Browne 29th April
I have to wonder in vain how this came about. What is it about human organizations where in spite of vast experience and extensive rules and ample financing and qualification procedures that something like this could have happened. How do ****-ups like this manifest? It really worries me because it shows we cannot trust "the system" all the time. Sure, aircraft transport is statistically very safe and this leads us to believe that obvious mistakes cannot happen. But somehow they still do.
I think Muilenburg is part of the problem. This mistake was conceived to avoid costs (a profit decision). It got past Boeing's rules and checks, the Lion Air crash did not result in a grounding, the Ethiopian air crash did not result in a grounding until almost all countries banned it and Trump put pressure on Boeing. And now, Muilenburg is "throwing the pilots under the bus" to quote Browne.
It is a sad state of affairs, and probably part of the underlying cause, that honesty is not the highest priority of our industry leaders. Behind Muilenburg are teams of lawyers and business analysts intent on saying whatever limits the damage to Boeing. Well, the damage is already beyond limitation: to the 346 victims and their families and friends and to the public trust.
I have to wonder in vain how this came about. What is it about human organizations where in spite of vast experience and extensive rules and ample financing and qualification procedures that something like this could have happened. How do ****-ups like this manifest? It really worries me because it shows we cannot trust "the system" all the time. Sure, aircraft transport is statistically very safe and this leads us to believe that obvious mistakes cannot happen. But somehow they still do.
I think Muilenburg is part of the problem. This mistake was conceived to avoid costs (a profit decision). It got past Boeing's rules and checks, the Lion Air crash did not result in a grounding, the Ethiopian air crash did not result in a grounding until almost all countries banned it and Trump put pressure on Boeing. And now, Muilenburg is "throwing the pilots under the bus" to quote Browne.
It is a sad state of affairs, and probably part of the underlying cause, that honesty is not the highest priority of our industry leaders. Behind Muilenburg are teams of lawyers and business analysts intent on saying whatever limits the damage to Boeing. Well, the damage is already beyond limitation: to the 346 victims and their families and friends and to the public trust.
Honesty isn't incentivised under the current system for publicly owned companies, shareholder returns are. It would be illegal for Boeing to put integrity (i.e. customers) before shareholders.
As Charlie Munger says, 'Show me the incentive and I'll show you the outcome.'
The change in approach to their business started with the 787 - a lot of subcontracting etc.
They got away with that one - the flaws were smallish and quickly sorted, the odd lithium fire... But there are still small unresolved issues there - no one is quite sure how to inspect the integrity of the composite airframe with small damage, or old age. There's a wealth of experience in understanding "traditional" airframes. Hopefully that will get resolved before it gets to be a problem.
They got away with that one - the flaws were smallish and quickly sorted, the odd lithium fire... But there are still small unresolved issues there - no one is quite sure how to inspect the integrity of the composite airframe with small damage, or old age. There's a wealth of experience in understanding "traditional" airframes. Hopefully that will get resolved before it gets to be a problem.
Slightly at a tangent. At some point fuels will be questioned. Jet fuel is very good in terms of power for a certain mass. Hydrogen comes to mind as a possible green fuel. Liquid form would be very difficult. It most likely would cause new safety problems, really big ones. Hopefully aircraft will have carbon offset and continue as today. It would be intreresting to time travel and see if aircraft would be around in 100 years from now. My guess would be yes and not greatly different to now. For safety alone I would prefer them unchanged. That's one thing the internet can't tell us, the future. Like us it can only speculate. The ones who get it right will be rich. When I say " the internet " I mean the collected ideas as on this forum. One can look to Tesla and AC machines. All the facts were known, few saw what Tesla saw. The most interesting device being the universal AC/DC motor still used today. Whilst it should not exist in a modern world it does.
Does anyone find like me the internet a poor source of information? It wasn't in 2000. I understand why and should not be surprised. I now buy books more than ever. I bought some 1936 TV magazine. Very interesting and ultra modern in thinking. Beam tetrodes just being used. I have donated them to a TV group in Shaftesbury.
Does anyone find like me the internet a poor source of information? It wasn't in 2000. I understand why and should not be surprised. I now buy books more than ever. I bought some 1936 TV magazine. Very interesting and ultra modern in thinking. Beam tetrodes just being used. I have donated them to a TV group in Shaftesbury.
Makes a lot more sense to link to the actual Boeing press release.
MediaRoom - News Releases/Statements
MediaRoom - News Releases/Statements
The press is focusing on the AOA disagree and and the AOA display and such as it seems illogical that such displays could be supplied to the airlines as an optional extra - the reason isn't profit, but instead that the manuals and training for the airline and cockpit crew must be amended and updated, and that's incredibly expensive. So it was a choice offered to the operators wether or not their operations used it.
To illustrate this differently, look at this cockpit photo of a 737NG -
Note the square flat panel displays similar to any other modern airliner.
Now notice that those displays have symbology on them to look like electromechanical dials!!!! This is asinine, (heck, one of the pseudo-electromechanical gages is cut in half, look at the copilot side towards bottom) but was done at the behest of the the airline and FAA to better integrate the new aircraft with the legacy fleet and not require a ton of additional training and procedures/operations changed to the Airline's certificate. (and the costs associated with that) The lack of AOA display is the exact same thing on a smaller level.
EDIT - Some of you are going to ask, "Where is the AOA gauge(s) located in this 737NG cockpit" The answer, there are no AOA gauges in these cockpit displays. Even if it it had the more modern display symbology.
For reference, 737-300 cockpit - (Also no AOA gauges...)
To illustrate this differently, look at this cockpit photo of a 737NG -
Note the square flat panel displays similar to any other modern airliner.
Now notice that those displays have symbology on them to look like electromechanical dials!!!! This is asinine, (heck, one of the pseudo-electromechanical gages is cut in half, look at the copilot side towards bottom) but was done at the behest of the the airline and FAA to better integrate the new aircraft with the legacy fleet and not require a ton of additional training and procedures/operations changed to the Airline's certificate. (and the costs associated with that) The lack of AOA display is the exact same thing on a smaller level.
EDIT - Some of you are going to ask, "Where is the AOA gauge(s) located in this 737NG cockpit" The answer, there are no AOA gauges in these cockpit displays. Even if it it had the more modern display symbology.
For reference, 737-300 cockpit - (Also no AOA gauges...)
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Last edited:
Nice photos.
How does Type Certification apply here? I understand that the reason behind all the Max changes we are discussing here was Boeing's way to avoid having to re-certify and thus cost the airlines money in pilot retraining...which all comes out of someone's profit eventually.
It's the exact reason the AOA were optional. The type cert didn't originally have them, they were optional as the aircraft progressed and were integrated in on an operator by operator basis.
I may be inferring incorrectly, but had Boeing included the AOA disagree alert as standard would they have had to upgrade the type cert. and therefore all these extra costs? IOW was there a perverse incentive not to include AOA alerts (except as optional extras) in order to avoid having to change the type cert?
I may be confused here...happens a lot.
The simulation of the old dials (on the new big screen) is what doesn't make sense.
Yes, there are aspects of geometric display that is very quick to understand, but in my experience, the modern displays are better. I have about 6x the flying time on old dials rather than digital displays, this is not a case of original learned being the best in my mind.
Yes, there are aspects of geometric display that is very quick to understand, but in my experience, the modern displays are better. I have about 6x the flying time on old dials rather than digital displays, this is not a case of original learned being the best in my mind.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.