That article precisely confirms my suspicions of what was/is going on at Boeing.
I've been speculating all through this thread that the problems started with the merger and were compounded by moving HQ physically away from Seattle.
The result is not surprising so much as it was inevitable.
It's more correct to call it a systemic problem, whether you think of the system as both software and hardware and their interdesign, or something higher up and less mechanical: management.
It is now after the fixed the problem with spontaneously combusting batteries.
In 2013 the 787 was the first type of airliner completely grounded since 1979.
They are safe now with new batteries not prone to thermal runaway but Boeing originally designed them with batteries of a type that was prone to that.
In 2013 the 787 was the first type of airliner completely grounded since 1979.
They are safe now with new batteries not prone to thermal runaway but Boeing originally designed them with batteries of a type that was prone to that.
I think the 787 battery issues were very much isolated from the rest of the airplane. But on the 737, it's very much integrated to the entire aircraft and more serious I think. I didn't want to buy Boeing stocks because I don't know if the fix will involve having to redesign the hardware which I don't think the stock holders will want to hear. If it's just SOFTWARE, then I think it won't be a problem long term. But the trick here is I don't know yet.
I’ll opine that the Max/MCAS problem is systemic on at least two fronts: the hard & software in the planes themselves, and the management of the company that allowed/encouraged(?) the dysfunctional environment in which economic expediency trumped safety and trust.
Then there’s the matter of what I’d see as the hollowing out of the responsibility and efficacy of the FAA - but that borders on political commentary, so I’ll desist.
Haven’t experienced a 787 yet, but as noted earlier, quite liked the 777 (can’t remember the exact version), and the Airbus A330-300.
Then there’s the matter of what I’d see as the hollowing out of the responsibility and efficacy of the FAA - but that borders on political commentary, so I’ll desist.
Haven’t experienced a 787 yet, but as noted earlier, quite liked the 777 (can’t remember the exact version), and the Airbus A330-300.
I worked with someone who had been involved on the 787 project. It used the largest amount of outsourcing Boeing had ever used. He had a lot of stories of continuous spec changes, heavy handed management, ignored engineering issues etc on an airframe that used almost all new technologies. He said they were astonished with the ease with which the FAA signed it off, to them it appeared that Boeing said "sign here" and the FAA said "yes sir".
from wiki:
"On January 16, 2013, the FAA issued an emergency airworthiness directive ordering all American-based airlines to ground their Boeing 787s until yet-to-be-determined modifications were made to the electrical system to reduce the risk of the battery overheating or catching fire.[367] This was the first time that the FAA had grounded an airliner type since 1979.[368] Industry experts disagreed on consequences of the grounding: Airbus was confident that Boeing would resolve the issue[369] and that no airlines will switch plane type,[370][371] while other experts saw the problem as "costly"[372] and "could take upwards of a year".[373]
The FAA also conducted an extensive review of the 787's critical systems. The focus of the review was on the safety of the lithium-ion batteries[368] made of lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2). The 787 battery contract was signed in 2005,[208] when this was the only type of lithium aerospace battery available, but since then newer and safer[374] types (such as LiFePO4), which provide less reaction energy with virtually no cobalt content to avoid cobalt's thermal runaway characteristic, have become available.[375][376] FAA approved a 787 battery in 2007 with nine "special conditions".[377][378] A battery approved by FAA (through Mobile Power Solutions) was made by Rose Electronics using Kokam cells;[379] the batteries installed in the 787 are made by Yuasa.[205]"
You see the problem that Boeing got one make of battery approved but then installed another which was not in the delivered planes?
That is clearly an issue of management and shows a certain disregard of safety procedures within that management team.
If the problem indeed turns out to be purely a software issue, not a hardware, then all the criticisms may be a bit overly harsh and may be undue. There may have been a rush to get the 737 out of the door, but to say what has been going at Boeing was detrimental to safety in general then it's not entirely true. If the 737 will be marred with problems after problems in the future, but since nobody knows for the moment, then time will tell, not the pundits.
I believe at the time after the second 737 accident and while the FAA was mulling whether to ground the 737, most pilots and airlines in the state all said they believe the 737 MAX was a safe aircraft. I think they were referring to the hardware in term of safety and that's really how pilots talk - hardware - since well what the software was doing as anybody guess. It's almost like the software was like the worm the spoiled the bowl of soup.
I believe at the time after the second 737 accident and while the FAA was mulling whether to ground the 737, most pilots and airlines in the state all said they believe the 737 MAX was a safe aircraft. I think they were referring to the hardware in term of safety and that's really how pilots talk - hardware - since well what the software was doing as anybody guess. It's almost like the software was like the worm the spoiled the bowl of soup.
The FAA will test every 737 Max themselves rather than trusting Boeing.
FAA rebuffs Boeing with vow to scrutinize new 737 Max planes | The Star
Meanwhile there seem to be problems with the 777X:
Access Denied
(The link works for me despite it's title but the fuselage ruptured during a routine stress test)
The other news is that EASA will not accept an FAA airworthiness certificate for the 777X and will do their own testing.
FAA rebuffs Boeing with vow to scrutinize new 737 Max planes | The Star
Meanwhile there seem to be problems with the 777X:
Access Denied
(The link works for me despite it's title but the fuselage ruptured during a routine stress test)
The other news is that EASA will not accept an FAA airworthiness certificate for the 777X and will do their own testing.
Last edited:
Nothing wrong with productivity as such but it requires a fair bit of investment and good labour relations, both of which are sorely lacking in the UK.
Take Germany for example: Their productivity is much higher than the UKs but they do work fewer hours and are better paid, every company has to have a union official as a permanent board member and management actually listens to the workers.
It is also illegal for an employer to contact employees by phone or email after office hours, over the weekend or while the employee is on vacation.
According to the OECD the UK was more productive than Germany in 1983 and 87 but behind every other year to the present. Germans now work around 5 hours less per week than their UK counterparts.
My personal experience was that when I came to the UK in '87 and took a first casual job in a factory I thought I walked into a living museum with machines dating back to the '40s while in Germany I've never seen a machine older than 10 years.
My personal experience was that when I came to the UK in '87 and took a first casual job in a factory I thought I walked into a living museum with machines dating back to the '40s while in Germany I've never seen a machine older than 10 years.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.