paid government auditor. EU’s agency or whatever are still going to have to rely on Boeing engineers input. Having worked in the aviation industry (I was designing C-130 fuselage section) as a Mechanical Engineer, I can tell you that the whole enterprise sometimes feels like it’s supported on stilts, it’s a house of cards.
- mjevans 7y ago
  I'm saying that, BECAUSE of the loss of trust, yes. I currently would prefer the EU to review US made air-frames, and the US to review EU made air-frames, with the results open and reviewed by the other global agencies.
  - spectramax 7y ago
    That makes sense, it is sort of unfortunate that we feel that way. It shouldn't be about which geopolitical tribal wars and more about objective data and analysis.
  - fmajid 7y ago
    As do the Ethiopians. They sent the black boxes to the French NTSB, clearly they don’t trust US investigators not to be leaned on by Boeing. In any case the root cause of the problem is Boeing cheaper out on the Angle of Attack detector, by default only one is installed, a second one as an added-cost option. To be fault-tolerant, you need a quorum and thus a minimum of 3, as Airbus does. I would also add the 3 need to be made by different manufacturers to avoid systemic issues, if disk array manufacturers can do it, so can Boeing for safety-critical equipment.
    - salawat 7y ago
      >Boeing cheaper out on the Angle of Attack detector, by default only one is installed, a second one as an added-cost option. This is incorrect. The 737 MAX 8 comes with two AoA vanes. The paid upgrade package is to wire them both into the flight computer, and to add an AoA disagree notification light. >To be fault-tolerant, you need a quorum and thus a minimum of 3, as Airbus does. I would also add the 3 need to be made by different manufacturers to avoid systemic issues, if disk array manufacturers can do it, so can Boeing for safety-critical equipment. This is correct, but not infallible. It's really complicated as the last batches of discussion here have gone into great length on. Boeing fubar'd by not accurately categorizing MCAS as a safety-critical system, as their original classification was "Hazardous" instead of "Catastrophic". The original implementation had only +/- .6 degrees authority. After the paperwork was filed, they upped the gain to 2.5 degrees up to maximum trim down over time, without reclassifying the subsystem as safety critical. Therefore no-one ever made sure that subsystem chain was bulletproof.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  What makes you think EU government employees are underpaid, uninterested or unqualified? The "low pay" thing is largely a US phenomenon in the first world. Here's a write-up from Brussels claiming quite the opposite [1]. In many places working for the government is something to be proud of. 38% of Norway's entire labor force works for the government. Further you know the FAA and NTSB are both ... "lowly paid government auditors" right? [1] http://www.brusselstimes.com/magazine2/5828/myths-and-truths-about-the-salaries-and-taxes-of-eu-officials http://www.brusselstimes.com/magazine2/5828/myths-and-truths...
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - spectramax 7y ago
    https://www.europeandatajournalism.eu/eng/News/Data-news/Public-employees-Comparisons-between-European-countries-are-deceptive https://www.europeandatajournalism.eu/eng/News/Data-news/Pub... Here is some data that contradicts your arguments, but I would like to analyze it further and I do not know the reputation of the source. Quoting the article: > Comparison between countries is also possible when it comes to salaries. American and Belgian public employees come out better than their Swedish and British counterparts in this regard. By the way, please refrain from using rhetorical questions when making arguments, it comes across as impolite and brash.
    - addicted 7y ago
      The quoted statement in no ways tells you anything about the relative salaries of Swedish vs “American” employees, because it’s comparing public salaries vs GDP/Capita. The “American” numbers could be twice as good, but if the “American” GDP per capita is 1/4th that would mean the Swedish public employees are still paid twice as much in absolute terms. Anyways, my usage of the word “American” is in quotes for a good reason. American is almost certainly a typo there and was likely supposed to be Austrian, Austria being the country right below Belgium on that chart. None of the charts reference the US, and nowhere else is the US mentioned. This is data about European countries.
- ulfw 7y ago
  What fantastic record? Huh? The 787 was already "self certified". What kind of agency outsources certification to the manufacturer?! What's the point of an agency then? So that some 'Head' can earn millions? I do not trust the FAA and it's "fantastic" record for a second. Now the NTSB on the other hand does a tremendous job. Sadly they only come in after disaster has struck.
- dis-sys 7y ago
  > EU’s agency or whatever are still going to have to rely on Boeing engineers input. That is still vastly better than letting FAA + Boeing to keep misleading the public. What FAA did are way worse than just PR nightmare, FAA didn't find out the design problem when 737 Max was given the green light to go kill people, after two crashes and 346 dead bodies, FAA still defended Boeing to the very last minute. It was the US president that ordered the 737 Max to be grounded in the US, not by the FAA, let's don't forget that. FAA has no reputation left after the 737 Max incidents. The level of corruption is just shockingly unbelievable.

rurban 7y ago

Reiteration of the whistle blowers lawsuit from 2005. https://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-195565.html https://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-195565.html