|
Post by kevin5345179 on Jul 28, 2019 18:07:45 GMT 1
I just have read the NYT article and wanted to post the link here ..... Kevin was faster. It is unbelievable reading. If all true - and most probably it is - I really do believe it is time to send some of those greedy killers to the jail where they DO BELONG for a long time. They did spent considerably more on shares buyback than to R&D ! It is unbelievable that all the Boeing board members are still sitting on the board ? And the management of the FAA ? So we do have new issue - rudder cables - not in EASA demands, and probably will appear there soon. How long delay is it ? What else is there hidden ? Every few days new issue appears. I know "too big to fall" but the ammount of misconduct, sefishness and greed seems to be beyond immagination. I'm expecting a press release from FAA if it is not accurate.
|
|
|
Post by FabienA380 on Jul 29, 2019 8:58:17 GMT 1
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Jul 29, 2019 10:02:43 GMT 1
If all true - and most probably it is - I really do believe it is time to send some of those greedy killers to the jail where they DO BELONG for a long time. They did spent considerably more on shares buyback than to R&D ! It is unbelievable that all the Boeing board members are still sitting on the board ? And the management of the FAA ? So we do have new issue - rudder cables - not in EASA demands, and probably will appear there soon. How long delay is it ? What else is there hidden ? Every few days new issue appears. Let's not get carried away. Any aircraft would be exposed to remotely possible dangers, and you would find people (especially demoted or furloughed employees) to characterise any of them as a death trap. I am a member of a French forum where the A330 is described as such ! Aircraft design isn't about perfection, it's about practical risks. Please, let's not repeat anything that appears in the press !
|
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Jul 29, 2019 12:31:47 GMT 1
If all true - and most probably it is - I really do believe it is time to send some of those greedy killers to the jail where they DO BELONG for a long time. They did spent considerably more on shares buyback than to R&D ! It is unbelievable that all the Boeing board members are still sitting on the board ? And the management of the FAA ? So we do have new issue - rudder cables - not in EASA demands, and probably will appear there soon. How long delay is it ? What else is there hidden ? Every few days new issue appears. Let's not get carried away. Any aircraft would be exposed to remotely possible dangers, and you would find people (especially demoted or furloughed employees) to characterise any of them as a death trap. I am a member of a French forum where the A330 is described as such ! Aircraft design isn't about perfection, it's about practical risks. Please, let's not repeat anything that appears in the press ! With more and more revelations regarding the certification of the MAX, it is hardly possible to get carried away, but more being astonished at how far away that certification process is from a reasonable work done. Safety critical certification areas decided by Boeing with hardly any input by FAA engineers, their reservations nixed by persons higher up in the FAA hierarchy. Reservations by Boeing engineers seem to have been smothered in a similar way.
|
|
|
Post by FabienA380 on Jul 30, 2019 8:45:53 GMT 1
How to not get carried away reading this? ""F.A.A. managers conceded that the Max “does not meet” agency guidelines “for protecting flight controls,” according to an agency document. But in another document, they added that they had to consider whether any requested changes would interfere with Boeing’s timeline. The managers wrote that it would be “impractical at this late point in the program,” for the company to resolve the issue. Mr. Duven at the F.A.A. also said the decision was based on the safety record of the plane.""
I can hear it from here from there! Plane has to enter service, no time for safety. But anyways let's knock on wood, since B731 started some decades ago we were lucky, it's still flying and people are trusting it. We'll trust luck too, hopefully nothing happens.
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Jul 30, 2019 9:20:24 GMT 1
From what we read, no certification agency has included a suspected risk to the rudder from a possible uncontained engine failure in its list of required fixes. So, I don't think there a real issue there, only the press trying to say something more on the MAX, hoping to boost sales/clicks. Expect more to come, that's how the game is played.
|
|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on Jul 30, 2019 11:09:30 GMT 1
Typical Michael O'Leary 😀 "Ryanair chief executive Michael O'Leary has expressed concern about slips in the timeframe for the Boeing 737 Max's expected return to service. The budget carrier said on 16 July that it expected the Max to be back in service by December, but after reporting first-quarter results O'Leary today said that this now seemed like it would slip into January. "We were expecting 58 aircraft for summer 2020; that's now 30 at best. It may well move to 20, could move to 10, or zero if Boeing don't get their shit together pretty quickly with the regulators," he told analysts." Flight Global - www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-needs-to-get-its-act-together-ryanair-ch-459960/
|
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Jul 30, 2019 14:10:40 GMT 1
From what we read, no certification agency has included a suspected risk to the rudder from a possible uncontained engine failure in its list of required fixes. So, I don't think there a real issue there, only the press trying to say something more on the MAX, hoping to boost sales/clicks. Expect more to come, that's how the game is played. It was a risk identified by the FAA, but pushed under the carpet. The manual trim system is on the 5 points list from the EASA. The press is just reporting. Regarding all the revelations, that came after the press reported and Boeing and its adjunct the FAA had to accept it, it is hardly any longer possible to point to click bait in regards to the press. It is Boeing and the FAA that tried to spoon feed and obstruct and obfuscate. The real information have been outstripping the tentative press reports.
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Jul 30, 2019 14:50:04 GMT 1
It was a risk identified by the FAA, but pushed under the carpet. The manual trim system is on the 5 points list from the EASA. The manual trim system is indeed a concern. I said nothing about that risk. The risk of dammage from a possible uncontained engine failure, however, exists on all aircraft, and cannot be fully prevented (with bad luck, the QF 32 A380 flight might have ended in a catastrophe). The MAX is not different from other aircraft in that respect.
|
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Jul 30, 2019 15:53:51 GMT 1
It was a risk identified by the FAA, but pushed under the carpet. The manual trim system is on the 5 points list from the EASA. The manual trim system is indeed a concern. I said nothing about that risk. The risk of dammage from a possible uncontained engine failure, however, exists on all aircraft, and cannot be fully prevented (with bad luck, the QF 32 A380 flight might have ended in a catastrophe). The MAX is not different from other aircraft in that respect. The wires are part of the trim system. After the experience of QF32, Airbus moved the affected wires. After the discovery of the risk by the FAA for the 737MAX trim wires, it was decided that trying to reduce that risk would take to much development time. Perhaps it is easier to move wires, but apart from that, the reaction is diametrical opposed.
|
|