FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Boeing knew about the faults

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

With the new plane but didnt let the pilots know about it, same as in titanic, there they knew about it 3 weeks before, what should boeing do now, should they do a big pay out? After this I wonder how many will fly with them.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *electableDalliancesCouple
over a year ago

leeds


"With the new plane but didnt let the pilots know about it, same as in titanic, there they knew about it 3 weeks before, what should boeing do now, should they do a big pay out? After this I wonder how many will fly with them."

Pay out ? Prison time I hope

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *andonmessMan
over a year ago

A world all of his own

If they're found to have known about it and covered it up, they'll be vilified and rightly so. How many hundreds of people died in those 2 crashes?! Appalling.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"With the new plane but didnt let the pilots know about it, same as in titanic, there they knew about it 3 weeks before, what should boeing do now, should they do a big pay out? After this I wonder how many will fly with them.

Pay out ? Prison time I hope "
Yes or that.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"If they're found to have known about it and covered it up, they'll be vilified and rightly so. How many hundreds of people died in those 2 crashes?! Appalling."
It was on the news they did know, not sure how many, must be yes in the hundreds.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *wingfellowMan
over a year ago

my own little sanctuary

inaction is just as criminal as intent on these cases. Wether it was intentional or just not acted upon the result is foreseeable and the outcome the same. Definitely should be facing man slaughter charges in my opinion.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ed-monkeyCouple
over a year ago

Hailsham

It is all still an unknown.

There is a strong suspicion that the cause is common between the 2 accidents, and there is clearly some recognition where an issue lies in that Boeing are working on updating the software.

It's not as simple as blame Boeing though. These aircraft have to go through stringent certification processes before they are even allowed to fly, let alone carry passengers.

With this in mind, the FAA are complicit to a degree, especially when they were still adamant the aircraft was safe.

Part of the issue is the pilots are cleared to fly an aircraft type, however in this case there are subtle nuances as to how the automated system works when compared with other 737 models. Pilots may not be entirely familiar with these nuances or how to deal with emerging issues in that area.

Whatever the result, it will not bring back the 340+ souls

That's how I read it, in my role as a systems safety engineer in aerospace

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Corporate Manslaughter anyone?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *den-Valley-coupleCouple
over a year ago

Cumbria


"With the new plane but didnt let the pilots know about it, same as in titanic, there they knew about it 3 weeks before, what should boeing do now, should they do a big pay out? After this I wonder how many will fly with them."

Let's just wait until it is confirmed..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ed-monkeyCouple
over a year ago

Hailsham


"With the new plane but didnt let the pilots know about it, same as in titanic, there they knew about it 3 weeks before, what should boeing do now, should they do a big pay out? After this I wonder how many will fly with them.

Let's just wait until it is confirmed.. "

Definitely ... all to much trial by social media etc. these days

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *wingfellowMan
over a year ago

my own little sanctuary


"It is all still an unknown.

There is a strong suspicion that the cause is common between the 2 accidents, and there is clearly some recognition where an issue lies in that Boeing are working on updating the software.

It's not as simple as blame Boeing though. These aircraft have to go through stringent certification processes before they are even allowed to fly, let alone carry passengers.

With this in mind, the FAA are complicit to a degree, especially when they were still adamant the aircraft was safe.

Part of the issue is the pilots are cleared to fly an aircraft type, however in this case there are subtle nuances as to how the automated system works when compared with other 737 models. Pilots may not be entirely familiar with these nuances or how to deal with emerging issues in that area.

Whatever the result, it will not bring back the 340+ souls

That's how I read it, in my role as a systems safety engineer in aerospace "

That’s a good point. However, there is a loss of life and as such there needs to be closure and somewhere along the line there’s complacency and holding the correct people liable for the loss of life is essential in ensuring people take that extra bit of care and attention throughout the process of R&D to commercial flights so that it’s not repeated. If there’s no accountability it’s more likely to happen again.

I’m sorry but the whole “doesn’t bring them back” defence doesn’t sit right with me because it comes across as if it’s just to be brushed under the carpet so to speak. I’m sure you didn’t intend it that way.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ed-monkeyCouple
over a year ago

Hailsham


"It is all still an unknown.

There is a strong suspicion that the cause is common between the 2 accidents, and there is clearly some recognition where an issue lies in that Boeing are working on updating the software.

It's not as simple as blame Boeing though. These aircraft have to go through stringent certification processes before they are even allowed to fly, let alone carry passengers.

With this in mind, the FAA are complicit to a degree, especially when they were still adamant the aircraft was safe.

Part of the issue is the pilots are cleared to fly an aircraft type, however in this case there are subtle nuances as to how the automated system works when compared with other 737 models. Pilots may not be entirely familiar with these nuances or how to deal with emerging issues in that area.

Whatever the result, it will not bring back the 340+ souls

That's how I read it, in my role as a systems safety engineer in aerospace

That’s a good point. However, there is a loss of life and as such there needs to be closure and somewhere along the line there’s complacency and holding the correct people liable for the loss of life is essential in ensuring people take that extra bit of care and attention throughout the process of R&D to commercial flights so that it’s not repeated. If there’s no accountability it’s more likely to happen again.

I’m sorry but the whole “doesn’t bring them back” defence doesn’t sit right with me because it comes across as if it’s just to be brushed under the carpet so to speak. I’m sure you didn’t intend it that way."

Not at all no ... the point I was making was Boeing aren't completely to blame.

The FAA cleared this aircraft type to fly, the airlines may or may not have known about the automated system differences so pilot training and currency to the model may have been neglected

There are a whole raft of potential root causes possible here

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I recommended a documentary called "Broken Dreams: The Boeing 787" a couple of weeks ago on another thread. Well worth a watch.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ce WingerMan
over a year ago

P.O. Box DE1 0NQ


"I recommended a documentary called "Broken Dreams: The Boeing 787" a couple of weeks ago on another thread. Well worth a watch. "

Yes I watched it

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I recommended a documentary called "Broken Dreams: The Boeing 787" a couple of weeks ago on another thread. Well worth a watch.

Yes I watched it "

What did you think?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I recommended a documentary called "Broken Dreams: The Boeing 787" a couple of weeks ago on another thread. Well worth a watch. "

Maybe I need to watch it as I fly on the 787 all the time. Not that it would put me off my job. It’s my fav aircraft for sure

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Intetesting points everyone

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Im more curious about the titanic comment?

Are you saying they knew 3 weeks before setting off there was an iceberg in thier path.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *orwegian BlueMan
over a year ago

Iceland, but Aldi is closer..


"It is all still an unknown.

There is a strong suspicion that the cause is common between the 2 accidents, and there is clearly some recognition where an issue lies in that Boeing are working on updating the software.

It's not as simple as blame Boeing though. These aircraft have to go through stringent certification processes before they are even allowed to fly, let alone carry passengers.

With this in mind, the FAA are complicit to a degree, especially when they were still adamant the aircraft was safe.

Part of the issue is the pilots are cleared to fly an aircraft type, however in this case there are subtle nuances as to how the automated system works when compared with other 737 models. Pilots may not be entirely familiar with these nuances or how to deal with emerging issues in that area.

Whatever the result, it will not bring back the 340+ souls

That's how I read it, in my role as a systems safety engineer in aerospace

That’s a good point. However, there is a loss of life and as such there needs to be closure and somewhere along the line there’s complacency and holding the correct people liable for the loss of life is essential in ensuring people take that extra bit of care and attention throughout the process of R&D to commercial flights so that it’s not repeated. If there’s no accountability it’s more likely to happen again.

I’m sorry but the whole “doesn’t bring them back” defence doesn’t sit right with me because it comes across as if it’s just to be brushed under the carpet so to speak. I’m sure you didn’t intend it that way."

So who is to blame?

The software engineers who created the test software maybe 10 years ago at the aircrafts conception?

The design engineers who would have stress tested the systems on cad systems and stress analysis software for years before the first piece of metal was cut?

The company manufacturing the software systems, the guy wiring in the computers, the person writing the test report, the reviewers, system engineer, cheif architect, senior design and integration engineer, chief systems engineer.... the list is endless..

Boeing didn't manufacture an aircraft that was unsafe, nor did they supply it knowing there were faults..

The sheer complexity and quantity of people necessary to create something as complex as an aircraft are the root cause.. plain and simple, a human error has unfortunately led to the deaths of many people.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Im more curious about the titanic comment?

Are you saying they knew 3 weeks before setting off there was an iceberg in thier path."
No they didnt, but the fire started before they left.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lem-H-FandangoMan
over a year ago

salisbury


"Im more curious about the titanic comment?

Are you saying they knew 3 weeks before setting off there was an iceberg in thier path.No they didnt, but the fire started before they left."

Wtf?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lem-H-FandangoMan
over a year ago

salisbury


"It is all still an unknown.

There is a strong suspicion that the cause is common between the 2 accidents, and there is clearly some recognition where an issue lies in that Boeing are working on updating the software.

It's not as simple as blame Boeing though. These aircraft have to go through stringent certification processes before they are even allowed to fly, let alone carry passengers.

With this in mind, the FAA are complicit to a degree, especially when they were still adamant the aircraft was safe.

Part of the issue is the pilots are cleared to fly an aircraft type, however in this case there are subtle nuances as to how the automated system works when compared with other 737 models. Pilots may not be entirely familiar with these nuances or how to deal with emerging issues in that area.

Whatever the result, it will not bring back the 340+ souls

That's how I read it, in my role as a systems safety engineer in aerospace

That’s a good point. However, there is a loss of life and as such there needs to be closure and somewhere along the line there’s complacency and holding the correct people liable for the loss of life is essential in ensuring people take that extra bit of care and attention throughout the process of R&D to commercial flights so that it’s not repeated. If there’s no accountability it’s more likely to happen again.

I’m sorry but the whole “doesn’t bring them back” defence doesn’t sit right with me because it comes across as if it’s just to be brushed under the carpet so to speak. I’m sure you didn’t intend it that way.

So who is to blame?

The software engineers who created the test software maybe 10 years ago at the aircrafts conception?

The design engineers who would have stress tested the systems on cad systems and stress analysis software for years before the first piece of metal was cut?

The company manufacturing the software systems, the guy wiring in the computers, the person writing the test report, the reviewers, system engineer, cheif architect, senior design and integration engineer, chief systems engineer.... the list is endless..

Boeing didn't manufacture an aircraft that was unsafe, nor did they supply it knowing there were faults..

The sheer complexity and quantity of people necessary to create something as complex as an aircraft are the root cause.. plain and simple, a human error has unfortunately led to the deaths of many people."

The holes in the cheeses all lined up.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *an_WoodMan
over a year ago

Stafford


"It is all still an unknown.

There is a strong suspicion that the cause is common between the 2 accidents, and there is clearly some recognition where an issue lies in that Boeing are working on updating the software.

It's not as simple as blame Boeing though. These aircraft hav noe to go through stringent certification processes before they are even allowed to fly, let alone carry passengers.

With this in mind, the FAA are complicit to a degree, especially when they were still adamant the aircraft was safe.

Part of the issue is the pilots are cleared to fly an aircraft type, however in this case there are subtle nuances as to how the automated system works when compared with other 737 models. Pilots may not be entirely familiar with these nuances or how to deal with emerging issues in that area.

Whatever the result, it will not bring back the 340+ souls

That's how I read it, in my role as a systems safety engineer in aerospace

That’s a good point. However, there is a loss of life and as such there needs to be closure and somewhere along the line there’s complacency and holding the correct people liable for the loss of life is essential in ensuring people take that extra bit of care and attention throughout the process of R&D to commercial flights so that it’s not repeated. If there’s no accountability it’s more likely to happen again.

I’m sorry but the whole “doesn’t bring them back” defence doesn’t sit right with me because it comes across as if it’s just to be brushed under the carpet so to speak. I’m sure you didn’t intend it that way.

So who is to blame?

The software engineers who created the test software maybe 10 years ago at the aircrafts conception?

The design engineers who would have stress tested the systems on cad systems and stress analysis software for years before the first piece of metal was cut?

The company manufacturing the software systems, the guy wiring in the computers, the person writing the test report, the reviewers, system engineer, cheif architect, senior design and integration engineer, chief systems engineer.... the list is endless..

Boeing didn't manufacture an aircraft that was unsafe, nor did they supply it knowing there were faults..

The sheer complexity and quantity of people necessary to create something as complex as an aircraft are the root cause.. plain and simple, a human error has unfortunately led to the deaths of many people.

The holes in the cheeses all lined up. "

I think the case being made is the software wasn't clearly documented to the airlines so the training for pilots was deficient. The reason for the new software was to cater for new engines on an "older" airframe leading to a higher rate of stall conditions. When the pilot was under pressure it wasn't easy to understand the plane's behaviour leading to the safety concern. This has been documented in various pilot blogs concerning the max models. For me the focus should be squarely with Boeing. In a way similar to how volkswagen tried to game emission standards Boeing appear to have cut testing time to get to sell a new model quicker than airbus.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Im more curious about the titanic comment?

Are you saying they knew 3 weeks before setting off there was an iceberg in thier path.No they didnt, but the fire started before they left."

What fire

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Im more curious about the titanic comment?

Are you saying they knew 3 weeks before setting off there was an iceberg in thier path.No they didnt, but the fire started before they left.

What fire"

Heh thats actually really interesting i had no idea about the fire.

I always thought the wter over topped the bulk heads rather than breaking them thouvh.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *evil_u_knowMan
over a year ago

city

It's american so whatever the americans want to be done will be done.

Maybe the EU will hold them to task, maybe Airbus sales will improve.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's american so whatever the americans want to be done will be done.

Maybe the EU will hold them to task, maybe Airbus sales will improve."

Minor things like this dont really affect sales.

Both companies have near decade long backlogs.

So an issue today is definitly going to be fixed by the time you get your plane in 5 years

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lem-H-FandangoMan
over a year ago

salisbury


"It is all still an unknown.

There is a strong suspicion that the cause is common between the 2 accidents, and there is clearly some recognition where an issue lies in that Boeing are working on updating the software.

It's not as simple as blame Boeing though. These aircraft hav noe to go through stringent certification processes before they are even allowed to fly, let alone carry passengers.

With this in mind, the FAA are complicit to a degree, especially when they were still adamant the aircraft was safe.

Part of the issue is the pilots are cleared to fly an aircraft type, however in this case there are subtle nuances as to how the automated system works when compared with other 737 models. Pilots may not be entirely familiar with these nuances or how to deal with emerging issues in that area.

Whatever the result, it will not bring back the 340+ souls

That's how I read it, in my role as a systems safety engineer in aerospace

That’s a good point. However, there is a loss of life and as such there needs to be closure and somewhere along the line there’s complacency and holding the correct people liable for the loss of life is essential in ensuring people take that extra bit of care and attention throughout the process of R&D to commercial flights so that it’s not repeated. If there’s no accountability it’s more likely to happen again.

I’m sorry but the whole “doesn’t bring them back” defence doesn’t sit right with me because it comes across as if it’s just to be brushed under the carpet so to speak. I’m sure you didn’t intend it that way.

So who is to blame?

The software engineers who created the test software maybe 10 years ago at the aircrafts conception?

The design engineers who would have stress tested the systems on cad systems and stress analysis software for years before the first piece of metal was cut?

The company manufacturing the software systems, the guy wiring in the computers, the person writing the test report, the reviewers, system engineer, cheif architect, senior design and integration engineer, chief systems engineer.... the list is endless..

Boeing didn't manufacture an aircraft that was unsafe, nor did they supply it knowing there were faults..

The sheer complexity and quantity of people necessary to create something as complex as an aircraft are the root cause.. plain and simple, a human error has unfortunately led to the deaths of many people.

The holes in the cheeses all lined up.

I think the case being made is the software wasn't clearly documented to the airlines so the training for pilots was deficient. The reason for the new software was to cater for new engines on an "older" airframe leading to a higher rate of stall conditions. When the pilot was under pressure it wasn't easy to understand the plane's behaviour leading to the safety concern. This has been documented in various pilot blogs concerning the max models. For me the focus should be squarely with Boeing. In a way similar to how volkswagen tried to game emission standards Boeing appear to have cut testing time to get to sell a new model quicker than airbus."

Oh right, i was under the impression that the Max was new build.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It is all still an unknown.

There is a strong suspicion that the cause is common between the 2 accidents, and there is clearly some recognition where an issue lies in that Boeing are working on updating the software.

It's not as simple as blame Boeing though. These aircraft hav noe to go through stringent certification processes before they are even allowed to fly, let alone carry passengers.

With this in mind, the FAA are complicit to a degree, especially when they were still adamant the aircraft was safe.

Part of the issue is the pilots are cleared to fly an aircraft type, however in this case there are subtle nuances as to how the automated system works when compared with other 737 models. Pilots may not be entirely familiar with these nuances or how to deal with emerging issues in that area.

Whatever the result, it will not bring back the 340+ souls

That's how I read it, in my role as a systems safety engineer in aerospace

That’s a good point. However, there is a loss of life and as such there needs to be closure and somewhere along the line there’s complacency and holding the correct people liable for the loss of life is essential in ensuring people take that extra bit of care and attention throughout the process of R&D to commercial flights so that it’s not repeated. If there’s no accountability it’s more likely to happen again.

I’m sorry but the whole “doesn’t bring them back” defence doesn’t sit right with me because it comes across as if it’s just to be brushed under the carpet so to speak. I’m sure you didn’t intend it that way.

So who is to blame?

The software engineers who created the test software maybe 10 years ago at the aircrafts conception?

The design engineers who would have stress tested the systems on cad systems and stress analysis software for years before the first piece of metal was cut?

The company manufacturing the software systems, the guy wiring in the computers, the person writing the test report, the reviewers, system engineer, cheif architect, senior design and integration engineer, chief systems engineer.... the list is endless..

Boeing didn't manufacture an aircraft that was unsafe, nor did they supply it knowing there were faults..

The sheer complexity and quantity of people necessary to create something as complex as an aircraft are the root cause.. plain and simple, a human error has unfortunately led to the deaths of many people.

The holes in the cheeses all lined up.

I think the case being made is the software wasn't clearly documented to the airlines so the training for pilots was deficient. The reason for the new software was to cater for new engines on an "older" airframe leading to a higher rate of stall conditions. When the pilot was under pressure it wasn't easy to understand the plane's behaviour leading to the safety concern. This has been documented in various pilot blogs concerning the max models. For me the focus should be squarely with Boeing. In a way similar to how volkswagen tried to game emission standards Boeing appear to have cut testing time to get to sell a new model quicker than airbus.

Oh right, i was under the impression that the Max was new build. "

No its just an extended and uprated engine model simmilar to airbus NEO models.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The whole reason for the software is to compensate for a known design flaw, being that as the engines are bigger than the standard 737 and mounted further forward and higher on the wing, it causes instability at certain angles.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lem-H-FandangoMan
over a year ago

salisbury


"It is all still an unknown.

There is a strong suspicion that the cause is common between the 2 accidents, and there is clearly some recognition where an issue lies in that Boeing are working on updating the software.

It's not as simple as blame Boeing though. These aircraft hav noe to go through stringent certification processes before they are even allowed to fly, let alone carry passengers.

With this in mind, the FAA are complicit to a degree, especially when they were still adamant the aircraft was safe.

Part of the issue is the pilots are cleared to fly an aircraft type, however in this case there are subtle nuances as to how the automated system works when compared with other 737 models. Pilots may not be entirely familiar with these nuances or how to deal with emerging issues in that area.

Whatever the result, it will not bring back the 340+ souls

That's how I read it, in my role as a systems safety engineer in aerospace

That’s a good point. However, there is a loss of life and as such there needs to be closure and somewhere along the line there’s complacency and holding the correct people liable for the loss of life is essential in ensuring people take that extra bit of care and attention throughout the process of R&D to commercial flights so that it’s not repeated. If there’s no accountability it’s more likely to happen again.

I’m sorry but the whole “doesn’t bring them back” defence doesn’t sit right with me because it comes across as if it’s just to be brushed under the carpet so to speak. I’m sure you didn’t intend it that way.

So who is to blame?

The software engineers who created the test software maybe 10 years ago at the aircrafts conception?

The design engineers who would have stress tested the systems on cad systems and stress analysis software for years before the first piece of metal was cut?

The company manufacturing the software systems, the guy wiring in the computers, the person writing the test report, the reviewers, system engineer, cheif architect, senior design and integration engineer, chief systems engineer.... the list is endless..

Boeing didn't manufacture an aircraft that was unsafe, nor did they supply it knowing there were faults..

The sheer complexity and quantity of people necessary to create something as complex as an aircraft are the root cause.. plain and simple, a human error has unfortunately led to the deaths of many people.

The holes in the cheeses all lined up.

I think the case being made is the software wasn't clearly documented to the airlines so the training for pilots was deficient. The reason for the new software was to cater for new engines on an "older" airframe leading to a higher rate of stall conditions. When the pilot was under pressure it wasn't easy to understand the plane's behaviour leading to the safety concern. This has been documented in various pilot blogs concerning the max models. For me the focus should be squarely with Boeing. In a way similar to how volkswagen tried to game emission standards Boeing appear to have cut testing time to get to sell a new model quicker than airbus.

Oh right, i was under the impression that the Max was new build.

No its just an extended and uprated engine model simmilar to airbus NEO models.

"

Boeing have reported orders of 5011 airframes, and delivered 350. That kind of points to new build to me. Just saying.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It is all still an unknown.

There is a strong suspicion that the cause is common between the 2 accidents, and there is clearly some recognition where an issue lies in that Boeing are working on updating the software.

It's not as simple as blame Boeing though. These aircraft hav noe to go through stringent certification processes before they are even allowed to fly, let alone carry passengers.

With this in mind, the FAA are complicit to a degree, especially when they were still adamant the aircraft was safe.

Part of the issue is the pilots are cleared to fly an aircraft type, however in this case there are subtle nuances as to how the automated system works when compared with other 737 models. Pilots may not be entirely familiar with these nuances or how to deal with emerging issues in that area.

Whatever the result, it will not bring back the 340+ souls

That's how I read it, in my role as a systems safety engineer in aerospace

That’s a good point. However, there is a loss of life and as such there needs to be closure and somewhere along the line there’s complacency and holding the correct people liable for the loss of life is essential in ensuring people take that extra bit of care and attention throughout the process of R&D to commercial flights so that it’s not repeated. If there’s no accountability it’s more likely to happen again.

I’m sorry but the whole “doesn’t bring them back” defence doesn’t sit right with me because it comes across as if it’s just to be brushed under the carpet so to speak. I’m sure you didn’t intend it that way.

So who is to blame?

The software engineers who created the test software maybe 10 years ago at the aircrafts conception?

The design engineers who would have stress tested the systems on cad systems and stress analysis software for years before the first piece of metal was cut?

The company manufacturing the software systems, the guy wiring in the computers, the person writing the test report, the reviewers, system engineer, cheif architect, senior design and integration engineer, chief systems engineer.... the list is endless..

Boeing didn't manufacture an aircraft that was unsafe, nor did they supply it knowing there were faults..

The sheer complexity and quantity of people necessary to create something as complex as an aircraft are the root cause.. plain and simple, a human error has unfortunately led to the deaths of many people.

The holes in the cheeses all lined up.

I think the case being made is the software wasn't clearly documented to the airlines so the training for pilots was deficient. The reason for the new software was to cater for new engines on an "older" airframe leading to a higher rate of stall conditions. When the pilot was under pressure it wasn't easy to understand the plane's behaviour leading to the safety concern. This has been documented in various pilot blogs concerning the max models. For me the focus should be squarely with Boeing. In a way similar to how volkswagen tried to game emission standards Boeing appear to have cut testing time to get to sell a new model quicker than airbus.

Oh right, i was under the impression that the Max was new build.

No its just an extended and uprated engine model simmilar to airbus NEO models.

Boeing have reported orders of 5011 airframes, and delivered 350. That kind of points to new build to me. Just saying. "

Nah similar numbers to the 320 neo family.

The clue is its stil a 737 with a sufix :p

Kinds like how theres an a350, an a350 800 amd an a350 1000.

Often the whole line is converted including existing orders.

Airbus plans for all 321/320 produced to be of neo standard by the end if next year iirc.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think your Looking at 737 family orders there there as theres a lot of variants

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ed-monkeyCouple
over a year ago

Hailsham

The 737 is an old and trusted aircraft design. The Max is an updated version with new engines and some new avionics.

The change of the engine has led to new flight characteristics so the anti stall system has been updated to compensate.

Boeing have a different ethos than Airbus. They would rather have systems that stop a pilot doing anything "stupid" by automating some safety aspects. Airbus control such situations by means of warnings, such shakers etc. Although, I am generalizing slightly there.

The point I was trying to make in earlier posts was that it isn't quite so black and white as "Boeing's fault"

They wrote the software yes ... which would need to be developed and tested to a high integrity. However testing won't always cover all issues. Since of the problem seems to stem from the software reacting to erroneous sensor data.

To be cleared for flight they have to present a safety case to the FAA that describes the functions, how they should work, what happens if they fail, what mitigating controls are in place, what redundancy there is in systems etc

The FAA consider this argument and if they agree, clear the system for flight.

Boeing should ensure that manuals and training information is passed to airlines so they ensure their pilots know how to fly this version

So ... blame?

Boeing for not recognising weaknesses in their systems and controls?

The FAA for not noticing the weaknesses in the safety case

The airlines for not ensuring the pilots were current on the new version?

The short answer is right now ... no one knows ... investigations continue and examining the data recorders will reveal some of cause

Yes .. somewhere there is blame .. and this should be investigated

The MOST important thing though is ensuring the lessons are learnt such that this NEVER happens again

Updated software is being tested and will be rolled out, BUT ... given what happened before how do Boeing know that or had been tested enough .. how will the FAA know that the new safety case is sound? Issues may have been missed on the old software ... change any software you risk fixing what you intended but inadvertently breaking something else

Only time is going to tell on this one

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Im more curious about the titanic comment?

Are you saying they knew 3 weeks before setting off there was an iceberg in thier path."

didnt capt.Smith receive warnings of possible drifting icebergs . but white star lines wanted to push on regardless..?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *irenGuy70Man
over a year ago

Cirencester

These new variants can really be considered as new builds as they only started being delivered in 2016. I'm sure Boeing would have tested them as completely new aircraft. The Max 8 and Max 9 variants both have this MCAS system fitted and after the Lion crash in the Max 8 it pointed to a fault in a sensor outside the aircraft that measures the angle of attack, and the computing systems then try to compensate automatically by pitching the nose down. After the Lion Air crash, advisories were sent out by Boeing to make pilots aware of this condition, however it seems that not all pilots were adequately briefed. It remains to be seen whether the Ethiopian Airlines crash was due to the same issue but by the sounds of it it's looking likely. There are many anecdotes from pilots that encountered this same issue but managed to disengage the system as per the directive, but I'm really concerned that the aviation industry and authorities did not address this situation better. A known fault that makes an aircraft unstable and at risk of crashing unless the pilot correctly recognises and mitigates the problem seems like a risk too great to me and an accident waiting to happen.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lem-H-FandangoMan
over a year ago

salisbury

Sounds like gen 1 FADEC all over again...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

There generally appears insufficient punishment for senior corporate staff on cases that have serious effects or implications for the public. A little like Grenfell, where the police have been held back and no one is in jail etc.

I hope the background and causes get settled soon, so that it becomes clear and it would be avoided in future

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top