https://www.npr.org/2019/12/17/788775642/boeing-will-temporarily-stop-making-its-737-max-jetliners
Production will stop in January. The jets were grounded after two crashes that killed nearly 350 people. Despite being grounded, Boeing continued cranking the planes out at its factory near Seattle.
(The interview had more good information, but at time of submission, the transcript wasn't available. There may be better articles out there.)
There are. Here's one:
Boeing will suspend 737 Max production in January at CNBC:
Boeing is planning to suspend production of its beleaguered 737 Max planes next month, the company said Monday, a drastic step after the Federal Aviation Administration said its review of the planes would continue into next year, dashing the manufacturer's forecast.
Boeing's decision to temporarily shut down production, made after months of a cash-draining global grounding of its best-selling aircraft, worsens one of the most severe crises in the history of the century-old manufacturer. It is ramping up pressure on CEO Dennis Muilenburg, whom the board stripped of his chairmanship in October as the crisis wore on.
The measure is set to ripple through the aerospace giant's supply chain and broader economy. It also presents further problems for airlines, which have lost hundreds of millions of dollars and canceled thousands of flights without the fuel-efficient planes in their fleets.
Boeing said it does not plan to lay off or furlough workers at the Renton, Washington, factory where the 737 Max is produced during the production pause. Some of the 12,000 workers there will be temporarily reassigned.
Previously:
Boeing's 737 Max Troubles Deepen, Taking Airlines, Suppliers With It
Review of 737 Max Certification Finds Fault With Boeing and F.A.A.
American Airlines Says It Will Resume Flights With Boeing’s 737 Max Jets in January
AP Sources: Boeing Changing 737 Max Software to Use 2 Computers
Boeing Falsified Records for 787 Jet Sold to Air Canada
Boeing Pledges $100M to Families of 737 Max Crash Victims
Capt. 'Sully' Sullenberger and Boeing 737 Max News
Boeing’s Own Test Pilots Lacked Key Details Of 737 Max Flight-Control System
Boeing CEO Defends 737 Max Flight Control System
Analysis: Why FAA-Approved Emergency Procedures Failed to Save ET302
Initial Findings Put Boeing's Software at Center of Ethiopian 737 Crash
Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 Max Flight Makes Emergency Landing (While Carrying No Passengers)
Airline Cancels $4.9 Billion Boeing 737 MAX Order; Doomed Planes Lacked Optional Safety Features
Pilot Who Hitched a Ride Saved Lion Air 737 Day Before Deadly Crash
DoJ Issues Subpoenas in 737 Max Investigation
Boeing 737 Max Aircraft Grounded in the U.S. and Dozens of Other Countries
Second 737 MAX8 Airplane Crash Reinforces Speculation on Flying System Problems
Related Stories
All 157 passengers of an Ethiopian Airlines flight 302 died today, an accident that looks similar to the Indonesian Lion Air crash which caused 189 victims in October 2018.
The Ethiopian Boeing 737, a brand new plane, lost contact six minutes after departure from Bole International Airport; the 737 departing from Jakarta had done the same twelve minutes after taking off.
In both cases the weather was optimal and the pilots were experts. Ethiopian Airlines has a good safety record.
Both planes belong to the MAX variant, which features a "Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System" software to increase safety. Depending on sensor input, such software lowers the nose of the airplane, to prevent stalling. Investigations into the first disaster suggest the pilot might have had trouble with the automatic systems over this issue.
The two black boxes (with cockpit voice and flight data respectively), are likely to be recovered.
Sources:
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/ethiopian-airlines-crash-news-latest-death-toll-addis-ababa-nairobi-boeing-737-max-a8816296.html
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/03/10/second-crash-of-new-boeing-737-max-8-aggravates-safety-concerns/
U.S. Grounds Boeing Planes, After Days of Pressure
After days of mounting pressure, the United States grounded Boeing's 737 Max aircraft on Wednesday, reversing an earlier decision in which American regulators said the planes could keep flying after a deadly crash in Ethiopia.
The decision, announced by President Trump, followed determinations by safety regulators in some 42 countries to ban flights by the jets, which are now grounded worldwide. Pilots, flight attendants, consumers and politicians from both major parties had been agitating for the planes to be grounded in the United States. Despite the clamor, the Federal Aviation Administration had been resolute, saying on Tuesday that it had seen "no systemic performance issues" that would prompt it to halt flights of the jet.
That changed Wednesday when, in relatively quick succession, Canadian and American aviation authorities said they were grounding the planes after newly available satellite-tracking data suggested similarities between Sunday's crash in Ethiopia and one involving a Boeing 737 Max 8 in Indonesia in October.
Previously: Second 737 MAX8 Airplane Crash Reinforces Speculation on Flying System Problems
Related: Boeing 737 MAX 8 Could Enable $69 Trans-Atlantic Flights
Justice Department issues subpoenas in criminal investigation of Boeing
US Justice Department prosecutors have issued multiple subpoenas as part of an investigation into Boeing's Federal Aviation Administration certification and marketing of 737 Max planes, sources briefed on the matter told CNN.
[...] Criminal investigators have sought information from Boeing on safety and certification procedures, including training manuals for pilots, along with how the company marketed the new aircraft, the sources said.
It's not yet clear what possible criminal laws could be at issue in the probe. Among the things the investigators are looking into is the process by which Boeing itself certified the plane as safe, and the data it presented the FAA about that self-certification, the sources said.
The FBI Seattle office and Justice Department's criminal division in Washington are leading the investigation.
See also: FAA: Boeing 737 MAX to get software update
Europe and Canada Just Signaled They Don't Trust the FAA's Investigation of the Boeing 737 MAX
Pilot Who Hitched a Ride Saved Lion Air 737 Day Before Deadly Crash:
As the Lion Air crew fought to control their diving Boeing Co. 737 Max 8, they got help from an unexpected source: an off-duty pilot who happened to be riding in the cockpit.
That extra pilot, who was seated in the cockpit jumpseat, correctly diagnosed the problem and told the crew how to disable a malfunctioning flight-control system and save the plane, according to two people familiar with Indonesia's investigation.
The next day, under command of a different crew facing what investigators said was an identical malfunction, the jetliner crashed into the Java Sea killing all 189 aboard.
[...] The previously undisclosed detail on the earlier Lion Air flight represents a new clue in the mystery of how some 737 Max pilots faced with the malfunction have been able to avert disaster while the others lost control of their planes and crashed. The presence of a third pilot in the cockpit wasn't contained in Indonesia's National Transportation Safety Committee's Nov. 28 report on the crash and hasn't previously been reported.
The so-called dead-head pilot on the earlier flight from Bali to Jakarta told the crew to cut power to the motor driving the nose down, according to the people familiar, part of a checklist that all pilots are required to memorize.
[...] The Indonesia safety committee report said the plane had had multiple failures on previous flights and hadn't been properly repaired.
Boeing takes $5 billion hit as Indonesian airline cancels 737 MAX order
Indonesia's largest air carrier has informed Boeing that it wants to cancel a $4.9 billion order for 49 Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft. Garuda Indonesia spokesperson Ikhsan Rosan said in a statement to the Associated Press that the airline was cancelling due to concern that "its business would be damaged due to customer alarm over the crashes."
Garuda had originally ordered 50 737 MAX aircraft, and Boeing delivered the first of those aircraft in December of 2017. The airline already operates 77 older Boeing 737 models; two of the aircraft ordered were conversions from earlier orders for 737-800s. Garuda also flies Boeing's 777-300 ER, and the company retired its 747-400 fleet in the last few years—so the airline was looking for an economical long-range aircraft to fill in gaps.
Doomed Boeing Jets Lacked 2 Safety Features That Company Sold Only as Extras
As the pilots of the doomed Boeing jets in Ethiopia and Indonesia fought to control their planes, they lacked two notable safety features in their cockpits. One reason: Boeing charged extra for them.
For Boeing and other aircraft manufacturers, the practice of charging to upgrade a standard plane can be lucrative. Top airlines around the world must pay handsomely to have the jets they order fitted with customized add-ons. Sometimes these optional features involve aesthetics or comfort, like premium seating, fancy lighting or extra bathrooms. But other features involve communication, navigation or safety systems, and are more fundamental to the plane's operations.
Many airlines, especially low-cost carriers like Indonesia's Lion Air, have opted not to buy them — and regulators don't require them. Now, in the wake of the two deadly crashes involving the same jet model, Boeing will make one of those safety features standard as part of a fix to get the planes in the air again.
See also: They didn't buy the DLC: feature that could've prevented 737 crashes was sold as an option
Previously: Second 737 MAX8 Airplane Crash Reinforces Speculation on Flying System Problems
Boeing 737 Max Aircraft Grounded in the U.S. and Dozens of Other Countries
DoJ Issues Subpoenas in 737 Max Investigation
Pilot Who Hitched a Ride Saved Lion Air 737 Day Before Deadly Crash
The crew of a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 Max declared an emergency shortly after takeoff and returned to Orlando's main airport on Tuesday after reporting an engine problem, the Federal Aviation Administration said.
The FAA grounded this type of aircraft earlier this month following two fatal crashes of the popular model.
Airlines aren't allowed to fly passengers under the FAA's order. The Southwest plane, which was not carrying passengers, was bound for Victorville, Calif., where the carrier is storing the aircraft in a facility in the western Mojave Desert.
[...] The FAA said it is investigating the Southwest incident on Tuesday and that the issue was not related to other concerns about the 737 Max that led the agency to ground the plane.
Also at CNN.
See also: Boeing is handling the 737 Max crisis all wrong
Previously: Second 737 MAX8 Airplane Crash Reinforces Speculation on Flying System Problems
Boeing 737 Max Aircraft Grounded in the U.S. and Dozens of Other Countries
DoJ Issues Subpoenas in 737 Max Investigation
Pilot Who Hitched a Ride Saved Lion Air 737 Day Before Deadly Crash
Airline Cancels $4.9 Billion Boeing 737 MAX Order; Doomed Planes Lacked Optional Safety Features
Initial Findings Put Boeing's Software at Center of Ethiopian 737 Crash:
At a high-level briefing at the Federal Aviation Administration on March 28, officials revealed "black box" data from Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 indicated that the Boeing 737 MAX's flight software had activated an anti-stall feature that pushed the nose of the plane down just moments after takeoff. The preliminary finding officially links Boeing's Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) to a second crash within a five-month period. The finding was based on data provided to FAA officials by Ethiopian investigators.
The MCAS was partly blamed for the crash of a Lion Air 737 MAX off Indonesia last October. The software, intended to adjust the aircraft's handling because of aerodynamic changes caused by the 737 MAX's larger turbofan engines and their proximity to the wing, was designed to take input from one of two angle-of-attack (AOA) sensors on the aircraft's nose to determine if the aircraft was in danger of stalling. Faulty sensor data caused the MCAS systems on both the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines flights to react as if the aircraft was entering a stall and to push the nose of the aircraft down to gain airspeed.
On March 27, acting FAA Administrator Daniel Ewell told the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee's aviation subcommittee that there had been no flight tests of the 737 MAX prior to its certification to determine how pilots would react in the event of an MCAS malfunction. He said that a panel of pilots had reviewed the software in a simulator and determined no additional training was required for 737-rated pilots to fly the 737 MAX.
What follows is from memory from what I've gleaned from reading several news accounts over the past few weeks. I am not a pilot, so take this with the proverbial $unit of salt.
A 2018 FAA (Federal Aviation Administration directive advised pilots to handle MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) failure by disabling electric control of stabilizer trim using a pair of cutout switches. Pilots would then need to use a hand crank to move the stabilizer back to the desired position. It's noted that previous 737 models had separate switches to disable autopilot and electric stabilizer control, but the 737 MAX lacked this distinction.
Avionics engineer Peter Lemme explains how aerodynamic forces acting on the stabilizer and elevator in a nose-down situation would oppose pilots' attempts to correct the trim using their manual control.
A 1982 Boeing 737-200 Pilot Training Manual acknowledges this possibility, describing a series of maneuvers which can be used to relieve force on the controls and allow incremental correction of trim. However, it's suggested that the Ethiopian Airline plane had already gained too much speed and lost too much altitude for such a maneuver to be possible.
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/04/ethiopian-airline-crash-boeing-and-faa-advice-to-737-max-pilots-was-insufficient-and-flawed.html
https://www.satcom.guru/2019/04/stabilizer-trim-loads-and-range.html
[CEO Dennis] Muilenburg said Boeing is making "steady progress" on a fix to the MCAS flight control system that's at the center of crash investigations in Ethiopia and Indonesia, but he stopped short of faulting the software's basic design.
"We've confirmed that it was designed for our standards, certified for our standards and we're confident in that process," he said. "It operated according to those design and certification standards. We haven't seen a technical slip or gap."
Preliminary reports from both crashes suggest that the MCAS system, which is designed to push the Max's nose down under certain flight conditions, was receiving erroneous data from faulty sensors. In both accidents, flight crews struggled unsuccessfully to take control as the airplanes continually dove just after takeoff.
In his remarks, Muilenburg said the incorrect data was a common link in a chain of events that led to both crashes. It's a link Boeing owns and that the software update will fix.
"[The update] will make the aircraft safer going forward," he said. "I'm confident with that change it will be one of the safest airplanes ever to fly."
Without elaborating Muilenburg also said that in some cases pilots did not "completely" follow the procedures that Boeing had outlined to prevent a crash in the case of a MCAS malfunction.
Boeing Co. limited the role of its own pilots in the final stages of developing the 737 MAX flight-control system implicated in two fatal crashes, departing from a longstanding practice of seeking their detailed input, people familiar with the matter said.
As a result, Boeing test pilots and senior pilots involved in the MAX' development didn't receive detailed briefings about how fast or steeply the automated system known as MCAS could push down a plane' nose, these people said. Nor were they informed that the system relied on a single sensor, rather than two, to verify the accuracy of incoming data about the angle of a plane's nose, they added.
Submitted via IRC for Bytram
Capt. 'Sully' Sullenberger Slams Boeing for Inadequate Pilot Training on the Troubled 737 Max
Airline union leaders and a famed former pilot said Wednesday that Boeing made mistakes while developing the 737 Max, and the biggest was not telling anybody about new flight-control software so pilots could train for it.
Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger, who landed a crippled airliner safely on the Hudson River in 2009, said he doubted that any U.S. pilots practiced handling a specific malfunction until it happened on two Max jets that crashed, killing 346 people. Max pilots should train for such emergencies in simulators—not just on computers, as Boeing proposes, he said.
"We should all want pilots to experience these challenging situations for the first time in a simulator, not in flight, with passengers and crew on board," Sullenberger said, adding that "reading about it on an iPad is not even close to sufficient."
Sullenberger's comments to the House aviation subcommittee came during the third congressional hearing on Boeing's troubled plane, which has been grounded for three months.
Daniel Carey, the president of the pilots' union at American Airlines, said Boeing's zeal to minimize pilot-training costs for airlines buying the 737 Max jet contributed to design errors and inadequate training. That has left a "crisis of trust" around aviation safety, he said.
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
Sullenberger, who has blasted Boeing Co and the Federal Aviation Administration for their roles in the two 737 MAX crashes since October that killed 346 people, also said the U.S. system of certifying new aircraft is not working.
"Our current system of aircraft design and certification has failed us," he said.
Boeing pledges $100M to families of 737 Max crash victims – TechCrunch
Boeing has said it will offer $100 million to the families and communities of those who died aboard the two 737 Max passenger jets that crashed earlier this year. This “initial outreach” will likely only be a small part of the company’s penance for the mistakes that led to the deaths of 346 people.
In a statement, the company said it expected the money to “address family and community needs,” and “support education, hardship and living expenses.”
[...] CEO and president Dennis Muilenburg... earlier this year accepted the blame, acknowledging that “it is apparent that in both flights, the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, known as MCAS, activated in response to erroneous angle of attack information.”
[...] This initial payout is voluntary; it is highly unusual for an airplane maker to pay such a sum to the victims of a crash ahead of any lawsuits. Boeing, Airbus and other companies involved in passenger flight have certainly in the past paid damages, directly or via insurance or some other means, but that was generally after a lawsuit forced them to. Sometimes a company will approach families with ready money to prevent them from filing a lawsuit, but that’s not often publicized.
And lawsuits are certainly underway already, with dozens of families bringing suits for each crash. The amounts these could bring are very difficult to predict, but given the loss of life and that the flaws that led to it can be traced directly to mistakes by Boeing, the company could be on the hook for hundreds of millions more.
Submitted via IRC for Bytram
Boeing falsified records for 787 jet sold to Air Canada. It developed a fuel leak
Boeing staff falsified records for a 787 jet built for Air Canada which developed a fuel leak ten months into service in 2015.
In a statement to CBC News, Boeing said it self-disclosed the problem to the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration after Air Canada notified them of the fuel leak.
The records stated that manufacturing work had been completed when it had not.
Boeing said an audit concluded it was an isolated event and "immediate corrective action was initiated for both the Boeing mechanic and the Boeing inspector involved."
Boeing is under increasing scrutiny in the U.S. and abroad following two deadly crashes that claimed 346 lives and the global grounding of its 737 Max jets.
On the latest revelations related to falsifying records for the Air Canada jet, Mike Doiron of Moncton-based Doiron Aviation Consulting said: "Any falsification of those documents which could basically cover up a safety issue is a major problem."
In the aviation industry, these sorts of documents are crucial for ensuring the safety of aircraft and the passengers onboard, he said.
https://news.yahoo.com/ap-sources-boeing-changing-max-184231846.html
Boeing is working on new software for the 737 Max that will use a second flight control computer to make the system more reliable, solving a problem that surfaced in June with the grounded jet, two people briefed on the matter said Friday.
When finished, the new software will give Boeing a complete package for regulators to evaluate as the company tries to get the Max flying again, according to the people, who didn't want to be identified because the new software hasn't been publicly disclosed.
The Max was grounded worldwide after crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia that killed a total of 346 people.
Use of the second redundant computer, reported Thursday by the Seattle Times, would resolve a problem discovered in theoretical problem simulations done by the Federal Aviation Administration after the crashes. The simulations found an issue that could result in the plane's nose pitching down. Pilots in testing either took too long to recover from the problem or could not do so, one of the people said.
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1337
American Airlines says it will resume flights with Boeing's 737 Max jets in January
American Airlines will resume flights with Boeing's 737 Max jets in January 2020. In a statement posted online on October 9th, the airline says it expects software updates to result in the beleaguered jet's re-certification by federal aviation authorities "later this year."
Boeing is expected to submit its final certification package to the FAA later this year. Anticipating this, American says it expects to "slowly phase in the MAX for commercial service" starting January 16th, and will "increase flying on the aircraft throughout the month and into February."
The FAA ordered the grounding of all Boeing 737 Max jets after two deadly crashes in October 2018 and March 2019 that killed a total of 346 people. Both crashes have been linked to a piece of software that Boeing had installed on the 737 Max known as the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, or MCAS.
[...]A flight attendants union issued a statement calling on American and other carriers to prioritize safety. "It will be imperative that my members are assured of the complete safety of this aircraft before taking it back up in the air," said Lori Bassani, national president of the Association of Professional Flight Attendants, which represents 28,000 flight attendants at American Airlines. "Our airline crews and passengers deserve to have the highest level of assurances prior to re-entry into the air space. Our lives and passengers' lives depend on it and our lives are not for sale."
Remind me not to fly in January.
[Sure! "Don't fly in January." =) --martyb]
Submitted via IRC for Bytram
Review of 737 Max Certification Finds Fault With Boeing and F.A.A.
A breakdown in the nation's regulatory system and poor communication from Boeing compromised the safety of the 737 Max jet before it crashed twice in five months and killed 346 people, according to a damning report released Friday.
Boeing did not adequately explain to federal regulators how a crucial new system on the plane worked, the report says. That system was found to have played a role in the accidents in Indonesia last October and Ethiopia in March.
[...] "This report confirms our very worst fears about a broken system," Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, said in an interview. "To put the fox in charge of the henhouse never made any sense, and now we see the deeply tragic consequences."
Hours after the report was released, Boeing's board stripped the company's chief executive, Dennis A. Muilenburg, of his chairman title. The move was the most direct response yet from a board that has resisted shaking up the management team before the Max is flying again, even as pressure mounted inside Boeing to hold someone accountable. The Max has been grounded for more than seven months.
[...] Friday's report, which was put together by representatives of the Federal Aviation Administration, NASA and nine international regulators, provided the first official detailed account of how federal regulators certified the Max. Lawmakers and federal investigators are still conducting their own inquiries into the design and approval of the jet.
Boeing's 737 Max troubles deepen, taking airlines, suppliers with it:
Boeing shares continued their slide Monday after explosive messages last week revealed a top pilot had concerns about a system on the 737 Max that was later implicated in two fatal crashes.
Several Wall Street analysts downgraded Boeing, fretting about the fallout from the crisis that has barred the manufacturer from delivering its best-selling planes that make up around 40% of its profit.
Boeing's stock was down 3.8% Monday afternoon, shaving more than 80 points off the Dow Jones Industrial Average, but had pared losses from earlier in the session
The messages made public Friday included an exchange from a top Boeing pilot to a colleague in 2016 that expressed his worries about an aggressive flight control system on the Max, whose performance he called "egregious." The pilot, who now works for Southwest, said in the exchange that he "unknowingly" lied to regulators. That same pilot months later told the FAA to remove the system, known as MCAS, from pilot procedures and training materials.
The FAA said Boeing knew about the messages for months and scolded Boeing in a letter for not releasing the documents earlier. Boeing defended its training materials for the 737 Max, which regulators deemed safe in 2017, and said it told regulators on "multiple occasions" about the broadened capabilities of the now-questioned system.
[...]Boeing's board is holding a regularly scheduled meeting in San Antonio that concludes Monday, a spokesman said. The board stripped CEO Dennis Muilenburg of his chairmanship on Oct. 11 to focus on getting the Max back into service.
Boeing's promised 737 Max production halt begins:
The airline manufacturer had announced last month it would stop making the troubled craft at least until it was no longer grounded, but hadn't set a date. However the line has officially stopped producing planes while Boeing officials wait for regulators to give it the OK to fly again.
[...] The latest update estimated the grounding would last through at least mid-2020, Boeing said in a statement Tuesday.
Boeing will reassign 3,000 workers after 737 MAX production halt
Boeing Co said it will reassign 3,000 workers to other jobs as it halts production of the grounded best-selling 737 MAX jet in mid-January.
The announcement came after American Airlines Group Inc and Mexico's Aeromexico disclosed they were the latest carriers to reach settlements with Boeing over losses resulting from the grounding of the 737 MAX aircraft.
Neither airline disclosed the compensation. A number of airlines have struck confidential settlements with Boeing in recent weeks. Boeing said it does not comment on discussions with airlines.
Boeing's biggest supplier lays off 2,800 workers because of 737 Max production suspension:
Spirit AeroSystems (SPR), which makes fuselages for the Max as well as other items for Boeing, announced Friday that it is furloughing approximately 2,800 workers. Shares of the Wichita, Kansas-based company fell more than 1% in trading.
"The difficult decision announced today is a necessary step given the uncertainty related to both the timing for resuming 737 Max production and the overall production levels that can be expected following the production suspension," Spirit AeroSystems CEO Tom Gentile said in a press release.
Boeing wants to resume 737 Max production months before regulators sign off on the planes:
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 17 2019, @08:05PM
> Boeing Will Temporarily Stop
> Making its 737 Max Jetliners
And the Paradise Theater [pristineauction.com] is temporarily closed.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday December 17 2019, @08:21PM (33 children)
This kind of thing is exactly what happens when companies get rid of their expensive Whites and pack their factories with diversity-hires. Even Bloomberg [bloomberg.com] is admitting that.
Boeing claims that the outsourcing firms' code had nothing to do with the issues with the 737 Max, but then again we know nothing of the team who coded the MCAS software with regard to work-visa status and diversity statistics.
Businessmen love Indians in particular because they'll hand you the code when you ask for it and tell you that it works without objecting to the fact it works only 50% of the time, and they make great fall-guys. You may have noticed that a lot of these big Silicon Valley companies started packing their CEO positions with Indians, and for good reason -- Indians have to answer for all the bad shit those before them started and have no problems with lying to regulators or congress.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday December 17 2019, @08:27PM (17 children)
The hell with the programming. It's hard to get past that one single sensor - single point of failure. FFS, no one ever gave a thought to sucking a bird feather into the damned thing? No need to even go into the stupidity of building a plane that can be described as "out of balance". Even auto manufacturers have learned that raising the center of gravity a few inches can be disastrous.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday December 17 2019, @08:33PM (12 children)
If I recall correctly the bird already had a lot of redundant inputs (from other types of sensors) which could be fed into the control computer as sanity checks to any malfunctioning sensors. They probably just chose not to do that because management wanted bonuses rather than safe aircraft.
There was also a package that did make the aircraft more safe with those specific issues, but Boeing charged extra for it. Redundancy is a hard and non-negotiable safety feature in large aircraft and should never be sold as an option.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Sulla on Tuesday December 17 2019, @08:43PM (1 child)
Found this video interesting. AvE taking apart an AoA sensor from a C-130.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhZ0D-JRtz0 [youtube.com]
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday December 18 2019, @03:32AM
Thank you so much. I've seen a few of this guy's vids and I forgot to bookmark him. His narration kills me. I don't know if that stuff just pours out of him or if he scripts it or kind of makes notes. Thanks again!
(Score: 4, Informative) by SpockLogic on Tuesday December 17 2019, @08:50PM (7 children)
Yet no one has been indicted, tried or jailed. Start with the chairman, board of directors and senior management and lets begin with say, felony murder. Should get their fucking attention.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Sulla on Tuesday December 17 2019, @09:02PM (6 children)
Corporate Jail
1. All assets frozen
2. Debt owed to the company and debt payments they owe are put on hold
3. Liable for Employee wages while frozen, except CEO and Board of Directors
4. Haven't decided if in the case of manufacturing work can continue, can probably depend on industry
How will a bank feel about not receiving their Line of Credit payments for three, six, twelve months? This would make your creditors in the corporate environment forced into the role of a watchdog against company misconduct
Sarbanes-Oxley's goal was to hold the CEO and CFO accountable for certain finance errors, but the result was just putting fall guys in that position and focusing the real power elsewhere. The above would perform the same function, but make it harder to shift blame within the company or set up a fall guy. I suppose shell corporations could be used to hide these kind of things, I need to look into the various laws put in place after Enron to see what is there to prevent this that is already on the books.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday December 17 2019, @09:44PM (4 children)
You kidding, right? Or else you are having the wettest dream of your last decade.
Let me put it in the context: we are speaking about Boeing, the second largest defense contractor in the world in 2011 [wikipedia.org] and the fifth largest in 2017 [wikipedia.org] - a prominent figure in the MIC.
The same company that gets away with milking the Americans double the initially contracted cost in SLS core stage, bringing the cost to $8.9 billion [nasa.gov] - you can't do that without having enough politicians in your pocket. His Orangeness himself didn't dare to utter a word against them, even if they are squandering away his "get to the Moon and raise a starshit troopers army" dream.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Tuesday December 17 2019, @10:46PM (3 children)
Then, as the people, buy your own politicians. Crowdsource lobbying.
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?cycle=2018&id=d000000100 [opensecrets.org]
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday December 17 2019, @11:29PM (2 children)
Do you really want it? Really-really?
Because if this become legal, your democracy will become (again [wikipedia.org]), "one dollar, one vote". Which has the consequence of "no dollar, no vote".
Guess who's gonna win?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Tuesday December 17 2019, @11:54PM (1 child)
It is already legal and to some extent done by PACs, the difference between this and PACs is that PACs support the candidate without giving them money directly where as I am suggesting using PAC (or something similar) to make direct contribution for cause. Currently any single person or PAC or Corp can donate their limit toward a cause directly to an elected official's campaign, they are already buying votes. Be they corporate like Boeing or private like Koch or Soros. All you are doing different is a group of non-wealthy people are getting together to pool their money and pay a politician for a specific issue. If me and five people want our congressmen to be aggressive toward Boeing, nothing stops us from each pooling 2k and sending it to her with a letter telling them how important you feel X issue is.
So your complaints are valid, but what you are complaining about we already have
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday December 18 2019, @12:18AM
And you are so happy with it that you want more of the same?
Instead of getting away from the "corporation buying voting influence", you maybe want to take one more step into the insanity and get to, e.g., "corporations casting votes" as a preliminary step towards "wealth/class based suffrage"**?
---
** (you already have a bit of that: it's highly unlikely that the US homeless can actually cast votes [howstuffworks.com], even if they are theoretically entitled. So, one only needs to get enough Americans homeless and the defacto "wealth based suffrage" is done without modifications of the current laws).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 20 2019, @10:53AM
Why punish the whole company and all employees when only a minority are responsible?
Just start throwing people into prison and don't be surprised when you start to find out who else is really responsible.
Are those "fall guys" really ending up in prison though?
http://blogs.reuters.com/alison-frankel/2012/07/27/sarbanes-oxleys-lost-promise-why-ceos-havent-been-prosecuted/ [reuters.com]
Just throw into prison the ones that you have evidence on. More evidence may "magically" start surfacing when those heading to prison are trying to reduce their jail times...
Fines and "Corporate Jail" won't do shit as long as the culprits can keep their $$$$$$$ and get new jobs.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Tuesday December 17 2019, @09:56PM
Problems started when they put those assholes from McDonnell Douglas in charge after the merger, ruined everything, should have never happened. Now everything they make is as crappy as the DC-10.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 18 2019, @02:59PM
And how non-white and non-expensive was the management involved?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by sjames on Tuesday December 17 2019, @10:41PM (3 children)
It's even worse (if you can believe that). The plane is already equipped with a second AoA sensor, they just didn't bother to have MCAS check it, so they didn't even save any real money.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by darkfeline on Wednesday December 18 2019, @06:10AM (2 children)
Having a second sensor is pointless. Say one sensor reading is 5 and the other 10. Which one do you trust? You must be able to form a consensus for redundancy to be useful.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 18 2019, @06:55AM
If they disagree then you warn the pilot and disable both, the same as you do if you have three that all disagree with each other. Even then, the biggest problem was that the software override didn't reset properly, so every time it fired it pushed the plane even further towards crashing.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday December 18 2019, @07:56PM
As the AC said, then you trust neither one. Warn the pilot, disengage MCAS, then log the failure so it can be repaired.
(Score: 3, Informative) by epitaxial on Tuesday December 17 2019, @08:31PM (4 children)
You didn't read your own source. They outsourced because it was much cheaper. They didn't care what color skin the coders had.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday December 17 2019, @09:31PM
#include <dev/stdin>
#include <dev/null>
#include <dev/random>
#include <dev/urandom>
#define while if // saves cpu cycles!
#define struct union // saves memory!
If you think a fertilized egg is a child but an immigrant child is not, please don't pretend your concerns are religious
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday December 17 2019, @10:15PM (2 children)
ET only really cares about race.
Apparently he thinks that when a poorly regulated company breaks the rules and kills people, it is somehow the fault of some programmers, if that programmer happens to have a brown face.
Ignoring of course that fact that a white man made the decision to cut costs in the first place.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 17 2019, @10:54PM (1 child)
Where is he blaming brown programmers for the 737? He is blaming Boeing for making that choice.
You have just rewritten Ethanol-fueled's point with politically correct language.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday December 17 2019, @11:13PM
Do you not understand the implication?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 17 2019, @08:44PM (3 children)
You better have another drink. You're sounding stupid again.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday December 17 2019, @09:26PM (2 children)
Assumes facts not in evidence.
I can assure you it is possible to sound stupidly without a drop of alcohol.
If you think a fertilized egg is a child but an immigrant child is not, please don't pretend your concerns are religious
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 18 2019, @03:01PM (1 child)
Guess you're sober and stupid?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday December 18 2019, @04:40PM
They're not mutually exclusively.
If you think a fertilized egg is a child but an immigrant child is not, please don't pretend your concerns are religious
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday December 17 2019, @09:52PM (2 children)
That kind of thing happens when you get scammed into adopting fake money, let banks print money, let it compete with actual wealth, or worse require it to pay taxes. Banks raise a class of people reasoning in purely financial terms, and will make them compulsory at the helm of whatever bigger enough company. Other people will not be recognized by the banking system no matter their knowledge of the actual fucking product or service.
People reasoning in financial terms will consider sales the oxygen and product development the necessary evil. Note that this is the exact OPPOSITE of the old school great company, where sales is what you gotta do to keep the thing afloat, if you want to keep churning out good stuff. Mr. Ferrari (guy with a good business acumen nonetheless) sold the cars to raise money for the races.
We should have a quality mark on stuff: you can get the mark only if your CEO can tell you in detail how a random damage/fault to any of its products is to be repaired. If there are too many products for the single CEO, it means the company is too big.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday December 17 2019, @10:05PM (1 child)
On the other hand, I never understood certificates of conformance. It should be implied that your product has specifications and that your product meets or exceeds those specifications, no?
Most expensive gadgets ship with their test and calibration data anyway. So what good does a CoC do? The tech signs it, maybe a quality manager (who knows less about the system than a tech does) gives it a brief look-over and pencil-whips his signature on the CoC? Or, even more funny, the pre-stamped signature of a C-level executive who has even less of an idea than the quality manager how the gadget works.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday December 19 2019, @08:54AM
I think those certifications are only meant to raise a class of bureaucrats and make it more difficult to startups to compete with the incumbent. An effective legal system and randomized checks render any certification redundant, as you know that if you sell crap you end up in jail, no matter what. The certification is a way for the politicians to have a seat for his cronies and proclaim 'we have done something for safety'.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Coward, Anonymous on Tuesday December 17 2019, @10:26PM
But Boeing has kept their most expensive white guy (Muilenberg). Maybe one of those Indian CEOs would have done better.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 17 2019, @10:54PM (1 child)
Paging all racists! Come git yer dog whistles, all racists your fascist overlord is calling you!
Sure is a good thing the US has freedom of speech and the ideals of freedom. You serve as an example for kids everywhere of what real stupidity is. Not doing well at math? It's ok Johnny, just don't become a racist fuckwit and you'll still get dates and job offers.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday December 19 2019, @08:57AM
Technically the post wasn't racist. It is not racist to say America was owned by natives until they were genocided by whites.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by barbara hudson on Tuesday December 17 2019, @09:13PM (18 children)
The tires will have flat spots, hydraulic lines need to be purged of old lube and all seals checked to make sure that they're still flexible, etc. As long as it was supposed to be delivered this year, it was considered as sold inventory on the books. Not any more. This is going to mess up their accounting. Airlines are going to refuse to take old stock unless given sizeable discounts - and they are going to want their pound of flesh for losses from Boeing's screwups.
How long until KKR or some other vulture fund comes in with an offer to buy it and break it up? After this, the civil aviation business is a drag on their defence and space businesses.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday December 17 2019, @09:28PM
It will end up being longer than a year.
If you think a fertilized egg is a child but an immigrant child is not, please don't pretend your concerns are religious
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday December 17 2019, @09:33PM (11 children)
The only way I'd ride in one is if they were converted to standard 737's, or at the very least use a smaller engine so that the nacelles could be scooted back where they belong. They could probably sell all of those LEAP engines to a competitor (according to the Wikipedia Airbus and another manufacturer also use them) as spares.
Would probably hinder performance and efficiency while adding safety, would be a damn shame to let those shiny new airframes go to waste. But yeah, if they want to salvage the situation they're gonna have to redesign that bitch and re-name it something else. I wonder how easily they could be converted to 797s?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Tuesday December 17 2019, @09:48PM (1 child)
Well, if you are prepared to pay, it can be arranged. So... how many retrofitted planes you said you want to buy? (grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Wednesday December 18 2019, @05:32AM
Parked aircraft burn money just sitting still. I'll probably put in an expression of interest when they get to offering $US1M with each airframe...
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Tuesday December 17 2019, @09:52PM (4 children)
Move the wings from the side of fuselage to the top. Cool fashion statement AND gives plenty of room to hang even bigger engines! No special software needed. Engineers can be found who will sign off. Marketing can communicate how much safer the new design is because you can't bang your head on the wings when walking under to test if it is possible to get sucked into new engines. Landing gear tires can now be white wall or rainbow stripe. Cockpit upgrade to Windows 10. All set.
If you think a fertilized egg is a child but an immigrant child is not, please don't pretend your concerns are religious
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday December 17 2019, @11:31PM (3 children)
I hope and pray that no cockpit has windows 10 as it's main operating system. The thought is truly horrifying.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday December 18 2019, @04:20PM (2 children)
Stick with XP which is "mature".
If you think a fertilized egg is a child but an immigrant child is not, please don't pretend your concerns are religious
(Score: 1) by DECbot on Wednesday December 18 2019, @07:19PM (1 child)
I think you spelled 'manure' wrong.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 18 2019, @10:53PM
(Score: 5, Funny) by Bot on Tuesday December 17 2019, @09:55PM
You can convert them to 787, as the 3 can be painted into an 8 quite easily.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 18 2019, @01:28AM (1 child)
Just mount the engines on top of the wings. ;)
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday December 18 2019, @04:51AM
No, you'd ruin the balance. Put one on top and one underneath so it all evens out.
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday December 18 2019, @06:32PM
I would very happily fly in one today. Because there ain't a 737 pilot who hasn't heard of the issue now and the situation is readily understood (unexpected loss of altitude with no other discernable cause) and therefore employ the temporary solution they had to fix the issue (wasn't it pull a breaker to disable the stabilizer trim, therefore cutting the ability of MCAS to control? More than one source has said the runaway stabilizer checklist cures the problem, anyway.) That said, making them go back and touch base for safety isn't a bad idea at all.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 17 2019, @09:54PM (2 children)
Airplanes aren't like cars, and airliners aren't like people. When you buy a plane, you aren't just buying a plane, you are buying a relationship. There is warranty, ongoing Operations and Maintenance work, and everything. If Boeing says the plane is good to use, then the airline is going to accept that; especially because if it doesn't work, Boeing is on the hook to fix it.
If your shiny new iPhone had a huge scratch on the back, people would complain and return it. If an industrial combine harvester had a big scratch along the side, the farm is going to shrug and say "that's annoying, oh well." Airlines are closer to the later than the former.
At worst, the airlines will have a few more contracts specifying exactly how much Boeing is assuring that the plane will work, and what they will pay back if it doesn't. (Excepting the recent damage to Boeing reputation, etc, etc, etc... that's a "don't trust Boeing" thing, though, not a "these aren't factory new planes" thing.)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by barbara hudson on Wednesday December 18 2019, @12:56AM
Oh well, back to the drawing board. Wonder how much of a hit they'll take for scrapping the entire run when customers say "we're canceling and suing ".
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Wednesday December 18 2019, @05:37AM
Boeing DID say it was good to use, and the airlines DID accept it. The amount of wriggling going on just says the hook (a) isn't big enough, and (b) hasn't been used enough times.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday December 17 2019, @09:57PM (1 child)
Ummm but isn't a plane basically rebuilt after x hours of use as it undergoes deep checks repairs and whatever? or was it only the good ol days?
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Wednesday December 18 2019, @05:44AM
Still goes on, but it costs a bit more than a car service...
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by Rupert Pupnick on Wednesday December 18 2019, @12:46AM (2 children)
Why?
Grounding and retrofitting the existing fleet isn’t good enough?
Or is it because they figure they aren’t going to get enough future incremental sales to justify the operating costs?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 18 2019, @05:26AM
I think they will go further and kill 737 Max entirely. Airliners don't want to buy a plane with a name that strikes fear in the hearts of passengers.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday December 18 2019, @06:43AM
> Grounding and retrofitting the existing fleet isn’t good enough?
Most everyone has rightly lost confidence in Boeing's ability to fix it.