Keep your seatbelt low and tight in flight, especially when seated next to a plugged door

In summary, it is important to keep your seatbelt low and tight during flights, particularly when seated next to a door that is plugged, to ensure safety and security.
  • #176
Boeing sees six-fold rise in employee concerns on product safety, quality
https://news.yahoo.com/finance/news/boeing-sees-six-fold-rise-120127882.html

Families of Marines killed in 2022 Osprey crash sue Boeing and other manufacturing companies for negligence
https://news.yahoo.com/families-marines-killed-2022-osprey-205248331.html

Boeing updates training for new hires in manufacturing and quality
https://www.reuters.com/business/ae...g-new-hires-manufacturing-quality-2024-05-23/
https://www.boeing.com/737-9-updates#accordion-78d5956490-item-fe9b39fb63
https://www.boeing.com/737-9-updates

One Boeing whistleblower attends the memorial for another. The ‘air capital’ is on-edge
https://news.yahoo.com/finance/news/one-boeing-whistleblower-attends-memorial-174447082.html

Boeing is considering bring Spirit AeroSystems back into Boeing.
https://www.spiritaero.com/company/overview/history/
 
  • Like
Likes hutchphd
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #177
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Love
Likes Nik_2213, russ_watters and morrobay
  • #178
Hopefully someone is explaining to them the difference between "oversight" and "an oversight".
 
  • #179
Hopefully some folks at the FAA are restoring the fear of God (or the FAA, which is close enough) in them.

Any other manufacturer tried to get away with half this level of negligence and they would have been shut down years ago.
 
  • #180
Why should they be afraid of the FAA?

An Aribus monopoly would be bad for the US and arguably the world. Boeing execs know that. Worst case, they sacrifice a few execs, but the ones they replace them with will have the exact same culture.

If the US had extradition treaties with Indonesia or Ethiopia, it could hand over some Boeing execs. That might give their successors some food for thought. But the US doesn't.
 
  • Like
Likes hutchphd
  • #181
Flyboy said:
Hopefully some folks at the FAA are restoring the fear of God (or the FAA, which is close enough) in them.

Any other manufacturer tried to get away with half this level of negligence and they would have been shut down years ago.
I guess they are getting away with it. We shall see if the DOJ decides to prosecute Boeing for breaching the deferred prosecution agreement next month.But one technical flight pilot who concealed flaws in the MCAS system that resulted in the Max crashes has already been acquitted.

[Post edited by the Mentors]
 
Last edited:
  • #182
Flyboy said:
Hopefully some folks at the FAA are restoring the fear of God (or the FAA, which is close enough) in them.

Any other manufacturer tried to get away with half this level of negligence and they would have been shut down years ago.
Too big to fail, I think.

Plus the FAA would have to admit that they just don't have the regulatory horsepower needed for such complex systems. Everyone thinks Boeing looks bad here, including me. But the FAA looks worse IMO.
 
  • #183
  • #184
morrobay said:
[Post edited by the Mentors]
Just a quick reminder for all to take care not to bring politics or conspiracy theories into this thread. Thank you.
 
  • #185
Let us hope that the accountability demanded by the families is realized. Somebody has to do it. https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/...-and-prosecution-of-manufacturers-executives/.
Screenshot_2024-06-20-08-22-18-841_com.android.chrome.jpg
 
  • #189
A 'Gotcha', IIRC, is that USAF, USMC, NASA etc are not supposed to buy equipment / services from companies with criminal record.
Unless they get a waiver...
And said waiver could include very, very, very strict conditions...

Can't remember the source, but analogies drawn with eg Brewster during WW2, whose organisational and quality flaws resembled wildest Mack Sennett slap-stick comedy...

( Also, IIRC, the similar debacle when much RAF aircraft production was moved to new Nuffield factory: Until the most problematic characters were removed, literally at gun-point, nothing useful was made. It could have lost the war... )

IIRC, Boeing's plea-bargain allows prompt setting of QA/QC requirements that a court trial and appeals unto even SCOTUS could otherwise defer for years and years and years...
 
  • #190
According to the article:
"The company avoided another serious penalty — the loss of the right to conduct business with the government."
 
  • #191
I’m not holding my breath on this actually fixing anything.

Properly fixing the cultural and institutional issues plaguing Boeing right now is going to take several years.
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50, DaveE and russ_watters
  • #192
It can't change quickly:

(1) The US Government is not going to "destroy Boeing in order to save it".

(2) Firing the leadership isn't going to fix anything, since their replacements come from the same culture.

(3) In the US, it is difficult to prosecute for incompetence. That leaves extradition, which might work to change future behavior, but is also not easy.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #193
This article from The Atlantic describes how Boeing culture distanced itself away
from engineers toward those with mba's This is separate reading away from the justice department giving Boeing two sweetheart deals, in addition to no individuals accountability from criminal negligence. Since the latter cannot be discussed accurately apolitically. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/how-boeing-lost-its-bearings/602188/
Screenshot_2024-07-09-08-14-12-538_com.android.chrome.jpg
 
  • #194
Again, in the US idiocy is not a crime.
 
  • #195
Vanadium 50 said:
(1) The US Government is not going to "destroy Boeing in order to save it".

(2) Firing the leadership isn't going to fix anything, since their replacements come from the same culture.
Maybe it should have. It seems like the changes Boeing needs are radical. Like, fire the top four levels of management and appoint the most senior engineer as CEO radical.

It's wild to me that pilot training and maintenance standardization are the main things keeping Boeing afloat right now. The 737 is almost 60 years old, and only 10 years younger than the original modern airliner, the 707. It's crazy that they are trying to keep it going for half-monopoly reasons. IMO they need to design a new airframe to take them through the next 50 years. Something that makes Southwest and their ilk want to transition to a new airframe.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Flyboy
  • #196
russ_watters said:
It's crazy that they are trying to keep it going
Is it?

Their customers like it - in a way they don't like the 727 or 757. And Airbus sells as lot of 320 ± 1 aircraft as well.

A totally new airframe is expensive, as development costs need to be recovered.

It is easier to learn to fly if you are familiar with the previous model. You can say "But this is exactly where they ran into trouble on the MAX", and Boeing would say "Exactly! We ran into trouble where we couldn't make it identical."

The public demands low ticket cost and is starting to demand low carbon emissions. The MAX "gives the people what they want".

I would characterize a number of Boeing's decisions as "short-sighted" but not as "irrational".
 
  • Like
Likes nsaspook
  • #197
russ_watters said:
The 737 is almost 60 years old
But it has been and continues to be a good aircraft. MCAS was mostly a training issue, it's not that dangerous. Other problems were basically QA, not aircraft issues.
 
  • Like
Likes nsaspook and Vanadium 50
  • #198
DaveE said:
But it has been and continues to be a good aircraft. MCAS was mostly a training issue, it's not that dangerous.
MCAS was mainly a programming problem. Better training might have been able to overcome it, but the root cause was the program reacting badly to bad information (a failed sensor).
 
Last edited:
  • #199
DaveE said:
Other problems were basically QA, not aircraft issues.
One can build a good airplane badly, for sure.
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman and Greg Bernhardt
  • #200
This informative post on Reddit by gargravarr2112 shows how Boeing is responsible for the crashes from a series of events relating to the MCAS system. Not really incompetence or criminal negligence. Maybe reckless disregard for safety.
Screenshot_2024-07-10-07-44-43-281_com.android.chrome.jpg
 
  • #201
russ_watters said:
MCAS was mainly a programming problem. Better training might have been able to overcome it, but the root cause was the program reacting badly to bad information (a failed sensor).
MCAS was SW that was created to avoid the additional training that would have been required for pilots to get a new type rating. Then it was so poorly documented that pilots weren't trained to deal with failures (or even know it existed for some). A badly implemented solution to avoid training.

Run-away trim is a failure mode in other aircraft too, and pilots should be trained to recognize and deal with it regardless.

Also a bit of poor system design to rely on a single AOA sensor and then have SW that couldn't recognize non-sensical data.
 
  • #202
DaveE said:
Also a bit of poor system design to rely on a single AOA sensor and then have SW that couldn't recognize non-sensical data.
This is my biggest concern about the whole MCAS system… single point failures on a flight control system shouldn’t be acceptable on commercial aircraft. Almost everything else is dual-redundant or better.

The existence of the MCAS is a whole ‘nuther 55-gallon drum of worms from that, and is indicative of a serious cultural and systemic crisis within Boeing.
 
  • Like
Likes DaveE
  • #203
... MCAS ...
Maybe Boeing should have called Southwest Airline's bluff, and done the right thing. Oops, there I go thinking like an engineer not a beancounter. Mea culpa.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes russ_watters, Tom.G and Flyboy
  • #206
russ_watters said:
Maybe it should have. It seems like the changes Boeing needs are radical. Like, fire the top four levels of management and appoint the most senior engineer as CEO radical.
Having an engineer as a CEO is no panacea. The CEOs when Boeing moved the HQ to Chicago, merged with McDonald Douglas and made a lot of questionable decisions was Philip Condit (Master and PHD in Aeronautical Engineering) and Harry Stonecipher (BA in Physics). The CEO during the 737 Max fiasco was Dennis Muilenburg (master in Aeronautics and Astronautics) although work on the 737 Max was started under his predecessor. Stonecipher started out as a lab technician at GE and the other two worked in engineering at Boeing before going into management.

One of the best CEOs Boeing ever had was William McPherson Allen who ran the company from 1945-68. He was a Harvard lawyer and the only experience he had at Boeing before becoming CEO was as the corporate council on the board. Although he did decline the job at first since he though he was unqualified.
 
  • #207
glappkaeft said:
McDonald Douglas
McDonnell. McDonalds makes Happy Meals. (Then again, maybe we've discovered the problem)
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes Borg, Flyboy and berkeman
  • #208
Greg Bernhardt said:
Thoughts?
I think it’s a bandaid solution, and a cosmetic one at that.
 
  • Like
Likes Greg Bernhardt
  • #209
The problem with a "reformer" CEO is that the people underneath him who need reforming will want to see him fail, and will do what they can to make that happen. It's the rare one who actually can successfully clean house.
 
  • Like
Likes DaveE and Flyboy
  • #210
Agree. That can happen even when the new CEO replaces a bunch of direct reports, because *their* direct reports (and so on) are still there. The upper middle management can be devastatingly harmful. And resistant to change.
 
  • Like
Likes Flyboy

Similar threads

Why is the U-2 nicknamed the Dragon Lady?
Replies
4
Views
7K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 266)
Replies
1
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top