Boeing 737 + Congressman Carson = misery

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • ATOMonkey

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 15, 2010
    7,635
    48
    Plainfield
    So, our beloved congressman from Indianapolis thinks he is an expert on aviation now, because he got put onto the committee for some reason. He thinks this gives him a reason to speak about something for which he has absolutely no understanding.

    The narrative is that EVIL BOEING made an unflyable airplane and tricked the innocent FAA into signing off on it. So the obvious solution to government failure is more government. The FBI is investigating the FAA, and the FAA is investigating Boeing...:dunno:Who knows why this makes any sense.

    Meanwhile foreign governing bodies such as EASA (European FAA) have also signed off on the aircraft as being OK, but then also claimed to be tricked.

    While it is obvious to me that regulating bodies don't actually do anything to increase safety, the reaction of governing officials is more Federal scrutiny.

    If you never want to fly in a new airplane again, this is a great way to go about it. Additionally, it's going to cost a gazillion dollars to fly anywhere, as the cost of a new plane is going to skyrocket due to all the new regs that are going to come down from on high.

    In the aviation industry, we have known since its inception that the FAA is useless, but we've all put up with it. Now they're going to continue to be useless, but also a much larger pain in the ass.
     

    MrSmitty

    Master of useless information
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Jan 4, 2010
    4,488
    113
    New Albany
    How much has been focused on the Ethiopian Airlines co-pilot and the fact that he had about 200 hours flight time, don't know about the pilot.....
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,615
    149
    Valparaiso
    Boeing wants to push an airplane it knows is dangerously defective into the marketplace so that it will be found liable for every crash and have its reputation permanently damaged because?.....
     

    ATOMonkey

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 15, 2010
    7,635
    48
    Plainfield
    From what I've heard, the American pilots knew about the issue and had already resolved a way around it, or what the proper settings are. My initial speculation is that this is a pilot training issue. A lot of foreign airlines are just bad at what they do. They don't maintain things well, and when they overhaul things, they usually do a bad job. I imagine their pilot training programs are in a similar state of disrepair.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    I don't think Boeing knew the plane was dangerous. But, there is very little doubt that they were rushing it to market to compete with Airbus. They got permission to do their own testing for certification, a couple elements were "close enough" and comprehensive testing wasn't quite so comprehensive. Then there's the training problem.

    I think its an open question whether Boeing "should have known" of the problem, in that they didn't test it thoroughly enough. But then, post-release, consumer beta testing usually finds all sorts of things.
     

    spencer rifle

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Apr 15, 2011
    6,544
    149
    Scrounging brass
    Boeing wants to push an airplane it knows is dangerously defective into the marketplace so that it will be found liable for every crash and have its reputation permanently damaged because?.....
    This is what gets me. So the FAA works with manufacturers to ensure safety? Our safety record for the last 20 years is outstanding. Manufacturers know they have the deep pockets and will be the first target in a safety issue slip-up. They're not suicidal.

    I guess since the Russian collusion investigation got nowhere, the conspiracy people have to get their fix somewhere.
     

    ATOMonkey

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 15, 2010
    7,635
    48
    Plainfield
    I don't think Boeing knew the plane was dangerous. But, there is very little doubt that they were rushing it to market to compete with Airbus. They got permission to do their own testing for certification, a couple elements were "close enough" and comprehensive testing wasn't quite so comprehensive. Then there's the training problem.

    I think its an open question whether Boeing "should have known" of the problem, in that they didn't test it thoroughly enough. But then, post-release, consumer beta testing usually finds all sorts of things.

    We always do our own engine testing. Certification is just getting an FAA auditor to sign off on our reports. The only time I got push back from the FAA was typographical errors in my report. The technical aspects of what I was doing really wasn't a concern for him.

    Maybe control systems get more scrutiny, but structural reports are stamped as certified, so long as we say our in house analysis checked all the boxes. Having said that, we always strive to put the best possible product on the market.

    In this instance, I think that what we'll find is that control systems and purchasing were both pushed internally to release things they were not 100% satisfied with, but let them go knowing that the system could be bypassed if necessary. Whoever makes that ****ty AOA sensor needs to be put on blast along with the purchasing manager who approved it. I have sooooo much experience with good designs being ruined by cheap components.

    As with most things, multiple failure needed to occur.

    1) Sensor malfunction
    2) Sensor redundancy not programmed properly
    3) Pilot training insufficient to override the system
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    As with most things, multiple failure needed to occur.

    1) Sensor malfunction
    2) Sensor redundancy not programmed properly
    3) Pilot training insufficient to override the system

    Agreed. But those last 2 things are attributable to Boeing, to some degree. Maybe even all 3, depending on the provenance of the faulty part(s).
     

    ATOMonkey

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 15, 2010
    7,635
    48
    Plainfield
    Absolutely, I completely agree with that as well.

    I suppose my point is that aircraft are so complicated that unless you have an FAA ENGINEER (not an auditor) overseeing every aspect of design, purchasing, and production for every component, it's a bit of a laugh to think that they can actually ensure any level of safety. This is a Boeing problem, start to finish, but they are going to share their misery with all of the aircraft industry, by introducing more regulation. These additional regulations wont' really make anything any safer either, but they will cost more to comply with them.
     

    KLB

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Sep 12, 2011
    23,011
    77
    Porter County
    Boeing wants to push an airplane it knows is dangerously defective into the marketplace so that it will be found liable for every crash and have its reputation permanently damaged because?.....
    You think that corporations haven't done something like this? Does Takata ring a bell?

    This would be worse than any other I can think of, but it would not be something unheard of. They may just have underestimated the actual risk.
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,615
    149
    Valparaiso
    ...I think its an open question whether Boeing "should have known" of the problem, in that they didn't test it thoroughly enough. But then, post-release, consumer beta testing usually finds all sorts of things.

    I get that there may have been a defect. No argument....but the media and certain parts of the government seem to be treating this like Boeing was actively trying to crash as many airplanes as possible.

    This does not make sense....but gets headlines.

    As for Takata, again, the issue was not it knowingly putting out bad product. It was in trying to cover up the breadth of the problems after the defects were discovered.
     
    Last edited:

    ATOMonkey

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 15, 2010
    7,635
    48
    Plainfield
    You think that corporations haven't done something like this? Does Takata ring a bell?

    This would be worse than any other I can think of, but it would not be something unheard of. They may just have underestimated the actual risk.

    Estimating risk can be tricky. You have the things you know you know, like what could happen during a failure. Then you have the things you know you don't know, like the level of pilot training for each craft. Then you have the things you don't know you don't know, like the error in the software that didn't compare the AOA sensor readings.

    All of that combines to your total risk plus mitigating and aggravating factors.

    The mitigating factor that the MCAS system could be disabled may have been a large enough mitigator to allow the release of the product. I don't know, because I wasn't in that meeting, and it's hard to pass judgment without having been there.

    Now, looking back, it's fairly easy to say that the aircraft shouldn't have been released in that state with that training regimen, in foreign countries. However, when you're looking at billions of dollars and the livelihoods of thousands of people, that seat can get pretty damn hot.
     

    indykid

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 27, 2008
    11,859
    113
    Westfield
    While I don't know the whole story, it does seem like Boeing wanted to take a short cut with the 737 MAX and instead of it requiring full type certification to fly it, they just tacked it onto the original 737 and made it supplemental. By installing larger more powerful engines, and moving them forward and higher for ground clearance, they changed the flight characteristics of the aircraft. During takeoff the aircraft would pitch up slightly more than the standard 737,

    Instead of making pilots go through a full learning curve of the new airframe, they just required a little "home schooling" and hope it would seen that the pilots would notice that little extra switch and lines of code that prevent that extra pitch up. Here is where the problem started. If the angle of attack indicator was at the high end of it's calibration, or it failed, the aircraft computer would try to lower the nose to pick up speed. If the pilot was requesting the extra angle of climb, the plane computer would fight the pilot and try to lower the nose. Of course the obvious question is how easy it was to find the switch to turn the computer off and let the pilot fly the plane? And were pilots schooled enough to know about the design changes and resulting software and switch?

    And yes, regardless as to how many hours the captain has, a first officer with 200 hours is crazy.
     

    Cameramonkey

    www.thechosen.tv
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    35   0   0
    May 12, 2013
    31,688
    77
    Camby area
    <snip>
    3) Pilot training insufficient to override the system

    Pilot training is insufficient across the board.

    It has recently been mentioned that today's pilots are not being trained well enough. As complex as the systems have become, they are training them less on stick and rudder skills and more on individual aircraft systems. Its churning out pilots that aren't true skilled pilots but instead are trained on how to transition the various modes of flight while auto pilot does the heavy lifting. As a result, when the SHTF the pilots are unable to recognize problems soon enough, and in some cases, unable to recover from unusual attitudes once they do realize they are too far in the corner.
     

    Leadeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 19, 2009
    36,696
    113
    .
    I'll wait until more info gets out before forming an opinion and I've got a few thousand hours stick time. Congressman Carson's opinion right now doesn't mean much other than as a performance in front of big media.
     

    IndyDave1776

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Jan 12, 2012
    27,286
    113
    I think all of us were already aware that Carson's head is so far up his rear he could lick his own tonsils.

    Aside from that, I will wait for a proper investigation.
     

    femurphy77

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    30   0   0
    Mar 5, 2009
    20,268
    113
    S.E. of disorder
    So, our beloved congressman from Indianapolis thinks he is an expert on aviation now, because he got put onto the committee for some reason. He thinks this gives him a reason to speak about something for which he has absolutely no understanding.

    The narrative is that EVIL BOEING made an unflyable airplane and tricked the innocent FAA into signing off on it. So the obvious solution to government failure is more government. The FBI is investigating the FAA, and the FAA is investigating Boeing...:dunno:Who knows why this makes any sense.

    Meanwhile foreign governing bodies such as EASA (European FAA) have also signed off on the aircraft as being OK, but then also claimed to be tricked.

    While it is obvious to me that regulating bodies don't actually do anything to increase safety, the reaction of governing officials is more Federal scrutiny.

    If you never want to fly in a new airplane again, this is a great way to go about it. Additionally, it's going to cost a gazillion dollars to fly anywhere, as the cost of a new plane is going to skyrocket due to all the new regs that are going to come down from on high.

    In the aviation industry, we have known since its inception that the FAA is useless, but we've all put up with it. Now they're going to continue to be useless, but also a much larger pain in the ass.

    I wouldn't call them "useless"; while I was at UAL the lead was trying to get me to sign off on something improper one night, I refused, he threatened to fire me. I told him no problem go ahead and fire me and I'll stop by and thank him for the 6 month paid vacation I was about to get once I stopped by FSDO on the way home!:rockwoot:

    For some reason the conversation abruptly ended.
     

    Site Supporter

    INGO Supporter

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    524,489
    Messages
    9,794,214
    Members
    53,638
    Latest member
    Dhlawson
    Top Bottom