7 ms·

> Boeing said late on Monday "while we are confident that the proposed time-limited exemption for that system follows established FAA processes to ensure safe o

> Boeing said late on Monday "while we are confident that the proposed time-limited exemption for that system follows established FAA processes to ensure safe operation, we will instead incorporate an engineering solution that will be completed during the certification process." Anybody else get the exact opposite of a warm fuzzy feeling about the specific wording choice used by Boeing there?

mulmen 3y ago
Sounds like they are learning their lesson. Fix the actual problem instead of relying on regulatory capture. This is all a sad, ugly mess. A glimmer of hope does give me a warm fuzzy feeling actually.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  This time. But only because the spotlight is on them.
  - mulmen 3y ago
    Sure. It’s not a cause for total forgiveness and trust but it is the first step in the right direction in a long time. There’s plenty of reasons to criticize Boeing. This is the first news in a long time that isn’t.
- ngcc_hk 3y ago
  Regulatory capture … At least they do not handle the people involved, the media or anybody who raise there is a problem … there is still some hope in non-chinese system.
  - anon-sre-srm 3y ago
    The DOJ acted as Boeing's PR firm in the Jamaica 737 NG crash of N977AN. Obama's DOJ made intentional false statements to media that the NTSB supposedly concluded that faulty bear straps and other structural components weren't a factor when the NTSB hadn't reached any conclusions. It came out later.. > "I'm expecting a gold watch from Boeing at the end of my presidency, because I know that I'm on the list of top salesmen at Boeing," Obama deadpanned in 2013. https://www.wprl.org/npr-news/2024-01-19/cozy-relationship-between-boeing-and-the-u-s-draws-scrutiny-amid-737-max-9-mess https://www.wprl.org/npr-news/2024-01-19/cozy-relationship-b...
    - mulmen 3y ago
      O…k? This is the one sliver of good news out of Boeing in what, 10 years? What do your Obama conspiracy theories have to do with current events?
hypothesis 3y ago
Did I hear you say MCAS? It’s interesting that FAA avoided naked corruption case with pushing this through, but they were unable to simply reject exemption either. Somehow, external pressure was required to avoid worst case.
- ralph84 3y ago
  Yep, MCAS was an “engineering solution”. Hopefully this time they’ll at least document their “engineering solution” for the people who have to fly the damn thing.
hayst4ck 3y ago
I agree with the way you read it entirely. They did not acknowledge and admit wrong doing. They disavowed responsibility and said "we are complying with public pressure against our will". In other words, they don't understand what they did wrong, but people more powerful than them are forcing them to change. "We are being coerced into expending unnecessary resources." They think it is an engineering problem that can be solved by engineers and not a management problem that must be solved with a change of culture, namely a change to managements inability to take responsibility for the current state of Boeing. When this inevitably fails because the core problem (culture) is not acknowledged or addressed, the engineers will be blamed, and management will continue to avoid responsibility. The people most at fault for the state of Beoing will probably cash out with enough money to get spoon-fed caviar for the rest of their life while their progeny will never have to work a day in their life.
- TaylorAlexander 3y ago
  > They did not acknowledge and admit wrong doing. Of course not. Wouldn't it just open them up to legal liability and additional lawsuits if they admitted wrong doing? It seems like saying "we have updated our plan and will now focus on an engineered solution" is exactly the kind of language I would expect from a large corporation that has made such visible failures as to be very vulnerable to lawsuits. I am not even sure they might have current pending lawsuits against them right now which could be made worse if they admit wrongdoing.
  - wokwokwok 3y ago
    ...mm... but they didnt say "we have updated our plan and will now focus on an engineered solution". That's not even a paraphrase of what they said. They said: > we are confident that the proposed time-limited exemption for that system follows established FAA processes When we know that: 1) The established FAA processes resulted in a variation of this aircraft that crashed. 2) The established FAA processes resulted in a variation of this aircraft that had part of the hull pop out mid-flight. 3) The established FAA processes resulted in Boeing doing their own certification of their own aircraft. We know also know: 4) They asked for a safety exemption for the new variation of this aircraft under the 'The established FAA processes'. slow clap... If we're talking about investor and consumer confidence and bland corporate HR talk, they could have phrased this in any number of other ways (like saying literally what you said) that didn't draw attention to the fact that they continue to de-prioritize safety. What they actually said does the opposite of the intended effect of 'we're focusing on safety' and instead says (to me at least) 'we continue to think we can ignore the FAA safety rules for our aircraft until a senate committee makes a fuss about it'.
anon-sre-srm 3y ago
They will try to MacGyver some shit together last minute. The irony is the 707 replaced then De Havilland Comet 4, which is much like the 737 MAX today. The difference being Boeing is a strategic defense contractor that is "too big to fail". There are enormous pressures on the FAA to let Boeing slide with a stern warning again.
- ramesh31 3y ago
  The DeHavilland Comet was the first practical civil jet airliner ever produced. It literally invented the systems that were onboard. The 737 is a 60 year old design with a stellar safety record up to this point. It's not comparable at all. The only reason those planes fell apart is rotten management.
  - anon-sre-srm 3y ago
    You're off your rocker. Comet's square windows were fundamentally unsound. 737 NG contains Ducommun garbage structural components deemed "airworthy", going back between 1996 and 2004. 737 Classic != NG != MAX. No amount of MCAS or engineering exceptions will make it so, or make it safe.
    - lupusreal 3y ago
      > Despite findings of the Cohen Inquiry, a number of myths have evolved around the cause of the Comet 1's accidents. Most commonly quoted are the 'square' passenger windows. While the report noted that stress around fuselage cut-outs, emergency exits and windows was found to be much higher than expected due to DeHavilland's assumptions and testing methods[122] the passenger windows shape has been commonly misunderstood and cited as a cause of the fuselage failure. In fact the mention of 'windows' in the Cohen report's conclusion, refers specifically to the origin point of failure in the ADF Antenna cut-out 'windows', located above the cockpit, not passenger windows.[123] The shape of the passenger windows were not indicated in any failure mode detailed in the accident report and were not viewed as a contributing factor. A number of other pressurised airliners of the period including the Boeing 377 Stratocruiser, Douglas DC-7, and DC-8 had larger more 'square' windows than the Comet 1 and experienced no such failures.[124] In fact, the Comet 1's window general shape resembles a slightly larger Boeing 737 window mounted horizontally. They are rectangular not square, have rounded corners and are within 5% of the radius of the Boeing 737 windows and virtually identical to modern airliners.[124] Paul Withey, Professor of Casting at the University of Birmingham School of Metallurgy states in a video presentation delivered in 2019, analysing all available data that: "The fact that DeHavilland put oval windows into later marks, is not because of any 'squareness' of the windows that caused failure."[125] "DeHavilland went to oval windows on the subsequent Marks because it was easier to Redux them in (use adhesive) – nothing to do with the stress concentration and it's purely to remove rivets." (from the structure)[126] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet#Square_window_myths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet#Square_wind...
ExoticPearTree 3y ago
What I don't understand is why the 737-Max 7 is having problems with the anti-icing system for the engines. What "improvements" did they make to the engines that turned it into a problem?
- noughtme 3y ago
  Cowlings are now composite (ie plastic) instead of aluminum. They are limited to 5 minutes of use in dry air to prevent the cowling from melting, flying apart, or getting into the engine and causing it to fly apart.
  - ExoticPearTree 3y ago
    I'm curious how much it was saved in money and/or weight that it made sense to someone to make the cowling out of "plastic" :) Sometimes it feels like the decision process at Boeing is: - How big of a problem $this can be? - Disaster like - Go for it.
    - noughtme 3y ago
      Very likely no money was saved by Boeing, composites are almost always more expensive. Maybe someone with aviation industry knowledge can reply, but my guess is adding a trivial timed shutoff would have triggered an elaborate FAA approval and certification process. That’s probably where the savings were.
      - jsjohnst 3y ago
        The “savings” is entirely due to weight. More weight requires more fuel. The single biggest cost by a large margin in the life of a commercial airline jet is fuel. Increase fuel efficiency by even 1% and you save the airline industry billions. Source to backup the claim of the scale of worldwide airline fuel usage: https://www.statista.com/statistics/655057/fuel-consumption-of-airlines-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/655057/fuel-consumption-... Source to give you an idea of how much US airlines pay for fuel: https://www.bts.gov/newsroom/us-airlines-january-2023-fuel-cost-gallon-43-december-2022-aviation-fuel-consumption-down https://www.bts.gov/newsroom/us-airlines-january-2023-fuel-c...
mrjin 3y ago
Whether Boeing has confidence no longer matters, what matters is whether we have confidence and the answer is NOOOOOOOOOOO.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

mulmen 3y ago

Sounds like they are learning their lesson. Fix the actual problem instead of relying on regulatory capture. This is all a sad, ugly mess. A glimmer of hope does give me a warm fuzzy feeling actually.

jacquesm 3y ago
This time. But only because the spotlight is on them.
- mulmen 3y ago
  Sure. It’s not a cause for total forgiveness and trust but it is the first step in the right direction in a long time. There’s plenty of reasons to criticize Boeing. This is the first news in a long time that isn’t.
ngcc_hk 3y ago
Regulatory capture … At least they do not handle the people involved, the media or anybody who raise there is a problem … there is still some hope in non-chinese system.
- anon-sre-srm 3y ago
  The DOJ acted as Boeing's PR firm in the Jamaica 737 NG crash of N977AN. Obama's DOJ made intentional false statements to media that the NTSB supposedly concluded that faulty bear straps and other structural components weren't a factor when the NTSB hadn't reached any conclusions. It came out later.. > "I'm expecting a gold watch from Boeing at the end of my presidency, because I know that I'm on the list of top salesmen at Boeing," Obama deadpanned in 2013. https://www.wprl.org/npr-news/2024-01-19/cozy-relationship-between-boeing-and-the-u-s-draws-scrutiny-amid-737-max-9-mess https://www.wprl.org/npr-news/2024-01-19/cozy-relationship-b...
  - mulmen 3y ago
    O…k? This is the one sliver of good news out of Boeing in what, 10 years? What do your Obama conspiracy theories have to do with current events?

hypothesis 3y ago

Did I hear you say MCAS? It’s interesting that FAA avoided naked corruption case with pushing this through, but they were unable to simply reject exemption either. Somehow, external pressure was required to avoid worst case.

ralph84 3y ago
Yep, MCAS was an “engineering solution”. Hopefully this time they’ll at least document their “engineering solution” for the people who have to fly the damn thing.

hayst4ck 3y ago

I agree with the way you read it entirely. They did not acknowledge and admit wrong doing. They disavowed responsibility and said "we are complying with public pressure against our will". In other words, they don't understand what they did wrong, but people more powerful than them are forcing them to change. "We are being coerced into expending unnecessary resources." They think it is an engineering problem that can be solved by engineers and not a management problem that must be solved with a change of culture, namely a change to managements inability to take responsibility for the current state of Boeing. When this inevitably fails because the core problem (culture) is not acknowledged or addressed, the engineers will be blamed, and management will continue to avoid responsibility. The people most at fault for the state of Beoing will probably cash out with enough money to get spoon-fed caviar for the rest of their life while their progeny will never have to work a day in their life.

TaylorAlexander 3y ago
> They did not acknowledge and admit wrong doing. Of course not. Wouldn't it just open them up to legal liability and additional lawsuits if they admitted wrong doing? It seems like saying "we have updated our plan and will now focus on an engineered solution" is exactly the kind of language I would expect from a large corporation that has made such visible failures as to be very vulnerable to lawsuits. I am not even sure they might have current pending lawsuits against them right now which could be made worse if they admit wrongdoing.
- wokwokwok 3y ago
  ...mm... but they didnt say "we have updated our plan and will now focus on an engineered solution". That's not even a paraphrase of what they said. They said: > we are confident that the proposed time-limited exemption for that system follows established FAA processes When we know that: 1) The established FAA processes resulted in a variation of this aircraft that crashed. 2) The established FAA processes resulted in a variation of this aircraft that had part of the hull pop out mid-flight. 3) The established FAA processes resulted in Boeing doing their own certification of their own aircraft. We know also know: 4) They asked for a safety exemption for the new variation of this aircraft under the 'The established FAA processes'. slow clap... If we're talking about investor and consumer confidence and bland corporate HR talk, they could have phrased this in any number of other ways (like saying literally what you said) that didn't draw attention to the fact that they continue to de-prioritize safety. What they actually said does the opposite of the intended effect of 'we're focusing on safety' and instead says (to me at least) 'we continue to think we can ignore the FAA safety rules for our aircraft until a senate committee makes a fuss about it'.

anon-sre-srm 3y ago

They will try to MacGyver some shit together last minute. The irony is the 707 replaced then De Havilland Comet 4, which is much like the 737 MAX today. The difference being Boeing is a strategic defense contractor that is "too big to fail". There are enormous pressures on the FAA to let Boeing slide with a stern warning again.

ramesh31 3y ago
The DeHavilland Comet was the first practical civil jet airliner ever produced. It literally invented the systems that were onboard. The 737 is a 60 year old design with a stellar safety record up to this point. It's not comparable at all. The only reason those planes fell apart is rotten management.
- anon-sre-srm 3y ago
  You're off your rocker. Comet's square windows were fundamentally unsound. 737 NG contains Ducommun garbage structural components deemed "airworthy", going back between 1996 and 2004. 737 Classic != NG != MAX. No amount of MCAS or engineering exceptions will make it so, or make it safe.
  - lupusreal 3y ago
    > Despite findings of the Cohen Inquiry, a number of myths have evolved around the cause of the Comet 1's accidents. Most commonly quoted are the 'square' passenger windows. While the report noted that stress around fuselage cut-outs, emergency exits and windows was found to be much higher than expected due to DeHavilland's assumptions and testing methods[122] the passenger windows shape has been commonly misunderstood and cited as a cause of the fuselage failure. In fact the mention of 'windows' in the Cohen report's conclusion, refers specifically to the origin point of failure in the ADF Antenna cut-out 'windows', located above the cockpit, not passenger windows.[123] The shape of the passenger windows were not indicated in any failure mode detailed in the accident report and were not viewed as a contributing factor. A number of other pressurised airliners of the period including the Boeing 377 Stratocruiser, Douglas DC-7, and DC-8 had larger more 'square' windows than the Comet 1 and experienced no such failures.[124] In fact, the Comet 1's window general shape resembles a slightly larger Boeing 737 window mounted horizontally. They are rectangular not square, have rounded corners and are within 5% of the radius of the Boeing 737 windows and virtually identical to modern airliners.[124] Paul Withey, Professor of Casting at the University of Birmingham School of Metallurgy states in a video presentation delivered in 2019, analysing all available data that: "The fact that DeHavilland put oval windows into later marks, is not because of any 'squareness' of the windows that caused failure."[125] "DeHavilland went to oval windows on the subsequent Marks because it was easier to Redux them in (use adhesive) – nothing to do with the stress concentration and it's purely to remove rivets." (from the structure)[126] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet#Square_window_myths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet#Square_wind...

ExoticPearTree 3y ago

What I don't understand is why the 737-Max 7 is having problems with the anti-icing system for the engines. What "improvements" did they make to the engines that turned it into a problem?

noughtme 3y ago
Cowlings are now composite (ie plastic) instead of aluminum. They are limited to 5 minutes of use in dry air to prevent the cowling from melting, flying apart, or getting into the engine and causing it to fly apart.
- ExoticPearTree 3y ago
  I'm curious how much it was saved in money and/or weight that it made sense to someone to make the cowling out of "plastic" :) Sometimes it feels like the decision process at Boeing is: - How big of a problem $this can be? - Disaster like - Go for it.
  - noughtme 3y ago
    Very likely no money was saved by Boeing, composites are almost always more expensive. Maybe someone with aviation industry knowledge can reply, but my guess is adding a trivial timed shutoff would have triggered an elaborate FAA approval and certification process. That’s probably where the savings were.
    - jsjohnst 3y ago
      The “savings” is entirely due to weight. More weight requires more fuel. The single biggest cost by a large margin in the life of a commercial airline jet is fuel. Increase fuel efficiency by even 1% and you save the airline industry billions. Source to backup the claim of the scale of worldwide airline fuel usage: https://www.statista.com/statistics/655057/fuel-consumption-of-airlines-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/655057/fuel-consumption-... Source to give you an idea of how much US airlines pay for fuel: https://www.bts.gov/newsroom/us-airlines-january-2023-fuel-cost-gallon-43-december-2022-aviation-fuel-consumption-down https://www.bts.gov/newsroom/us-airlines-january-2023-fuel-c...

mrjin 3y ago

Whether Boeing has confidence no longer matters, what matters is whether we have confidence and the answer is NOOOOOOOOOOO.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]