Ethiopian plane crash
Discussion
Lemming Train said:
Cupramax said:
I’m astounded he’s lasted this long... the whole thing is a shambles of penny pinching and cost cutting when peoples lives are hanging on it.
It's just musical chairs at Chicago. The Chairman is replacing him so nothing will change except the name above the door!I've never seen the point in sacking someone just to give the media a scape goat. It helps ensure lessons are not learned and rarely does it actually make meaningful changes at the exec level. It just gives the media someone else to focus on.
I'm certain poor Dennis received a nice golden handshake on the way out though.
alangla said:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/542... - Thomson 737-300 ended up flying at a 44 degree angle at 80kts after a fluffed go around at Bournemouth
Feck me, that’s got to be pretty mear disaster/stall?rockin said:
Window-dressing. They're struggling to fix the 'plane so they're trying to fix the politics. Outing one senior guy isn't likely to fool enough people IMO.
It's all politics. Election coming in the USA. Getting shut of Muilenburg makes it look like Boeing is doing something which then gives the FAA the green light to sign it off, jobs are saved, media pipes down about it and everyone is happy. No-one gives a toss whether the pax are happy or not. They will quickly forget about the drama if the price of the ticket is right.Speed 3 said:
surveyor said:
Starfighter said:
MCAS could be removed and the aircraft is still safe to fly. The MCAS system is needs to allow exiting 737 crews to fly without needing to be retrained. The retraining would need to cover the flight characteristics of the larger engine nacelles and forward higher position on the wing.
The certification was done so that the aircraft can be flown without MCAS operation but not in passenger service. Many aircraft were allowed a ferry flight for storage post the ban.
Source - A US based 737 training captain I know.
If it was that easy surely they would have done it long ago. A subsidy to train pilots would cost Boeing far less than the current situation.The certification was done so that the aircraft can be flown without MCAS operation but not in passenger service. Many aircraft were allowed a ferry flight for storage post the ban.
Source - A US based 737 training captain I know.
Edited by Speed 3 on Wednesday 18th December 20:00
El stovey said:
hidetheelephants said:
Presumably there is a magnitude of pitch-up, or a magnitude/applied force of opposing control beyond which the regulator decides it's not allowed? I will concede to the gentleman with the ATPL.
Quite probably, I don’t really know what magnitude is acceptable and on fly by wire it’s not really an issue, depending on the aircraft and how the control laws work. The 737 max isn’t really fly by wire (except the spoilers) I was just saying, and I’m sure you know anyway, pitching up with a power increase is quite normal on pre fly by wire jets, on modern fly by wire jets this is all controlled by computers and increasing power just accelerates you in the direction you’re pointing and you have to pullback if you want to climb after increasing power.
Without opening a can of worms, this isn’t just for jets but most aircraft with a low thrust line will pitch up with power increases due to the thrust line being below the CofG and also then exacerbated by also being below the aircraft drag line. On prop aircraft this affect can also be influenced by the position of the tailplane and airflow over it.
I’m sure you knew all this anyway, I expect you’re talking about the amount of pitch up not just the fact that it will pitch up.
Like this.
https://youtu.be/4DYhy9EeqdY
Another view on the problems at Boeing , in the comments there is reference to the tanker aircraft problems ,doors blowing off and problems with the boom system.
Another view on the problems at Boeing , in the comments there is reference to the tanker aircraft problems ,doors blowing off and problems with the boom system.
Per the company's 2019 proxy statement, fired Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg is likely to receive between $32,432,776 and $39,078,776 in severance payment.
The low end of his potential severance, as outlined in the 2019 proxy (but which could change), is equivalent to almost 33% of the Boeing victim fund amount the company stated in October.
https://www.barrons.com/articles/boeing-ceo-dennis...
The low end of his potential severance, as outlined in the 2019 proxy (but which could change), is equivalent to almost 33% of the Boeing victim fund amount the company stated in October.
https://www.barrons.com/articles/boeing-ceo-dennis...
Byker28i said:
Per the company's 2019 proxy statement, fired Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg is likely to receive between $32,432,776 and $39,078,776 in severance payment.
The low end of his potential severance, as outlined in the 2019 proxy (but which could change), is equivalent to almost 33% of the Boeing victim fund amount the company stated in October.
https://www.barrons.com/articles/boeing-ceo-dennis...
I wish I could get a $40m payoff for being crap at my job!The low end of his potential severance, as outlined in the 2019 proxy (but which could change), is equivalent to almost 33% of the Boeing victim fund amount the company stated in October.
https://www.barrons.com/articles/boeing-ceo-dennis...
Where do I apply?
Rather than worrying about him what still is a concern is that it's not just the Max and it's non advertised badly thought out software that was not promoted to blame; both crashes indicate that with the rapid increase in the number of pilots and their lack of training and subsequent rise in reliance on automated systems, when it does go wrong then the pilots do not have the ability to correct matters properly, this is the case with the Lion Air crash at least. The flight crew had failed badly sorting out the faulty AOA sensor even before MCAS had kicked in.
The 2nd crash happened even though the crew knew about MCAS and how to get around it, but still put 94% power on the engines all through the sequence of events.
If this had been a test for all 737 pilots on flights simulators rather than in real life it would be interesting to see how pilots age wise and geographically would do against a standard. I'm guessing old pilots in the USA and the EU would have a better success rate than younger ones in Asia or Africa, just due to experience of out of context events.
I'm not trying to get Boeing off the hook here. They gave the aircrew a very dodgy hand, real world test of flying ability that shouldn't have happened. However it does bring into focus the bigger picture the training and number of pilots being rushed into service to meet the ever growing demand.And that is not just a 737Max issue.
It's a long time since the hardware failures of the Comets, now we have had our first software failure where more than one plane crashed due to it, showing how time moves on.
Boeing needs to forget about the shareholders and concentrate on the staff and customers as a first step, they have spent too much on sharebacks under the last CEO rather than getting a good product out to the buyers. Airbus with the A320 XLR seems more forward thinking for the increase in trans atlantic and SE asia long range narrow body, Boeing need to forget NMA and instead do a replacement for the 737 that is the equivalent to the 747 all those years back. The plane they bet the company on.
They need to bet the company on the new 737 whatever it is called and have a modern plane.
The 2nd crash happened even though the crew knew about MCAS and how to get around it, but still put 94% power on the engines all through the sequence of events.
If this had been a test for all 737 pilots on flights simulators rather than in real life it would be interesting to see how pilots age wise and geographically would do against a standard. I'm guessing old pilots in the USA and the EU would have a better success rate than younger ones in Asia or Africa, just due to experience of out of context events.
I'm not trying to get Boeing off the hook here. They gave the aircrew a very dodgy hand, real world test of flying ability that shouldn't have happened. However it does bring into focus the bigger picture the training and number of pilots being rushed into service to meet the ever growing demand.And that is not just a 737Max issue.
It's a long time since the hardware failures of the Comets, now we have had our first software failure where more than one plane crashed due to it, showing how time moves on.
Boeing needs to forget about the shareholders and concentrate on the staff and customers as a first step, they have spent too much on sharebacks under the last CEO rather than getting a good product out to the buyers. Airbus with the A320 XLR seems more forward thinking for the increase in trans atlantic and SE asia long range narrow body, Boeing need to forget NMA and instead do a replacement for the 737 that is the equivalent to the 747 all those years back. The plane they bet the company on.
They need to bet the company on the new 737 whatever it is called and have a modern plane.
Edited by Gandahar on Tuesday 24th December 14:12
That's the big issue. When you have to spend a lot on a great new plane that is 5 years away but have to do great results every 3 months to appease the USA shareholder who nowadays is just a machine doing high frequency trading or some guy trying to get rich before he retires.
The problem is that Boeing does well with bet the company advances over the competition, as they did with the 747, see here
https://businessthinker.com/the-boeing-company-a-c...
The problem now is they did not bet the company with the safe option of the 737 Max over NG, instead played safe, and now have a really formidable opponent with Airbus and it's A320Neo .
And that's without the grounding, because the A320Neo is still a better plane than the Max.
Boeing needs it's engineers to right the ship, needs time and needs to forget share holders. I doubt they can take that leap.
The problem is that Boeing does well with bet the company advances over the competition, as they did with the 747, see here
https://businessthinker.com/the-boeing-company-a-c...
The problem now is they did not bet the company with the safe option of the 737 Max over NG, instead played safe, and now have a really formidable opponent with Airbus and it's A320Neo .
And that's without the grounding, because the A320Neo is still a better plane than the Max.
Boeing needs it's engineers to right the ship, needs time and needs to forget share holders. I doubt they can take that leap.
Edited by Gandahar on Tuesday 24th December 14:10
thatsprettyshady said:
Gandahar said:
Boeing needs to forget about the shareholders
As a shareholder even I agree with this. The winners in this will be comac I wonder.
One of the great myths of modern business is that the sole reason why a business exists is to provide a return to its shareholders. Returning profits to shareholders is important, but it is not the ONLY important thing a business has to do and shareholders are not the ONLY people to whom a business has responsibilities. Once businesses wake up to this, maybe, someday, they will start making the right types of business decisions.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff