Alaska Airlines grounds Boeing 737 Max 9 planes…
Discussion
hidetheelephants said:
CambsBill said:
Mr Pointy said:
Just to indicate how desperate Boeing are they now want some safety rule exemptions to get the MAX 7 delivered to customers. It seems if the pilot leaves the engine nacelle de-ice on for more than five minutes tthere's a risk of it detaching & causing damage to the cabin, passengers, wings & tail. There's no alarm or warning - the pilots just need to remember to turn it off.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aeros...
Hopefully the FAA response will be along the lines of "Er, no. You've got a problem - fix it."https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aeros...
vaud said:
I wont fly on the 737 Max
After all who needs QC when you can just lobby the FAA and then mislead.
Oh please, that’s risible. You would actually refuse to board if one showed up at the gate? What mode of transportation do you take to get to and from airports, and how safe are they? How unlucky do you think you are?After all who needs QC when you can just lobby the FAA and then mislead.
FWIW, like many millions of others, I’ve been on plenty of Max8’s without incident. I guess I’m just lucky.
dvs_dave said:
Oh please, that’s risible. You would actually refuse to board if one showed up at the gate? What mode of transportation do you take to get to and from airports, and how safe are they? How unlucky do you think you are?
FWIW, like many millions of others, I’ve been on plenty of Max8’s without incident. I guess I’m just lucky.
Your choice, my choice. EtcFWIW, like many millions of others, I’ve been on plenty of Max8’s without incident. I guess I’m just lucky.
I don’t have to fly much for work anymore so I get to choose.
Mostly I have to go to France so I use the Eurostar..
FAA grounds 171 Boeing planes after mid-air blowout..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-6790365...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-6790365...
foxbody-87 said:
Boeing seem to have had a lot of negative press especially with the MAX, is there an organisational or cultural issue at Boeing?
Yes.All goes back to the take-over of McDonnel-Douglas and then the usual clusterf
k of non-engineering people in full control of an engineering company......and becoming further remote from the engineering operations. The bean counters decision to move the corporate HQ away from its traditional Seattle location to Chicago 20 years ago also didn't help.Its recently announced a year or so ago, that its going to move it again, to Arlington, Va.
Mr Pointy said:
Just to indicate how desperate Boeing are they now want some safety rule exemptions to get the MAX 7 delivered to customers. It seems if the pilot leaves the engine nacelle de-ice on for more than five minutes tthere's a risk of it detaching & causing damage to the cabin, passengers, wings & tail. There's no alarm or warning - the pilots just need to remember to turn it off.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aeros...
Jesus Christ! https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aeros...
Boeing appear to be single handedly setting back the usually exemplary safety standards that the world has come to take for granted in the aviation industry. You wonder how much longer they’ll continue to flog their ancient, bodged, half dead 737 before they finally admit defeat and just develop a seemingly long overdue new aircraft. Surely this sort of nonsense can’t be allowed to continue; if the thing is obviously unsafe it shouldn’t be leaving the ground!
Going back to the incident in question, does ordering inspections mean that they actually have, already, an understanding of what went wrong and know that this can be identified on other aircraft, or are they just fudging it to make it look like they’re fixing it?
Edited by Southerner on Saturday 6th January 20:15
aeropilot said:
Yes.
All goes back to the take-over of McDonnel-Douglas and then the usual clusterfk of non-engineering people in full control of an engineering company......and becoming further remote from the engineering operations. The bean counters decision to move the corporate HQ away from its traditional Seattle location to Chicago 20 years ago also didn't help.
Its recently announced a year or so ago, that its going to move it again, to Arlington, Va.
Why did they move HQ? Some sort of tax break?All goes back to the take-over of McDonnel-Douglas and then the usual clusterf
k of non-engineering people in full control of an engineering company......and becoming further remote from the engineering operations. The bean counters decision to move the corporate HQ away from its traditional Seattle location to Chicago 20 years ago also didn't help.Its recently announced a year or so ago, that its going to move it again, to Arlington, Va.
Anyone who thinks Boeing has a poor safety record had better check their school maths book and see how the British civil aviation industry worked out.
De Havilland Comet - 114 built (including prototypes). Three disintegrated in mid air. Call it a 2.5% total failure rate.
Concorde - 20 built (including prototypes). One crashed and the rest were never financially viable. Total failure rate of 5%.
Boeing 737 - 11,600 built....
De Havilland Comet - 114 built (including prototypes). Three disintegrated in mid air. Call it a 2.5% total failure rate.
Concorde - 20 built (including prototypes). One crashed and the rest were never financially viable. Total failure rate of 5%.
Boeing 737 - 11,600 built....
borcy said:
aeropilot said:
Yes.
All goes back to the take-over of McDonnel-Douglas and then the usual clusterfk of non-engineering people in full control of an engineering company......and becoming further remote from the engineering operations. The bean counters decision to move the corporate HQ away from its traditional Seattle location to Chicago 20 years ago also didn't help.
Its recently announced a year or so ago, that its going to move it again, to Arlington, Va.
Why did they move HQ? Some sort of tax break?All goes back to the take-over of McDonnel-Douglas and then the usual clusterf
k of non-engineering people in full control of an engineering company......and becoming further remote from the engineering operations. The bean counters decision to move the corporate HQ away from its traditional Seattle location to Chicago 20 years ago also didn't help.Its recently announced a year or so ago, that its going to move it again, to Arlington, Va.
Their official reason at the time was....
Boeing CEO said:
Since Boeing was founded in Seattle, and our commercial airplane unit is headquartered there, many people think of Boeing as only a Seattle commercial airplane company. But in fact, we’re a much larger entity. The company includes McDonnell jet fighters, Douglas commercial aircraft, Hughes helicopters, Hughes Space, North American Aerospace, and many others. So part of our strategic plans called for a headquarters separate from existing businesses and focused on developing global growth opportunities.
Panamax said:
Anyone who thinks Boeing has a poor safety record had better check their school maths book and see how the British civil aviation industry worked out.
De Havilland Comet - 114 built (including prototypes). Three disintegrated in mid air. Call it a 2.5% total failure rate.
Concorde - 20 built (including prototypes). One crashed and the rest were never financially viable. Total failure rate of 5%.
Boeing 737 - 11,600 built....
And you should probably read this as to why things have gone wrong. De Havilland Comet - 114 built (including prototypes). Three disintegrated in mid air. Call it a 2.5% total failure rate.
Concorde - 20 built (including prototypes). One crashed and the rest were never financially viable. Total failure rate of 5%.
Boeing 737 - 11,600 built....
https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/the-coming-boei...
Panamax said:
Anyone who thinks Boeing has a poor safety record had better check their school maths book and see how the British civil aviation industry worked out.
De Havilland Comet - 114 built (including prototypes). Three disintegrated in mid air. Call it a 2.5% total failure rate.
Concorde - 20 built (including prototypes). One crashed and the rest were never financially viable. Total failure rate of 5%.
Boeing 737 - 11,600 built....
Crikey, I didn’t realise it was that bad.De Havilland Comet - 114 built (including prototypes). Three disintegrated in mid air. Call it a 2.5% total failure rate.
Concorde - 20 built (including prototypes). One crashed and the rest were never financially viable. Total failure rate of 5%.
Boeing 737 - 11,600 built....
We need to compare the 737 to aircraft between 50 and 80 years old!
Mr Pointy said:
Just to indicate how desperate Boeing are they now want some safety rule exemptions to get the MAX 7 delivered to customers. It seems if the pilot leaves the engine nacelle de-ice on for more than five minutes tthere's a risk of it detaching & causing damage to the cabin, passengers, wings & tail. There's no alarm or warning - the pilots just need to remember to turn it off.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aeros...
All they need to do is code some software to turn the thing off five minutes after it's been turned on, run a query to check that it's off and send an alert to the cockpit requesting a manual check and confirmation from a human.https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aeros...
f
k me, you can programme a bloody microwave oven turn off after a specific amount of time!Panamax said:
Anyone who thinks Boeing has a poor safety record had better check their school maths book and see how the British civil aviation industry worked out.
De Havilland Comet - 114 built (including prototypes). Three disintegrated in mid air. Call it a 2.5% total failure rate.
Concorde - 20 built (including prototypes). One crashed and the rest were never financially viable. Total failure rate of 5%.
Boeing 737 - 11,600 built....
De Havilland Comet - crap in the 1950s.De Havilland Comet - 114 built (including prototypes). Three disintegrated in mid air. Call it a 2.5% total failure rate.
Concorde - 20 built (including prototypes). One crashed and the rest were never financially viable. Total failure rate of 5%.
Boeing 737 - 11,600 built....
Concorde - ‘never financially viable’ in the 1960s/70s/80s/90s (didn’t it become something of a cash cow once BA revamped the service?) The one accident was attributable to something falling off of another aircraft and the airport staff not clearing the runway, no? Same aircraft flying for, what, 35 years or so with one accident not the aircraft’s fault, seems pretty safe to me.
737 - great in the 70s/80s/90s/00s, crap now. Manufacturer fiddling their own certification under the negelctful eye of a disastrously biased and largely absent safety authority. Gone very heavily backwards in a very short period of time.
Which of those is the greater cause for concern, really?!
MitchT said:
All they need to do is code some software to turn the thing off five minutes after it's been turned on, run a query to check that it's off and send an alert to the cockpit requesting a manual check and confirmation from a human.
That is the sort of over simplification that causes issues and why things need to be properly thought out.It isn't that it can only be on for 5 mins. As reported, it is that it can only be on for 5 mins after emerging in to dry air. Go back in to icing conditions and that resets the situation. You don't want to turn it off and then 'forget' to turn it back on the next cloud you go into.
Panamax said:
Anyone who thinks Boeing has a poor safety record had better check their school maths book and see how the British civil aviation industry worked out.
De Havilland Comet - 114 built (including prototypes). Three disintegrated in mid air. Call it a 2.5% total failure rate.
Concorde - 20 built (including prototypes). One crashed and the rest were never financially viable. Total failure rate of 5%.
Boeing 737 - 11,600 built....
What happens if you just use the Max in your figures? De Havilland Comet - 114 built (including prototypes). Three disintegrated in mid air. Call it a 2.5% total failure rate.
Concorde - 20 built (including prototypes). One crashed and the rest were never financially viable. Total failure rate of 5%.
Boeing 737 - 11,600 built....
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff