16 ms·
Updates on Grounding of Boeing 737 MAX 9 Aircraft
- ddlsmurf 3y agoOk. So who is inspecting the FAA ? That definitely needs done too.
- Xunjin 3y agoI'm sorry but what is your point? I'm not USA citizen and IANAL, but any federal investigation department has the power to do it, also a federal legislative, so the congress could do it too.
- ddlsmurf 3y agoMy point is that it was their job to catch this before the plane was commercially used. While I expect no one to be perfect, I do expect some introspection as to why this went through the cracks. Why is this unreasonable ?
- eganist 3y agoThis is one of those questions that reads as being in bad faith on its face, but it has a good answer to it. https://www.oig.dot.gov/agency/federal-aviation-administration https://www.oig.dot.gov/agency/federal-aviation-administrati... In the US, the major executive departments have Inspectors General who serve as a check on the department itself.* The Department of Transportation's OIG would be responsible for such an investigation of the FAA. It wouldn't surprise me if the FAA's handling around granting Boeing's self certification license to them is investigated. *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspector_General_Act_of_1978 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspector_General_Act_of_1978
- ddlsmurf 3y agoWhy does it read as bad faith ? All the problems were signed off, not further than November were they considering more exemptions...
- eganist 3y agoWere they? I thought boeing was self certifying elements of the MAX like the door plugs, do you have something showing the FAA inspected the door plugs? Everything I'm reading says the FAA is moving to divorce the certification process from Boeing to a third party as a consequence of this event where Boeing demonstrated they couldn't even certify the little things. https://www.npr.org/2024/01/12/1224444590/boeing-faa-737-max-9-alaska-airlines-door-plug https://www.npr.org/2024/01/12/1224444590/boeing-faa-737-max... And that's my point about your comment coming across like it's in bad faith. Usually people throw out questions with implied inflammatory answers as a lazy way to incite argument, and then those questions either continue or are seasoned with false information ("the problems were signed off") when someone takes the bait. Then the OP tends to write off the bad faith perception claiming they're trying to engage sincerely. There's a name for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning --- Given how the FAA responded so far, honestly it could go either way whether they're investigated for it by the DOT OIG. If there is an investigation, it'd likely just be around this self certification process, not necessarily the whole org. And it looks like the FAA is moving quickly to demonstrate that they're not asleep at the wheel.
- ddlsmurf 3y agoYou're making a distinction I'm not, whether they signed off on it directly or indirectly, thanks for pointing that out. I don't really see the difference as that important though, in the end it's their procedures that are meant to safeguard against this, and they failed. Believe it or not, I have no motivation to incite an argument or anything of the such, why not simply assume I'm mis-informed but in good faith, and correct me ? Anyway thank you for the details about the DOT etc, that's what I was asking for.
- eganist 3y ago> why not simply assume I'm mis-informed but in good faith, and correct me ? In the absence of information I would've done just that, but I had a look at your comment history first before I replied. lol Happy to have been helpful. Cheers mate
- ibejoeb 3y agoTotally legitimate question. Boeing got let off the hook last time for egregious shit. They paid a fine and their fleet went back up.
- paulsutter 3y agoDo all 737-9 Max have plug doors? If not title should be updated > Every Boeing 737-9 Max with a plug door will remain grounded until the FAA finds each can safely return to operation.
- HappyJoy 3y agoDepends on the seat configuration. Some times instead of a plug you have a door.
- hipadev23 3y agoAre some of those times where the plug converts to a door mid-flight?
- loloquwowndueo 3y agoNo - doors have hinges and you can close them afterwards without having to look for the blown door in someone’s backyard.
- gregoriol 3y agoBut doors need bolts too, right?
- simion314 3y agoYes, but FAA is not willing to pro-actively inspect the entire plane, at least 3-5 random ones should be inspected, maye also offer something so Boeing employees have the guts to speak up
- beej71 3y agoI'm curious about this, too. Seems like the door would have the exact same mount as the plug if they're to be exchanged...?
- foobarbecue 3y agoYeah, I think the title is wrong, but it's confusing because there's a lot of conflicting info online about this. https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/boeings-737-max-9-aircraft-heres-what-to-know https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/boeings-737-max-9-airc... says: "Southwest told FOX Business that the Max 8 and Max 7 models in their existing fleet do not have the exit-door plug like the one involved in the Alaska Airlines incident on Jan. 5. Overall, its fleet and operation are unaffected."
- thatjoeoverthr 3y agoIf the doors are manufactured wrong, what else could be wrong? Is it even possible to check everything, if they were wholly manufactured sloppily?
- jl6 3y agoDepends how deep they go on the root cause analysis. If the manufacturing flaw was in turn caused by management flaws, then yes, that’s an underlying issue that has the potential to taint everything above it.
- thrawa8387336 3y ago[flagged]
- rst 3y agoWell, looking at another part of the organization distant enough that top management (the C-suite) is pretty much all they have in common: They had massive quality problems on their space capsule (Starliner). (They launched the first test flight without having ever done an intgrated test of the software in expected mission time -- which led to the computers being so confused immediately after launch that it blew most of the thruster propellant. That led to an urgent hunt for software bugs elsewhere, with the capsule already in orbit -- which found another nasty bug which was even worse.) This is in addition to numerous other quality control issues on airliners -- several other well-publicized issues on the 737-MAX itself, bric-a-brac left in tanks on 767 tankers, quality control issues at the plant producing 787s. It really does look systemic.
- zmgsabst 3y agoThe KC-46A is also garbage, from their military division. I agree the problem is systemic. https://www.thedefensepost.com/2023/08/08/usaf-tanker-aircraft-problems/ https://www.thedefensepost.com/2023/08/08/usaf-tanker-aircra...
- 3y ago
- ReptileMan 3y agoBoeing - ready to change and fix everything, except their corporate culture.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- throwaway0x6 3y ago[dead]
- jakozaur 3y agoAirbus A320neo is just a better plane. A case study where better engineering provided a competitive advantage.
- squirrel6 3y agoTrue, I’ve heard and read that many pilots prefer the cockpit config over the 737. Boeing needs to just start over.
- ahoka 3y agoYes, because redoing something from scratch usually reduces the amount of problems. Do you really think that?
- sgt101 3y agoeerrr... I can only speak from experience with software, but several times I've been in projects trapped with implementations that take months to incrementally update and then seen clean sheet implementations blow them out of the water in a matter of weeks. In one case I saw an implementation of a radio system that met 100% of the technical requirement that a staff engineer wrote as a side project in six weeks. The corporate implementation couldn't meet the spec, had taken 2 years and was being developed by scores of engineers. Interestingly the corporate implementation was supplied to the customer, caused a huge reputational dent and was ulitimately scrapped... while the staff engineer was dismissed!
- Dalewyn 3y ago>I've been in projects trapped with implementations that take months to incrementally update and then seen clean sheet implementations blow them out of the water in a matter of weeks. Firefox vs. Chrome in a nutshell.
- ahartmetz 3y agoNot the example you are looking for. KHTML -> WebKit (for a while, that was the engine of Chrome!) -> Blink.
- gravity2060 3y agoBoeing… when one door closes another one opens.
- kaapipo 3y agoHaha, a good one
- somewhereoutth 3y agoor as I heard somewhere: Boeing... the sound made by bits of airplane hitting the ground.
- okdood64 3y agoNice to see the memes I come across on IG repeated on HN.
- londons_explore 3y agoThe tone of this statement is interesting to me. Normally official statements are far less direct, more vague, and more technical.
- passwordoops 3y agoProbably because they know Boeing is a problem and they want the public and politicians to clearly know they are a problem to get momentum on legislation to force them to behave. At this point I'm starting to agree we should severely limit or outright ban stock-based or near-term performance based compensation. "Sorry kids, this is why we can't have nice things!"
- dheera 3y ago> At this point I'm starting to agree we should severely limit or outright ban stock-based or near-term performance based compensation. If Boeing employee compensation takes a hit, they will lose good engineers to Meta, Google, and TikTok which already probably pay 3X. You want safer planes? Help bid their stock up so that it attracts good engineers. This is the problem with public companies. Boeing stock value should be determined by safety, by FAA, and by actual passengers, not by some armchair investors who don't even fly on their planes.
- deaddodo 3y agoUh, what? Did you just list two companies which had some of the most comprehensive layoffs this year and a third Chinese private firm for clearance-based US engineers (generally stereotyped as uptight and/or establishment types) to move to?
- happyopossum 3y agoYou seem to be stuck in a weird news bubble / or some kind of layoff echo chamber. Google had a 6-7% layoff 12 months ago, and has been hiring steadily, almost aggressively since then.
- drewcon 3y agoI think about this HN post about Boeing quality…a lot. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19671611 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19671611
- philip1209 3y agoWow, I'm now no longer as excited to fly on a 787 next weekend. (I had picked it out of other equipment options.)
- robjan 3y agoThe 787 and A380 are still the best planes (in terms of comfort, at least) on the market. It makes my 12 hour flights between HK and the UK way more bearable.
- philjohn 3y agoHave you travelled on an A350 yet? The A350, in my opinion, is more comfortable than both (and I'm a big proponent of the A380 and 787 for comfort)
- ibejoeb 3y agoI give boeing a pretty hard time, but the 787 is great. It's far more comfortable than pretty much anything else out there. The windows alone make the experience better.
- davedx 3y agoTalk is cheap. How much credibility does the FAA really have at this point? Are they doing their job or rubber stamping planes to fly when Boeing says they’re ready? At this point they seem as useful as Tesla’s board.
- acdha 3y agoThis is a weird comment to make in response to them doing something Boeing very much does not want them to do. It’s like going to someone at the gym and asking when they’re going to get serious about their fitness, rather than last week when they were eating Doritos on the couch.
- dt3ft 3y ago> Boeing must provide instructions to operators for inspections and maintenance. Boeing offered an initial version of instructions yesterday which they are now revising because of feedback received in response. Is this something we could get our hands on? I'm super curious as to what the instructions contain, is it a mere "tighten the screws" or something a lot more severe?
- p_l 3y agoSuch emergency addenda aren't secret, might just be annoying to acquire a copy if you're not an owner of effected plane.
- Eisenstein 3y ago> I'm super curious as to what the instructions contain, is it a mere "tighten the screws" or something a lot more severe? This is probably the place to lurk if you want information from insiders: * https://www.pprune.org/tech-log-15/ https://www.pprune.org/tech-log-15/
- maxbond 3y agoWorking under the assumption Boeing had sent a copy to the FAA (maybe also NTSB?) and that it would be FOIA-able, I started filling out a FOIA request through MuckRock, but they've changed their model and are charging a small fee ($20 per 4 requests). Which does sound like a fair price, but ultimately I decided not to do it. So, if you or anyone else want to pick up the torch, here's how I was planning to scope the request: Any and all instructions for the inspection and/or maintenance of Boeing 737 Max 9 aircraft received by the FAA between January 6th, 2024 and January 13th, 2024. The necessary legal incantations are contained in the template MuckRock provides. But in all honesty I bet the easiest way to get a copy is to check in with the aerospace media/blogosphere every few days until someone publishes a copy.
- brunohaid 3y agoStill fascinating how presciently Matt Stoller nailed the issue 5 years ago: Let’s start by admiring the company that was Boeing, so we can know what has been lost. As one journalist put it in 2000, “Boeing has always been less a business than an association of engineers devoted to building amazing flying machines.” https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/the-coming-boeing-bailout https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/the-coming-boeing-bailout
- calrain 3y agoBoeing is so far off the rails. They need a reset.
- nobodyandproud 3y agoNearly 23 years ago: ‘A Boeing aerospace engineer presented a controversial white paper in 2001 at an internal technical symposium. The engineer, John Hart-Smith, warned colleagues of the risks of the subcontracting strategy, especially if Boeing outsourced too much work and didn’t provide sufficient on-site quality and technical support to its suppliers. “The performance of the prime manufacturer can never exceed the capabilities of the least proficient of the suppliers,” Hart-Smith wrote. “These costs do not vanish merely because the work itself is out-of-sight.”’ https://www.wsj.com/business/airlines/boeing-manufacturing-737-max-alaska-door-plug-spirit-18f7e233 https://www.wsj.com/business/airlines/boeing-manufacturing-7...
- PaulHoule 3y agoAirbus was a masterstoke of international politics as much as it was of technology in that it involved a high level of international cooperation that was completely successful. (Compare that to the corruption-driven procurement that left Superphenix with broken steam turbines) Boeing’s outsourcing plan was quite similar in that it discouraged many countries that might have been able to enter the competition for airliners, say Japan, from doing so. Japan very well might have decided to subsidize and otherwise help domestic manufacturers but didn’t feel they had to because they made the tail of the Dreamliner.
- nobodyandproud 3y agoFrom the same article: ‘Airbus CEO Guillaume Faury, in a June interview, said the plane maker faces similar risks with its own suppliers—many of which Boeing shares. But he said Airbus has largely been able to avoid major problems with its quality-assurance approach. “We are quite intrusive on what suppliers are doing,” Faury said. “We always have to remain very prudent and very humble—you don’t know what could hit you tomorrow.”’ … ‘When it [Spirit] needed to ramp back up, not only did Spirit have fewer people on site, the company had lost years of expertise. There were fewer experienced mechanics, but also fewer experts who could inspect the quality of their work. … Boeing’s demands for lower prices left Spirit strapped for cash as managers panicked over meeting increasingly demanding deadlines. Boeing routinely had employees on the ground in Wichita and conducted audits of the supplier.’ Leadership issue from Boeing : Completely disparaging and underestimating the deep skills of manufacturing and engineering through-and-through. What was Boeing even auditing? And guess who’s left holding the bag of awfulness?
- politelemon 3y agoA lot of focus on Boeing and its systemic issues with subcontracting and cost cutting. Does Airbus suffer from similar issues or problems with corporate culture?
- jeffrallen 3y ago> where it lost a “plug” type passenger door and additional discrepancies Whoa. That's a pretty big bomb that the FAA just threw there. "We've just begun and what we've already found was so bad we're grounding the airplane." I suspect that means the quality system governing the handoff from the subcontractor to Boeing is completely broken. It could mean that the way Boeing is monitoring quality from all subcontractors on that airplane is fundamentally flawed. It's going to be a long way back for Boeing. Operators of the 737 Max 9 are going to need to find some financing to pay their costs on these airplanes until Boeing makes them whole.
- Havoc 3y agoFAA is missing the forest for all the trees here. Instead of grounding one model for one issue they should be asking questions about wtf is going on at boeing wrt safety culture. And same question can be asked about the FAA frankly. If Boeing engineers are saying they refuse to fly on these planes how is the FAA granting rights to self-certify?!? Are these people permanently high?
- voidfunc 3y agoYou gotta read between the lines. Boeing cannot be allowed to fail. The FAA is a formality. That's basically what is being said.
- Solvency 3y agoBut why not? Why can't they fail? Why can the world have so many car makers and yacht makers but we can't disrupt up a flailing company like Boeing?
- gumby 3y agoBecause they are a major military contractor. In fact the Boeing we know today was formed by a merger between the failing McDonnell-Douglas and then-successful Boeing — a merger basically forced by the DoD because MCD’s military contracting was too important to them. The management of the resulting company mostly came from MCD. Makes one wonder if the military and space sides of the business are also suffering quality problems or not.
- voidfunc 3y agoBasically best to understanding Boeing and the US Government as one and the same the only difference is Boeing has a ticker symbol.
- gumby 3y agoBoeing is a negligible subset of the USG though. I find it more weird when Lockheed, CSC etc contract to run non-military programs for the USG. Whatever your opinion of military matters, I think it’s a bad idea to have a company whose main objective is killing people manage a program designed to, say, keep people from starving to death.
- hackernoteng 3y agoI have been against the 737 max since it came out. You have a proven safe reliable design in the 737. Then you bolt on engines it was never designed to use. It changes the flight dynamics of the plane, which needs to then be monitored and "corrected" with special software. Changing dynamics with different engines could cause all kinds of unforeseen issues with fuselage integrity, different stresses, airflows, etc. How do we know bolts dont loosen due to different stresses from different types of engines? The whole dynamics of the plane is suspect.
- inferiorhuman 3y agoThen you bolt on engines it was never designed to use. Congrats you've described the overwhelming majority of 737s ever built, as only the first 1,100 or so (around 9% to date) were built with the JT8D. Or you've described none of the 737s ever built if you consider that any airliner was designed for whatever engines it was installed with.
- burnerburnson 3y agoThe recent push to relax education standards in the US is only going to make problems like this worse. For example: https://www.oregonlive.com/education/2023/10/oregon-again-says-students-dont-need-to-prove-mastery-of-reading-writing-or-math-to-graduate-citing-harm-to-students-of-color.html https://www.oregonlive.com/education/2023/10/oregon-again-sa... I can see it already in my company. Many of the newer engineers don't even have basic language skills. Reading their design documents is an exercise in divination. This has repeatedly resulted in delays and costly miscommunications between partnering teams. We need a national push to raise the quality of our educational institutions from grade school through university. And we need to re-focus the curriculum on the subjects of greatest importance: reading, writing, math, and science.
- beej71 3y agoI'm 1000% on board with this. It's already going to take decades to dig out. Sadly, though every politician claims to be pro-education, very few of them actually are, and some are actively against it.
- sega_sai 3y agoMaybe that's an unconventional take. But in my mind, the situation is the result of 'instantaneous' incentives in companies. I.e. CEOs and managers are rewarded when the stock price rises and are never penalised if things fall apart in a few years time. Hence, the motivation to save costs and financialise the company. By the time you start to see the results of this the CEO already left on his/her golden parachute. In my mind, the financial incentives need to be based on performance in 5 years or 10 years.
- asylteltine 3y agoThe same FAA that fast tracked the max version which led to TWO separate fatal accidents? Yeah I’m sure they are so concerned about safety.
- 1letterunixname 3y agoThere's no fixing the 737 MAX because it was engineered and manufactured in a business culture incompatible with excellence and safety. The problem is aircraft are capital assets are compelled to quickly reenter service for economic reasons with a few fixes around the periphery when thorough and proper inspection and retrofitting more involved than a multiyear maintenance check.
- agubelu 3y ago> "This incident should have never happened and it cannot happen again." I agree that this statement is unusually direct, but I find it noteworthy that they use the word "incident". According to ICAO, one of the criteria for an accident, not an incident, is when "the aircraft sustains significant damage or structural failure", which is the case here.
- htk 3y agoPlaying devil's advocate, this could be considered the limit of an incident, as the plane could still operate.
- agubelu 3y agoYes, but the criteria for an accident is "structural failure", not "hull loss" or "inability to fly". I would say that a gaping hole in the fuselage constitutes structural failure. FWIW, the related Wikipedia page correctly refers to it as an accident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_1282 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_1282
- hedora 3y agoI’d read that as “Boeing has passed the point where the results of gross negligence can’t be called accidents.”
- p_l 3y agoIn aviation lingo, "accident" is more serious than "serious incident" which is more serious than "incident". Accident is a plane crash, dead people, etc. Serious Incident is one that was dangerously close to moving into becoming an accident. Incident is pretty much everyday thing and usually you investigate it yourself and self report. Includes even things like front wheel turning 90 degrees during taxiing resulting in broken front wheel assembly.
- agubelu 3y ago"Accident" doesn't only mean plane crash or dead people. According to ICAO Annex 13, it is also an accident when: "the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure which: - adversely affects the structural strength, performance or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and - would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component" http://www.iprr.org/manuals/Annex13.html http://www.iprr.org/manuals/Annex13.html
- htk 3y agoI think it's about time the POTUS addresses the recent developments. The WH was eager to insert itself in the news that Boeing sold planes to India, Saudi Arabia etc. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/03/14/statement-from-white-house-press-secretary-karine-jean-pierre-on-saudi-arabias-historic-purchase-of-boeing-aircraft/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases... https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/02/14/statement-from-president-joe-biden-on-air-indias-historic-purchase-of-boeing-aircraft/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...
- dontupvoteme 3y agoWhy is this written so.. poorly? This is not the dialect of English I expect from an aviation organization.
- perryizgr8 3y agoBoeing's slow and gradual deterioration somewhat poetically mirrors a similar trend in the entire country of USA as well. Once a pinnacle of engineering and innovation, 50 years ahead of everyone else in all respects, now revealing inner rot that has been building up for decades unseen. What was the last war that USA decisively won? When did an astronaut go to orbit in an American rocket? (SpaceX is the exception that proves the rule). What can USA manufacture at greater scale, with better quality, for cheaper cost than anyone else in the world? Does the median American have access to the best quality of life and Healthcare? What about education?
- Log_out_ 3y agoI wonder what the full scan these planes get now on the ground will show.